What is Digg?19 Comments
- Snakedal337, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13"Is the truth forbidden on digg?"
Usually - XVampireX, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12Mark Shuttleworth is the founder of Canonical Ltd. Creator of Ubuntu.
- m0nk, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11Bill Gates didn't just pledge $30 Billion to the renewable energy cause though.
- kunduZ, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11i have been using linux for about 5 years now, i am writing this on a linux system ..can someone please explain to me why that headline has "UBUNTU" on it?i mean come on ..i am very happy to see people are using linux out there but ..you ubuntu people are starting to annoy me ..if something is equally applicable to all linuxes ..please say so ...en ought with this ubuntu thing ...are you guys getting paid or something???
ok, i am done, just had to release some stress ..
ps, i just went through TFA and i didnt see anything remotely related to ubuntu, or linux .. - daldredge, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Neither did Branson. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/5370972.stm
"Sir Richard Branson's widely-publicised decision to invest $3bn (£1.6bn) in renewable energy technologies is much more than green philanthropy.
According to some experts, the Virgin boss also is making a canny attempt to get in on the ground floor of a fast growing and innovative global industry.
Should he get it right, then the newly set up Virgin Fuels group could be an investment vehicle that would give Sir Richard's global business empire a prominent role in energy long after the 56-year-old millionaire had retired.
And it might also see him fulfil his mission to turn Virgin Fuels into a power giant in the same class as Shell or Exxon Mobil. " - tdskate, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5what is open energy technology?
- nubtard, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I think what the word ubuntu in this case meant was in fact humanity towards others and not the debian based distro. At least that's the way I see it. :P
- mntpng, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Branson didn't donate $3 billion dollars as media has reported. He made a $3 billion investment and I'm sure he wants a return on his investment and therefore non-patentable idea isn't something he would be interested in.
- sonycam, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Yep, I don't get why people don't want him to make a profit out of it? People have asked why he didn't donate the money to a charity... well, $500 Billion (yes, five hundred billion dollars) has been donated to African charities and what has changed? $500bn worth? No way.
The only way to combat these global problems is to create a profitable business model around them, not throw the money at some hippy charity who can't even manage their own hygiene. The latter of the 2 though, is by far the easiest. - GMorgan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Nothing wrong with making a profit from moving to less harmful energy sources. That a person like Brason is willing to take a risk in this field with so muc political and economical opposition should be applauded irrespective of intent.
- psilanthropist, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4"Is the truth forbidden on digg?"
if it goes against linux, apple or any underdog in genral then yes.
but if its against microsoft, intel or some other "evil" guys you're likely to get a commendation. - butlershouse, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1hmm doesnt Richard Branson own a Airline Company that requires fuel ? It looks like there might be some sort of link here... but im not sure my perplexcity skills are enough to solve it!
- XVampireX, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Was I dugg down for saying the truth?
Is the truth forbidden on digg? - byte, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1You may have heard of the term 'open source' before. This means that an end-products sources (weather it be source code, architecture blueprints, etc.) are freely accessible, and free from IP issues. So, anybody can create a company that produces the product. Companies and groups have a base that they can innovate off. Scientists can try bleeding-edge concepts and ideas out. The customer has a huge amount of choice. Prices are (generally) low. And companies have a full community to collaborate with in creating new products. Life is better this way! Open source is generally applied to software (see http://www.opensource.org ), but 'open energy technology' is short for 'open-SOURCE energy technology'; i.e. open source fuel cells, wind turbines, etc.
-- /usr/bin/byte - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1XVampireX,
***** you. - williamdyer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Airliners do not burn butenol, which is probably the alternative fuel Branson has in mind. There are some "any crap to butenol" technologies in development that could be fed by most any kind of biomass and lots of other stuff.
- albrad84, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I like this whole idea, but I don't see how it would actually work. Open Source software works because it is free and easy to send someone some code. But I'm not going to be able to easily send somebody a barrel of X-fuel or the equipment to test it out. I guess you could send test documents, descriptions of potential ideas, etc., but I don't think that enough progress will be made to even come close to competing with huge companies who have actual resources and scientists on the payroll.
Plus, programming is something that you can almost teach yourself or at least with some college experience, while being cabable of developing new fuel technologies requires quite a bit more and there are far fewer people in the world with the qualifications. - mindsocket, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Not everybody knows who Shuttleworth is.
- kettlechips, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2I think he should team up with Bill Gates instead
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is