digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at spaceandtechnology.com

Solar Systems With Two Suns!

spaceandtechnology.com — Planets and asteroids circle around not one, but two suns. "Pictures and Video"

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • mark076h, on 05/19/2008, -2/+109In a Galaxy far far away
    • cowsgonemadd3, on 05/19/2008, -6/+1Grrrrrrrrr
    • mcottier, on 05/19/2008, -6/+3Yeah....what happened?
    • cyrix, on 05/19/2008, -0/+16Go on..........
    • hempydave, on 05/19/2008, -0/+11Actually we may just be a binary system.
      • positron, on 05/19/2008, -1/+2There's a difference between being a binary system and the entire system revolving around both stars.
      • piratebill, on 05/19/2008, -0/+2Sources? I have never heard that before and am curious about the idea
    • Manuelmty, on 05/19/2008, -0/+4%$&$%^*$%^
    • KaJuN4, on 05/19/2008, -4/+1Long time ago in the faraway galaxy
    • yuutokun, on 05/19/2008, -1/+1Ago in a long far away
    • VoiceofPower, on 05/19/2008, -1/+2Quite close actually. Alpha Centauri has multiple stars (2 big ones and 1 tiny one).

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_Centauri

      No planets have been discovered yet as far as I know though.
    • donnie_dark0, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1Aptly titled the Jawa Galaxy, they'll sell your galaxy and throw in some droids.
  • kdawg1012, on 05/19/2008, -25/+10Cool.
  • redwinging, on 05/19/2008, -23/+8Nice
  • louiebaur, on 05/19/2008, -22/+7That is awesome
  • blackjack75, on 05/19/2008, -5/+38What amazes me most is not the idea that some systems could have dual stars. It's the fact that the aliens named their stars just like ours. Seriously what are the odds?
    • jmpeagle, on 05/19/2008, -26/+3The Universe if are God given right and we can colonize/name as we see fit. Manifest Destiny. We are going to constantly need resources that are growing population cannot be satisfied by what is on earth. We'll start slowly by mining passing asteroids, then maybe mars, and other planets and moons in our solar system, but soon it will be both economic necessity to expand and where we expand economically, we also expand militarily.
      • Reziarfg, on 05/19/2008, -3/+11Our*
        • kelalo, on 05/19/2008, -3/+9I like how that was the only thing you decided to comment on.
      • anononon, on 05/19/2008, -1/+9LOLWUT?
      • buckrogers1965, on 05/19/2008, -0/+3It's also the God given right of the giant cockroaches of Mongoloid Prime to rip "ARE" heads off and drink the juices.
    • jabberwolf, on 05/19/2008, -4/+9You guys need to check out what the definition of a binary system is.
      This isnt new,,, just a nice photoshop job.

      Whats actually cooler is when the stars suck the burning fuel from each other i!
      • ynggrsshppr, on 05/19/2008, -1/+7While you're at it check out the definition of "sun" and "solar system" if you haven't got a clue as to what the OP was hinting at.
      • kalkin, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1this article is rubbish. it's just an expansion on the defintion of binary systems in an encyclopedia with a few pretty pictures.
    • sup3rnautx, on 05/19/2008, -9/+3you... can't be serious, right? this seems to have the greatest hint of sarcasm, but the scary thing is, some people could believe this.

      our contemporary definition of "god" has no meaning beyond this planet. we, as humans, have conceived a being that is infinite in nature, based on the limitations and imaginations of earth-centric creatures. to propose that our definition of (quite literally) the world could even remotely apply to other galaxies or civilizations is absurd.

      live and let live.
      • saxmaster, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1Isn't that quite a bit off topic?
      • bpoteat, on 05/19/2008, -0/+2"our contemporary definition of "god" has no meaning beyond this planet."
        then we'll just have to make sure any beings we encounter understand our definition of god by beating it into them, now won't we?
  • StanleyKoolPrik, on 05/19/2008, -2/+146Reminds me of back home on Tatooine . Sigh
    • sjbdallas, on 05/19/2008, -1/+38Did you ever bullseye any womp rats?
      • Vipersfate, on 05/19/2008, -0/+13All the time!
        • phrenzy, on 05/19/2008, -1/+1That's impossible! Even for a computer!
        • ahoyhoy, on 05/19/2008, -3/+2Have a nice assault, jerk.

          *curb your enthusiasm music plays*
      • Macrophallus, on 05/19/2008, -17/+4Your mother is a womp rat and you can be sure I gave her the old bulls eye!
      • jmoo1, on 05/19/2008, -0/+11Great, kid. Don't get cocky
    • mark076h, on 05/19/2008, -0/+41No you can't go to Toshi Station to pick up some power converters
    • jwk4heels, on 05/19/2008, -2/+5My T-16 broke down last week. I have yet to make it to Toshi Station.
    • fuzzybeard, on 05/19/2008, -1/+2Curses on you Stanley, that was the same thing I was thinking!
    • inverselogic, on 05/19/2008, -1/+3my friend doesn't like you ...
    • kenok, on 05/19/2008, -0/+2Check the power converters first...
    • buckrogers1965, on 05/19/2008, -3/+4You remember that really whiny kid? Luke something...
  • TJ11240, on 05/19/2008, -1/+6Its even cooler when one is pictured eating the other.
  • BlueSkyfish, on 05/19/2008, -2/+38Binary systems are quite common, and IIRC, more common than single star systems.
    • ExRe, on 05/19/2008, -0/+8"It is believed that up to seventy-five percent of all stars are in binary systems, with as many as 10% of these systems containing more than two stars (triples, quadruples, etc.)."
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_star#Research_ ...
    • LeeSoong, on 05/19/2008, -0/+2Space is lonely, bring a few friends...
    • Orion682, on 05/19/2008, -0/+5BlueSkyfish is quite right. This is a very common configuration, and a well known fact to most amateur astronomers. I really don't see why this is front page news...
    • chrgrose, on 05/19/2008, -0/+3Your right binary systems are not uncommon, except that their orbital radius is usually more than large enough to gobble up any planetary disc materials. Apparently the significance here is that the radius of orbit is so close together that the disc is not destroyed.
  • suntzusputnik, on 05/19/2008, -9/+3outer brim eh?
  • jmpeagle, on 05/19/2008, -2/+20maybe someone with scientific knowledge can explain this to me...what is keeping the stars from joining as one? Is this a stable solar system?
    • suntzusputnik, on 05/19/2008, -0/+30probably the rotation and the velocity is working in equilibrium with the forces of gravity. kinda like how the moon doesn't smash into the earth.
      • macweirdo42, on 05/19/2008, -6/+18That's no moon...
      • jmpeagle, on 05/19/2008, -2/+5so do they revolve around the empty space in between them? Wouldn't one of the stars revolve around the other? It just doesn't seem stable to me.
        • sulthernao, on 05/19/2008, -0/+15It revolves around the center of mass. Just as the earth and the moon revolves around its center of mass (close to the center of the earth, since the earth's mass is much greater than the moon's mass).
        • sandman979, on 05/19/2008, -0/+13Yes, it is stable and they do revolve around each other since their mass is similar. suntzusputnik is right.
    • Herv3, on 05/19/2008, -0/+25Inertia is a property of matter.
      • evfinkelstein, on 05/19/2008, -0/+16Good old Bill Nye.
      • inverselogic, on 05/19/2008, -0/+4BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL..bill nye the....
    • matt510, on 05/19/2008, -0/+12Every object in a planetary system orbits the barycenter or center of mass. In the case of the Solar System the barycenter is slightly outside the surface of the Sun (mostly due to Jupiter). Just imagine Jupiter becoming more and more massive, eventually the barycenter would move farther and farther away from the Sun. All the objects in the Solar System would still be orbiting around the barycenter, it would just not look like the Sun was the exact center, which it can appear to be right now.
      • jmpeagle, on 05/19/2008, -0/+6so wouldn't that force an elliptical orbit on most orbiting bodies? But in order for a binary system to be stable they would have to be really really close in mass because an elliptical orbit would seem to cause either a merger or inertia breaking the orbit.

        I am sorry if these are dumb questions but most of my background is in theoretical math and economics and I never took an astronomy class
        • matt510, on 05/19/2008, -0/+10Elliptical doesn't imply unstable or unbalanced. I would again go back to the Sun-Jupiter example. They are quite different in terms of mass, yet their orbit is stable. If you scale Jupiter up in size (mass) the orbits could still be very stable even if there is a difference in mass (they could even have roughly circular orbits, but that is not necessary).

          I think you are assuming that an object is required to orbit around a physical object. That is not the case. Objects orbit centers of mass, and the center of mass is not always inside an object.
        • jmpeagle, on 05/19/2008, -0/+9well thanks for taking the time and not biting my head off for asking a question. Your posts were very informative.
        • buckrogers1965, on 05/19/2008, -0/+2Every orbit is elliptical already.
        • Bilabrin, on 05/19/2008, -0/+2All orbits sweep out the same area in the same amount of time. This means that if you drew a line from the sun to the earth right now and drew another one an hour later and another an hour after that the two wedges you see would be of equal area regardless fo the shape of the orbit. An elliptical orbit is a perfectly stable orbit.
    • coasterswim, on 05/19/2008, -1/+8(m+M)P²=a³
    • ultrafez, on 05/19/2008, -3/+2Eventually they will crash into each other... in a VERY long time, assuming no other force keeps the two going.
      • witooo, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1Not necessarily true. They could well be gettin further away from each other. Just like the moon is slowly moving away from earth over time.
  • Freshjive787, on 05/19/2008, -3/+20most stars are in binary systems. they orbit each other in elliptical patterns and generally have long periods. why the hell is this being dugg?

    on a side note, it is possible our solar system could have a sister star.
    • Macrophallus, on 05/19/2008, -6/+2Dugg for "long periods." Huhuhhuhuhuhhuuhuhuuhuhuh.
    • matt510, on 05/19/2008, -3/+2A "sister star"? There are no other stars anywhere near the Solar System (well 4 light years away).
      • h3lx, on 05/19/2008, -0/+3Our sister star might be dead or dying (in a high elliptical orbit) and emit light outside the visible spectrum (or none at all), there is some speculation about this and until some gravitational effects are witnessed first hand, it's wild theory. A binary sun format does not fit out current model explaining formation and evolution of our Solar System. A sister sun would disrupt everything. Not saying that it's impossible, just very unlikely.
        -There is limited evidence that suggests another quiet body influencing the mass in our solar system. It's probably a mini-sized black hole (just our luck). Either way, it's making for some interesting science fiction. You'd think that an object large enough to make our Sun wobble would be hard to miss.

        http://www.physorg.com/news6428.html
        http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-04/bri ...
        http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/ ...

        • matt510, on 05/19/2008, -0/+2Except that very few astronomers actually buy that theory.
    • fuzzybeard, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1'scuse me? More information, please.
    • saxmaster, on 05/19/2008, -5/+1How far away could the sister star be while still being considered a sister? Isn't the nearest star Alpha Centauri? That's around hundred light years right?
      • matt510, on 05/19/2008, -0/+5Alpha Centauri is just over 4 light years away.
      • mstrebe, on 05/19/2008, -0/+3"Sister" star doesn't have any technical meaning according to the IAU. What people probably mean is that the two stars are gravitationally bound, meaning that they are rotating around the center of mass with each other.
        Distance is only peripherally involved.
        • saxmaster, on 05/19/2008, -0/+4So aren't we sharing a center of mass with every star in the galaxy?
        • Sapulator, on 05/19/2008, -0/+3Proxima Centurai is the closest star. Alpha Centurai is really a system of 3 stars.
          I suppose the gas giants had the capability to become stars themselves, but they did not accumulate enough mass when the solar system was formed to ignite. That is known as a brown dwarf, and Jupiter is just below the minimum amount of mass to be considered a brown dwarf.
    • kaplanfx, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1Haha yeah, these types of systems are much more common than ours.
  • ZeroOrDie, on 05/19/2008, -6/+11Our solar system could have had two stars, but Jupiter didn't have a nuclear fission (came real close).
    • wolfofwar, on 05/19/2008, -0/+18Jupiter had nowhere near the mass to become a star. It would need about 50x the amount of mass it has now to just become a brown dwarf.
    • ZeroOrDie, on 05/19/2008, -1/+13I guess my teacher is a dumb bitch. (no sarcasm at all)
      • wolfofwar, on 05/19/2008, -0/+9Is her expertise astronomy or astro-physics? because alot of lay-mens like to label Jupiter as a failed star, and it has all the makings, sure, but it's like saying that a bag of flour is a failed bagel.
        • Cougaboy, on 05/19/2008, -0/+7The logic here is that a bag of flour is much closer to being a bagel than, say, a potted plant.
        • somedirtbag, on 05/19/2008, -0/+3This is Digg. Away with your logic.

          Too many people forget this.
      • mstrebe, on 05/19/2008, -0/+2Well, somebody is.
      • Bilabrin, on 05/19/2008, -1/+4Unfortunately, in my experience, most teachers are dumb bitches when it comes to astronomy. Teachers are closer to beaurecrats than knowlege disseminators. I remember correcting my first grade teacher who tried to tell the class that the moon glowed with it's own light.
    • mstrebe, on 05/19/2008, -0/+8I'm guessing you mean "fusion"?
  • mbauer14, on 05/19/2008, -18/+5OM NOM NOM NOM NOM
  • MetalGear7, on 05/19/2008, -5/+61Idk about you, but im still pissed about Pluto getting ***** over....
    • Apocalypse321, on 05/19/2008, -3/+5What getting demoted back to the planetary Junior High? Hey, least it can be friends with Ceres and Eris.... and the one that nobody likes enough to give it a name...
      • KingGorilla, on 05/19/2008, -1/+6Ceres and Eris sound hot pluto should hit that
        • ryllharu, on 05/19/2008, -0/+3I hear Ceres is nice enough, maybe a little frigid with a warm heart, but Eris is one cold bitch.
        • ArielMT, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1Actually, Eris has mellowed out quite a bit and gotten a sense of humor since then. She's much more fun to hang out with now. Hail Eris!
    • djloekee27, on 05/19/2008, -3/+6it was either demote pluto or add 3-4 new planets to our solar system...

      they choose the "dark side"...

      pluto shouldn't have been demoted and i was always wonderin' when we would finally get a "planet X".
      • ArielMT, on 05/19/2008, -0/+3>... and i was always wonderin' when we would finally get a "planet X".

        In the 24th 1/2 Century.
    • ExRe, on 05/19/2008, -0/+4Pluto is pretty much just a giant asteroid. There are dozens if not hundreds of objects in our solar system as large or larger.
    • JulyZerg, on 05/19/2008, -1/+4I don't get some people's obsession with that fact. Yes, it's no longer considered a planet. Why? Because they made an actual list of criteria required to be considered a planet, and guess what? Pluto didn't meet them.

      The way some people go on, you'd think there's some sort of conspiracy.
    • liuite, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1that what happens when a giant astroid is named after a flea infested dog
  • akermani, on 05/19/2008, -19/+5***** THING SUCKS
  • riskySalmon, on 05/19/2008, -3/+10Error 999 wtf is that?
    • Bebel, on 05/19/2008, -0/+4its an upside evil error, brought to you by Yahoo. Didn't you know?
    • djloekee27, on 05/19/2008, -0/+6it means don't choose yahoo as your host.

      now the page loads but none of the pics show up...
    • fuzzybeard, on 05/19/2008, -0/+2It's an Error 666 from Australia that hasn't been run through a Heisenberg Compensator yet. Relax, have a beer and hit Reload or F5 in your browser.
    • h3lx, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1It a German no-no.
  • CrudE, on 05/19/2008, -6/+41Yahoo! = *****
    • Chainheart, on 05/19/2008, -0/+45(Yahoo!) = *****
    • Dested, on 05/19/2008, -1/+16Very misleading.
    • OrangeSoda31, on 05/19/2008, -0/+2I was confused for a second there as well...
    • chrissku, on 05/19/2008, -4/+3Yahoo=*****

      Yahoo Email=Even worse ***** (spam attacks are nuckin futz)
  • neozj13, on 05/19/2008, -3/+8Ummmmmmm mirror please?!?!?!
  • snoox, on 05/19/2008, -7/+1photoshop'd
  • Terasiel, on 05/19/2008, -2/+2I hope if we ever head in that direction we avoid using bulb-encapsulated semi-human power sources and leave everything up to a xenophobic crew and two Aryan god children.
  • COlson87, on 05/19/2008, -4/+6Well I'm no scientologist, but would orbiting two suns expose life forms to twice as much radiation? Would solar panels collect twice as much energy?

    This may seem like a dumb question, because it is.
    • mstrebe, on 05/19/2008, -1/+4ROFL for scientologist. Twice as much as what? Life forms would be exposed to the same amount of radiation as a single sun with the same collective mass as the binaries. Where things get dicey is in the complex gravity interactions and the wacky effects on "seasons". This probably would make simple life more common because it would create wider and more varied inter-tidal zones on a planet (which is were early life probably evolved) but would create serious pressures on more complex life, due to things like extreme temperature swings through the year and unstable orbits for comets and meteors.
    • theshizzler, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1The solar panel question is interesting because the two stars could be emitting the majority of their energy in differing wavelengths. So, there's a good possibility that in a binary system you'd need two different solar panels, one for each sun.
  • wolfofwar, on 05/19/2008, -0/+13Binary stars are actually the most common configuration of stars within the galaxy, and presumably all galaxies.
  • raydeen, on 05/19/2008, -0/+6Two suns in the sunset. Pink Floyd did a song about this. :D (one of my favs)
  • taradisiac, on 05/19/2008, -10/+3Imagine having two stars, there would never be night.
    • infinityofnever, on 05/19/2008, -0/+3I can't tell if that's a good thing or a bad thing.
    • jmpeagle, on 05/19/2008, -0/+8wait...what? If the two suns are in the center, then whenever your part of the planet faces away from the center, it would still be dark.
      • taradisiac, on 05/19/2008, -0/+2The center of what? I mean two stars around the planet.
        • Dominatus, on 05/19/2008, -1/+2you do know that we orbit the sun and not the other way around, right?
      • fuzzybeard, on 05/19/2008, -0/+2Depends on how much a vivid imagination and orbital mechanics could get along.
    • AndruC, on 05/19/2008, -0/+3Watch Pitch Black.
    • savethehobos, on 05/19/2008, -0/+0First Star Wars....R2 runs away when its getting dark out and they have to wait till morning to go find him. Mulitple Suns does not mean no night. Didnt Hollywood prove that wrong at least twice.
  • Zhanedemon, on 05/19/2008, -0/+4Hooray!
  • scheibs14, on 05/19/2008, -1/+35Decent video explaining this phenomena: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRaLSVQBecU [certified Rick Roll free]
  • ileftfark, on 05/19/2008, -0/+16Two suns?

    Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!
    • Strungout, on 05/19/2008, -1/+6dugg you up for the Ghostbusters reference
  • empirefalling, on 05/19/2008, -9/+1Interesting but irrelevant to issues on this planet. Science would do better to solve problems which occur here first then turn their attention to places that mean nothing.
    • spikeyone, on 05/19/2008, -0/+4Hey, why are you wasting time posting comments on Digg? Shouldn't you be off curing cancer or something?
  • Flappy3, on 05/19/2008, -0/+5http://muller.lbl.gov/pages/nemch1.htm
    Prof Richard Muller from Berkeley named the Sun's twin Nemesis back in 1988.

  • NikoK, on 05/19/2008, -5/+3Wow thats out of this world!
  • ZGambit, on 05/19/2008, -3/+7So what is the Global Warming like over there!! :D
  • mp3tricord, on 05/19/2008, -3/+3Isn't two stars? There is only one sun.
  • Skull0Inc, on 05/19/2008, -1/+3Sorry, Unable to process request at this time -- error 999.
    • ArielMT, on 05/19/2008, -0/+2"If you continue to experience this error, it may be caused by one of the following:

      "* You may want to scan your system for spyware and viruses, as they may interfere with your ability to connect to Yahoo!. For detailed information on spyware and virus protection, please visit the Yahoo! Security Center. "

      ONOES! I has spywares eating my megabaites! Oh, save me, Yahoo!

      Yeah, just further proof they suck.
    • expatcatalyst, on 05/19/2008, -0/+2Yahooooooooooo!
  • jabberwolf, on 05/19/2008, -2/+6Isnt that called a BINARY system?

    Sorry but how is this new?
  • fuzzybeard, on 05/19/2008, -0/+2What would the tidal forces be like at the centerpoint between the Alpha and Beta stars in a binary system?
  • sevenslashfour, on 05/19/2008, -0/+5And this is a prime example of why we never host cool ***** on Yahoo.
  • superyounan1, on 05/19/2008, -0/+3a binary system isn't such a shocking concept to a trekker
  • baldboy7, on 05/19/2008, -0/+6hey i can see the restaurant at the end of the universe!
  • imightbewrong, on 05/19/2008, -4/+2WOW binary stars, thanks digg for the breaking news!!!!
  • phantom_mullet, on 05/19/2008, -1/+3Chris (Luke): Well, I guess I'll go bulls-eye some womp rats in my T-16.
    Quagmire (C-3PO): My god, you shoot small animals for fun? That's the first indicator of a serial killer, ya freak.
    Chris: There's two suns and no women, what the hell am I supposed to do?!
  • qbthemc, on 05/19/2008, -2/+0So it is possible for life to be on the Sun YAY.
  • anononon, on 05/19/2008, -4/+2(Real) pics or it didn't happen.
  • Shogi, on 05/19/2008, -4/+14For *****'s sake, get it right. Ours is the ONLY Solar system, because our Star is named Sol!

    STOP CALLING EVERYTHING A ***** SOLAR SYSTEM.
    • AttackingHobo, on 05/19/2008, -1/+9All other systems are just called systems, or with some other name on them, only our system is called The Solar System.
    • collinrelevent, on 05/19/2008, -2/+2oh, i didn't know that. thanks for politely pointing that out to everyone.
    • jbarket, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1I have no idea why you aren't getting more diggs. This is completely true.

      These are other _systems_ with two stars.
  • originaldna, on 05/19/2008, -6/+1Interesting, that means there might be more black people through out the universe.

    ***** we only have one sun, but the majority if this globe are people of colour, I wonder if they picked up some of those television signals from those good old days of kkk.

    hmm can only imagine first contact.
  • DuffyDirect, on 05/19/2008, -1/+4I wonder if lifeforms in binary star systems believe in two Gods
    • theshizzler, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1Even more basic: will their means of receiving and processing information (presumably a brain) have evolved an overdeveloped pattern recognition system (one that detects patterns were there are none, like ours) to have developed the concept of gods in the first place?
  • XternalHD, on 05/19/2008, -3/+2Trigun
    • keepingitcivil, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1I've been reading through the comments, just waiting to see if someone was in the same binary system as I.
  • Cojawfee, on 05/19/2008, -1/+5Last I checked, there was only one solar system. Ours, the Sol system.
    • buckrogers1965, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1It's "stellar" system for every other "star" system in the universe.

      The Solar system contains the sun, named Sol, which the Earth revolves around.

      Sol -> Solar
      Star -> Stellar.

      It is really jarring when movies get it wrong. Like in the first 30 seconds of Serenity. Throws me right out of my suspension of disbelief.
  • peterinjapan, on 05/19/2008, -3/+1ALL THESE WORLDS ARE YOURS, EXCEPT EUROPA...
  • Sapulator, on 05/19/2008, -3/+1OM NOM NOM NOM
  • Sapulator, on 05/19/2008, -3/+12 stars
    binary
    ?????
    Profit!
    • tama00, on 05/19/2008, -0/+16 stars
      hexadecimal
      3 times the profit?
    • Sapulator, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1that would be 16 stars, my friend.......or "F" stars. You my friend, are an F star.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 64 of 64 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.