What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Follow the Dragon Age: Origins development team on Twitter view!
twitter.com/DragonAge - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
57 Comments
- BXRWXR, on 09/02/2008, -4/+49Another green scam bites the dust.
Good. - virtualonliner, on 09/02/2008, -2/+43Just playing devil's advocate. "In our opinion Google ended the partnership, because Forestle became too successful; Yesterday we earned almost 200 USD...." is not something that will scare Google.
- InspectorGadget, on 09/02/2008, -1/+38"Green" search engine? Give me a break.
- takamichinaku, on 09/02/2008, -3/+29Checking Forestle I come to conclude that "Forestle was more interested in making money".
- adidos, on 09/02/2008, -1/+24Umm, since when does an adwords account equal a "partnership"?
- serif69, on 09/02/2008, -1/+22"Yesterday we earned almost 200 USD"
Wow! A search engine is making ALMOST 70,000 USD A YEAR! You better watch out, Google, with your multi-billion-dollar net profits! - MAGZine, on 09/02/2008, -6/+20Google probably pulled the plug because they didn't see the partnership viable/practical/profitable in the long run. If you're donating all of your money to the forests, I hate to say it, but the forests aren't going to run your servers for you. You cannot grow as a company with their current business model, and currently relied on another company for the advertisement services.
It just would. not .work, and thats why the Big G pulled the plug. - staeiou, on 09/02/2008, -0/+14The reason Google shut it down was because Forestle users were clicking on ads they had no intention of visiting. Sure, Forestle said not to artificially click ads - right after they said that each ad click saves a bit of the rainforest. What do you expect? This is standard practice for Internet advertising.
Also, please know that Znout and other "black background" search engines do not save energy if you use LCD or LED monitors. Their servers may be using green power, but be warned that they are just wrappers around Google. It is actually worse for the environment to use these "green" search engines, because you're having to power two servers instead of one. - BradOFarrell, on 09/02/2008, -3/+13I know the comments are going to be flooded with jaded snarky "GOOGLE IS EVIL!" people. But, come on. This search engine looks as benevolent as Christian's Children's Fund's "80 cents out of every dollar goes right out there to help those children!" BS. They 'only take money to cover their administrative fees'--that means it's a profitable company that uses 'going green' to guilt people into artificially clicking ads, so they can make a whopping 200 dollars a day. This is just a standard case of click fraud, with a thin layer of green paint.
PS: A green search engine is a dumb idea. Go green by turning off your computer one day a week. Jesus. - melodeath666, on 09/02/2008, -1/+7Thats was un-*****-necessary.
- arjie, on 09/02/2008, -0/+6This just looks like another Adsense program that got found out for click fraud, the email seems to be of the generic form associated with an Adsense ban. Google is a bit zealous and sometimes hits false positives, but if you're saying that each click saves a bit of rainforest then that's hard to defend (they claim that it was each 'search' though).
- DrPizza, on 09/01/2008, -5/+11Was, is, and ever shall be *****.
- Murdats, on 09/02/2008, -0/+6Those no-good fools! It's like anyone can scam them if its under the flag of a worthwhile cause.
just because they say they are an environmentally friendly group does not mean they are not able to pull a con, its not like you need to pass a test or something to claim you are helping the environment. - InJectaH, on 09/02/2008, -0/+6Forestle is all about making that green
Google did the right thing - T440, on 09/02/2008, -0/+4"In our opinion Google ended the partnership, because Forestle became too successful..."
Honestly, ***** Forestle. Don't make idiotic statements like that against a company that is willingly spending 10's of million of their own money on cheaper renewable energy research.
Instead, why not keep your opinion to yourself and try to work this out with Google instead of slandering their name? - FreddieD, on 09/02/2008, -0/+4Seeing your blog spam in these comments is just as annoying as an ad for viagra. In fact, your entire comment history offers no insight other than a platform to promote your worthless blog.
- mattjameson, on 09/02/2008, -0/+4Look if Google sees that their Adwords aren't converting, they're going to pull them, standard practice.
"Green" search engines are a scam. - inactive, on 09/02/2008, -3/+6"Don't be evil" is not the same as "do something good'. Perhaps they look at evil as something like genocide, whereas crushing start-ups is just being an *****. Besides, Google sold their soul when they agreed to kowtow to the Chinese government. They could change their motto to "Don't be evil - unless it's kinda necessary or if you really want to".
- rebotfc, on 09/02/2008, -0/+3This isn't a green drive at all, it is just a scam to hook customers and make money for the site.
- Narcism, on 09/02/2008, -0/+3They broke the rules. They were punished. Who cares how many rainforests you've saved. ////justice over mercy "only click on Google sponsored links if you are really interested in them" is a blatant violation of the rules.
- veins, on 09/02/2008, -2/+4yes this new 'znout' mentioned ... where its a black google ... well, that exists. its called blackle.
- konforce, on 09/02/2008, -0/+2Implying that by clicking on sponsors' links you will save trees is indeed providing incentive for clicking on the ads. And yes, that is against the terms of service because it artificially inflates the clicks. People click because they want to save trees, not because they want to see the advertised site.
- V1ncent, on 09/02/2008, -2/+4GOOGLE ATE MY PARENTS!!!
- Ravatar, on 09/02/2008, -0/+1dugg for understanding what green actually stands for
- inactive, on 09/02/2008, -0/+1I see the greenies will be up in arms. You need to compete on the same level without subsidies to have a good product, make that and we'll buy. If there's no difference in product and same equal price.
- MacHarborGuy, on 09/02/2008, -0/+1black web pages only give energy savings to CRT monitors, and even then not much of a savings anyway. You get more savings from just turning the brightness down. LCD monitors have 0 savings since the image on the screen has no effect on the light within the monitor, BEHIND the LCD plate.
- Ravatar, on 09/03/2008, -0/+1Yeah because people are always honest.
They got shut down for one scam, only to direct traffic to "znout", another one of their custom google searches that is even more of a scam than this one. "Black backgrounds and ecoservers"? First off just going to google is a ***** more economically sound due to their infrastructure, and black backgrounds consume more energy on a TFT.
I'm going to come to the conclusion that this site was a front, just begging to be shut down so they could use the coverage to get more traffic to znout, where they don't have the obligation to donate 95% of their profits to charity. - Ravatar, on 09/03/2008, -0/+1You're probably being dugg down because this isn't regular adsense, this is "google custom search".
- Ravatar, on 09/02/2008, -1/+2Being "green" isn't primarily about global warming. It's about being responsible for the health of our ecosystem/environment.
It's about:
- Reduce / reuse / recycle
- Not wasting energy
- Avoiding the use of poisonous chemicals that destroy the ecosystem
- Researching and supporting alternative energy sources, especially solar and wind
The green message has been massively sidetracked by these global warming people. I'm not 100% either way, but EVERYONE can help make the world a better place by simply following the tenets above. - bronkenwrists, on 09/02/2008, -0/+1Damn it, I was planning a trip to the nearest rainforest, and then this!
Google, your luck is that you're too big to fit in hell - plbland, on 09/02/2008, -0/+1I'm being dugg down, but i'm right.
Adsense: Display ads on your site
Adwords: Display your ads on other sites - tHeSiD, on 09/02/2008, -1/+2why is everything green nowadays
- MacHarborGuy, on 09/02/2008, -0/+1myth. CRT's may see an energy saving benifit but hardly any in the long run.
LCDs save 0 energy with a black web page since the light behind the LCD plate is always on, the black page is simply preventing the light from shining thru as well.
Turn your brightness down has more of an effect on energy savings. - wunksta, on 09/02/2008, -1/+2having servers doesnt automatically imply that the power isnt green though
- mswallace, on 09/03/2008, -0/+1Why? Because the environment does not need google?
- Ravatar, on 09/03/2008, -0/+1There's no possible way this guys "ecoservers" are more economical than just going to google in the first place. At all.
- Ravatar, on 09/03/2008, -0/+1Well primarily because Alaska is a ***** terrible place to put a datacenter that actually has to communicate with the rest of the world?
Why do you think datacenters typically thrive in the midwest and near major cities? Hint: it's the latency. - MacHarborGuy, on 09/02/2008, -0/+1a black web page does not "save energy" unless the monitor is CRT, and even then the savings are barely there. Most monitors around now are LCD, and regardless of what is being displayed on them and in what color, the light within the monitor is always on and at full brightness. It is only the act of TURNING YOUR BRIGHTNESS DOWN that actually increases savings.
- zedomax, on 09/03/2008, -1/+1Try http://Gooef.com for true eco-friendly search engine that gathers eco-friendly sites and blogs.
- CourtneyGQ, on 09/02/2008, -0/+0Why not locate server farms where there's an abundance of green power potential? Google and Microsoft currently run some server farms using the green power provided by hydroelectricity via the Columbia river. Good. Why not build server farms where there's green power PLUS a place where the utilization of CPU waste heat might be better used? Why not Alaska? Because of erbium solitons data can easily be moved to the lower 48 without degradation in signal strength.
- snowmonky, on 09/02/2008, -1/+1It's a non-profit organization. Only 5% of that small amount earned was used for administrative costs. You come to conclude with irrational means.
- lepster10101, on 09/03/2008, -1/+1In other words, you can't come up with a decent argument against any of my points. Yet another green clown has their bubble burst with under 10 minutes typing. LOL
OWNED! - CourtneyGQ, on 09/02/2008, -0/+0In fact, why don't like-minded techies/artists/musicians "claim" an area of USA where they can call the shots? When the tech bubble burst India found itself with the fibre optic capacity to allow for the transfer of back-office jobs to that country because the creation/manipulation of data knows no bounds. Certain jobs can be done anywhere. If you make music, movies, video games, code software, create art, or are involved in journalistic affairs...you can pretty much decide where you want to work/live as long as there's a Net connection. In the past most workers needed to live in big cities where the factories provided the jobs. Today, people who do certain jobs can create their own City/State.
- CourtneyGQ, on 09/03/2008, -0/+0maybe the moon will be a minute away at lightspeed in a trillion years...right now its a second away at lightspeed (300 000 kilometers/second)....oppps
- CourtneyGQ, on 09/03/2008, -0/+0It is my contention that the reason why we're seeing all the problems with mortgages/subprime/economy is that American financial system has recognized that housing can now be made so efficiently that....its ultimate value is now diminished. Trailers/RV's can now be produced factory-style. The prospective lands that can park those mobile-homes has grown exponentially. Combine mobile home + rail/boat transportability + solar panel/small wind turbine + composting toilets + satellite/cell tower phone/net/tv/radio + jobs that can be done from anywhere = uncertainty in current home prices in established areas
- Ravatar, on 09/03/2008, -1/+1@lepster10101: These points are absolutely ridiculous.
- Are you advocating FOR waste? What kind of ***** joke is this.
- I never said oil. I said energy. We should not waste energy no matter its source.
- This is a hilariously sensational and terrible point. "A few animals vs starving humans"? First off, I didn't say anything about pesticides (which are making great strides towards becoming safer). I'm referring to any number of chemicals we use and dispose of on a daily basis. Many cleaners and detergents for example.
- If people followed the second point I made, ALL alternative energy sources would be viable sooner. Besides, best estimates for a "working" fusion reactor becoming reality are more like 50-75 years. I won't stand for fission reactors being thrown up all over the place because they're not going to be decommissioned when the fusion technology is available.
In closing, you make no points. - lepster10101, on 09/03/2008, -1/+1- Reduce / reuse / recycle
Is about saving the UK government on refuse collection. Less council workers and now they sell the recycled goods. Nice job! It also saves energy in production costs. -see oil running out comment-
- Not wasting energy
Is about delaying the end of oil. Avoiding conflict between China/Russia/America and between people on a local level as they fight for supplies - As in the 1970's when the oil shortage in America caused shootings, beatings and riots-
- Avoiding the use of poisonous chemicals that destroy the ecosystem
So save a few animals over better crop production to feed starving humans, great idea.
- Researching and supporting alternative energy sources, especially solar and wind
The first commercial nuclear fusion power station will be online within 30 years. These 'alternatives' are a waste of money and a distraction from providing long term fuel supplies... Go Nuclear until 'cleaner fusion' is online, ***** CND and the rest of the tree huggers.
Ktnxbye - lepster10101, on 09/03/2008, -1/+1- Are you advocating FOR waste? What kind of ***** joke is this.
No. I am pointing out, while you feel like you are saving the planet, that your government is making a dick out of you. We pay council tax, that includes the collection of waste. If the government wants to sign up to pointless targets, its up to them to employ people to deal with that, instead they dress it up as a green measure and clowns like you jump on the wagon. In doing so, you put people out of work and the government laughs all the way to the bank. - consider the fact they make cash out of this 'green measure' , as they do with all the others, and you see the true government agenda on global warming -
- I never said oil. I said energy. We should not waste energy no matter its source.
Why not? It's not harming the environment? man made CO2 has little to no effect on global warming. Again the governments of the world are increasing taxes across the board, making a ***** load of cash, and the green lobby think this is a great idea.
- This is a hilariously sensational and terrible point. "A few animals vs starving humans"? First off, I didn't say anything about pesticides (which are making great strides towards becoming safer). I'm referring to any number of chemicals we use and dispose of on a daily basis. Many cleaners and detergents for example.
Your inability to be specific, a problem for most of the green movement, is not my problem. I think you didn't like the reply so you attempted to move the goal posts. A little like changing the name of global warming to climate change, don't you think?
- If people followed the second point I made, ALL alternative energy sources would be viable sooner. Besides, best estimates for a "working" fusion reactor becoming reality are more like 50-75 years. I won't stand for fission reactors being thrown up all over the place because they're not going to be decommissioned when the fusion technology is available.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6165932.stm Ops, seems like you're a few years off there.
"If all goes well, officials will build a demonstration power plant before rolling out the technology to the world. Iter says electricity could be available on the grid within 30 years. " That is only one of a number of groups with a 30 year time frame.
Hard luck eco-boy. Do give the trees a little hug for me. Oh, and get a job you bum. ;) - Ravatar, on 09/03/2008, -1/+1All I see is a pact to spend money developing a test reactor. Kinda like in the 70's when we said "just 20 more years!".
I'm done discussing the issue with you if you can't grasp the concept of energy conservation. Using less energy is not a bad thing (unless you happen to have money in the coal or nuclear industry). That's a no-brainer to absolutely everyone. -
Show 51 - 59 of 59 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is