What is Digg?107 Comments
- FelixDeluxe, on 01/12/2009, -1/+227However you measure it it's waaay more efficient than travelling to a library or printing a book.
- whatsthatyou, on 01/12/2009, -2/+188im glad they responded so fast to that
- pathouston22, on 01/12/2009, -4/+136I'm currently holding down the F5 key refreshing a Google search 10 times a second. By my calculations, in 3 days the world will come to an end thanks to Google CO2 pollution.
- Bic823, on 01/12/2009, -2/+125Well-written, concise reply to sensationalist article from yesterday. Good for you, google.
- csxero, on 01/12/2009, -4/+90OWNED.
- LiquidSpark, on 01/12/2009, -2/+84The original article: http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_ ...
- lemming64, on 01/12/2009, -1/+75Everything has a carbon cost associated with it, hell lets work out how much CO2 is generate by all the extra breathing done by excited men watching porn on the internet and carbon tax porn as a result... oh and breathing...
I mean I am not anti green or anything like that but, seriously where does this end? - yesplease151, on 01/12/2009, -1/+61Geek bitch slap
- laserviking, on 01/12/2009, -1/+49Yes you would have to eat a cheeseburger, drink some (clean) water and do a poo to power that mission, all very taxing on the environment. So next time you think about moving, don't be so selfish.
- UNCCEJ1010, on 01/12/2009, -2/+40Walking still takes energy.
- CMiYC, on 01/12/2009, -0/+38Even if you thought Google was evil, consider this...
Google is a business. Energy costs money.
It is in Google's best interest to reduce the energy used by its data centers, because that translates into actual dollars (for them.) - burketo, on 01/12/2009, -2/+39that's why physicists should stay away from engineering problems.
- gkskillz, on 01/12/2009, -1/+36If I recall correctly, we exhale CO2. So depending on how far the library is/how long it takes to find your information, more CO2 would be produced by walking.
- Quick2822, on 01/12/2009, -2/+29Ugh, how long before environmentalists start saying "Google Kills The Planet!"
- mstrebe, on 01/12/2009, -0/+26Don't get confused by all the green-washing ***** into thinking that all human activity is inherently evil. The point of measuring CO2 emission is not to prevent all CO2 emission, it's to compare two methods of arriving at the same result so that you can choose the more efficient method. The vast majority of all CO2 emission on earth is natural, and while our emissions do represent a new source that does tip the balance of warming, it is humans--not the earth--that will be plagued by the results of our activities. Just as many species will benefit from warming as are decimated by it, and new species will emerge to fill new niches as species that can't handle the changes die off. The earth changes, as it has always changed, and it is impacted by the activities of all of its species. We simply have the most impact, and are the only ones who can choose to minimize our impact.
So the point of Google's response is actually this: "Google is by far the most efficient way that your question could have been answered." And that's why it actually is not doing any evil. - CarzorStelatis, on 01/12/2009, -0/+26Python script to Google search for random dictionary word combinations coming right up!
- holzp, on 01/12/2009, -0/+25No, if Google starts deranking pages because they may indirectly impact their bottom line Google will no longer be Google. None of this "We need to destroy the search engine to save it".
- spiderbaby138, on 01/12/2009, -2/+27Thus, the average car driven for one kilometer (0.6 miles for those in the U.S.) produces as many greenhouse gases as a thousand Google searches.
Wow, I had no idea the impact was this bad. - NathanielJ, on 01/12/2009, -0/+19I'm surprised they bothered responding at all. Everyone already knew that the timesonline article was useless and a load of rubbish.
- timothy53, on 01/12/2009, -2/+20So what happens when I search for lets say:
"reduce waste by recycling"
"learn more about solar technology"
"how to be more green"
do they take this into account? By using Google to return results on how to be more green, I would be learning to reduce my carbon footprint. Without this how much more carbon would I be using? - roseap, on 01/12/2009, -0/+16"That's a lot of kettles of tea."
Burn. - somedudemanguy, on 01/12/2009, -0/+14with that kind of honesty, google should run for president
- inactive, on 01/12/2009, -2/+15Small or not, having to think of the climate impact of searching for midget porn has certainly taken a great deal of the fun out of it.
- inactive, on 01/12/2009, -2/+14Right... Hiding scientific facts and mispresenting information to prevent possibly rising costs of their operation sounds just the right and fair thing to do. That's exactly what the industrial fat cats are doing when they fund "research" that people gobble up and then start resisting science.
- kien64, on 01/12/2009, -0/+10Good for Google in quickly addressing the article.
What the article doesn't mention is that Google is being pro-active in being a part of the solution to global warming:
http://www.google.com/intl/en/corporate/green/ener ... - ThantiK, on 01/12/2009, -0/+9Unfortunately you saw the stupidity of Digg with the previous article. The slashdot crowd figured this out within SECONDS of the article being posted and did the math themselves. All the diggers did was offer comments about how they liked/disliked tea and nobody cared to do the math on things >_>
- inactive, on 01/12/2009, -1/+10Another reason why Timesonline is a second-rate rag.
- csxero, on 01/12/2009, -0/+9And indeed this is the only time I've made a comment along those lines and not felt like an idiot doing so.
- offrdbandit, on 01/12/2009, -0/+9Oh, they are just using this to distract you from their truly evil plans.
Before you know it, Google will be hosting AdSense adds on your eyelids. - MtheoryX, on 01/12/2009, -0/+8It's not up to Google to decide what is truth and what is not.
Furthermore, it's not Google's place to prevent access to something, even in the case that it was not true (which, I've already explained, is not something Google should do either). - cesclaveria, on 01/12/2009, -0/+8ok, then president of another country?
- AwRy108, on 01/12/2009, -0/+8...but with that kind of brutal honesty, they'd never get elected. We're Americans: we want to be lied to. Right? Right?
- nofrickenway, on 01/13/2009, -0/+7Yeah!
Put that in your pipe and smoke it. Then pay the appropriate carbon tax for smoking it in the pipe. - CarzorStelatis, on 01/12/2009, -0/+7I believe the technical term for this is 'to be owned'
- Scaryclouds, on 01/13/2009, -0/+6*ads
- offrdbandit, on 01/12/2009, -0/+6So Google isn't comprised of 5 million networked 486's??
That would have been so hardcore... - rustycharlie, on 01/12/2009, -0/+6how come its so hard to find how much CO2 the human body produces, I imagine its much greater than any amount you would generate in a day google searching
- moxxor, on 01/12/2009, -0/+6Not constructive, but Interesting idea, still i think, next than 1st the same searches, are requiring more less energy. Job is done on 1st search and other searches are taken from "cache"
- Bic823, on 01/12/2009, -0/+5@ angostura
I don't understand how his comment was off-base. Just because some cuddly bears will be adversely affected by global warming doesn't change the fact that we should be much more concerned with how global warming affects US as a species. Should we be more preoccupied with polar bears or potentially vast amounts of people suffering? He's right, new cuddly species will emerge.
Of course, reversing the effects of global warming will most likely be a mutually beneficial action for both humanity and other species, so the point is moot. - newbr33d, on 01/12/2009, -1/+6Do you honestly think that there are Google servers that ever idle?
- Angostura, on 01/12/2009, -1/+6While I am generally sympathetic to your view, this part is off base:
"it is humans--not the earth--that will be plagued by the results of our activities. Just as many species will benefit from warming as are decimated by it, and new species will emerge to fill new niches as species that can't handle the changes die off. "
Sadly the speed of climate change means that actually, many other species will be driven into extinction before humans feel much pain. Moreover the speed of speciation isn't nearly rapid enough to make up for these extinctions.
The net result will be a substantial decrease in biodiversity (yes, that may be reversed in another 40 million years, but hey). I for one will be saddened to see these species go, and simply saying 'new ones will arise in several million years' is not enough. - eadnams, on 01/12/2009, -0/+5I think thats what they did.
- themoop, on 01/13/2009, -0/+5Don't forget to put it on digg!
Oh and btw, querying from cache still take power, just less IO usage. - newman8r, on 01/12/2009, -0/+5~.04 grams/breath
- Angostura, on 01/12/2009, -0/+4Excuse me, those of us who are concerned about human-mediated global warming are nonetheless quite capable of seeing that the figures in the original article were ludicrous.
- mpobri, on 01/12/2009, -4/+8Wouldn't it have been more accurate (and easier) to take the total power Google consumes in kilowatts over a given period of time divided by the total searches during that time? This would help include "overhead" (servers sitting idle, crawling, etc)? Probably because the consumption would be MUCH higher.
- yojiffyskippy, on 01/12/2009, -3/+7Eco-Terrorist! Your door will be knocked down in 3 .... 2..... 1
- WibWobble, on 02/02/2009, -1/+5I think this is the only "OWNED / LOLZ / PWNT"-type comment I have ever dugg, and I don't regret it!
- ctabone, on 01/13/2009, -0/+4*head a'splode*
- kaoitik, on 01/13/2009, -0/+4I like tea.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 109 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