What is Digg?143 Comments
- hantata, on 01/13/2009, -3/+317Step aside Daily Mail, you've got competition..
- GrooTheWanderer, on 01/13/2009, -0/+196I'd like to see them do an analysis of the total CO2 emissions generated during the production of a single issue of The Times. See how worried they are about CO2 then.
- anderzole, on 01/13/2009, -5/+135knew it was BS. Every time i hit the space bar, the hole in the ozone gets bigger!
- PraetorianXX, on 01/13/2009, -1/+99Does that mean it gets smaller when we hit delete or backspace?
- nowhereelse, on 01/13/2009, -1/+69You have a good point. Probably THE point. Newspaper production generates way more CO2. The wood is transported and processed, the presses run and the papers are transported. The Internet is already driving local press into extinction and it will probably see off printed newspapers once the proprietors can figure out how to make it pay.
In fact, the Times, an upmarket centre-right paper, is more likely to succumb than the Daily Mail. Its readers are more educated and tech savvy than the Daily Mail readers who are still coming to terms with electricity and the abolition of slavery. - borez, on 01/13/2009, -1/+64Every time I click a link a puppy dog has to die.
- AmyVernon, on 01/13/2009, -15/+62Well, the part about the tea was obviously the Times' - silly brits and their tea.
- inactive, on 01/13/2009, -8/+51"The Times of London" is a fictional news paper in the Sherlock Holmes series of stories.
"The Times" however is a real newspaper.
LOL. facts are not your friend. - borez, on 01/13/2009, -0/+38You know I can't do that.
- inactive, on 01/13/2009, -0/+27Dont forget that Google's CEO punches a kitten too
- TheSum, on 01/13/2009, -0/+26Then stop clicking links *****!
- WoollyMittens, on 01/13/2009, -0/+25It's hard to find a story in the media that isn't misleading or just blatant propaganda for someone's agenda.
- mynameisjudge, on 01/13/2009, -7/+29WHOOPS! Someone's getting fired!
- Swipecat, on 01/13/2009, -2/+23It doesn't actually, despite being owned by Murdoch. It's the Daily Mail newspaper that's the UK's Fox News. Even the UK's Murdoch-owned Sky News channel isn't like Fox News.
- lofi4life, on 01/13/2009, -21/+42So I guess in the US you would compare it to Cheese Burgers or dead soldiers? Silly Americans withe their obesity and wars.
- zammo1234, on 01/13/2009, -4/+24WTF is "The Times of London"? The writer is a little confused. I'm pretty sure there's no such thing. There's definitely a *national* UK newspaper called "The Times" and I think that's what he means.
I heard The Times used to be a good paper, but slid down into crap-land since the Murdoch takeover in the 80's. - disappointed, on 01/13/2009, -0/+20Yes, here in Britain we have no obesity problem and never engage in dubious wars.
- sk8ngame, on 01/13/2009, -6/+25lol. why are British people so sensitive?
are Americans the only people who ***** around? - Moonkeeper, on 01/13/2009, -0/+17Wait an hour. This is Digg.
- mbraynard, on 01/13/2009, -2/+19Facts are his friend. What is unfriendly is your relationship to the human race.
We humans, unlike computers, do not require absolute precision and usually forgo it.
Because there are three major newspapers that are commonly referred to as "the Times" and countless smaller papers. In my current geography, when someone refers to "the Times," it is understood to mean the New York Times.
In my home town, however, an individual referring to "The Times" is understood to be referring to the Georgetown Times, unless there is a national context to the story, in which case we will understand the individual to mean the New York Times.
So here in the US, we may refer to the Times by the city it's from (the Times - of London) though it is also referred to at "The UK times" which is also not it's correct title.
Ya savvy? - Skab, on 01/13/2009, -0/+16Damn and I thought Google was the source of global warming! What am I suppose to do with all the pitchforks and torches?
- KooperG, on 01/13/2009, -0/+16Did you know a Dead Soldier is costing us all about 4 Cheeseburgers a year each?!? If you did, you probably wouldn't have spoken so lightly of it, as you did!
- emotecontrol, on 01/13/2009, -0/+15Fired from the Times for being full of *****? Don't bet on it.
- sluddy, on 01/13/2009, -0/+15YOU MEAN I CAN'T BOIL A KETTLE WITH GOOGLE?!?! wtf...
- eviltandem, on 01/13/2009, -0/+14Nah. If it can't move an SUV we don't consider it energy :P
- Brassbud, on 01/13/2009, -0/+12By dead solders I assumed you meant empty beer bottles, which I've often heard referred to as "fallen soldiers" and such, and so I thought your post was funny.
The next sentence told me that you are an ***** though. - inactive, on 01/13/2009, -0/+12Lets just hope the Times never lay their eyes upon the Onion.
- moulin1, on 01/13/2009, -0/+10I buried innacurate when I saw the digg post. Does about as much good as sayin "hey can't you see the string holding up the plate" on a youtube ufo vid.
- guinpen, on 01/13/2009, -0/+10if we can connect iraq with 9/11, we sure as hell can connect co2 with ozone!
- jimmypoops, on 01/13/2009, -0/+10CO2 emissions don't have anything to do with the ozone layer
- chillymanilli, on 01/13/2009, -2/+12how can anything be better than a nice cup of tea and a chocolate hobnob
- geodebug, on 01/13/2009, -3/+12Brits spell "with" like "withe"? Man, they are goofy.
-- silly American - GeneralFailure0, on 01/13/2009, -0/+9How does being overly alarmist about a corporation's carbon footprint make them anything like Fox News?
- cloudberries, on 01/13/2009, -1/+10What's your drink of choice then? And how does it stand up to the almighty tea as a beverage?
- inactive, on 01/13/2009, -0/+9It's the submitter's icon that he chose. It was either that or his Star Wars light saber pic. Though I'm skeptical that either are an accurate representation of what he looks like.
- inactive, on 01/13/2009, -0/+9So Eric Schmidt is into fisting, big deal.
- JPong01, on 01/13/2009, -0/+8I do not understand this Jiggawatts unit, can I get this in tea kettles?
- trafficlight, on 01/13/2009, -0/+8It's Jiggawatts. Heathen.
- crispa1970, on 01/13/2009, -4/+11noooo...we'd compare it to brewing a cup of COFFEE
- terrorpin, on 01/13/2009, -0/+7The Sun - Boobies - Big Brother - Every Z list "celebrity" on the planet + Actual News = The Times
- terrorpin, on 01/13/2009, -0/+7Eugh... newsprint rubs off you know.
- Smashure, on 01/13/2009, -2/+9Actually, I find it interesting that Wissner-Gross’s company is a website, that creates a carbon footprint. So you goto this website to buy carbon credits, but to get to this website you need to buy MORE carbon credits...
I'm in the wrong business. - tagtomlin, on 01/13/2009, -2/+9You heard right. It used to be a heavyweight newspaper but now is only slightly above the Daily Mail in quality of journalism. I was quite shocked at how poor it was when I last bought one.
Watch The Wall Street Journal follow a similar path in the next few years. - MinibossMike, on 01/13/2009, -2/+8Revealed, the ICCP made up that stuff about Global Warming.
Edit: Replace Global Warming term with new, more fasionable, and more generic term Climate Change. Retire old term down the memory hole, then later, deny it was ever called Global Warming at all. - inactive, on 01/13/2009, -0/+6"most stupidest"?
I'm guessing you've never actually read The Times. - ajdelarosa45, on 01/13/2009, -1/+7Amazing how easy it is for everyone to believe these "statistics" are complete BS when it attacks something like google, but yet all the other "research" is taken at face value.
- Smuikas, on 01/13/2009, -0/+6Seriously. I even made a comment along the lines of the google blog responding to it.
It's sitting comfortably at -3 now.. - inactive, on 01/13/2009, -0/+6Crap, I just drowned a polar bear by clicking this story.
- talonstriker, on 01/13/2009, -2/+8or you could do:
while (1)
send_request_to_google("\b"); - inactive, on 01/13/2009, -0/+6I would imagine quite a bit, seeing it takes an assload of fuel to go in and chop down the trees, truck them to a plant which gets it's power from nuclear or coal, processing into paper, then transport of the raw newspaper rolls to another plant that actually prints them. Then even more energy to deliver all of this paper to their distributors. Even after the paper is used, even more energy goes into disposing/recycling the paper.
So I would bet good money that there is a bit more than a whole 7 grams of carbon going into the Earth for Time to make their outdated medium. -
Show 51 - 100 of 151 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is