Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Google's Internal Company Goals 144

Posted by Zonk
from the inside-the-mind-of-a-goog dept.
Rockgod writes to mention a Google Blogoscoped article about an internal company paper. The paper details Google's big goals and directions for 2006. From the article: "The list included several items, for example: Google wants to have an improved infrastructure to make their engineers more productive. This includes allowing employees to have a universal search tool "containing all public Google information searched on all Google searches." Google also wants to build 10MW of green power to be on track to be carbon neutral. (They also want to reduce "Borg disk waste" by 50%... hmmm, Borg?)
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google's Internal Company Goals

Comments Filter:
  • borg (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    i.e. cluster
  • by Brothernone (928252) on Friday October 27, 2006 @09:54AM (#16608320) Homepage
    Welcome to the Googlepshere... resistance is futile... but at least we dont have chairs.
  • by Randolpho (628485) on Friday October 27, 2006 @09:56AM (#16608344) Homepage Journal
    (They also want to reduce "Borg disk waste" by 50%... hmmm, Borg?)
    Clearly "Borg disk waste" means "Microsoft disk waste". Google is moving to a less Microsoft-centric system. They clearly rely far too much on ASP.NET and SQL Server, and would like to become a LAMP shop. They may even be planning their own operating system to compete with Windows Vista.
    • old news (Score:2, Informative)

      by xTantrum (919048)
      move along nothing to see here. Not desparaging the submitter of the article but don't we by now know what google has acomplished and hasn't this year. Hit us up with 2007 and i'll mod you up...going once..going twice...
    • by DAldredge (2353) <SlashdotEmail@GMail.Com> on Friday October 27, 2006 @10:08AM (#16608466) Journal
      This isn't digg please don't make stuff up.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by truthsearch (249536)
      I'm not sure if it's funny or scary you were modded insightful. Am I the only one who got your joke?
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      (They also want to reduce "Borg disk waste" by 50%... hmmm, Borg?)

      Clearly "Borg disk waste" means "Microsoft disk waste". Google is moving to a less Microsoft-centric system. They clearly rely far too much on ASP.NET and SQL Server, and would like to become a LAMP shop. They may even be planning their own operating system to compete with Windows Vista.


      Huh??? Google doesn't rely on ASP.NET or SQL Server. Google is the original LAMP shop.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Lemmingue (788112)
        Google's social network http://www.orkut.com/ [orkut.com] service is ASP.NET based, and quite slow and unstable - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orkut#Speed_and_Relia bility [wikipedia.org]. I wonder why they don't move it to their Linux infrastructure. Maybe it's time.
        • by didde (685567) * on Friday October 27, 2006 @11:03AM (#16609176) Homepage

          Hmm, I really don't have a clue as to what platform Orkut is running on. Of course, the URL's on the site uses the ".aspx"-suffix but the returned server header says GFE:

          # curl -I "https://www.orkut.com/"
          HTTP/1.1 302 Moved Temporarily
          Location: https://www.orkut.com/GLogin.aspx?done=https%3A%2F %2Fwww.orkut.com%2F [orkut.com]
          Content-Length: 0
          Cache-control: private
          Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 14:58:40 GMT
          Content-Type: text/html
          Server: GFE/1.3

          ...perhaps this means they're load balancing or similar, but still.
        • by drinkypoo (153816)
          I always thought that Orkut was slow because the entire population of Brazil was on it...
      • by smallpaul (65919)

        Huh??? Google doesn't rely on ASP.NET or SQL Server. Google is the original LAMP shop.

        First, I presume that the original poster was joking, because everybody knows that Google does not use ASP.NET or SQL Server (except perhaps in some properties they acquired). Second, Google may be an open source shop, but they are NOT a LAMP shop. They don't use a stack of off-the-shelf components at all.

      • I believe that was a joke GP made ...
        hmmm, you're line could be a joke too ...

        but why on Earth are you modded informative!!!

        to the post about this not being digg - yeah, this is slashdot, only the mods are made up!
    • by Shohat (959481)
      I thought they were trying to improve their engineers' productivity ..
    • Borg (Score:4, Funny)

      by Creepy (93888) on Friday October 27, 2006 @10:33AM (#16608740) Journal
      I'm sure that it's a reference to the Billgatus of Borg [ahajokes.com] or maybe the old joke [ozemail.com.au]

  • green power (Score:5, Insightful)

    by qw0ntum (831414) on Friday October 27, 2006 @09:59AM (#16608366) Journal
    I think it's really an important step for Google to aim for carbon neutrality, starting with green power. Nowadays green power, green building, and other sustainability practices have substantial financial benefits in addition to their environmental ones. Companies are starting to recognize this too, thankfully--Bank of America has a LEED certified [wikipedia.org] building going up in Manhattan that will save massive amounts of emissions of carbon and other pollutants and save massive amounts of money.

    What makes me happiest about seeing Google do this is that they are such a role-model for next-generation businesses. If Google achieves carbon neutrality, even partially, the message it will send to corporations, start-ups, and individuals will be, "You can be environmentally conscious and financially successful; the two are not mutually exclusive." That's an important message that is only beginning to spread.
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Isn't the message "As long as you leak documents about how you "want" to "be on track" for some environmental criterion, a private, hammock-equipped 767 is above criticism"? Is that the "partially" in "achieve carbon neutrality, even partially"?
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Partial neutrality. Right. I think Fox may be hiring. You could go far.
    • by diersing (679767)
      As we all know the internet and it's technology is a network of tubes. Painting them green is for ascetics only.

      Don't get me wrong, I think its great they strive for a such a thing, but I also think if they were struggling it would be dropped. Where we, as world citizens, need to focus carbon neutrality is in manufacturing and energy. Technology companies always appear ahead of the curve and cutting edge, all those relaxed environments of the dot.com'rs didn't parlay into a revolution as once thought.

      • by mjm1231 (751545)
        Painting them green is for ascetics only.

        I think you mean aesthetics. An ascetic wouldn't care what color the tubes were.

    • If anyone can come up with a way to marry power generation equipment to human exercise, it's Google.
      Imagine a big line of exercise bikes, loosely and efficiently coupled to a turbine...
      I was leaving the Malibu Grill yesterday, and noting they had one of the wider revolving doors I've seen.
      Considering the potential for gluttony at MG, they probably bring in some of the heavier members of society, justifying the door.
      Harvesting energy from those carcasses would have a variety of personal, societal, enviro
      • Re:green power (Score:5, Interesting)

        by drinkypoo (153816) <martin.espinoza@gmail.com> on Friday October 27, 2006 @01:00PM (#16610942) Homepage Journal
        As technology makes it cheaper you will probably start seeing just about everything generating power. I mean floors have to have a certain amount of give, and carpet flexes when you walk on it - if they were both piezoelectric then just walking around would generate some power. It's not economically feasible to do this right now but it's coming. Structures are flexible, too; if you could generate power from the slight movement due to the wind, thermal differentials, and the slamming of doors (not to mention generating power when a door is opened!) then it would all add up. It doesn't add up to very much, which is why we're not doing it now.
    • Re:green power (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Fozzyuw (950608) on Friday October 27, 2006 @10:41AM (#16608878)
      If Google achieves carbon neutrality, even partially, the message it will send to corporations, start-ups, and individuals will be, "You can be environmentally conscious and financially successful; the two are not mutually exclusive."

      I saw a promotional advertisement video on 'green' manufacturing, and while I do not buy into a lot of the whole 'save the world before it is too late' fear, I do believe that the concepts of green manufacturing just plain make sense to some degree.

      Maybe being a programmer and being stuck in too many 'dungeons' makes me feel this way, but adding large windows, more greenery(plants) inside offices and plants (where they do not risk safety obviously) just makes employees feel such much better, that they're happier and more productive, aside from reduced heating bills due to solar heat (though, some factories don't have to worry about producing heat, hehe).

      On the other hand, I doubt there is a lot of start-ups who could afford to invest their startup money on an expensive building, when that capital needs to be spent on... well, getting their company started. The problem always comes down to money, sure long term, it can save you money, after like 20+ years, but the premium on these places are high and most start-ups will move into pre-existing space. And when you want to start a business, you look at a $1 million building or a $10 million building, you're probably going to go for the $1 million building. Of course, if you become Google and light cigars with $100 bills, then you could probably afford a green building.

      Cheers,
      Fozzy

      • by Wellington Grey (942717) on Friday October 27, 2006 @12:19PM (#16610306) Homepage Journal
        and plants (where they do not risk safety obviously)


        Yes safety first! I do so hate it when the office hydrangea goes on a rampage and kills the interns.

        -Grey [wellingtongrey.net]
      • by drew (2081)

        Maybe being a programmer and being stuck in too many 'dungeons' makes me feel this way, but adding large windows, more greenery(plants) inside offices and plants (where they do not risk safety obviously) just makes employees feel such much better, that they're happier and more productive, aside from reduced heating bills due to solar heat

        While I do agree with you, it's worth pointing out that very few offices have to worry about heating costs even in the winter. In many offices, just the computers and ligh

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      "You can be environmentally conscious and financially successful; the two are not mutually exclusive."

      Well, I suppose it might look that way on the surface, but the question of whether that reflects reality is very much in doubt. The question that wouldn't be answered is whether Google is successful DESPITE environmentally conscious policies.

      It all boils down to whether being environmentally conscious costs more money. And looking at whether a company is financially successful (i.e., makes more money

    • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      If Google achieves carbon neutrality, even partially...

      Everybody is partially carbon neutral.
    • by drsquare (530038)
      If Google achieves carbon neutrality, even partially, the message it will send to corporations, start-ups, and individuals will be, "You can be environmentally conscious and financially successful; the two are not mutually exclusive."


      Yeah 'cos startups and small business on tight margins will be running out to emulate a company with billions of dollars they don't know what to do with.
  • by JBHarris (890771) <bharris@isf . c om> on Friday October 27, 2006 @10:01AM (#16608388)
    You really don't see this very often. What short-term or even mid-term payoff could there possibly be to being carbon nuetral? I don't think anyone can stand back and say that Google fits into the mold of what most Companies in this world have become. I applaude Google. I think they are a role-model that other companies (Including the existing big boys) should strive to be more like.

    This isn't that much of a suprise though. When you have such a great product & a motivated team, you tend to attract the best & brightest. The best & brightest usually have the best ideas....

    Brad
    • The payoff is PR (Score:2, Interesting)

      by blueZ3 (744446)
      And the proof is in the Slashdot pudding, where posters who are generally skeptical of businesses are all rushing to be the first to gush Google's praises and everyone's all aquiver over how "really responsible" Google is and what what a "role model" they are. Sheesh. When Exxon buys an ad saying how they are all about "saving the wild geese" or whatever, we all know the real deal: Exxon undertakes these projects as a PR exercise. Google is no different.

      I like Google's search product (though they seem to be
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by JBHarris (890771)
        Except this information was an internal gaol for 2006. If they where doing it for good press...it would have been 'revealed' earlier in the year. I mean think about it...if this was a PR ploy...with no backbone, then they woulda made out with this ASAP. Except they didn't. They made it an internal thing. They didn't announce it, they didn't make any commercials about it.
        • Are you under the impression that companies pitch only to outsiders?

          If you are: They do not.
          • by JBHarris (890771)
            I think that PR means public relations, and for that you need to pitch to the public.
        • Yet. Officially.

          If you think that someone is posting "internal" goals on the Internet without at least the tacit approval of the company, you're drinking Google's cool-aid. On top of that, you don't get as much bang for your buck if you announce in 2006 "We're going to strive for carbon neutrality sometime in the next couple of years" as you do announcing in 2007 "This year, Google met an 'internal' goal of becoming carbon neural."

          I'm not saying that there isn't some portion of this that's genuinely driven
    • by nuggz (69912) on Friday October 27, 2006 @10:18AM (#16608550) Homepage
      PR is an immediate short term payoff.
      Environmentally friendly practices are cheaper mid/long term. They're also more reliable if you consider the rate of electricity generating capacity being added in North America.
      • They're also more reliable if you consider the rate of electricity generating capacity being added in North America.

        And more specifically, Google's main offices are in California, so this also pays off in the categories of "outage prevention" and "minimization of utility company shenanigans".

    • What short-term or even mid-term payoff could there possibly be to being carbon neutral?
      Well, since they are beginning by building a 10MW solar electrical generating station, I would imagine at that scale solar is probably cheaper than the rate they are getting from their electric provider. If not, as a shareholder, I'm upset they are pissing away my dividends.

      • by sadr (88903) <skg@sadr.com> on Friday October 27, 2006 @10:54AM (#16609034)
        If you'd bothered to read their IPO or other documents, you'd know that common shareholders have nearly no control over the company due to the voting structure the owners set up.

        They note that their policies may not maximize profit. Their policies are set based on doing what's right, as deemed by the founders.

        Maybe you should sell your shares.
        • You thoroughly deserve your +5 moderation for that. For another +5, a link to a citation would be wonderful.

          This is the first documentary evidence I have seen (however flimsy it is) that Google is not now prey to the US laws that mean that a public company in the US is virtually required to be "evil" if that is what secures the greatest profit.

        • Nowhere did I state that I had a vote on how they would do things. I can still express my opinion if I think they are mis-managing my money.

          That being said, in their IPO letter [google.com], Larry clearly stated:

          In pursuing this goal, we may do things that we believe have a positive impact on the world, even if the near term financial returns are not obvious.

          and

          If opportunities arise that might cause us to sacrifice short term results but are in the best long term interest of our shareholders, we will take tho

      • by zenslug (542549)
        As a shareholder, I'm happy to see them doing this. I invested to make money, but I knew how they operated before buying in.
    • "I think they are a role-model that other companies (Including the existing big boys) should strive to be more like."

      Most companies have yet to understand that building goodwill is profitable, not only that, people are also more likely to "donate" through purchasing product/services simply to support your efforts even if they do not particulary need what your selling.
      • ohh come now.

        Good will to a degree is okay, but it's not going to make the books balance or float your company. The odd person supporting you because of some random good will policy is insigificant in the larger economic health of a company. Its just a matter of numbers.

        The bottom line truth is that the product is all that matters in the end. Look at the oil companies. Are they the most profitable business in the history of teh world because of good will, or beacuse of the fact that they are selling a h
      • by drinkypoo (153816)
        Not only that but building power is potentially profitable. Power generation tends to produce money unless it's nuclear and that's only because we don't use breeder reactors. Getting into a business that helps "save the world" and makes money at the same time is only common sense.
    • There is no short term goal, but mid- or long-term goal is clear. If Google can produce much of its own green, renewable, sustainable energy, they will become more profitable, particularly if energy costs skyrocket. Other search engines that rely on the grid will suffer.

      If Google succeeds and helps engineer more efficient power production or conservation methods, they will have opened up a new business model, too: selling green technology and possibly selling power, both of which can net Google a lot of cas
      • by drinkypoo (153816)

        There is no short term goal, but mid- or long-term goal is clear. If Google can produce much of its own green, renewable, sustainable energy, they will become more profitable, particularly if energy costs skyrocket. Other search engines that rely on the grid will suffer.

        That is nonsense. Google is not going to build their own power transmission system. The power generation facility is useless without transmission; therefore it is useless without "the grid". Google also depends on the communications grid

        • by daeg (828071)
          If you produce more power than you need, though, you can sell the excess to the grid.

          I didn't mean that every Google facility would be "off the grid", but reducing their reliance on grid power can insulate their energy demands during energy spikes and can smooth out their energy costs.
    • > What short-term or even mid-term payoff could there possibly be to being carbon nuetral?

      They can trade millions of dollars worth of carbon credits that they're not using.
    • What short-term or even mid-term payoff could there possibly be to being carbon nuetral?

      Is it really so much of a strech to predict that environmental regulations are only going to get tighter in the future? That there's going to be Carbon allowances? That there's going to be EPA constraints on carbon imbalance?

      Google is future-proofing itself at a time when they certainly have the resources to do so. That's just sound business policy.

      Ten years down the road when y'all get your hefty carbon-surcharge

  • by Silver Sloth (770927) on Friday October 27, 2006 @10:02AM (#16608398)
    Google tries to make sure their tools are running everywhere. In around mid-2006, according to their internal numbers 60 Million Google Packs had been installed, but they still want to increase the deployment... especially for "novice users."
    Doesn't that sound awfully like
    A PC on every desk, and that PC running Microsoft software
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by R2.0 (532027)
      Not really. Is there any problem with Snap-On having a goal to have their tools in every toolbox in America?

      If Snapon were MS, it would be ONLY Snapon tools, which fit specially in the Snapon drawers which are installed in every mechanic's toolchest. Craftsman and SK tools never really fit correctly when stored in a Snapon drawers.
    • by foobsr (693224)
      Well observed. And no word on Open Source either. Really the good guys.

      CC.
      • Well observed. And no word on Open Source either. Really the good guys.

        Nor any mention of people who release their software to the public domain, the really, honestly and truly good guys! :-)

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      Most companies have the goal that people will buy/use the things that they make; it is called a business model.
  • Its all very well spending all your money on table football and falafel sandwiches, but I guess when your shareholders demand you improve your results year on year then its obvious whats first to go.....

  • by Rob T Firefly (844560) on Friday October 27, 2006 @10:03AM (#16608410) Homepage Journal
    Borg waste is disks! Keep that in mind the next time one asks to use your bathroom. Those bastards'll clog up your plumbing with 9000 free hours of AOL.
  • by brian.glanz (849625) on Friday October 27, 2006 @10:07AM (#16608450) Homepage Journal
    The one bit that concerns me as a user was
    the document contains the simple directive "Count total number of Google products and reduce by 20%"
    There have been many Google betas with low user populations, but here in the land of every-Google-launch-is-an-article, there might be a lot of /.ers who put time and effort and personal data into a Google beta only to see it disappear in the next year. Which Google apps are on the chopping block? Will they give users a nice way to export data?
    • They'll probably just merge things together, like they have with docs and spreadsheets. Speculating about how many beta's they've *not* released, its probably a good thing.
    • by ben there... (946946) on Friday October 27, 2006 @10:20AM (#16608584) Journal
      That may mean to consolidate existing services as well, to avoid confusing and diluting the market. For example, Writely and Google Spreadsheets combined to become Google Docs & Spreadsheets. That makes 50% less Google office products. Similarly, things like Froogle and Google Base could combine to become one shopping service.
    • by Hazrek (900706)
      Or they could continue to develop sub-par products and then force us to use them by pushing them out with Automatic Google Toolbar updates until we have a mass of sub-optimal and barely maintained software that we didn't want in the first place, replete with a huge mess of security flaws and...and...oh wait. Sorry, I got confused there for a minute.
  • by lpangelrob (714473) on Friday October 27, 2006 @10:10AM (#16608478)
    No no no, they meant "bork waste". The Swedish chef translation [google.com] of their search engine is just taking up too much space. Bork bork bork!
  • 10MW (Score:3, Interesting)

    by sallgeud (12337) on Friday October 27, 2006 @10:29AM (#16608700)
    I'm not sure I believe they're only using 10MW across their entire worldwide campus. I would bet that's a fair number for their datacenter(s).

    If they were to do this via solar:

        315 peak watts per pannel at 1560mm x 800mm per pannel
        31,746 pannels required assuming peak of 10MW and not constant
        1.248 square meters per pannel times 31,746
        425,000 square feet of space (approximately)

        For those still with me, that's 9.8 acres of solar pannels, producing [in that region of CA] approximately 18GWh per year. That's about $3,600,000 worth of energy per year in CA.

    Some recommendations: Don't just cover the tops of your buildings. Created additional semi-covered parking with solar pannels atop, consider wind. GE makes one of the most efficient wind turbines out there. For each one of those you can fit on your property, you're likely to save about an acre of land required for solar. And though their peak power coverage isn't as great, they're in operation when the sun's down :)

    Unfortunately for google, the wind in cali is not that good for wind power [except offshort]. Though, some parts near the SF area do have slightly better ratings.

    http://www.energy.ca.gov/maps/wind/WIND_POWER_50M. jpg [ca.gov]

    I think the one thing that companies overlook is. There's no absolute requirement that being carbon neutral requires you to power your own stuff with the energy. How about investment in a wind farm in southwest kansas [excellent location for wind power]. Or 10 acres of Solar pannels in Mexico? I think helping Mexico reduce carbon usage is probably better (polution wise) than helping the US...
    • by ostehaps (929761) on Friday October 27, 2006 @10:39AM (#16608838)
      This morning 50% of Denmark's power supply was covered by wind power, due to a storm. During the peak (at 4 in the morning) it reached 80%. Generally about 20-25% of power is supplied by wind here.
      • Well, that points out that research needs to focus on storage, not generation. There is no doubt in my mind that power generation will continue via private investments. But the problem is that we have a ways to go before we can store cheaply. It would be nice to see Google go after the super capacitors for UPS as well as provide stable power for their systems. I suspect that if a few companies like Google would use these rather than batteries, they could reduce the price of the capacitors to the point where
        • by rthille (8526)
          Well, given that the world is round, if we could distribute the energy efficiently, we wouldn't need to store it that efficiently. (Except for portable uses: cars, laptops, etc).

          On the other hand, when the pacific is in night, the world probably uses less power for lights than when Eurasia/africa is. Though due to A/C, the power load may even out...
    • But isn't Google planning a new facility in the Oregon Columbia River Gorge which is otherwise known as the 'wind surfing capital of the world'? There is plenty of power there already generated from Rivers (non carbon) and with the wind channeled in the gorge, perhaps there is an opportunity for that as well. -Solar power there would be a bad idea hehe.
      • by khallow (566160)

        But isn't Google planning a new facility in the Oregon Columbia River Gorge which is otherwise known as the 'wind surfing capital of the world'? There is plenty of power there already generated from Rivers (non carbon) and with the wind channeled in the gorge, perhaps there is an opportunity for that as well. -Solar power there would be a bad idea hehe.

        I lived out there for a couple of years. It tends to be uncloudy (once you go far enough to the west) so there's a lot of solar power. But the whole area

    • Some recommendations: Don't just cover the tops of your buildings. Created additional semi-covered parking with solar pannels atop
      Most of the Google parking lot is under the Google buildings and campus courtyard. The Google (fromer SGI) campus is essentually built atop a large underground parking garage. At least for their Mountain View, California campus. Putting solar collectors on their roofs is pretty much their only option as their campus is surrounded by parks and other office buildings.
    • by bigpat (158134)
      I think the one thing that companies overlook is. There's no absolute requirement that being carbon neutral requires you to power your own stuff with the energy. How about investment in a wind farm in southwest kansas [excellent location for wind power]. Or 10 acres of Solar pannels in Mexico? I think helping Mexico reduce carbon usage is probably better (polution wise) than helping the US...

      I'd prefer to see companies actually benefit from improved efficiencies and sustainable power, otherwise what is it r
  • ... now come with Slightly Less Evil (TM) ...







    *ducks (chair)*
  • borg.google.com (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Blighten (992637) on Friday October 27, 2006 @11:03AM (#16609170) Homepage

    Reading the comments of the article, "Jake" suggests that borg refers to borg.google.com, a very important internal subdomain. (James Bradbury)

    A quick search revealed:

    Google Finance Leaks Version Two Information (Search Engine Watch Blog, 2006-07-21)
    Garett Rogers stumbled upon a link in Google Finance at the top right corner that said "v2 (test)" in red font. The link points to http://0.frontend-live.sfe.scrooge.hs.borg.google. com/finance [google.com], which seems to not be accessible from my location, or outside of Google's network. Notice the sign of the borg again? borg.google.com from before. So, now we have rumors that Google is going to be launching a version two of Google Finance soon. Maybe it includes stock indices from other worlds? :)...
    (http://www.webrankinfo.com/english/seo-news/topic -16812.htm [webrankinfo.com])

    I found this [mssem.com] to be a little funny as well.

  • by lazlo (15906) on Friday October 27, 2006 @11:27AM (#16609546) Homepage
    And their goals for 2007 include becoming uranium-neutral. Perhaps in 2008, they'll be helium-neutral.

    By 2020, they hope to be matter-neutral.

    • by rtaylor (70602)
      Given that any imbalance will eventually become a problem, relying on short-term cycles is a pretty good idea.

      I mean, imagine if electricity produced a surplus of water. Hugely beneficial byproduct in the short term for countries with droughts, but if you use the technology too much the oceans will start to rise and coastal cities go poof.

      Being "matter-neutral" is a reasonable goal to have.
      • by lazlo (15906)
        "Carbon neutral" strikes me as an odd appelation. The basic equation that makes up mass balances 101 is, mass in minus mass out yields accumulation. Google is currently carbon neutral in the fact that the amount of carbon entering their campus, minus the amount of carbon leaving their campus is very nearly zero, on just about any meaningful timeframe. The same can be said about the Earth as a whole.

        Now, I know what they mean - with regards to (hydrocarbons + O2 <-> CO2 + water + energy) they operat
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 27, 2006 @11:35AM (#16609668)
    Borg disk waste refers to the unfortunate results of an experiment creating autonomous software-based administrators. They had code to spread to different machines around the world (much like a trojan, but with good intentions). Unfortunately, they ended up doing this a little too well, and ended up archiving much more content than was originally intended... on servers across the world.

    They use pagerank to determine what needs to be archived more/less, but the algo is too agressive... and the only way to communicate with them is on a one-by-one basis. Once you get one archiver killed on the machine, another is likely to be placed there by a different archiver.

    Last march everything went wild and almost brought us down. They're nicknamed borg since they take over just about everything they touch. Since then we've created new bots to fight the archivers... the fight is predicted to continue well into next year.

    (posting anon for obvious reasons)
  • They also want to reduce "Borg disk waste" by 50%... hmmm, Borg?

    Seems like someone blew their cover this time. And here we all thought it was Microsoft...
  • This is a great piece were Sharon not only comments on Google's future plans but has some very legitimate suggestions: http://www.site-reference.com/articles/General/My- Google-Wish-List.html [site-reference.com]
  • "Google also wants to build 10MW of green power..."
    Green lasers? They're going to want sharks, too. Does anyone know how I can buy shark futures?

Algol-60 surely must be regarded as the most important programming language yet developed. -- T. Cheatham

Working...