Slashdot Mirror
Google's Internal Company Goals
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?)
i.e. cluster
Welcome to the Googlepshere... resistance is futile... but at least we dont have chairs.
He whom you called four-eyes yesterday, you call Sir tomorrow.
"Times have not become more violent. They have just become more televised."
-Marilyn Manson
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 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.
'Every story, if continued long enough, ends in death.' --Ernest Hemingway
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...
$action = empty(PHP) ? backToC() : unset(PHP) ; "when the concrete cases are understood, the abstractions are readily
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
init 11 - for when you need that edge.
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.....
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.
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
No no no, they meant "bork waste". The Swedish chef translation of their search engine is just taking up too much space. Bork bork bork!
-Rob
Biblical fiscal responsibility
Would be to stop giving people, especially the average folk that linger on the internet, so much space for email. That would free up massive amounts of storage for their google sized projects. Oh please, why is that the spell checker in firefox 2 highlights the word google? Is that not in the dictionary yet??
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 having a harder time defeating illegitimate SEO techniques) but let's be realistic here: they're in business to make money. If green power was a 100% losing proposition, they wouldn't be pursuing it.
Interested in a Flash-based MAME front end? Visit mame.danzbb.com
What return do they get? How about reactions like your's to their PR?
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.
> Brain exploded, WISEASS.SYS corrupted.
> (A)bort/(R)etry/(F)ail?
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
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.
"Unheard of means only it's undreamed of yet,
Impossible means not yet done." ~~ Julia Ecklar
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).
:)
. jpg
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
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'm sure that it's a reference to the Billgatus of Borg or maybe the old joke
Google has earned every dollar they've made, when earned means that the market gave it to them, which is how money is earned in a capitalist economy.
I think you mean that their value is not backed up by capital equipment. While that is true the majority of the investor market does not seem to mind much, and I suspect it puts Google's ROI up there pretty well.
But I do enjoy the irony of the 'information wants to be free' crowd loving a company with a value based almost entirely on intellectual assets.
"Sacrifice for the good of The State" - The State
"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.
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.
While I agree that it is technically 'intellectual assets', the real value is in the services they provide.
My father is a retired industrial engineer. He now does odd jobs fixing houses, etc. Hi assets are entirely intellectual, if you look at it the same way. The real value is the service he provides... Work done cheap, right, and quick. He can perform those services thanks to the years and years of experience and knowledge that he has.
I see Google in the same light. If they had all this info, and no service to provide us with it, we wouldn't care about them. And if they have the service, but no info to back it up, ditto.
It's not the same 'intellectual assets' that SCO and SGI have, and they're definitely not using them the same way.
I think there's no doubt to any reasonable person that Google has worked hard for their money.
"If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
*ducks (chair)*
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.
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.
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 the desire to be a "good corporate citizen." Certainly it is possible, especailly for a company, to have multiple motives in pursuing this sort of goal. I'd even go so far as to suggest it's more likely that this sort of thing is done for many reasons instead of merely one.
As mentioned before, they have a good product. But their provision of an adequate search tool (for profit) hasn't completely eliminated my interest in rationally assessing their motives.
Interested in a Flash-based MAME front end? Visit mame.danzbb.com
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.
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). com/finance, 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)
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
I found this to be a little funny as well.
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 cash.
Yeah, but Paris is Open Source...
Dominate media search and distribution in order to stamp ads on everything and get rich using click fraud? These people are the new Microsoft, and their desire to good makes them even more dangerous than Scientology.
Welcome to the Googlepshere... resistance is futile... but at least we dont have chairs.
And neither do we have Steve Ballmer to throw them...
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.
Pound! Bang! Bin! Bash! is this a shell script or a Batman comic?
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)
Seems like someone blew their cover this time. And here we all thought it was Microsoft...
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
people said he was stupid, but it was much better then without all those google stories every day
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 highly segmented, highly demanded, hard to find product?
In the end Google will end up like all other companies of their size. Bottom line driven, fiercely competitive, and mediocre.
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.
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
Nicolas Gremion Nic@ParadisePublishers.com www.Site-Reference.com www.Free-eBooks.net "Whether you believe y
Don't forget BIG TOBBACO.
GENERATION 27: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
This is a good thing. No arguments.
I'm just saying to all the "everyone should do this" people that they shouldn't expect a "normal" company to be able to do this. Google has grossed $15B in the last four years. It's worth, on paper, $120B. $105B of that money is "future potential".
Guess that's the rule here, though - never open the curtain on the chosen few. So, in penance I offer the following:
Microsoft Sucks! Apple Rules! Down with SCO!
Mmmmm, I feel better already.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Plus, they are removing all the flush toilets.
With only urinals and piss pots, employees won't be dropping loads at work anymore.
"Google also wants to build 10MW of green power..."
Green lasers? They're going to want sharks, too. Does anyone know how I can buy shark futures?
-Rich
Google's founders heavily invested in a company called Nanosolar, which uses a known process called CIGS for making solar cells. Such cells do not rely as much on expensive, supply constrained polysilicon and can be mass produced for a fraction of the cost of current methods. If current solar power costs 5$/watt, it is not unreasonable to see .5$/watt when ecomomies of scale ramp up. This will displace traditional power generation in many places. go to the website and watch the video, its pretty amazing.
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.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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, so even if they were off grid power (which they cannot possibly be with only one plant because google's architecture depends on being distributed in order to provide useful results to people) they'd still be on a grid.
Google is not going off the grid, they are only trying to settle their output and save money at the same time. They still need the grid.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
-B
Ash and Hickory, straight-grained and true, make excellent bludgeons, dandy for the cudgeling of vegetarians.
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.
Done with slashdot, done with nerds, getting a life.
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.
-1 troll on a comment that removing pingpong tables might increase productivity?
I guess google engineers get karma, too.
They're there affecting their effect.
Disclaimer: I work at Google.
English
French
Italian
German
Spanish
Chinese
Japanese
Korean
Russian
I guess google engineers get karma, too.
More karma than you can possibly imagine...
$30 Off All Plans: Use code TRIPLESAWBUCK
After all, Dubyah uses The Google on the Internets.
From context, I think it's a stretch to assume that this refers to Microsoft in any way. Sounds more like some kind of internal distributed system.
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 on your electricity bill, Google (and everybody else that went solar in this decade) will shrug and say "told ya so".
We're all born with nothing.
If you die in debt, you're ahead.
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".
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, Larry clearly stated: and
Throughout the entire letter, it is clear that, while Larry and Sergey, are going to try to do good, and try not to do bad, they clearly believe this is the way to long term profit and growth. No place do they say they are going to do good, and spend money, just for the sake of doing good with no expectation of financial return.
I believe that a company can do both. Make money over the long term and do it ethically and with positive benefits to society and the world. That is precisely why I invested in GOOG, but I would no more "invest" in a company that was just going to piss my money away than I would throw that same money out the window. I give generously to charities, but on my terms. So far, Google has met all my expectations, and I am more than happy with my money's performance.
The original poster asked what possible near or mid-term benefits they could be getting by going "carbon neutral". I was responding with my first reaction when I heard the news. With the uncertainty of electricity in California, both prices and availability, I think that this is an incredibly far-sighted and intelligent move for a company that survives on that commodity. I support it completely, but I don't delude myself into thinking that this is purely and unselfishly for the benefit of humanity, or that it won't go directly to helping improve my stock performance.
"Unheard of means only it's undreamed of yet,
Impossible means not yet done." ~~ Julia Ecklar