Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Google Businesses The Internet

Google's Floating Datahaven 450

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the don't-spring-a-leak dept.
PDG writes "Google has pending plans to take its data centers off-shore, literally. By moving their data centers to floating barges in international waters, they are able to save money on taxes and electricity (using wave based power) as well as reside their operations outside the jurisdiction of governments. There is mention of hurricane and other caveats, but I wonder how they plan to get a bandwidth pipe large enough and still be reliable. Seems like a chapter out of a Neal Stephenson novel." You might recall earlier discussions on the same subject.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google's Floating Datahaven

Comments Filter:
  • by Dystopian Rebel (714995) * on Monday September 15, 2008 @09:17AM (#25009661) Journal

    Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer announces a multi-billion dollar investment in a fleet of submarines.

    • by BitterOldGUy (1330491) on Monday September 15, 2008 @09:29AM (#25009907)

      Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer announces a multi-billion dollar investment in a fleet of submarines.

      You kid, but wait till Google has some shit that China, Iran, or even the US doesn't like. Or Greenpeace or some other aggressive group doesn't like.

      Accidents do happen at sea!

      • Re:In other news... (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Austerity Empowers (669817) on Monday September 15, 2008 @09:48AM (#25010297)

        It would serve as a good reminder to corporate interests, domestic and abroad, that they operate at the will of the citizens of countries that protect them. That is part of what those taxes are funding. Yarr, avast ye maties, plunder me some big iron and NAS!

        While I think Google's intentions here are probably good in the "freedom of speech" department, I'd rather see them addressing the root cause preventing them from maintaining servers on shore. Taxes they can't fix, but we pride ourselves on being a "free country". What do they need us, as citizens, to do to protect their interests?

        • Google & guns (Score:5, Insightful)

          by OrangeTide (124937) on Monday September 15, 2008 @10:08AM (#25010659) Homepage Journal

          So will Google have to have armed guards to shoot pirates? Is killing people to protect your servers considered "evil" ?

          • Re:Google & guns (Score:4, Insightful)

            by Dan Ost (415913) on Monday September 15, 2008 @11:05AM (#25011589)

            Shooting people who obviously intend harm to you or your property is not a morally ambiguous situation: you shoot to kill.

            If it's your employer's property and you job is to protect it, you do the same.

            • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

              by Anders (395)

              Shooting people who obviously intend harm to you or your property is not a morally ambiguous situation: you shoot to kill.

              You either forgot the sarcasm tags, or showed very well what's wrong in the USA.

              • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                by Anonymous Coward
                How so?
              • Re:Google & guns (Score:5, Insightful)

                by Xaositecte (897197) on Monday September 15, 2008 @11:37AM (#25012137) Journal

                Lol wut?

                What is morally ambiguous about shooting people who are threatening to shoot you?

                Not as some kind of bizarre Iraq war metaphor, I mean if someone breaks into your house, or your place of employment, and threatens you with a gun.

                You also have a gun, so you shoot them. This is not a difficult moral dilemma.

                • Re:Google & guns (Score:4, Insightful)

                  by Chirs (87576) on Monday September 15, 2008 @11:56AM (#25012499)

                  You missed the "or your property" bit.

                  Would you really shoot to kill some kids that are egging your house on halloween? What about stealing apples from your backyard?

                  • Re:Google & guns (Score:4, Interesting)

                    by bonehead (6382) on Monday September 15, 2008 @12:11PM (#25012745)

                    Personally, I don't think those situations would warrant the "shoot to kill" approach.

                    I do, however, firmly believe that we should bring back the days of loading shotgun shells with rock salt to drive away trespassing kids.

                    And I say this as a former trespassing kid who did once get a backside full of rock salt. Believe me, it taught me a great deal about respecting other peoples property.

                  • Re:Google & guns (Score:5, Insightful)

                    by Xaositecte (897197) on Monday September 15, 2008 @12:28PM (#25013109) Journal

                    You've got to use a little common sense here, dude.

                    I'm talking about people invading your home (or, in the spirit of the original conversation, your offshore datacenter) with guns and intent to steal or damage your property. Kids egging your house isn't comparable, why are you even introducing it into the conversation?

                  • Addendum (Score:3, Informative)

                    by Xaositecte (897197)

                    "Or property" is usually specified because people don't necessarily alwys want to kill you, they just want your stuff. They're usually still threatening you to get it, though.

                    If they're unarmed and not threatening you, like an unarmed burglar, you just point a gun at'em and call the police. Unless you're Texan, in which case they're so very dead.

                • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                  by Poltras (680608)

                  Uh, no. You don't shoot. You don't get mad, you don't lose your calm. That's the worst that could happen. If you can disarm the guy, you do so. If not, you give the guy what he wants, then call the police with info.

                  Being civilized is exactly the opposite of what you just said. And we didn't build a civilization for 6000 years (since writing, not bible-related) to come to the point where a "sensible" reaction to violence is to create a blood bath.

                  Disclaimer: I come from a part of the world which is not USA.

                  • Re:Google & guns (Score:4, Insightful)

                    by gangien (151940) on Monday September 15, 2008 @03:03PM (#25015931) Homepage

                    Yeah call the police who will arrive in 3 hours and you lose whatever it is the thief took. The police are inefficient at actually protecting people.

                    I don't think being civilized means letting anyone who's threatening you, take whatever they want. I think you have a right to defend yourself and your property. Even though I'd probably do exactly what you describe.

              • Re:Google & guns (Score:4, Insightful)

                by Dishevel (1105119) on Monday September 15, 2008 @12:31PM (#25013175)

                You either forgot the sarcasm tags, or showed very well what's wrong in the USA.

                You are so right. People should just stand by as those who wish to break the law do whatever they choose cause it would be evil to try and stop them. I really dislike nut jobs that think that if you play nice and give up all your power everyone else will play nice too.

              • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                by darkpixel2k (623900)

                Shooting people who obviously intend harm to you or your property is not a morally ambiguous situation: you shoot to kill.

                You either forgot the sarcasm tags, or showed very well what's wrong in the USA.

                Apparently you don't understand soft power and hard power.

                Take an example of someone breaking in to your house with the intent of harming you and your family.

                Soft-power is a liberal whining "You better stop trying to harm my family...or...uh...I'll say stop again or maybe call the cops." The intruder then kills you and your family and gets away during the 5 minutes it takes the cops to respond.

                Hard power is when you stand there with a gun and say "Get on the ground, and don't move until the cops get

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by e2d2 (115622)

              You would still be protecting yourself anyway. Not many pirates these days give two shits about killing you. Just check the Caribbean or the African horn for examples of modern day piracy. People simply go missing.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by timeOday (582209)

          It would serve as a good reminder to corporate interests, domestic and abroad, that they operate at the will of the citizens of countries that protect them. That is part of what those taxes are funding.

          I doubt the US govt. would ever hang a company out to dry. Look at all these companies incorporated in the Cayman Islands, but which for all other intents and purposes are US companies. They still seem to enjoy all the benefits of being legitimate. And US ships (flying the US flag) in international water

      • by lord_sarpedon (917201) on Monday September 15, 2008 @09:48AM (#25010303)

        Ha! And you think Google isn't prepared for that?

        Google Android...a platform for "mobile phones" huh.
        The Dalvik virtual machine sounds kinda like Dalek to me. Coincidence? Or killer robot defense force that also doubles as WiFi hotspots?

        I hear they're launching stuff into space now too.

      • by Instine (963303) on Monday September 15, 2008 @10:24AM (#25010929)
        I'm sure they'll listen to Reason
    • by Simonetta (207550) on Monday September 15, 2008 @10:23AM (#25010911)

      Everyone laughs, but that doesn't change reality. Reality is that when you have a huge corporation with most of its assets tied up in advanced technology, then you have to pay to keep it protected.

        If you move the technology off-shore to avoid taxes, then you lose the protection that those taxes provide. Both from criminals and from the police that are being paid by the taxes that your land-based operations incur. Does Google plan to hire Blackwater (the world's largest mercenary army) to keep people away from their floating data centers?

          There is also the question of getting the money to build these floating structures. As I write on Monday morning Sept 15 2008, the banking structure of the USA is collapsing. The stock market is falling and several of the largest banks of the USA have declared bankruptcy. No banks means no capital for expansion. Granted this isn't such a big issue when Google has such a large stock value, but that stock value is mostly based on speculation and Google's price could fall as fast as it rose.

          There is also the question of scale. One can claim that a huge data center could be powered by wave energy; it's another thing to actually do it. Especially when you are a public corporation and have to answer to entities that hold huge blocks of your stock.

          Google is a company with an oversupply of young over-educated technological Grade-Point Angels (people whose most singular talent is to convince their teachers to give them high grades in order that the teachers will be able to reflect in their angel's glory). These people have a tendency to actually believe their fantasies, especially the fantasies that involve both ecology and advanced technology.

          This factor has to be considered in all of their press releases and corporate projections.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by smoker2 (750216)

        Google is a company with an oversupply of young over-educated technological Grade-Point Angels (people whose most singular talent is to convince their teachers to give them high grades in order that the teachers will be able to reflect in their angel's glory). These people have a tendency to actually believe their fantasies, especially the fantasies that involve both ecology and advanced technology.

        If you don't have a dream
        How you gonna have a dream come true ?

  • by InfinityWpi (175421) on Monday September 15, 2008 @09:18AM (#25009675)

    You see, Neal was born in 2014, he was only allowed to come back in time if he wrote some 'science fiction' novels that would cover up the fact he was a time traveller by just making him look like he made some lucky guesses.

  • bandwidth (Score:5, Funny)

    by MrKaos (858439) on Monday September 15, 2008 @09:19AM (#25009687) Journal

    but I wonder how they plan to get a bandwidth pipe large enough and still be reliable

    Google satellites of course!

  • One word... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 15, 2008 @09:20AM (#25009711)

    Pirates.

    I hope Google is willing to defend those datacenters by themselves in international waters... it would be a shame if they were sunk !

  • patent!? (Score:5, Funny)

    by zoefff (61970) on Monday September 15, 2008 @09:20AM (#25009715)

    From the article it's clear that they want to patent the idea.
    I don't understand that. What's the use of a patent if somebody infringing it is also in international waters and not bounded to patent law?

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Timesprout (579035)
      They are going to enter the patent in the Pirate Code.

      All disputes to be settled by broadsides should parlay fail.
    • by henrygb (668225)
      The patent application [uspto.gov] does not cover issues like being outside the territorial limit or tax avoidance.
    • While such devices will operate in international waters, it's likely that they'll be constructed in one patent-supporting jurisdiction or another. I assume that would be sufficient grounds for infringement in the location of construction, even if that's not where the device is currently located. But, IANAL.
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by morgauo (1303341)

      SeaLand? Prior Art?

      Isn't ThePirateBay's attempt to buy Sealand for this purpose good enough?

  • Well it's called google, and now they want to be immune from laws.

    I don't think they could legally be allowed to abscond with our data.

    oh wait, according to the eula, they own our data, right?

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by asg1 (1180423)
      This is rather interesting... If they want to make themselves immune from any one nation's laws then they will also be making themselves immune from said nation's protection. Given that, would Google, or a company like it, form alliances and/or some sort of military?

      I know this is thinking way ahead, but that prospect opens up a whole new can of worms. IMHO, I think I'd rather have companies answering to governments (depending on the government of course), but that's just me.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by gmuslera (3436)
      I'd be more worried about countries laws than about google's eula. Google could need to have stored data about users to be able to give some services or parts of the eula could be meant to avoid lawsuits.

      But several countries (Brazil [webpronews.com] and USA [bbc.co.uk] to name 2 cases) required Google to give their user's data to government agencias, or to censor [wikipedia.org] content to comply with local laws.

      "Don't be evil" looks like an ok policy. But following law is good or evil? and what if that law (or at least the people behind it) is e

  • HARRRRRR (Score:3, Funny)

    by nawcom (941663) on Monday September 15, 2008 @09:20AM (#25009723) Homepage
    MATEY!!! FINALLY ME MATES AND ME PARROT CAN HANDLE DE SEAS AND REALLY PIRATE SUM ME DIGITAL DATA!

    I can't wait until they start burying pirated DVDs and stolen WoW cards in the islands on the coast of New England. Just imagine a bunch of digital pirates raiding an off-shore data center. Hilarious.

    No, I haven't had my coffee this morning, not yet.)

  • Cool... like sealand (Score:2, Interesting)

    by xgr3gx (1068984)
    It's like the Principality of Sealand [sealandgov.org]
    It's situated on an old abandoned British island fortress from WWII
  • Umm no they are not. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by LWATCDR (28044) on Monday September 15, 2008 @09:22AM (#25009757) Homepage Journal

    This is a bad dupe at best.
    From what I heard was that Google was thinking of putting these in ports as mobile data centers.
    Putting them off shore would cause more problems than it would solve.
    1. Power. Wave power? Not with a barge. You might get a small part of you power from waves but not a lot.
    2. Bandwidth. Fiber is fast everything else is slow. Running a fiber line out to a barge is iffy at best.
    3. Weather.
    Now if you could put one on say an offshore drilling rig that might work. If you used stranded natural gas for power and sea water for cooling it might make a little sense.

    • wave power (Score:5, Interesting)

      by way2trivial (601132) on Monday September 15, 2008 @09:35AM (#25010025) Homepage Journal

      can be done with rolling seas..

      You send something to the sea floor and secure it

      the raising of the whole ship based on wave motion can drive a flywheel..... the displacement of the ship generates a LOT of power....

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by evanbd (210358)
      Generally agreed, but what's iffy about fiber to the barge? Undersea fiber is a well understood technology. You need a little bit of flex in the line for normal motion of the ship, but I doubt that's likely to be a problem.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Captain Hook (923766)

      You could get around the Weather issue but having the data center submerge during storms

      Thinking about it, submerging the datacenter all of the time (assuming it's unmanned) could have lots of benefits.

      • Resilience against weather
      • Even better cooling
      • Security
      • Less likely to be involved in a collision

      You would need to make the hull significantly stronger but assuming it's unmanned, there is nothing onboard which needs oxygen thus making the a submergable design much easier.

      Which gives me another idea, flood th

  • if they have any plans to deal with corrosive salts from the oceans?
    Should be interesting.
  • by Sobrique (543255) on Monday September 15, 2008 @09:23AM (#25009795) Homepage
    It's an interesting idea and no mistake. I guess you could 'deal with' natural conditions, simply by ensuring your data barges are geographically distributed and 'DR capable'. I'm still unconvinced though - anything at sea gets significantly more expensive - it's not just the weather, as much as continuous strain that a salt water, constantly moving environment applies to something.

    I suppose that could be offset against energy/cooling costs and ground rent, but ... I'm pretty sure that in terms of square feet, a yacht costs more than an apartment.

  • Manpower (Score:2, Insightful)

    by odin84gk (1162545)
    Forget taxes. What about when a person is required for maintenance? (For example: ship electrical systems) You will need more manpower as a land-based server farm, but now you have to have living quarters or several fast boats to get your people from the shore to the boat. I bet Google was just patenting this idea for patents sake.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by azadrozny (576352)
      How many people are required to maintain a server farm today? Of those people how many actually need to be co-located with the hardware, vs. how may people are just there for convenience? I suspect you would only need a small number of people to live with the equipment. You would divide the staff into an on-shore and off-shore team. You could run the off-shore team like an oil rig, where you work in shifts for several months. The add costs of supplying the off-shore team, and possibly larger salaries,
  • today the oceans... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Brain Damaged Bogan (1006835) on Monday September 15, 2008 @09:24AM (#25009821)
    ...tomorrow space will become the next place to host their data centers, and then they'll start colonizing worlds and start being referred to as "the company"
  • What a summary (Score:4, Insightful)

    by eebra82 (907996) on Monday September 15, 2008 @09:25AM (#25009835) Homepage

    [..] but I wonder how they plan to get a bandwidth pipe large enough and still be reliable.

    I don't think a pipe on the bottom of the ocean is your biggest concern when you put hundreds of thousands of computers on a man made island, exposed to possible tsunamis and hurricanes.

    And while we're at it, have they thought of the possibility of terrorist attacks? If they're outside any jurisdiction, they also have no military power to protect them from planes, boats, subs and whatnot.

    • Interesting line of inquiry!

      Maybe they will build an armed protection fleet, which would make Google the first military-capable corporation outside of mercenary "consultancies"(i.e.: Blackwater). This all sounds too Shadowrun (v1) for me, and at the same time plausible.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        > which would make Google the first military-capable corporation outside of mercenary "consultancies"

        With the exception of the British East India Company, which raised an army of 24,000 within India and which maintained the ``Honourable East India Company's Marine'' of warships. As well as protecting trade against pirates they engaged regular French and Portugese units to ``discourage'' trading in Company areas.

        In 1830 the Marine became ``Her Majesty's Indian Navy'' which later formed the cadre of

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by houghi (78078)

      Those terrists will use Google maps to locate where it is and Google will just point them to wherever they like.

    • That will be solved with the new (still in beta) Google Navy, where if you'd like you can join their private military service for one year, and in return get access to special 'Friend of Google' restriction-lifting on disk space and bandwidth.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by word munger (550251)
      Ummm... Tsunamis are only a danger as they approach the coastline. Not 7 miles off shore. Hurricanes may be a bigger factor. Although clearly there are some places that are more hurricane-prone than others. Has a hurricane ever hit the Bay Area? Terrorists: intriguing idea. But wouldn't it be just as easy for terrorists to bomb a data center on land, if that's what they wanted to do?
  • by peter303 (12292) on Monday September 15, 2008 @09:27AM (#25009871)
    I have visions of "Google-Stars" orbiting the earth, modelled after the Star Wars Death Stars. These will agther and beam the sum of Earth's knowledge. Plus they will be pollution-free running on abundant solar power above the clouds. Google will have their own private space fleet to service these. Google already leases NASA-Ames to run their private jets, and Sergey will be an experienced Cosmonaut in two years.
  • by Stooshie (993666) on Monday September 15, 2008 @09:31AM (#25009957) Journal

    ... By moving their data centers to floating barges in international waters ...

    ... The company is considering deploying the supercomputers necessary to operate its internet search engines on barges anchored up to seven miles (11km) offshore ...

    Erm, considering that national boundaries extend 12 miles from the mainland, that's hardly international.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by TubeSteak (669689)

      Erm, considering that national boundaries extend 12 miles from the mainland, that's hardly international.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_waters [wikipedia.org]
      0-12 = territorial waters
      12-24 = contiguous waters
      24-200 = exclusive economic zone
      200-?? = seabed of the continental shelf

      International waters technically start 24 nautical miles out, but not if you're fishing or doing any other kind of business.

  • Google Navy (Score:3, Insightful)

    by DaMattster (977781) on Monday September 15, 2008 @09:32AM (#25009967)
    It would need its own defensive and offensive systems. Basically this floating data center is also a floating target. I could imagine a well placed "torpedo" accidently being discharged and watch the floating gold mine bubble its way down to the depths of the ocean
  • No one ever considers the fact that if you exist outside of National jurisdiction, you're fair game. It's a sad fact of the nation-state, but still very much real.
  • I've heard they will be using the barges to anchor the space elevator too.

    While I'm sure Google are looking into this I can't see it happening anytime soon. It's hard enough to run a massive data centre on land let alone run one that is bobbing up and down on the ocean all the time. I can't believe for one minute that this is the cheapest thing that would work.

    In reality I imagine this is just an idea that was mooted and a couple of guys have looked into the feasibility to it. If you're as big as Google you

  • by Giant Electronic Bra (1229876) on Monday September 15, 2008 @09:40AM (#25010129)

    as 'outside government jurisdiction'. A ship HAS to be registered and carry the flag of SOME nation, and it will be subject to the laws of that country. So a ship is no more or less outside the law than if you built your data center in that country.

    Supposing someone has a ship which is NOT registered anywhere, then it is essentially 'fair game'. If say the US didn't like what you're doing they can just sail on up and do whatever they want with you. They could certainly board and seize any such vessel, after all who's going to object? In theory there might be some construction of maritime law that provides some protections, but without a government capable of objecting you're basically SOL.

    So, there would be no consideration on Google's part of evasion of law. Possibly a way to choose a regulatory regime you like, but that's about it. Plus remember any large corporation is pretty much held hostage to its investors, insurance requirements, financing, and ultimately to whatever nations it has substantial business interests in.

    • The more likely people you'd want to be legally protected against wouldn't be say the US govt, it would be people that might not like what you're doing. International waters, privacy laws? What privacy laws? Nice safe place to do people's dirty work for them and never have to answer for it.

      Anyway, as someone else pointed out, these things would be docked in a port. Frankly I think they'll find it would make just as much sense to just put up a building next to the ocean...

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Otter (3800)

      A ship HAS to be registered and carry the flag of SOME nation, and it will be subject to the laws of that country. So a ship is no more or less outside the law than if you built your data center in that country.

      That's true, but just as countries offering flags of convenience (Liberia, Cambodia) are happy to do away with other hassles shipowners don't like (taxes, safety regulations, inspections) I'm sure they'd be willing to accommodate Google's needs in the very unlikely event that this happens.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by DerekLyons (302214)

        A ship HAS to be registered and carry the flag of SOME nation, and it will be subject to the laws of that country. So a ship is no more or less outside the law than if you built your data center in that country.

        That's true, but just as countries offering flags of convenience (Liberia, Cambodia) are happy to do away with other hassles shipowners don't like (taxes, safety regulations, inspections) I'm sure they'd be willing to accommodate Google's needs in the very unlikely event that this happens.

        The downsid

  • would be to locate in Alaska and power it with the new geothermal set ups that they are investing into.
  • Why don't they just make like COBRA and create their own island, a la the comics? It would work better, and they may even be able to garner UN representation, unlike that little British Island the crown still lays claim toward...
  • You can get some energy from the wave, but believing this is going to be cost efficient against, say, buying it from the grid is a bit ridiculous. No they won't save anything on energy doing that.

    If they do save something, it's at most the cost of transporting energy from offshore to onshore, as any other saving would be arbitraged away.

    Getting data and money off the hands of criminal organizations (aka governments) is a much more interesting consequence.

  • by starglider29a (719559) on Monday September 15, 2008 @09:51AM (#25010385)
    Slashdot needs to re-run the "Most Frequently Pirated" Poll, adding this Data-Barge to the list.
  • by AlecC (512609) <aleccawley@gmail.com> on Monday September 15, 2008 @10:06AM (#25010623)

    Google has pending plans...

    Nonsense. Google has a patent application. Which means that someone, somewhere, inside Google had this nifty idea, and a patent search thought it might be original. In corporations these days, the standing instructions are that if an idea is patentable, patent it - even if it is stupid or appears unworkable. This idea may be no more than bullshit round the water cooler.

    Corporations want to build up a big patent portfolio. Financial types see that as good, which ups the stock price. And they want lots of patents in their pocket for when you get to a patent shoot-out (or to be so dangerous that one is pre-empted. The idea is that when someone accuses you of infringing a patent, you dump a huge pile of patents on the table and say "I bet you're infringing one of these".

    So this article is a massive hype from a straw in the wind. Google is always thinking about datacentres, and this is a patent on an original, if not vary practical, thought.

  • by rindeee (530084) on Monday September 15, 2008 @10:47AM (#25011261)

    They only have to go 12 miles, line of site. So say they go 20 for good measure. There are plenty of very high bandwidt solutions for that. Or they can run fiber. Of course whatever country their trunk lies in might have more than a wee bit of leverage with regard to how they conduct business and to whom taxes are paid.

  • Good news, bad news (Score:5, Interesting)

    by miller60 (554835) * on Monday September 15, 2008 @11:28AM (#25011963) Homepage
    The good news: You get quoted in the London Times, and they include a link to your web site. Sweet!

    The bad news: They use the UK spelling ("data centre") in the link, and don't notice the 404s.

    Worse news: The Times story get Slashdotted, and all those readers can't find your site.

    Live and learn. Now we own datacentreknowledge.com as well. If anyone was actually looking, our link is below.
  • by bizitch (546406) on Monday September 15, 2008 @12:32PM (#25013181) Homepage

    Why doesn't Google just buy Sealand?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Sealand [wikipedia.org]

  • by arbitraryaardvark (845916) <gtbear.gmail@com> on Monday September 15, 2008 @06:38PM (#25018803) Homepage Journal

    Once upon a time there was a family of economists.
    This included Rose Friedman, her brother what's his name, her husband Milton Friedman, their kids David and Susan, and David's kid Patri Freidman.
      The general theme of their work is that economies spontaneously organize, instead of being created and managed by governments or god.
      Milton won the Nobel Prize, David wrote the groundbreaking "The machinery of freedom",and Patri, well Patri's thing is seasteading.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seasteading [wikipedia.org]
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patri_Friedman [wikipedia.org]
      Until quite recently, Patri worked for google.

Are you having fun yet?

Working...