OPINION LETTERS Search-engine power From Ewan Stern James Clarage’s calculations of Google’s energy usage assume that all their “nearly a million” servers do is perform searches (3 April, p 20). In fact, Google uses these data centres for many things: hosting YouTube and Gmail, caching just about every web page in existence and being one of the world’s largest web advertisers are just a few of them. Google is estimated to constitute between 10 and 30 per cent of the entire internet. Clarage compares the cost of a search to the cost of switching on a 100-watt light bulb. If I had to choose between the light bulb and Google’s many services, I’d happily live in the glow of a million LEDs. London, UK From Tim Rustige James Clarage states that “Google serves up approximately 10 million search results per hour, and so each search costs the same as running a 100-watt electric light bulb for an hour”. According to his figures, then, Google serves up 240 million searches a day. In fact they serve up around 87.8 billion searches a
month, around 3 billion a day. It is my understanding that Google uses PCs for each server. I doubt that each of Google’s basic servers draws Clarage’s claimed 1 kilowatt of power; it would be something closer to 400 watts. And if Google has a million servers, as Clarage reports, then from his own figures, each one would only perform 10 searches an hour. This sounds like underuse to me. Maybe only a small fraction of those million servers search, while the rest serve up Gmail, Adwords or YouTube videos. Knutsford, Cheshire, UK James Clarage writes: n The figures used in my estimate for the number of servers, and searches per hour, were for US traffic only. Worldwide traffic is of course higher, but so proportionally is the number of mirror-servers around the globe which handle this traffic. My kilowatt estimate for a server includes additional thermal factors, such as cooling, as well as the server’s power supply. Finally, the servers do not sit idle when not performing a search; they are busy downloading and indexing one of the world’s largest datasets.
Journal for rejects From Mike Walker In her letter on the ability of the peer-review process to effectively challenge scientific dogma, Deepa Coleman notes that “there is no such person as a disinterested scientist”. In the next letter, Bruce Denness states: “What peer review guarantees is the attainment of mediocrity in the most efficient way” (20 March, p 24). Combining the two, it seems we need a peer-reviewed journal exclusively for heretics. In 1971 I suggested a journal for just this purpose, called Reject. It would only publish papers that had previously been rejected by three existing journals. As a postdoctoral fellow at the time, my latest paper had suffered exactly this fate. When I looked at the editorial boards for the journals, I could understand why: if I was right, then a lot of people were wrong. The paper was eventually published, unchanged, in a more prestigious journal, which suggests Reject would play host to controversial, but also reputable, research.
Enigma Number 1594
Four points Richard England I drew a square whose sides were an integral number (less than 80) of centimetres long. Within the top left-hand quarter of the square I marked four points, each of which was an integral number of centimetres, not only from each side of the square but also from both the top left-hand corner and the bottom right-hand corner of the square. How long was each side of the square? WIN £15 will be awarded to the sender of the first correct answer opened on Wednesday 9 June. The Editor’s decision is final. Please send entries to Enigma 1594, New Scientist, Lacon House, 84 Theobald’s Road, London WC1X 8NS, or to
[email protected] (please include your postal address). Answer to 1588 As easy as 1-2-3: THREE is 12744 The winner Richard Kennaway of Norwich, UK
26 | NewScientist | 8 May 2010
Forty years on, nothing much seems to have changed. Certainly, no one has been game enough to publish Reject. Spalford, Tasmania, Australia
Island reborn From Tony Diamond In discussing the conservation management of Cousin Island (24 April, p 36), Graham Lawton says the island was bought from
“the Seychelles royal family” in 1968. In fact, the island was purchased by BirdLife International from a Mrs Jumeau, whose husband had run it as a coconut plantation. The article is also mistaken in saying “most of the plants on Cousin are now endemics”. Most are actually pan-tropical coastal species, presumably but not necessarily native, with few endemic to the Seychelles and none endemic to Cousin. Certainly many of the alien plants that were common when I lived there in the 1970s are now gone or very much rarer. I don’t think that pawpaw trees need to be removed, as suggested by the chief executive of Nature Seychelles. The canopy will shade it out quite quickly, and native Seychelles birds called fodies (Foudia sechellarum) are very keen on the fruit. Stanley, New Brunswick, Canada
Tired to death From Greg Campbell In your compendium on human endurance, Graham Lawton asserts that there are no records of a person having been killed by intentional sleep deprivation (17 April, p 37). There may not have been any scientific experiments, but there is a well-documented case from classical history. Perseus, the last king of Macedon, after being captured and imprisoned by the Romans in 166 BC, “offended the barbarians who were his guards, and was prevented from sleeping until he died of it”, according to Diodorus Siculus’s Bibliotheca Historica. Southsea, Hampshire, UK
Military innovation From Nicholas Taylor Ian Gilbert cites many examples of how civilian life has benefited from military scientific advances