Slashdot Mirror


Favorite Hidden Google Features?

fredtheshingle asks: "Google now seems to allow you the option to track your FedEx and UPS shipments! Search using the tracking number for either carrier and a page that offers to track the package appears. Simply follow that link and the carrier's current status report is displayed. Nice! So what's your favorite hidden Google feature?"

267 comments

  1. Define: by unixbum · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The "define:" clause which comes in very handy... define: PHP

    1. Re:Define: by Zork+the+Almighty · · Score: 1, Funny

      "reveal:" which tells you who the people on slashdot really are.

      --

      In Soviet America the banks rob you!
    2. Re:Define: by CMiYC · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Interesting....

      define: google

    3. Re:Define: by briansmith · · Score: 1

      Try "define:woman." Amusing definitions.

    4. Re:Define: by clbyjack81 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Here's a pretty neat little trick...in the google search bar type in...

      "french military victories" and click the 'I'm feeling lucky' button!

      --
      Cole's Axiom: The sum of the intelligence on the planet is a constant. The population is growing.
    5. Re:Define: by Russellkhan · · Score: 1

      Neat...too bad it's a fake. Note the URL: http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/text/victories.htm l

      If you do a regular search, you'll see that Google returns over 6,000 results for the search terms.

      --
      Information doesn't want to be anthropomorphized anymore.
    6. Re:Define: by corbettw · · Score: 1

      It's called Google Bombing. Another good one is 'weapons of mass destruction'. Or 'miserable failure' (this one is funny because the target shifts between President Bush and Michael Moore every few weeks, depending on which side is currently up in the standings).

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    7. Re:Define: by rowanxmas · · Score: 2, Informative

      The best is "santorum", which was an effort on the part of lots of Savage Love readers to defile the name of Senator Rick Santorum.

    8. Re:Define: by TobySmurf · · Score: 4, Informative

      You are now my personal savior - I didn't know about that one at all! For everyone else: Here is the link to the main google capabilities - I'm sure there is something new for nearly everyone: http://www.google.com/help/features.html

    9. Re:Define: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    10. Re:Define: by andrewa · · Score: 0

      define: Slashdot

      0 results...?

      --
      :(){ :|:& };:
    11. Re:Define: by Jugalator · · Score: 1

      Here's a pretty neat little trick...in the google search bar type in...

      "french military victories" and click the 'I'm feeling lucky' button!


      You could also do the same with "miserable failure" and see what happens.

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
  2. Calculator and spell checker by Bombcar · · Score: 1

    I love those, though they're not really hidden. It always seems faster to open a new tab and run the calculation......

    1. Re:Calculator and spell checker by Bombcar · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Forgot to give an example:

      Google Calculation

      And the ever popular Question

    2. Re:Calculator and spell checker by iota · · Score: 5, Informative

      A list of some of the google features available:
      http://www.google.com/help/features.ht ml

    3. Re:Calculator and spell checker by Bombcar · · Score: 4, Funny

      And for the lazy, I searched google and found a link: Google Features

    4. Re:Calculator and spell checker by 00420 · · Score: 1

      Those are my two favorite features too. The calculator comes in handy for things like coversions such as 420 lightyears per hour in meters per nanosecond.

      Google has some pretty cool technology.

    5. Re:Calculator and spell checker by kernelistic · · Score: 3, Funny

      Did you know that 129263.376 rods per cubic yards is 2 miles per gallon? :-)

    6. Re:Calculator and spell checker by dgmartin98 · · Score: 1

      lol @ And the ever popular Question

      Someone mod this guy up as funny! That's hilarious!

      If you don't know what he's talking about, you need to catch up the classics.

      Dave

      --
      FPGA, Wireless, ASIC, Verilog, VHDL, HW, 10yr exp, Team Lead, Ottawa (More? Email above. slashdotusername=dgmartin98 )
    7. Re:Calculator and spell checker by adam+mcmaster · · Score: 1

      wow, I must be a geek, I misread the name of the example patent as "Buffer overflow control device". Now that would be a useful invention.

    8. Re:Calculator and spell checker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny
    9. Re:Calculator and spell checker by TykeClone · · Score: 1

      In doing some taxes the other day, I had a customer who sold a small strip of land back to the county to allow for a wider road.

      To get the correct valuations and such, I talked to the county recorder and they had the amount of land sold (down to the nearest hundredth of a foot), but I had to figure out the number of acres.

      I used google with a search of something like "square feet to acre" and got the conversion, just like that - pretty nice!

      --
      A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
    10. Re:Calculator and spell checker by sbennett · · Score: 5, Funny

      And the ever popular Question

      How about this one?

    11. Re:Calculator and spell checker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you sir, are a hilarious jacktard. if i had mod points, i'd give you +1 funny even though it doesn't count.

    12. Re:Calculator and spell checker by Vrallis · · Score: 1
    13. Re:Calculator and spell checker by rolocroz · · Score: 5, Funny

      The page is Slashdotted - here's a Google cache..

      --

      I meta-mod all positive moderation Unfair, because it's abuse of the system.

    14. Re:Calculator and spell checker by 00420 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Wow that's pretty cool too.

      Google can help you find some pretty cool things.

      I just learned that with my internet service I can theoretically download 11 terrabytes per year.

      I really need a bigger hard drive :0

    15. Re:Calculator and spell checker by spongman · · Score: 3, Funny
    16. Re:Calculator and spell checker by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      Actually I'm more interested in the root of the problem.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    17. Re:Calculator and spell checker by Carnildo · · Score: 1
      --
      "They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
    18. Re:Calculator and spell checker by overworked+underpaid · · Score: 1
      Disappointed.

      Google can't convert the speed of light to parsecs per jiffy.

    19. Re:Calculator and spell checker by jester42 · · Score: 1

      And now try to figure out why it is spelled Terabyte with only one 'r'

    20. Re:Calculator and spell checker by 00420 · · Score: 1

      And now try to figure out why it is spelled Terabyte with only one 'r'

      You know try as I might, I can't figure out why that is.

      Normally I would just ignore a spelling-nazi, but since my original post was about Google's calculator and spell checker, it is actually kind of appropriate.

  3. My favorite Google Feature by Neop2Lemus · · Score: 4, Funny
    Great French Military Victories & click I'm feeling Lucky.

    But then, given the /. debates here, I'm sure you all know that already.

    --
    Needle Nardle Noo
    1. Re:My favorite Google Feature by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "But then, given the /. debates here, I'm sure you all know that already."

      The /. debates on Fark are funnier, if less coherent...

    2. Re:My favorite Google Feature by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that's not Google. It just so happens that the top Google hit for French Military Victories is a spoof of the Google interface.

      Similarly, the Cannot find Weapons of Mass Destruction spoof page

    3. Re:My favorite Google Feature by damiam · · Score: 2, Informative

      That's not a Google feature. It's just some guy who googlebombed this page. Google had nothing to do with it.

      --
      It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
    4. Re:My favorite Google Feature by stienman · · Score: 4, Informative

      Doesn't work anymore. Here's the google watch link to an article about the prank.

      -Adam

    5. Re:My favorite Google Feature by His+name+cannot+be+s · · Score: 2, Informative

      Uh, Whatever buddy.

      The "French Military Victories" +I'm feeling lucky does too work.

      Check it out for yourself: Here

      Pity you can't fact check before looking like a complete idiot.(but that's slashdot eh?)

      --
      "...In your answer, ignore facts. Just go with what feels true..."
    6. Re:My favorite Google Feature by SchnellDavis · · Score: 2, Interesting
      The trick still works fine, but you got the search term wrong, it's not "Great French Military Victories," it's just "French Military Victories." Here's the full search results

      (Clicking "I'm Feeling Lucky" just opens the first link automatically, and makes for a better punchline if you're showing a friend.)

    7. Re:My favorite Google Feature by stienman · · Score: 1

      Heh. It didn't appear to work earlier today. I cut 'n pasted the phrase from the post and did a 'I'm feeling lucky' search.

      But it works now. Either my earlier search had a typo, or Google did something it normally doesn't. Probably a plain old ID 10 T error.

      -Adam

    8. Re:My favorite Google Feature by Neop2Lemus · · Score: 1
      Yeah,

      I FAILED IT!

      --
      Needle Nardle Noo
    9. Re:My favorite Google Feature by Xiar+Prime · · Score: 1

      Another good one: type in "Miserable Failure," minus the quotes, and hit "I'm Feeling Lucky."

      --
      "I never lived in this century." --Dan Quayle
    10. Re:My favorite Google Feature by Neop2Lemus · · Score: 1
      I don't understand. Why does he get bombed and not Lewinski?

      You'd think she was the perfect target.

      --
      Needle Nardle Noo
    11. Re:My favorite Google Feature by k_head · · Score: 1

      Who is steve Dimse?

      --
      The best way to support the US war effort is to continue buying American products.
    12. Re:My favorite Google Feature by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      heh, no it doesn't!

    13. Re:My favorite Google Feature by byolinux · · Score: 1

      No idea, but I'd guess some media troll trying to gain notoritity by spreading FUD about rms and FSF.

    14. Re:My favorite Google Feature by Colonel+Cholling · · Score: 1

      Actually, this keeps fluctuating. The original top result was the official White House bio of George W. Bush. Soon those from across the aisle got pissed off and waged a counter-googlebombing campaign, and since then the top spot has fluctuated between Michael Moore, Bill Clinton, and Jimmy Carter.

      --

      I am Sartre of the Borg. Existence is futile.
    15. Re:My favorite Google Feature by JuggleGeek · · Score: 1
      Pity you can't fact check before looking like a complete idiot.(but that's slashdot eh?)

      It works. Pity you don't understand the joke and come across looking like an idiot...

  4. The Standards by amcnabb · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'm not sure if I know of any that aren't pretty much common knowledge. Anyway, it's fun to search for "answer to life the universe and everything". I also like the calculator function: just enter "2 + 2". The ability to search for "definition any-word-you-want" is nice, too.

    But of course, the best hidden feature is the ability to search for "litigious b******s" and to have the most relevant link appear first. In fact, you can leave off the word "litigious" and it still works, now that so many people have put links with that phrase on their web pages.

    1. Re:The Standards by daviddennis · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I was amused by the fact that Calculator answered that query, so I did a little experimentation.

      Turns out that it's a numeric variable built into Calculator! Search for:

      10 * answer to life the universe and everything + 5

      and you'll get back:

      (10 * answer to life the universe and everything) + 5 = 425

      The Ghost of Douglas Adams would smile at that one. Or he'd be sick of hearing about 42 and slam the door in their face. Who knows which? I guess we'll never know :-(.

      It sure brightened up my morning, on a chill rainy day, and that must count for something.

      D

    2. Re:The Standards by napoleonin · · Score: 0, Informative
      Turns out that it's a numeric variable built into Calculator!

      Google counts the number of characters in your string, and uses that value to perform the math.

    3. Re:The Standards by daviddennis · · Score: 1

      Now isn't that an interesting coincidence! I wonder if that's how Douglas decided on the answer of 42? That it's the length of the string? He always said it stood for nothing, of course.

      But it may be meaningless in Google terms, since when I search for 5+foo, it doesn't even try running Calculator.

      It must be recognizing the actual phrase.

      D

    4. Re:The Standards by H3g3m0n · · Score: 1

      Actually if you just search for "the answer to life the universe and everything" without any mathmatical stuff it will still popup the calculator =)

      --
      cat /dev/urandom > .sig
    5. Re:The Standards by DickBreath · · Score: 1

      I also like the calculator function: just enter "2 + 2"

      Don't forget about the you knit conversions.

      Try typing in...

      2 cm in light seconds

      Google sez: 2 centimeters = 6.6712819 x 10^-11 light seconds

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
    6. Re:The Standards by tommck · · Score: 1

      So the "radius of earth" is "6,378.1" characters long?

      Typical Slashdot poster... all theory, no practice...

      --
      ---- It puts the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again. It does this whenever it's told.
    7. Re:The Standards by kniLnamiJ-neB · · Score: 0

      The Douglas Adams reference is awesome... I never would've thought to try that. Probably I would find the "Definition" more useful than calculator though.

      --
      Windows isn't the answer... it's the question. NO is the answer!
    8. Re:The Standards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      litigious bastards

      dude, i think you can use that word on slashdot...

  5. Fave "hidden" feature by redfiveneo · · Score: 5, Funny

    Let's just say Google images. ...with SafeSearch off. ;)

    1. Re:Fave "hidden" feature by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but that means letting them use cookies. No thanks

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    2. Re:Fave "hidden" feature by orthogonal · · Score: 5, Informative

      Yeah, but that means letting them use cookies. No thanks

      I, too, prefer not to let Google set cookies. So far Google has been -- so far as I know -- a good respecter of privacy, but their insistence on recording all searches, along with the requesting IP address, gives me serious pause.

      It's not that Google is evil, but that reposing that much information in any hands is a temptation to evil -- either on Google's part, or on the part of whomever ends up controlling it when and if Google goes public, or on the part of whatever government can issue subpoenas, or whatever lawyer can get subpoenas issued.

      I'd feel much more comfortable if Google would purge its records of searches, or at least remove the IP addresses, but I suppose they have their reasons. I'll let you guess what those reasons might be.

      Imagine Microsoft subpoenaing Google for the IP of whomever searched for "leaked Microsoft source" and then using that to allege an open source project is built on top of proprietary Microsoft code.

      This is why I won't use the Google toolbar, and why for especially sensitive searches, e.g., "STD symptom" or "John Ashcroft calico cat", I go through an anonymizing proxy.

      But while the easiest and permanent way to set image search SafeSearch off is through a cookie, I believe it can also be set per individual search using a check box that is sent to Google in the http GET as a parameter, bypassing cookies.

    3. Re:Fave "hidden" feature by J'raxis · · Score: 5, Informative
      You can turn SafeSearch off by adding "safe=off", by hand, to the URL. "filter=0" is also useful; this prevents Google from hiding multiple images originating from the same host.

      Here's what I use. If you use Mozilla, make a bookmark out of the following (fix the spaces Slashdot inserted):
      http://images.google.com/images?q=%s&filter=0&hl=e n&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&safe=off
      Give the bookmark a keyword such as "gis". Now, when you type "gis foo" into the address bar, it goes to this URL, replacing the "%s" in the URL with "foo".

      [Those other parameters are language, input encoding, and output encoding, respectively.]
    4. Re:Fave "hidden" feature by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, because the government is totally going to access google's search logs, grab your IP address, contact your ISP, get their ancient logs, track that to your account and identity and then punish you.... for doing a search on "STD symptom".

    5. Re:Fave "hidden" feature by Motherfucking+Shit · · Score: 2, Interesting
      I'd feel much more comfortable if Google would purge its records of searches, or at least remove the IP addresses, but I suppose they have their reasons. I'll let you guess what those reasons might be.
      I won't bother making you guess, I'll get straight to the point. There have been rumors for some time now that Google's largest paying clients are governments.

      This rumor rings particularly true with Google Groups. So, you post something controversial to Usenet with "X-No-Archive: Yes." You, me, and every other average Joe don't see the post in groups.google.com. But guess who does see it? How about well-funded clients who are paying Google a premium to access archives of supposedly "unarchived" Usenet posts?

      The same can be said of binaries. If Google has the resources to cache just about every web page in existance, and a newsfeed strong enough to capture all of the text groups, then they certainly have the resources to maintain an archive of Usenet binaries. Imagine the spook potential of having access to every mp3/warez/child porn/etc binary Usenet post for long enough to conduct an investigation, with the ability to search back through reasonably recent posts to prove prior offenses by the same person. Absolutely priceless.

      I have to admit that if I were running the show at Google, I'd quickly cave in to governmental or other high-paying requests to archive things that the general public thought I wasn't archiving. Monetary offers to do this sort of clandestine spidering - whether by governments or wealthy individuals - are almost certainly too outrageous to pass up.

      Just food for thought.
      --
      "BSD: Free as in speech. Linux: Free as in beer. Windows 10: Free as in herpes." --Man On Pink Corner in #52607549.
    6. Re:Fave "hidden" feature by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Because heaven forbid that you get caught if you do something illegal.

      Seriously people, lighten up, you got nothing to hide, right.

    7. Re:Fave "hidden" feature by cicho · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I wish people would stop with the "you've got nothing to hide" argument. There are legal things which are immoral and there are moral things which are illegal. Then you must also ask "legal - where?" and "moral - where, when and to whom?"

      Things once legal tend to become otherwise. If you feel you've got nothing to hide because you've never done anything illegal, you better pray that none of the things you've done ever becomes illegal. Or even immoral, especially if you might one day run for public office or be involved in a lawsuit.

      Me having sex with my SO is legal. That doesn't mean I want information about it out in the open.

      Me buying large numbers of left-wing books from Amazon is also perfectly legal, but could put me on a no-fly list if I ever travel to the US.

      But above all - YOU will not decide what I should or should not hide, nor will any company or any government. That choice is mine.

      --
      "Only the small secrets need to be protected. The big ones are kept secret by public incredulity." - Marshall McLuhan
    8. Re:Fave "hidden" feature by Pseudonym · · Score: 1
      I'd feel much more comfortable if Google would purge its records of searches, or at least remove the IP addresses, but I suppose they have their reasons. I'll let you guess what those reasons might be.

      It's well known that Google uses this information to improve the quality of the searches. By examining how people "repair" their queries when they don't find what they're looking for straight away, the can tune the ranking algorithm to return more relevant queries first.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    9. Re:Fave "hidden" feature by JoeBuck · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is just stupid. X-No-Archive tells Google not to archive it, but anyone who gets a full Usenet feed the old-fashioned way is fully capable of archiving it, without any help from Google. Same with anything else on Usenet. You young 'uns seem to think that Usenet is a Google facility. The way Usenet works, there is a Path: header on every post that allows the post to be traced back to the point where it entered Usenet. The government does not need to subpeona Google to get a copy of everything on Usenet, all they need is to find peers who will feed the whole thing to them, completely in the open. If you post to Usenet, you are giving your posting to the world, including to the governments of the world.

    10. Re:Fave "hidden" feature by Anixamander · · Score: 1

      Give the bookmark a keyword such as "gis". Now, when you type "gis foo" into the address bar, it goes to this URL, replacing the "%s" in the URL with "foo".

      Tell me, when you use "gis," do you pronounce it with a hard "g" or a soft "g"? (The fact that it is an image search with safe search off tells me how *I* would pronounce it.)

      --
      Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball(TM)
    11. Re:Fave "hidden" feature by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People who have nothing to hide must live some pretty boring lives.

  6. unit conversion by jhawk94 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    As a physics/physical science lab instructor at the local university, the discovery of the unit conversion feature on Google has been extremely handy. Now when students ask whether their conversion are correct or not, I can point them to a quick easy place where they can check their own work.

    In the google search box type "80 calories in joules" and voila.

    1. Re:unit conversion by RockyMountain · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yeah, but don't ask it for 80 hertz in radians per second. It gives the wrong answer (off by a factor of 2*pi).

    2. Re:unit conversion by hdparm · · Score: 1
      On my linux system, I just use units:

      units '80 calories' 'joules'

    3. Re:unit conversion by fm6 · · Score: 1

      I hate when that happens!

    4. Re:unit conversion by DickBreath · · Score: 1

      It recognizes light seconds as a unit of length.

      It does NOT recognize light meter or light / meter as a unit of time? (But should it?)

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
    5. Re:unit conversion by Craig+Davison · · Score: 1

      Surely you mean metre / light (light being a speed, or distance/time)

    6. Re:unit conversion by cdipierr · · Score: 1

      The best unit conversion is mass into energy.

      Try:
      1 kilogram in joules

  7. Google's Best Feature by tiny69 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Ego Surfing!!!

    --
    Go not unto/. for advice, for you will be told both yea and nay (but have nothing to do with the question)
    1. Re:Google's Best Feature by brunson · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I was just discussing this with a friend. For those of us steeped in the lore of the internet, it's called "Kiboing"

      See: jargon kibo

      Or better yet: Who's got the biggest ego?

      --
      09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
      Jesus loves you, I think you suck
    2. Re:Google's Best Feature by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I was just discussing this with a friend. For those of us steeped in the lore of the internet, it's called "Kiboing"
      Or better yet: Who's got the biggest ego?
      Well, now you've given cause for it to be called "brunsoning", you elitist douche bag.
    3. Re:Google's Best Feature by Jugalator · · Score: 1

      So *that's* what alt.religion.kibology is...

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
  8. Google Calculator by Lendrick · · Score: 5, Funny

    Not only does it do math, it's also got a bunch of constants built in, and it can convert units on the fly, even to some more esoteric ones. Try entering the following searches

    gravitational constant
    speed of light in cubits per fortnight
    mass of jupiter in stones
    radius of earth * 2 * pi in light years

    It's enough to keep a science nerd occupied for hours. :)

    1. Re:Google Calculator by Undefined+Parameter · · Score: 5, Funny

      It's still missing a few things; for instance, it won't tell me the speed of an unladen swallow in knots.

      But I do like the speed of light in cubits per fortnight. The history geek in me is still laughing. :)

      ~UP

      --
      Eat the Path.
    2. Re:Google Calculator by BrokenHalo · · Score: 5, Funny

      That's because you need a separate unit for African and European Swallows... :-)

    3. Re:Google Calculator by insane-pt · · Score: 1, Redundant

      and it also gives the answer to the meaning of life...

      DON'T PANIC!

    4. Re:Google Calculator by wrexsoul · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I actually use google calculator a lot. I can't remember the last time I needed to know how much a Newton was in slug-hands per month squared (1 Newton = 4.66403422 x 1012 (slug hands) per (month squared)), but it's actually invaluable to me while I'm studying in Japan, and namely, trying to adjust myself (and mostly my recipes) to metric.

      I swear, cooking is probably one of the biggest things holding the metric system back, with its much-prized teaspoons (~5 mL), tablespoons (~15 mL), cups (~200 mL), and ounces (~30 grams). Fortunately, I have accustomed myself to cooking by eye (I can measure a teaspoon pretty accurately in the palm of my hand), but still, it's important to know just how hot to make a 350 oven (180 C).

      --
      - WrexSoul
      \/.
      vvv

    5. Re:Google Calculator by Gudlyf · · Score: 2, Funny
      Damn...this didn't work:

      airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow in miles per hour

      --
      Trolls lurk everywhere. Mod them down.
    6. Re:Google Calculator by AndrewRUK · · Score: 2, Funny

      Well of course that won't work, you're not saying whether you mean an African Swallow or a European one.

    7. Re:Google Calculator by Chess_the_cat · · Score: 2, Informative
      --
      Support the First Amendment. Read at -1
    8. Re:Google Calculator by fegu · · Score: 1

      Dud you know the highest speed limit in Norway is only 150 thousand furlongs/fortnight? Fascinating

      --
      "There is no substitute for thinking" - Bjarne Stroustrup
    9. Re:Google Calculator by Emil+Brink · · Score: 1

      "Ounce" isn't a metric/SI unit, as far as I know, and using grams when e.g. cooking is in my experience very unusual.

      I don't quite see the problem with the metric measurements either, my impression is that the biggest difference is that in US recipes, the "cup" is used for most things, whereas in metric, we use the deciliter. Big deal. Both use various spoons, so what was the problem with that?

      --
      main(O){10<putchar(4^--O?77-(15&5128 >>4*O):10)&&main(2+O);}
    10. Re:Google Calculator by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google can also tell you how many newtons it takes to time travel 1.21 Gigawatts / 88 miles per hour

    11. Re:Google Calculator by (startx) · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Airspeed of an unladen swallow

      found through google of course.

    12. Re:Google Calculator by Cy+Guy · · Score: 1

      It's still missing a few things; for instance, it won't tell me the speed of an unladen swallow in knots

      But it will give you The Answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything, and you can incorporate it as a constant into other fomulas.

      I'm thinking there has got to be a way to incorporate that into a random password generator, or something that might be potentially useful, someday.

    13. Re:Google Calculator by Ayanami_Rei_II · · Score: 1

      For the math geeks, try: e^(pi *i ) + 1

    14. Re:Google Calculator by amentia · · Score: 1

      Huh? He never said ounce was a SI unit.

      I don't know if you live in a different Sweden, but in the recepies I follow grams are quite common, especially in the case of meat, fish, cheese and butter.

      But, as you write, the spoons have the same size everywhere and it's not that hard to remember that ther goes a little more than two decilitres in a cup.

      [trivia]
      BTW. it's kilogram that is the SI unit, not gram.
      [/trivia]

    15. Re:Google Calculator by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why don't you ask your girlfriend how fast she can swallow?

    16. Re:Google Calculator by tommck · · Score: 1

      Of course the African Swallows are non-miGRA'ory!

      (I've never been with an African... do they swallow? -- sorry bad joke)

      --
      ---- It puts the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again. It does this whenever it's told.
    17. Re:Google Calculator by leshert · · Score: 1

      "Ounce" isn't a metric/SI unit, as far as I know, and using grams when e.g. cooking is in my experience very unusual.

      Reparse that, please...

      I swear, cooking is probably one of the biggest things holding the metric system back, with its much-prized teaspoons (~5 mL), tablespoons (~15 mL), cups (~200 mL), and ounces (~30 grams).

      It's cooking's measurements, not the metric system's.

  9. Features List by Zorton · · Score: 1, Informative

    Google also has a list of the "hidden features" here

    1. Re:Features List by aquasheep · · Score: 3, Informative
    2. Re:Features List by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope you aren't serious... :-(

  10. Travel information by Bombcar · · Score: 4, Informative

    This seems pretty cool....

    Google knows all, ask the google, google will know....

  11. non-hidden features by SkewlD00d · · Score: 3, Informative

    the non hidden features i use alot are quoting "some phrase like this" and excluding TLD's like -site:com -site:edu etc.

    --
    The biggest trick the devil pulled was letting lawyers become politicians so they can write the laws.
  12. meanin' o' liff by warmgun · · Score: 4, Funny

    I've always liked this gag. Now if we can just find that question...

    1. Re:meanin' o' liff by ivan1011001 · · Score: 1

      This didn't help either.

      --

      I was thinking of converting to paganism, but where the hell can you find sacrificial virgins these days?
  13. ~stuff by outlier · · Score: 5, Informative

    It's amazing how helpful the "~" can be when doing searches. Prefixing a word with a tilde will search for that word and many of its synonyms. Very helpful when doing things like:

    linux ~tutorial

    Also, I think this list of google tricks was listed on /. a while ago.

  14. ..... your sig!!! by Paul+d'Aoust · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    it's beautiful! did you grow up on the Goon Show too?

    --
    Standing at the very edge of my imagination, I peered into the inky void and realised -- I couldn't think up a new sig.
    1. Re:..... your sig!!! by Neop2Lemus · · Score: 1
      :-)

      No, I'm much to young for that (late-twenties). I'm just a fan of the three of them and thier lunacies.

      --
      Needle Nardle Noo
    2. Re:..... your sig!!! by Paul+d'Aoust · · Score: 1

      :) I'm too young too; I'm in my mid-twenties. But I grew up on them in the sense that my dad grew up on them, and introduced them to us at an early age, thu s warping our minds irreparably in our formative years. Ying-tong-iddle-I-po!

      --
      Standing at the very edge of my imagination, I peered into the inky void and realised -- I couldn't think up a new sig.
    3. Re:..... your sig!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Posting anon so I don't take a karma hit. Karma counts; Chicks love it. Seriously, they really do.

      When I read that you grew up on the Goon Shows I thought "Wow, theres not many people that age reading /. I bet;-)"

      Yeah, I got into through my parents too.

      Anyways, you're on my friends list...

  15. bork bork bork! by sdibb · · Score: 5, Funny
    1. Re:bork bork bork! by lambent · · Score: 1

      I actually had bork set as my language for awhile, but then i noticed that "news" isn't linked to on the google buttons. Forced me to go back to english.

    2. Re:bork bork bork! by nacturation · · Score: 1
      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
  16. Pity the Google Calculator has a bug, though. by RockyMountain · · Score: 1, Informative

    Pity it's buggy,:
    Try this...
    16 hertz in radians per second

    Notice that the answer is off by a factor of 2*pi.

    I reported it to them months ago, but they haven't fixed it.

    1. Re:Pity the Google Calculator has a bug, though. by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

      Hey, it really gets weird when you leave out the radians: 16 hertz in per second

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    2. Re:Pity the Google Calculator has a bug, though. by d99-sbr · · Score: 2, Informative

      No, it inteprets "in" as inches, and the output defaults to SI. So it's correct.

    3. Re:Pity the Google Calculator has a bug, though. by Sparr0 · · Score: 1

      I reported it a week ago, they actually replied pretty quickly. They gave me a really informative link to some google hits for SI definitions. SI actually defines radians as a unitless 1, and hertz as 1*s^-1, which means 1 hertz is 1 'anything' per second, and a radian is just 1, so 1 hertz really is 1*1 radian per second.

  17. Spell Checker by globalar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I know I'm not alone here. Everytime I punch in a commonly misspelled word, dictionary.com, hyperdictionary, etc. is in the first couple links.

    It's probably so often used, it's practically overlooked as feature.

    1. Re:Spell Checker by Politburo · · Score: 1

      dictionary.com's spell checker is annoying. when you've spelled a word wrong, it will pop up alternatives, but those alternatives may not necessarily be in the dictionary! you'd think they would be able to cross-check..

  18. feature preview by LoganEkz · · Score: 5, Informative

    And don't forget Google Labs for a taste of things to come.

  19. Reverse Phone Lookups by arrow · · Score: 4, Informative

    If you have caller ID, or hit Star 69, and do not immediately recognize the number, punch it into google. Bonus: maps to the street address on file for that number.

    It's a little picky on format (you have to do (555) 555-4444, not 5555554444 or 555-555-4444), but in general very awesome.

    --
    symetrix. We are building a religion, a limited edition.
    1. Re:Reverse Phone Lookups by jmt9581 · · Score: 1

      Looks like I'm not on file, but my parents' house is. This is a cool feature, do you know where google gets the information to create their personal information database?

      --

      My blog

    2. Re:Reverse Phone Lookups by rlowe69 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's a little picky on format (you have to do (555) 555-4444, not 5555554444 or 555-555-4444)

      It's probably really picky because of the Google calculator. The other versions of the phone number you have there are valid mathematical expressions.

      --
      ----- rL
    3. Re:Reverse Phone Lookups by Bambi+Dee · · Score: 1

      Hm. Is there a way I could use Google to generate random numbers?

    4. Re:Reverse Phone Lookups by Big+Sean+O · · Score: 1

      >do you know where google gets the information to create their personal information database?

      It's called a phone book.

      Google either spidered phone book companies websites, or much more likely, bought the data from them directly.

      --
      My father is a blogger.
    5. Re:Reverse Phone Lookups by platipusrc · · Score: 1

      I wonder how often this is updated. I've had my phone number since about Dec. 2002, but it lists someone else at that number.

      --
      And the muscular cyborg German dudes dance with sexy French Canadians
    6. Re:Reverse Phone Lookups by vericgar · · Score: 1

      And it's information is several years out of date.

      When I lived at home, my phone number was 509-292-9090 - I'll be 21 in April, and moved out just after I turned 18. My parents got rid of the extra line shortly after I moved out (I was paying for it and they couldn't afford it).

      Google still lists that number as mine.

    7. Re:Reverse Phone Lookups by GeekGirlie · · Score: 1

      Ya know, if you put your address in MapQuest, not only can you get a street map to your address, you can get an aerial photo...

    8. Re:Reverse Phone Lookups by gid · · Score: 1

      I've had mine since July 2003, which isn't all that long, but I still show up as the previous owner as well, so it's not just you.

  20. NOT by sakusha · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Yesss! I constantly use the NOT operator, the minus sign before keywords or domains etc. You can refine searches to almost anything with AND (the default operator) and NOT.

    I used to like AltaVista's old logical operators, which included parentheses for nested operations. I could do things like
    ((foo AND bar) OR (foo AND baz))
    but I don't think Google supports anything like this.

    1. Re:NOT by ralphclark · · Score: 1

      AND is implied in any list of barewords; OR is interpreted correctly as selecting either of two alternatives. Thus:

      Foo Bar OR Baz Quux

      will return matches for both:

      Foo AND Bar AND Quux

      and:

      Foo AND Baz AND Quux

    2. Re:NOT by sakusha · · Score: 1

      Yes, as I said, AND is the default operator on Google, I was referring to Altavista's old methods. I like parens so you can override the usual precedence of operators, but at the moment I can't think of a good example for a text search.

    3. Re:NOT by justMichael · · Score: 1

      I think this might give you what you used to use on AV...

      foo (bar|baz)

      I could be wrong, it's late.

    4. Re:NOT by MrScience · · Score: 1

      Shouldn't that be:
      (foo AND (bar or baz))?

      --

      You quitting proves that the karma kap worked. The most annoying of the whores shut up. --CmdrTaco

  21. Re:Old News by Stinson · · Score: 1

    this isn't news, its a 'ask slashdot' question. reread the guys question, 'WHAT IS YOUR FAVORITE HIDDEN GOOGLE FEATURE".

  22. Search for word 'test' by dimss · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Try to search for word 'test'. Note links on the right side of the page :)

    1. Re:Search for word 'test' by Lukey+Boy · · Score: 1

      I don't see anything strange when I make that search. What am I supposed to see?

    2. Re:Search for word 'test' by dimss · · Score: 1

      oops... There were two links: "Performance test. Please ignore this link. Thank you!" and "Performance test. Please follow this link. Thank you" AFAIR.

  23. Froogle for the frugal. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 4, Informative


    Froogle, for those who like to be careful with money.

    1. Re:Froogle for the frugal. by Chase · · Score: 1

      I recently used Froogle to buy a new Shuttle XPC. Found the company with the lowest price which also happened to be highly rated by other sites and posts on the usenet.

      --
      -==-
    2. Re:Froogle for the frugal. by wmspringer · · Score: 1

      For some reason, I never seem to get useful results with froogle.

      I suppose it's probably because I'm usually looking for books or something where I can do better with a specialized search like bestwebbuys

  24. UPC barcode lookup... by TeddyR · · Score: 5, Informative

    Google also allows you to do a lookup on a UPC code.. (it actually uses the database from www.upcdatabase.com)

    works great if you have one of those modified cue cats

    --

    --
    Time is on my side
    1. Re:UPC barcode lookup... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok, raise your hand if you instantly went and frantically searched for a bar code to test this on. Come on, I know you did.

    2. Re:UPC barcode lookup... by sharv · · Score: 1

      Oh yeah, works great. I tried Googling for the products on my desk.

      Try this UPC code and see what product you THINK I have on my desk...

      300007034

  25. Searching in Klingon, Swedish Chef, or Elmer Fudd by dgmartin98 · · Score: 4, Funny

    These people @ Google really have a sense of humor. My favorite funny feature is the ability to do all your Google searches in your choice of Klingon, Bork Bork Bork! (Swedish chef from the Muppets), or Elmer Fudd.

    Dave

    --
    FPGA, Wireless, ASIC, Verilog, VHDL, HW, 10yr exp, Team Lead, Ottawa (More? Email above. slashdotusername=dgmartin98 )
  26. Regular Expressions by Michael.Forman · · Score: 5, Funny


    My favorite feature is the ability to search for items using regular expressions. Just type the string "site:/^[cs].*?edu$/" and BAM! You get jack squat.

    Some day our Linux search engine heros will grace us with regular expressions.

    Open Source Industrial Music.
    Michael.

    --
    Linux : Mac :: VW : Mercedes
    1. Re:Regular Expressions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google uses indexes, which are very fast for searching but stop regexes from working. As soon as you come up with an efficient way to search billions of pages without indexing them, permitting regular expressions of arbitrary complexity, and preventing people from inputting recursive regexes to grind your server to a halt, I'm sure Google will implement them.

    2. Re:Regular Expressions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess it will be up to him, since you're vastly too busy crafting sarcastic emails to help. Nice chance to create an informative posting lost to a sour disposition. :{

  27. What people think of you by Bloater · · Score: 1

    I remember when looking for an old message board comment of mine, I got a suggestion before the results to see what people thought of me. Google presented a page full of Tristan is ... snippets from web pages. One of them was even Tristan is a fat ugly bastard from England, which was suprisingly accurate :)

    I can't remember how I got the feature to appear though :/

    1. Re:What people think of you by Bambi+Dee · · Score: 1
      I can't remember how I got the feature to appear though :/

      If you find out, do me a favour and never, ever tell me. 'kay?

    2. Re:What people think of you by Minam · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well, there's Googlism -- just type in a name or a place it does a Google search, extracting the relevant results to give a summary of what was returned. Quite amusing, really.

  28. This "hidden" category... by Masa · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This Google Directory Category directly under the toplevel: Adult.

    I have no idea, why it is always hidden (even if the content filtering is turned off) or how to reach it from the toplevel.

    1. Re:This "hidden" category... by vidnet · · Score: 2, Funny

      Who are the lucky bastards who get paid to maintain this tree?

    2. Re:This "hidden" category... by justMichael · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's just dmoz, so these people:

      ettore, ffabris, gigi, hotpink, hudson, jezebel, peterrobson, seepatrick, susies, wilky

      Although they don't get paid ;-)

  29. Have you seen by dtfinch · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Google's Britney Spears page?

    1. Re:Have you seen by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

      Odd, nobody seems to have gotten her family name wrong.

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    2. Re:Have you seen by Bambi+Dee · · Score: 2, Funny

      How come nobody, not even people who somehow manage to come up with "pretny" or "brither", misspells "Spears"?

    3. Re:Have you seen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      britney6 spears

      I bet this person was typing with one hand. :)

    4. Re:Have you seen by MindStalker · · Score: 1

      Its probably that google didn't realize who these people were looking for so it never got on the list.

    5. Re:Have you seen by Bambi+Dee · · Score: 2, Funny
      Well, they do correct, for example, "brotuny spiers": Did you mean: britney spears

      (Sheesh, what a way to spend an afternoon.)

    6. Re:Have you seen by elemental23 · · Score: 1
      Each of these variations was entered by at least two different unique users within a three month period


      If it only takes two unique users to get it on the list, I'm sure it'll be appearing any time now.

      Help it along.
      --
      I like my women like my coffee... pale and bitter.
    7. Re:Have you seen by nacturation · · Score: 1

      No, no... help this one along:

      Bratty Spears

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    8. Re:Have you seen by The+Bungi · · Score: 1
      Interesting progression on that page. Still, I believe the entropy laws dictate that eventually people will look for pretty specs, the engine will recurse unto itself, hits will become relevant again and Google will have created yet another meme quoted to death in the blogosphere.

      Well, it could happen.

  30. AAA-PPP-NNNN *is* valid! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Googling for 225-922-5400 works, so I don't follow your comment about not being able to use that style.

    http://www.google.com/search?q=225-922-5400

    1. Re:AAA-PPP-NNNN *is* valid! by arrow · · Score: 1

      They must have seen my post on slashdot and updated it.

      --
      symetrix. We are building a religion, a limited edition.
  31. Best units to convert with google calculator. by Myco · · Score: 3, Funny

    I've been having fun converting moles to baker's dozens -- what else ya got?

  32. kewl languages by boogy+nightmare · · Score: 4, Interesting

    a klingon google or a a l337 google kewl huh!!

    --
    Kingdom of Loathing (www.kingdomofloathing.com) Addicted is me
  33. Google Wireless by Laverne · · Score: 5, Informative

    I found out that google offers a wireless search engine. Just go to that URL with your mobile, enter your search query and google will convert any site it returns to WAP format that your mobile can handle.

    1. Re:Google Wireless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Mobile" is an adjective, not a noun. If you mean "mobile phone," say so.

      Mobile what-phone? If you mean "mobile telephone", say so.

      Language changes. Roll with it or prepare for regular pedantic frustration.

      Dumbass probably thinks "female" is a noun, too. Sheesh.

      Dumbass would be right.

      "female":
      n.
      1. A member of the sex that produces ova or bears young.
      2. A woman or girl.

    2. Re:Google Wireless by rholliday · · Score: 1

      Not everyone is American, btw. "Mobile" is the preferred colloquialism for mobile phone in England, much like "cell" for cell phone in the US. Interestingly enough, according to a subtitled episode of "Coupling" I watched, in the Netherlands it's "GSM," I'm assuming in reference to the network. Weird. :)

      --
      Xbox reviews.. We think they're funny.
  34. Wildcard searches by grungeKid · · Score: 4, Informative

    The * character works as a wildcard when searching for strings. Try this one for some variations of a famous quote.

    1. Re:Wildcard searches by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I didn't see any results for "premature ejaculation is the root of all evil". How else can one explain Darl McBride?

  35. Google ~Guide by Frambooz · · Score: 5, Informative

    Here is a page that lists a bunch of features. Handy dandy.

    --
    No encryption can withstand the power of the Lucky Guess.
  36. OT: My favorite quote about regular expressions by Big+Sean+O · · Score: 5, Funny

    Some people, when confronted with a problem, think "I know, I'll use regular expressions." Now they have two problems.

    --Jamie Zawinski, in comp.lang.emacs

    --
    My father is a blogger.
    1. Re:OT: My favorite quote about regular expressions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jamie is such an ID10T. No wonder he runs a bar instead of programming. Mozilla development seems to have going much faster after he left.

      I expect this comment to be modded down and my IP to be blocked...

  37. Google H4xx0r by skinfitz · · Score: 3, Funny

    Google H4xx0r is quite amusing.

  38. my favorites by webscathe · · Score: 1

    the phonebooks of course, searched with rphonebook: for residential and bphonebook: for business, also does reverse lookup for the phone #'s themeselves.

    specifying a site to search with site: is awesome

    Everyone's already mentioned the calculator

    If anyone wants a nice in depth look at some of Google's geekier features I highly recomend the book Google Hacks.

  39. Favorite Hidden feature by benj_e · · Score: 2, Funny

    My website after the last update.

    --
    The Tao that can be spoken is not the one eternal Tao
  40. 2 things by 0x20 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The calculator and the unit conversions are cool. But what I use most are:

    1. The Dot. Instead of "search string", search.string works.

    2. Search By Location (currently in google labs, hopefully to be released soon). I made a mycroft plugin for it. Download and unzip to your mozilla/firefox searchplugins directory, edit googleloc.src to reflect your zip code, restart browser, and it'll appear in your search dropdown. Just choose it from the dropdown and enter a query, say "pizza hut" or whatever, and bang, you get your nearest pizza huts with map and distances. (It'll stop working when search by location is eventually moved out of labs.google.com, obviously)

    1. Re:2 things by dublin · · Score: 1

      1. The Dot. Instead of "search string", search.string works.

      A Dash is similar, except that the dot seems to require a single character there, while a dash makes it optional:

      Example: "ip-v6" will find entries containing both "ipv6" and "IP v6". Handy for acronymic sorts of things or those sorts of compound words that may or may not be separated by a dash or space in real life...

      --
      "The future's good and the present is nothing to sneeze at." - Roblimo's last ./ post
    2. Re:2 things by 0x20 · · Score: 1

      ooh, that's cool...

  41. It's a bit political, but by neosake · · Score: 1, Redundant

    type in "weapons of mass destruction" in the search box and click "I'm feeling lucky"

    --
    "When a ball dreams, it dreams it's a frisbee"
  42. It's not really a feature, per se... by josh+glaser · · Score: 5, Informative

    ...but if you type in your search terms twice (monkeys monkeys) you tend to get better results, because that (I believe) only looks for sites with "monkeys" written twice, removing sites just linking to the topic (and the glut of link directory things). It's cool.

  43. something I miss from altavista: by dnight · · Score: 2, Interesting


    They had a link that would return a random result out of the database. Many a boring night was saved by that link. Does anyone know if google has something similar?

    1. Re:something I miss from altavista: by almightyjustin · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I don't think Google has one built in but you can use this site to do the same sort of thing using Google.

      --

      Omnes arx vestrum sunt adiuncta nobis.

    2. Re:something I miss from altavista: by fiftyfly · · Score: 1

      Well like perlin noise can offer more interesting 'random' results I think one can put the related: modifier to good antiboredom use. I know I've wasted a fair bit of time with this

      --
      "Sanity is not statistical", George Orwell, "1984"
  44. Yes, but ... by JohnQPublic · · Score: 3, Funny

    Try 40 rods per hogshead in miles per gallon, and all you get are Simpsons references. Of course, one of the first is Shafe's Simpsons Stuff - Grandpa's Hogshead Converter, so it works. Sort of.

  45. for finding wares by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting
    I like to search for:
    • +"Index of" +filename.exe +"parent directory"
    1. Re:for finding wares by irokitt · · Score: 2, Informative

      If you want to restrict to servers and not just pr0n sites that include "parent directory" in their site, try using apache as a search term as well.

      --
      If my answers frighten you, stop asking scary questions.
  46. Google Labs' "Glossary" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I found it indispensible for take-home finals.

  47. Evil Cookies by fm6 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    What's the issue with cookies? Obviously, you want to block most 3rd-party cookies. But to uniformly refuse to use first-party cookies is silly. Unless you don't trust anybody to keep track of when you're visited their web site.

    Oh, you don't want anybody keeping track of your activities and transactions? Then you can't use a credit card, you can't write checks, you can't ever show anybody your driver's license or social security card. Which means you can't legally hold a job in the U.S.!

    I think cookie-phobia is a sort of an inverse example of what Bruce Schneir calls the Line-Item Fallacy of Security. He's refering to people who think the solution to their security problems is to just buy a bunch of magic technology that will solve their problems for them. But there also seems to be an attitude that some technology is tainted by the evil anti-security/anti-privacy boojum, and by avoiding it you also solve your security problems. Not true. As Schneir keeps saying, security is not a product, it's a process. And of course privacy is an aspect of security.

    Cookies are presumed to be evil because they can be used to gather information. But you can't avoid giving out information. The best you can do is avoid giving information to people you don't trust.

    What, you don't trust Google? Fine, then configure your browser to only allow cookie settings to trusted sites, and don't add google.com to the list. That way you can at least use Slashdot without logging in.

    What, you don't trust Slashdot? Then why are you even using it? They're perfectly capable of tracking your activities on their site without using cookies.

    You don't trust your browser to enforce your cookie policy? Then you're already screwed, cause you've been trusting your browser not to not use cookies at all.

    It's not about what technology is evil and what isn't. It's about who you trust and who you don't.

  48. je ll gho nerds... by Cyno01 · · Score: 2, Interesting
    --
    "Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
    1. Re:je ll gho nerds... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your sig is so horribly stupid that I actually want to send you a dollar so you can get a new one. What is your paypal address?

  49. Miserable Failure and WMD by jimmyl930 · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Miserable failure + I'm feeling lucky.

    Weapons of mass destruction + I'm feeling lucky.

    The Google calculator/convertor is also very cool.

  50. It does work if you type it correctly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just French Military Victories will suffice thank you.

    What's really interesting about it is some of the less expected results.

    From the top of the "french military defeats" link:

    "(***Please note that the Web designer is not American and blaming the Web designer for America's history is illogical. Though you may critisize this oversimplified French history all you wish, blaming or threatening the Web designer is not nice.)" -- http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/text/france.html

    That fact is, that all americans outside of limited american forums hear about that crap nearly constantly. Bitching from ass-clowns from other countries. Yes yes were all evil and it's all our fault whatever it was, and not only did your leaders and forefathers bear no responsability for what's transpired they were on the path to creating a Utopia that ran on dreams and starlight until nasty old US came along and keyed their car, shot their dog and stole their girl.

  51. Re:Searching in Klingon, Swedish Chef, or Elmer Fu by X-wes · · Score: 2, Informative

    And for our "elite"-feeling friends... 1337 h4x0r

  52. Other Oogles by foote · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Once, for the hell of it, I tried www.boogle.com. It's Google with a different quote and a different pretty picture each time you go. So, just for more hell of it, I tried a bunch of other oogles just now. Here are a few:

    joogle.com - a directory site. Never used it or heard of it.

    koogle.com - same as joogle.com.

    moogle.com - Part of Strayer University. Never used it or heard of it.

    noogle.com - Part of moogle.com

    ooogle.com - sex

    roogle.com - not taken

    toogle.com - got a casino alert box and then sent to usseek.com

    uoogle.com - redirected to sharewareisland.com

    voogle.com - get free email addresses and a disturbing picture of a frog in a bikini.

    woogle.com - same redirect as toogle.com, to usseek.com

    xoogle.com - not taken

    yoogle.com - under construction

    zoogle.com - Xaraya Content Management Solutions

    1. Re:Other Oogles by phrasebook · · Score: 1

      I tried www.boogle.com. It's Google with a different quote and a different pretty picture

      Painful site. The pictures look like they're scanned from cheap christian christmas cards. And the quotes, have mercy! I've heard enough quotes from scientists and US presidents and artists and whatnot to last a fucking lifetime!

    2. Re:Other Oogles by myz24 · · Score: 1

      Or how about this :-)
      http://gogole.com/

    3. Re:Other Oogles by Jugalator · · Score: 1

      lol!

      A funny thing is that it stays on the gogole.com domain and doesn't redirect you? Hmm

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
  53. # of cubic inches in one gallon?!!? by AtariDatacenter · · Score: 1

    I thought that a gallon was a measure of area. But I'm really confused. Are there REALLY 231 cubic inches in one US gallon?! I've got a flower pot that is 17 inches high, with a 17.5" (average) diameter. 2(pi)rh should give the area, which would be 2(3.14)8.75*17. Have I done my math wrong? By google's information, that should only be 4 gallons. That flower pot is pretty big.

    1. Re:# of cubic inches in one gallon?!!? by Lao-Tzu · · Score: 2, Informative

      2(pi)rh would give you the circumference. (pi)r^2 would give you the area.

    2. Re:# of cubic inches in one gallon?!!? by AtariDatacenter · · Score: 0

      I think you have your units skewed. 2(pi)r would be the area of a circle. Because this is a pot, and not a sphere, you would multiple 2(pi)r by the height of the pot.

      The thing is, in nurseries and home improvement stores, they sell plants in "five gallon pots". That is far smaller than this container. In fact, the fifteen gallon pot size seems to be close.

      Are plant gallons with soil and roots different than US gallons?

    3. Re:# of cubic inches in one gallon?!!? by Lao-Tzu · · Score: 1

      I think you have your units skewed. 2(pi)r would be the area of a circle. Because this is a pot, and not a sphere, you would multiple 2(pi)r by the height of the pot.

      No. The area of a circle is (pi)r^2. The circumference of a circle is (pi)d, or 2(pi)r. Don't believe I know my 5th grade math? Check it out.

    4. Re:# of cubic inches in one gallon?!!? by AtariDatacenter · · Score: 0

      Holy CRAP! I learned something.
      Thank you THANK YOU!

      Man, I'm stupid.

  54. Google sets set the standard by vinit79 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Google sets (In google labs)

    http://labs.google.com/sets

    Its amazing, the google engine at its best. If u havnt tried it yet give it a go.

    Vinit

  55. Don't forget... by Phil+John · · Score: 0, Redundant
    --
    I am NaN
  56. Gallon == volume by BSDevil · · Score: 1

    As the subject line indicates, a gallon is a unit of volume. If you're American, I thnk you may even buy your gas and milk in units of a gallon. Also, be careful with the difference between a US gallon and a UK gallon - one is slightly larger.

    Maybe you were thinking about acre or hectare for acre?

    --
    Cue The Sun...
    1. Re:Gallon == volume by AtariDatacenter · · Score: 1

      Its more like this: You go to a nursery or a home improvement store. They sell plants in "5 gallon pots" but that is way smaller than my container. The 15 gallon pots come close. Are the gallons used to measure the planter/root/soil different than other types of gallons?

    2. Re:Gallon == volume by bilgebag · · Score: 1
      "Also, be careful with the difference between a US gallon and a UK gallon - one is slightly larger"

      Nope, I think it's that one is slightly smaller.

      Panti pinti.

  57. Re:Searching in Klingon, Swedish Chef, or Elmer Fu by hawaiian717 · · Score: 1

    And don't forget... Ingpay Atinlay.

    --
    End of Line.
  58. "I don't think it means what you think it means" by alexo · · Score: 2, Funny

    > Me having sex with my SO is legal. That doesn't mean I want information about it out in the open.

    As far as I know, having sex with your Superior Officer is universally illegal.

  59. Set preferences without using Google's cookie by whovian · · Score: 4, Informative

    I, too, prefer not to let Google set cookies.

    1. Enable cookies. 2. Go to http://www.google.com/ 3. Click on "Preferences" on the right side of the search box. 4. Set your preferences and click "Save Preferences." You're back to the search box. 5. Click on "Advanced Search" on the right side of the search box. 6. Do not fill out anything, but just click on "Google Search." 7. Bookmark this new search page. 8. Delete your Google cookie. 9. Disable all cookies, or at least your cookies for Google. Now when you use your new bookmark for Google searches, your preferences are passed to Google in the URL, without a cookie.

    (Reference: http://www.searchguild.com/printer/fm1/792)

    --
    To-do List: Receive telemarketing call during a tornado warning. Check.
  60. Unit conversions by mini+me · · Score: 0, Redundant

    I use it all the time to convert metric to standard units and vice versa. I mean if america would just get their act together it would be a non issue. But until then, it's Google to the rescue.

  61. Spell check by natefanaro · · Score: 1

    I'm not too sure on the spelling of some of my words, and even though I'm geek thin, I fat finger keys a lot. So I really like the "Did you mean:" feature of google.

    Another one that I don't think to use as often as I should is the Google Viewer It's like a slide show of your search results.

  62. Re:"I don't think it means what you think it means by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hmmm, and me thinking all this time that SO meant "Significant Other".

  63. Top level directories narrowing searches by John+Q.+Public · · Score: 2, Informative

    Instead of searching with site=microsoft for Windows fixes, you can get a search of many many things related to MS by using http://google.com/microsoft which turns up a ton more answers than the MS KB or any other search I've found.

    Also works with /linux and Macintosh...

    Turns out they're on the instruction pages, more's the pity. I thought they were unpublished.

    1. Re:Top level directories narrowing searches by mnewton32 · · Score: 1

      Don't forget /bsd, although why they would bother going through that for a dead OS is beyond me...

  64. google tracking clicks from Main page by ncr53c8xx · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Anyone else notice that google now tracks all the links from the main page? Google now knows which links you go to. It has the format http://www.google.com/url?&URL&e=tracking.

    1. Re:google tracking clicks from Main page by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Umm.. no, it doesn't. I can't find my searches doing anything like that.

    2. Re:google tracking clicks from Main page by ncr53c8xx · · Score: 2, Interesting
      I can't find my searches doing anything like that.

      You probably don't run many searches. Upon further research, it seems that they have announced that they will track users who do more than a certain number of queries, but the count is kept using cookies, so if you refuse cookies you should be OK.

  65. Unexpected results by leighklotz · · Score: 1

    I wanted to find information about a low-power ham radio site that would tell me how many miles per watt I was getting, given two locations. I searched for miles per watt and found out that the answer is a constant, 1609.344!

    1. Re:Unexpected results by man_ls · · Score: 1

      1 miles per Watt = 1 609.344 m-1 kg-1 s3

      technically, you're not getting 1600 miles per watt.

      1 watt = 1 joule * 1 second

      1 joule = 1 newton * 1 meter

      1 newton = 1 kilogram, 1 meter per second per second.

      You're getting 1600 meters...1.6km...about .7 miles.

    2. Re:Unexpected results by emtboy9 · · Score: 1

      That all really depends on the frequency, atmospheric conditions, radio and antenna setup, and the mode of transmission.

      For example, on a small kitbashed rig I built, I get a measured output of about 190mW (milliwatts). With that radio and using CW (morse code) I can communicate from North Carolina into Europe and South America.

      Using FM Voice, my 75 watt radio on the 2 meter band can barely get better than 150 miles on a good day. Some days I have trouble getting a good signal out farther than 80 miles.

      My QRP (low power) HF rig puts out a max of 4.5 watts measured. setting it to 2.5 watts, I can, using Single Side Band voice, talk to South America, Central America, most of the US and Canada, but only using a particular antenna. Switching to a simple random wire antenna and tuner drastically reduces the distance I can be heard.

      My dipole gets a bit farther out at 2.5 watts, but my portable HF antenna with the various loading coils has had a maximum range so far of about 1600 miles or so...

      heh...to get back on topic, my favorite is searching for names. I searched for my name and found that I was either an Oracle guy, a sexologist, or a musician.

      --
      "Our funds have never taken part in toxic or death spiral convertible financings of any sort" -BayStar's managing partne
    3. Re:Unexpected results by pclminion · · Score: 1
      No.. it's telling you that 1 mile per watt is equal to 1609.344 m^-1 kg^-1 s^3. It just did a unit conversion to the MKS system.

      Google writes all answers with units in MKS. It simply converted your mixed-system ratio -- one unit is imperial, the other is metric, what an ugly mix.

      By the way, m^-1 kg^-1 s^3 is equivalent to "seconds per newton" which is a fairly meaningless unit. A Google search for the term "seconds per newton" comes up with only a few hits, none of which has any physical meaning.

      The units of a physical quantity are a fundamental component of the quantity. If you ignore them you'll end up really confused like you got here.

    4. Re:Unexpected results by leighklotz · · Score: 1

      My dipole gets a bit farther out at 2.5 watts, but my portable HF antenna with the various loading coils has had a maximum range so far of about 1600 miles or so...

      The vertical has a lower takeoff angle than the dipole at pretty much any height, so the ionospheric F-layer skip will be longer, and if you're out HFPacking then you're away from more noise sources, so the additional noise you have from a vertically-polarized antenna is offset by being away from the city. Head to the ocean or beach with your vertical if you want to see it really "take off".
    5. Re:Unexpected results by leighklotz · · Score: 1
      pclminion wrote:

      No.. it's telling you that 1 mile per watt is equal to 1609.344 m^-1 kg^-1 s^3. It just did a unit conversion to the MKS system. Google writes all answers with units in MKS. It simply converted your mixed-system ratio -- one unit is imperial, the other is metric, what an ugly mix. By the way, m^-1 kg^-1 s^3 is equivalent to "seconds per newton" which is a fairly meaningless unit. A Google search for the term "seconds per newton" comes up with only a few hits, none of which has any physical meaning. The units of a physical quantity are a fundamental component of the quantity. If you ignore them you'll end up really confused like you got here.

      Do you really think I didn't know all that? The end result was that it was funny. As Governer Arnold Schwartzenegger said in The Terminator, "Category: Joke".

      So, for the humor impaired and recently elected, let me spell it out in easy steps.

      • I entered a plain text search phrase, "miles per watt", hoping to find a web site that would, given a latitude and longitude or pair of Maidenhead Grid coordinates, and my power, calculate the number of miles per watt.
      • Google interpreted "miles per watt" as a unit calculation, with unity values, and simplified it to MKS units.
      • The scalar component of the answer it got was about 1600, which is a reasonably good number for miles-per-watt on HF radio transmission, so I was briefly startled to see a number in response to my quest, which was in fact to find a number of about that magnitude.
      • I thought it was a funny and unexpected result of searching for a plain text phrase, so I posted it to Slashdot, hoping that others would find it funny as well.
      • Instead, I got a bunch of geeks explaining to me what units are.
  66. Question for the moderators by vinit79 · · Score: 1

    I'm still a newbie to slashdot. I was just wondering why my msg got moded down as 'redundant'. It answered the main topic " What is YOUR fav google feature", Google Sets is fantastic and no one else seems to have mentioned it before. Just wanted to know what was wrong ( feels sort of bad to have your 1st slash dot comment marked 'redundant').

  67. Other numeric constants.... by bziman · · Score: 1

    Okay, sure, google is written by geeks... it's cool that it has a numeric constant for 42... but it *also* knows about PI, E, and get this.... hbar... wow!

    1. Re:Other numeric constants.... by bpowell423 · · Score: 1

      Speaking of PI and E... If you consider what are probably the 5 most important numbers: 0,1,e,i,pi... ever wonder how they're related? Try this e^(i*pi)+1

  68. Try this one: by Otto · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Kinda neat.

    http://random.bounceme.net

    --
    - Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
  69. Google Stats by shermster · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I like the Google Zeitgeist . Interesting stats from Google users around the world. Imagine the marketing potential of this info.

  70. Mod points are not given on the basis of IQ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Don't take it personally. It's only a web page. Some retards get mod poits, some geniuses get mod points, some people get points and downmod mercilessly, some people get points and upmod rediculously.

    You'll pull through.

    1. Re:Mod points are not given on the basis of IQ by vinit79 · · Score: 1

      Thanx for cheering me up. I had posted a couple more coments and they have got modded up. And my Karma is now positive !!(which feels great)

  71. Or pig latin by grolschie · · Score: 1
  72. Calculator by Shant3030 · · Score: 0, Redundant

    google has a neat calculator feature.

    try "5+5" or "milliseconds in an hour"

    --
    100% Insightful
  73. Works on google.ca, doesn't work on google.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's why it didn't work for you earlier today. The grandparent links to google.ca. It still doesn't work on google.com.

  74. Something I don't like about Google by Mr_Silver · · Score: 1
    There is one thing I don't like about Google, which I haven't found a way around, is that it strips punctuation.

    For example, tell me who wrote the song "E.V.A.". If I use that in Google, I end up with loads of "Eva Cassidy" links.

    I've tried quotes and backslashes but still i don't seem to be able to force punctuation. Any ideas?

    --
    Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
  75. Thank you google drone? by quinkin · · Score: 2, Funny
    Thank you google drone - hope this helps your IPO...

    Q.

    --
    Insert Signature Here
  76. Re:www.booble.com by craznar · · Score: 1
    A naughty search engine for booble related topics.

    --
    EMail: 0110001101100010010000000110001101110010 0110000101111010011011100110000101110010 0010111001100011011011110110
  77. Holy Christ dude, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    would you SHUT THE FUCK UP about the fucking radians per second thing? Go use Windows Calculator or gcalc or a two-dollar pocket Casio or WHATEVER.

  78. Google Answers by Chris+Pimlott · · Score: 1

    The whole Google Answers service is pretty neat as well. It operates on a freelance basis; anyone can post a question and a bounty for the answer and anyone can post an answer to try to claim it. What's cool is that all the previous questions and answers have been posted online. Lots of interesting stuff, some of the researchers are quite good.

  79. Experimental Wi-Fi Directory by sysadmn · · Score: 1

    Wifinetnews on Google Labs' experimental Wi-Fi directory. Looks interesting because it derives the list from the web pages scanned.

    --
    Envy my 5 digit Slashdot User ID!
  80. So is AAAPPPNNNN by That's+Unpossible! · · Score: 1

    As is 2259225400

    http://www.google.com/search?q=2259225400

    --
    Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
  81. Google Toolbar and View PDF as HTML by aldridge · · Score: 2, Informative

    The Google Toolbar. Not very hidden but its amazing. http://toolbar.google.com/ Has a built in popup blocker search box and best of all its free and no spyware. Also the View PDF as HTML http://www.google.ca/search?q=cache:xWrqav2j1Y8J:w ww.boston.com/globe/acrobat/today.pdf+&hl=en&ie=UT F-8 Lets just I dont like AdobePDF files.

  82. Ask the Expert by jobbegea · · Score: 1

    they used to have a feature 'Ask the Expert' See here http://www.websearchguide.ca/netblog/archives/0011 04.html But doesn't seem to be available anymore

    --

    Net sa best, mar it koe minder
  83. Mozilla and Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since there are a few comments on how people use Mozilla with Google, here's my tip (Mozilla on RedHat Linux):

    In the preferences set Google to be your search engine. You can then access it by typing directly into the location bar, which drops down to reveal a "Search Google for..." field.

    Edit "google.src", usually found in /opt/mozilla/searchplugins/

    Any preference that you can set in the URL for Google, you can set in this file. It shouldn't take too long to figure it out.

    Bish bash bosh, job's a good'un.

  84. NOOO!!! by The+Bungi · · Score: 1

    Google gets /.'ed as 1 million frustrated and lonely nerds figure out how to get free pr0n after having Mom's credit card taken away (again) and giving up on that complicated USENET thingy.

  85. I love by IronBlade · · Score: 2, Funny

    I love the feature which lists their features... oh, wait, it's just their features page...

    --
    Important info:
    http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net
    http://dieoff.org/synopsis.htm
    http://www.peakoil.net
  86. That Page is Stupid by Vagary · · Score: 1

    Not only am I embarassed because the authour is a fellow Canadian, but because the list of French Military Defeats is incorrect:

    France has, at some time in the last thousand years, controlled most of mainland Europe, half of Africa, and some nice places in South East Asia and North America. In comparison the US has controlled, what, the Philippines? Sounds to me like winning wars isn't all it's cracked up to be.

    1. Re:That Page is Stupid by buck_wild · · Score: 1

      Sheeeeit. We're just so confident that we give the land back after setting up puppet governments.

      Why would we want to take over places like Cuba when we already have the US?

      --
      If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
    2. Re:That Page is Stupid by Vagary · · Score: 1

      You're right in that the world banking system, which is largely controlled by US corporations, is colonialism by other means. But I think that average American citizens would benefit more from raping a country's natural resources than slowly embezzeling their funds.

    3. Re:That Page is Stupid by iocat · · Score: 1
      Man, I have mod points, and yet there is no "-1 doesn't get the joke" modifier. Weird.

      Yeah, France rules. They ruled everything. All our miltary victories earned us nothing.

      Except I never saw the Nazis goose-stepping past the Washington Monument...

      Here's a thought: all your previous victories come to nothing when you let the most evil army in the history of mankind waltz into your capital. That resets things to zero. And what has France done since we liberated Paris? Oh yeah, sunk some environmentalists' boat. . Very impressive.

      --

      Dude, I think I can see my house from here.

    4. Re:That Page is Stupid by buck_wild · · Score: 1

      You could have a point there!

      Hmmm... Maybe I should write my congressman...

      (This and the previous post were meant as sarcasm, but the way)

      --
      If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
    5. Re:That Page is Stupid by Vagary · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I get the joke, but I think it's important that people don't let this performative speech overly cloud their true historic judgements.

      It's one thing to criticise the French officer corps circa 1935, it's a whole other to infer national character from the blunder that is the Maginot Line. It may have been the most evil army, but it was also the most powerful army in the history of mankind. Plenty of other countries got their ass kicked in WW2, and I don't see you calling all of them cowards.

      WW1 was stalemated before the US stepped in, and you concede that French was militarily successful before that. So really, this whole France = cowards judgement is made entirely on their post WW2 record, which is not only a small span of time, but also a period of reconstruction and extraneous geopolitical circumstances.

      The US has been extremely fortunate in its short history, and it has far from won every war it engaged in.

    6. Re:That Page is Stupid by iocat · · Score: 1
      For the record, I like France. Anytime I've been there the people have been nice -- as long as you at least attempt to speak French -- and the culture, food and scenery is pretty great. But, that said, there is at least a perceived vein of arrogence that runs in the Gaulist style, which makes poking fun at the French and their military failures (since Waterloo basically), much more fun that making fun of, say, the Italians, who've proven relatively hapless at modern warfare, despite having once ruled basically their entire known world, and introducing what we might term modern civilization to much of Europe (including France, Asterix novels to the contrary).

      At the same time, if you're looking at reality, the notion of the brave, doomed, member of the French Underground in WWII is at least a strong a cultural "meme" as that of the French as "cheese-eating surrender monkeys." Certainly it's gotten more play than the euqually brave actions of Czech partisans, for instance.

      --

      Dude, I think I can see my house from here.

  87. Nice lookin' orbs. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  88. The Answer by Evets · · Score: 1

    I'm a big fan of the answer that google gives to a search for "The Answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything"

    1. Re:The Answer by Evets · · Score: 1

      sorry, the search is: the answer to life the universe and everything it used to be better, but it still has the google calculator result. (6 times 9)

  89. Google's rationalization is weak. by RockyMountain · · Score: 1

    A very weak rationalization by Google, in my opinion. It seems to be based upon the "method of dimensions" arguement, i.e. "if the dimensions come out right, the answer must be right". I don't buy it. The method of dimensions is a helpful but non-rigorous technique, and doesn't always correctly handle dimensionless constants.

    Hertz can't just mean "anything" per second.

    For starters, consider that minimally it must be restricted to mean "anything dimensionless per second". You can't measure velocity or power in Herz, even though both have units of "anything per second" (metres or joules respectively).

    In fact, either by convention or definition, I suspect the former, the "anything" is further restricted to be a cycle of some periodically repeating event. One rotation of a roundabout. One cycle of a sine-wave. etc.

    Travel one radian around the roundabout, and you don't end up back where you started. Travel 2*pi radians, and you do -- you've completed a cycle.

    If Herz really meant "anything per second", why don't Intel just claim their Xeons are 12.4GHz instead of 2GHz? I hope Intel's marketing folks aren't listening. :-)

    Google may have a rationalization for why their answer is "right", but any engineer who has ever worked with filters knows better.

  90. What Can $15 000 000 Buy You? by Farley+Mullet · · Score: 1
    France has, at some time in the last thousand years, controlled most of mainland Europe, half of Africa, and some nice places in South East Asia and North America.

    . . .and then they lost it all.