Slashdot Mirror


Happy 7th Birthday Google!

AviN456 writes "On this day, in 1998, Google was born. Seven years later, and it has not only become the most popular search engine on the internet, but it has also become an integral part of many people's online life. From Google search to Google mail, Google Earth to Google Moon. It has even made its way into language as a common word.It is quite undeniable. Google is an amazing achievement. Happy birthday Google, and here's to many many more!"

303 comments

  1. I knew it by kevin_conaway · · Score: 5, Funny

    As soon as I saw that png on Googles website, I KNEW Slashdot would cover it. I thought to myself "Google farted, that sound you hear is a million Slashdotters sniffing."

    Seriously, thanks for gmail though. I wish I would apply the concept of labels to files on my harddisk.

    1. Re:I knew it by CyricZ · · Score: 1, Informative

      I wish I would apply the concept of labels to files on my harddisk.

      It has been suggested that WinFS will offer this sort of feature. Of course, will you be willing to use Windows Vista for that feature, however?

      --
      Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
    2. Re:I knew it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That png you saw was a GIF, do we still hate GIF's even if the patent has expired? Do we hate google for not hating GIF's even if the patent has expired?

      Autosuggestive slashbots want to know.

    3. Re:I knew it by @madeus · · Score: 4, Informative

      Seriously, thanks for gmail though. I wish I would apply the concept of labels to files on my harddisk.

      Woah, seriously your OS doesn't have that? Time to upgrade perhaps. :-)

      It's not a feature I use (especially since having Spotlight), though I used to rely on it quite a bit when I was using Mac OS Classic. Nautilus allows you to label files though, and KDE seem to have something interesting in the works.

    4. Re:I knew it by bigdickbrian · · Score: 2, Informative

      It has been suggested that WinFS will offer this sort of feature. Of course, will you be willing to use Windows Vista for that feature, however? Well, initial versions of Vista apparently wont have WinFS (its been moved backwards), so potentailly, WinFS wont be with us until EVEN LONGER. Thank fuck.

      --
      look what I found ;-) - www.beplacid.com
    5. Re:I knew it by gowen · · Score: 5, Funny
      Google farted, that sound you hear is a million Slashdotters sniffing.
      The sound you hear is a million slashdotters explaining how it's the most fragrant smell ever, and that there's no way any of the traditional perfumiers could possibly come up with anything so great.

      "It's hard to delete mail in Gmail"
      "You don't want to delete mail" (waves hand mysteriously while speaking like Alec Guiness.)

      "I want to sort my mail into folders"
      "That's not the feature you're looking for.... Labels are much more flexible."
      "And slinkys are more flexible than towbars, but I know which one I want to use to tow my car"
      --
      Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
    6. Re:I knew it by CrazyTalk · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yes - thanks for Gmail (seriously). But I wish I could apply the concept of folders of files on my hard disk to Gmail, not the other way around.

    7. Re:I knew it by arudloff · · Score: 1

      Seriously, thanks for gmail though. I wish I would apply the concept of labels to files on my harddisk.

      Buy a mac.

    8. Re:I knew it by xtracto · · Score: 4, Insightful

      On a news post that does not yield too much discussion...

      do we still hate GIF's even if the patent has expired?

      It is not about hating GIF, I think most of us do not hate technology at all, I think we never hated GIF, we hated the patent and the company behind it.

      In the same way, (i think) we hate Microsoft, but we (at least I) do not hate Windows, or Office, those are just (from the technology POV) demonstrations of what we can achieve with technology, with good and bad things, or good and bad applications. Or like the Atomic bomb, we do not hate the technology, we hate the people that used to kill a hell lot of humans.

      In that way, and going ontopic, nowadays, we love google, because they are making excellent technology, their search page, their email client, their maps etc. Of course they where not the first in ANY of these technologies, and they are not the only ones, but they are making it in a right way (notice it is not the only "teh righ t way"). Although on these more recent days, I have seen that some "do a bit of evil" karma has been sliding into Google, and even if Google starts to be Evil with E as in "MS" we may start to hate it but gmail or google local will continue to be a great technology.

      Althoug you may not believe it, there is people that hate google (to some degree) as for example some of the Adsense buyers (the REAL google customers) because the not so fair google behaviour on that side (yep... has some kind of monopoly over there, but again it does not means we HATE the adsense technology).

      This is the so called "information age" and, Google is playing a big part on it. Google will stay alive for a lot of more year, and IMHO will become as influential as IBM once was to technology (in the days of the Big Blue). We only need to hope that it stays doing "just a bit of evil".

      Happy birthay!

      --
      Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
    9. Re:I knew it by generic-man · · Score: 1

      Windows Vista lets you apply labels to files on your hard drive. You can even create a Virtual Folder containing all the files with a particular label! By the time it's out, you'll even be able to dual boot it with Mac OS X on the same inexpensive piece of x86 hardware.

      --
      For more information, click here.
    10. Re:I knew it by william_w_bush · · Score: 1

      wow, that's like one of the least publicized or cared about features in osx. handy as fuck tho, esp smart folders, can keep a desktop folder that contains all your "x" from all locations, local, lan, wan.

      honestly 10 years ahead of you poor windows guys, maybe only 5 by the time vista comes out.

      wonder why it hasn't made kde/gnome yet? probably considered too n00b.

      --
      The first rule of USENET is you do not talk about USENET.
    11. Re:I knew it by DrHanser · · Score: 4, Informative

      WinFS is available as an add-on to Windows XP.

      --
      What is humor if not pain tempered by time?
    12. Re:I knew it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously, thanks for gmail though. I wish I would apply the concept of labels to files on my harddisk.


      OS X.

    13. Re:I knew it by bhtooefr · · Score: 3, Informative

      I prefer PNG, for a few reasons.

      First, GIF can only handle 8-bit (256 color) pallettes. Granted, each line can have it's own pallette, but it's still fairly restrictive, compared to PNG's 24-bit color.

      Then, GIF can have one of the 256 colors set to transparent. PNG has an extra 8 bits on each pixel for transparency. So, it can be applied to various colors at various levels, rather than GIF needing it on one color, and at one level.

      Also, at a color depth that GIF and PNG share, PNG is typically smaller when it comes to filesize.

    14. Re:I knew it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Ah, a feature that was on the Amiga 20 years ago and even on the Commodore 64's GEOS... Good thing we have multi-GHz 64 bit processors with gigs of RAM to handle this demanding task!


      Guess what my "please type the word in this image:" word is? CONTEMPT! I shit you not!


      PS: IT'S is not ITS. Learn it, dude, that's been around for hundreds of years.

    15. Re:I knew it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, you are right - it is extremely difficult to delete mail. I hate it. I wish they'd just put a damn button that says, "DELETE." I've asked for it for about the 50th time now. So, okay. Yeah.

      But, labels are a 100 times better than folders. So much more flexible. You can only put a piece of mail into one folder in a traditional folder system. However, that same piece of mail can have an infinite number of labels if you should want it to, giving you a way to really categorize everything you ever get.

      So, you're half right.

    16. Re:I knew it by whereiswaldo · · Score: 2, Informative

      File labelling was around back in the DOS days. An awesome command shell replacement called 4DOS write a descript.ion file in each directory you described files. When you copied files around, the descriptions were copied around, too.

    17. Re:I knew it by mwilli · · Score: 4, Informative

      Correction, it WILL be available as an add-on to Windows XP. It is currently still in MSDN beta testing phase.

      --
      My sig beat up your sig.
    18. Re:I knew it by Otter · · Score: 1
      How hard is it to delete mail in GMail?

      No, what I don't get about GMail is why the search function (on which, in the GMail model, you are totally dependent) doesn't seem to search the sender's name! I frequently need to come up with a search term that will hit the message text after it fails to find a sender. Even Lotus Freaking Notes, which can't tell you whether you've replied to an email, can search on sender's name.

      And, yeah, the blurb here is about as inane as I would guessed -- OMTFG, "Google search to Google mail, Google Earth to Google Moon"! M$ is doomed, doomed!

    19. Re:I knew it by MrMickS · · Score: 2, Interesting
      In the same way, (i think) we hate Microsoft, but we (at least I) do not hate Windows, or Office

      No. I hate Windows, with a passion. It has been responsible for an awful lot of pain and is a prime example of the wastefulness of the IT industry.

      --
      You may think me a tired, old, cynic. I'd have to disagree about the tired bit.
    20. Re:I knew it by DJStealth · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Here's a preview of what google looked like 7 years ago

      I know archive.org had older versions of the page, but for some reason this is the oldest one I can get today. You can try this link to an older preview, but it doesn't seem to work for me anymore.

    21. Re:I knew it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess ReiserFS also tries to implement it in the future.

    22. Re:I knew it by Hanoc · · Score: 2, Informative
    23. Re:I knew it by Otter · · Score: 1
      "from:" restricts the search to the sender lines -- it doesn't widen the search over a straight keyword query.

      Playing with it a bit, it looks like a search for "smith" misses email from "jsmith", regardless of whether "from:" is used. So the problem isn't quite what I had said, but I'd still call that really, really lame. I mean, they are Google!

    24. Re:I knew it by nickheart · · Score: 1

      Hey, you could alway drop that into a suggestion box with microsoft, i'm sure the'll promise to have it in Vista, then say it's not going to be there, then delay the release stating it is going to be there, only to release "Longhorn" with no advanced graphics UI, and no Labeling of folders...... -nick

    25. Re:I knew it by VJ42 · · Score: 1

      There's a good greasemonkey script that puts a delete button into gmail.

      --
      If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
    26. Re:I knew it by generic-man · · Score: 1

      Look, Gmail is a beta service. It's not supposed to be good yet, even though a lot of people like it. I'm sure that if you report the problem to the appropriate Google Group, Google will improve the service before it goes live for real.

      --
      For more information, click here.
    27. Re:I knew it by SolusSD · · Score: 1

      I agree... But I still hate windows.

    28. Re:I knew it by ChocoBean · · Score: 1

      Eh~
      is it just me or did that look like Google had an exclaimation mark after their logo way back when? O_o were they trying to sound eXcItEd or wanting to be a bit like Yahoo! ??

    29. Re:I knew it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or, use OS X.

    30. Re:I knew it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "It's hard to delete mail in Gmail"

      If you're functionally retarded, sure.

    31. Re:I knew it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As soon as I saw that png on Googles website

      Its a .gif you faggot.

    32. Re:I knew it by NotWorkSafe · · Score: 2, Informative

      And here it is

      --
      There is no theory of evolution. Just a list of animals Chuck Norris allows to live.
    33. Re:I knew it by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 1

      Windows Vista lets you apply labels to files on your hard drive. You can even create a Virtual Folder containing all the files with a particular label!

      Holy slap-happy! I already have this in OS X, but the mere fact Windows Vista will someday-in-the-future-maybe-do-it is super-exciting!

      --
      "Sufferin' succotash."
    34. Re:I knew it by sootman · · Score: 1
      Fucking-A right. Here's a conversation I had just last week

      Me: My #1 gripe about gmail: I can't click the top of a column and sort by date, size, sender, etc. Saving conversations in clumps and everything else it does is worthless to me without basic functionality like that. Do I need to RTFM, or is this feature really missing?

      AC reply: The main idea behind gmail is the ability to sort the mail using what google is built for.. by searching.

      Fuck that! Fuck all this "search everything!" business. For the web, which is organized like SHIT, yes, search is great. For things you haven't seen in so long you forget where it is, search is great. But for email, where certain metadata--date, sender--is hardcoded in, let me just use the existing data! If I know my mom sent me something between christmas and new year's, don't make me do a big `select * from mail where sender='mom' and date>20041225 and date<20041231`--let me just sort by date and look for 'mom', OR sort by sender and look at dates. Names, dates--these things come naturally to civilized humans. It's not like memorizing IP addresses or anything. Fuck!

      Has anyone here given up on arranging their files into folders and just thrown everything into ~/ and just using Spotlight all the time? NO! Why? Because SEARCH ISN'T THE ANSWER TO EVERYTHING!!!!!111one
      --
      Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
    35. Re:I knew it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the same way, (i think) we hate Microsoft, but we (at least I) do not hate Windows

      No, I dissagree. I hate Microsoft for writing crappy software and I hate Windows for being crappy software.

    36. Re:I knew it by fatcatman · · Score: 2, Interesting

      like the Atomic bomb, we do not hate the technology, we hate the people that used to kill a hell lot of humans.

      No, we don't. Every school child knows countless more would have died if we hadn't dropped the bomb. The question was, "Do we sacrifice x000 of their people and end this, or lose x000^y people on both sides fighting it out for the next z years?"

      I think the answer is quite obvious.

      On a lighter note: Happy Birthday, Google! They're doing a lot of things right. Let's hope this continues.

    37. Re:I knew it by limber · · Score: 1

      what bugs me is that, even if you accept the premise that search *is* the answer to everything, in gmail the search is not fully functional. Specifically, you can't search for partial string matches.

      So, (to use the example mentioned in the help), if you search for 'vacation', you won't get messages containing 'vacations'. Instead you have to build obnoxious OR clauses for the queries you want.

    38. Re:I knew it by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 1

      do we still hate GIF's even if the patent has expired?
      GIF was forever tainted by the unisys patent. The legacy of the whole debaucle will live on in the memories of disgruntled techs for a long, long time. To this day, gifsicle for one still has the unisys patented code as an optional compiler flag.

      GIF has bad karma. Just like public private encryption. The difference with public private encryption is that it was just so useful that it couldn't sit unused. GIF however, is as computer software goes, largely a luxury item, and so just about any mud makes people shy away from it.

      Imagine for a moment, if you were going to buy a new leather sofa that someone had once urinated on. It's leather, it washed off. Technically there is NOTHING wrong with the sofa. Are you going to buy it? Probably not.

      GIF is nothing like this at all of course as computer software analogies suck, but hopefully you see my point.

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    39. Re:I knew it by cant_get_a_good_nick · · Score: 1

      I wish I would apply the concept of labels to files on my harddisk.
      MacOS has had since at least since System 6 days, early 90's or so.

    40. Re:I knew it by cant_get_a_good_nick · · Score: 1

      First, GIF can only handle 8-bit (256 color) pallettes. Granted, each line can have it's own pallette, but it's still fairly restrictive, compared to PNG's 24-bit color.
      GIFs can handle up to 8 bit (any power of 2 palette), with a single palette per image, not per line.

    41. Re:I knew it by Niten · · Score: 1

      I use the Finder's color labels and they're great for simple things, but they aren't quite the same thing as GMail's label system. For one thing, in OS X one is limited to choosing from seven labels. Now I have way more than seven labels in my GMail account; if someone were to incorporate this functionality into a file system, I would need the ability to allocate way more labels than that for the system to be useful.

      Also, in the Finder one cannot assign multiple labels to the same object. This is a defining feature of GMail's labels.

    42. Re:I knew it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That wasn't very critical. You should try to incorporate some anti-Windows FUD, like "I bet you can't run Windows Vista on a $500 computer, but Mac OS X runs [like ass] on my Mac mini!"

    43. Re:I knew it by The+Good+Reverend · · Score: 2, Informative

      No, we don't. Every school child knows countless more would have died if we hadn't dropped the bomb.

      Every school child only "knows" this because it was taught to them. There's plenty of disagreement on the subject.

    44. Re:I knew it by gordo3000 · · Score: 1

      everything but the main search engine is beta at google. It is probably some wierd internal company idea that since you can't perfect software, it should never leave beta. If google is going to say that all its services are beta, it is equivalent to saying none of them are.

      Is it really so hard to just say google can't make a web based email service that is perfect for everyone. Or even worse, they left out what is usually considered a basic email service. It happens. They probably weren't trying to make an email service that was like every other service out there.

    45. Re:I knew it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Veering totally off topic but the idea that dropping the bombs was done to save lives is hardly historical gospel. Yes, that's what we are taught in grade school history but we were also taught that electrons orbit the nucleus both are gross over simplifications. It has been argued for some time that dropping the bombs on Japan had just as much to do with intimidating Stalin as it did "saving" lives. Deploying that kind of ordinance right in the Soviet Union's back yard was a strong political message to mind their manners after the war.

      Oh yeah, and Happy Birthday Google. May your email service grace my monitor for many years to come.

    46. Re:I knew it by gordo3000 · · Score: 1

      nobody knows it because we didn't do both, we coudln't have. its all a big if. There isn't any concrete evidence either way. Historians have argued this point and there is no consensus in the academic community.

      Of course, school children also beleve that the pilgrims on the mayflower all came over for religious freedom(not true, money was a major factor), columbus returned after his first voyage and no one appreciated the discovery(they very much did, He was immediately equipted for a second, much larger voyage to procure land and slaves) and don't know that President Wilson was a disgusting white supremist(commenting about Birth of a Nation, he said "It is like writing history with lightning, and my only regret is that it is all so true").

      So I would be highly suspect of what school children "know", most of it is either a blatant lie, or an over-simplification to make them feel better about all of the United State's actions abroad.

    47. Re:I knew it by bhtooefr · · Score: 1

      OK, I found my link.

      First, I was wrong, it's not per line, it's per image block.

      http://phil.ipal.org/tc.html is a site demonstrating a 15-bit color GIF. The way it was done was by separating it into blocks that held 256 colors each.

    48. Re:I knew it by OmgTEHMATRICKS · · Score: 1

      Nostalgia rules.

    49. Re:I knew it by milkman_matt · · Score: 1

      everything but the main search engine is beta at google.

      Well, not EVERYTHING.. Just the other day slashdot ran a story on the fact that the Google Toolbar has left Beta..

    50. Re:I knew it by gordo3000 · · Score: 1

      are you sure that wasn't quickly followed by the second coming or the apocolypse??? ;-)

    51. Re:I knew it by Otter · · Score: 1
      Is it really so hard to just say google can't make a web based email service that is perfect for everyone.

      And, by the way, I like GMail. I just find this issue an odd shortcoming for the company that is literally synonymous with search. (And think that a great web search engine, a nice webmail service and a few utilities hardly justifies the fawning here over Google, as if it's the reincarnation of Bell Laboratories.)

    52. Re:I knew it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      It is not about hating GIF, I think most of us do not hate technology at all, I think we never hated GIF, we hated the patent and the company behind it.

      I always hated GIFs. "Burn all GIFs" and the rise of PNG was the best thing to ever happen to the internet.

    53. Re:I knew it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Winturds iz 4 loozaz

    54. Re:I knew it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about Spotlight comments? When you right click (control click) and do file info on any file in finder you can put in text comments for Spotlight you can use those as labels then use spotlight to find those files.

      Jim

    55. Re:I knew it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      liek i sed, Winturdz iz 4 loozaz

    56. Re:I knew it by milkman_matt · · Score: 1

      are you sure that wasn't quickly followed by the second coming or the apocolypse??? ;-)

      No but it will probably be quickly followed by the second posting of the story, so they can see it the second time around. ;)

    57. Re:I knew it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yuh butt, Winturds ass Fista iz 4 loozaz

    58. Re:I knew it by irablum · · Score: 1

      Its not that I hate Windows. I hate the philosophy that windows has pushed users and IT directors into. What is that philosophy? The philosophy is, "if its slow, throw more memory at it". While that's also true for Oracle and many other programs, its more prominent in Windows. I am a programmer, and one of the basic tenets I was taught while becoming a programmer is that if there are two solutions available, with the same performance, and one requires less memory, use the one which uses less memory.

      Microsoft, in building windows, has violated that tenet over and over again, producing bloated applications which require faster machines with more and more memory to do the SAME SHIT WE WERE DOING 20 YEARS AGO!!!!!!

      This is even true in hand-held devices, and when I have the nerve to complain about using bloated code, what does my IT people say? "Well, with new technology, we'll have more memory for these devices soon anyway." So, I'll end up with a cellphone with a gig of memory (as much as my laptop) and instead of storing music on it, it will be full of stupid programs which should take 1/100th the size.

      And its all your fault William Gates.

    59. Re:I knew it by Mac+Degger · · Score: 1

      Wow! Offtopic I can get into (although how can a reply to a comment adressing that comment really be offtopic?)...but flamebait? 'Cause it's the truth; Vista will require new monitors which close the analog hole; I repeat: Vista requires new monitors which comply to the MS DRM standard. So flamebait my post cannot be.

      --
      -- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
    60. Re:I knew it by xtracto · · Score: 1

      Interesting, I understand and somehow agree with you. As have been a programmer since the days where you *needed* to count your bytes of code (because as everyone knows, someone thought 640 should be enough for everybody).

      Moreover, I agree with you in that I also hate the trend of the bloated software. But, it is not only a MS Windows problem, you see it also in Linux (KDE for example), as a simple example, go to this page and see the difference between the 7 previous versions of Acrobat reader or in the same page look at the nero file history, I can not understand how [with acrobat reader] reading a PDF could need from 1.4MB to 16MB! that tells you how bloated the software must be no?

      --
      Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
  2. Doh... by LkDotCom · · Score: 1, Funny

    ..a Google posting! ;)

    --
    Grammar Zealots: please spare a non-english writer (lastknight dot com)
  3. I for one... by bc90021 · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...welcome our seven year old overlords.

    By ten, I predict that we're calling it the "GoogleNet" instead of the "Internet". ;-)

    1. Re:I for one... by ZakuSage · · Score: 4, Funny

      I predict that by ten we'll be calling Google "Skynet".

    2. Re:I for one... by leon.gandalf · · Score: 0

      At the speed their networks run at.... BRING IT. Download a file from GMAIL your head will spin.

    3. Re:I for one... by 16384 · · Score: 2, Funny

      No, it's Googlezon...

    4. Re:I for one... by Tarpaper · · Score: 1

      It will probelly go to .goo search.goo, gmail.goo, earth.goo, moon.goo, news.goo

  4. the moon is made of CHEESE!! by slart42 · · Score: 0, Redundant

    check it out on http://moon.google.com/ - zoom all the way in..
    i always knew it!

  5. And many more... by Silverlancer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Here's to hoping google will be here for its next 7 years... and that it will still abide by its motto.... :)

    1. Re:And many more... by justforaday · · Score: 2, Funny

      The goog will abide.

      --
      I'll turn into a supernova and burn up everything. Well I'll turn into a black little hole and you'll turn into string.
    2. Re:And many more... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Years from now when Google is the entity that rules all that it surveys, "do no evil" becomes the the planet's motto, and the name of our planet is changed to GWorld, this day shall be celebrated as GDay, the birth of our brave new world...
      Don't worry though, Balmer will be working on killing it as head of the revolution.

    3. Re:And many more... by CardiganKiller · · Score: 5, Funny

      Google and Micrsoft in "The Big Lebowski". Google: "Let me explain something to you. Um, I am not "A Multinational Corporation". You're a Multinational Corporation. I'm the Goog. So that's what you call me. You know, that or, uh, His Googleness, or uh, Googler, or El Googlerino if you're not into the whole brevity thing."

    4. Re:And many more... by GraemeDonaldson · · Score: 1

      Ballmer will bee too busy chanting "GVelopers! GVelopers! GVelopers!" and throwing his GChair at GPeople.

      --
      I think, therefore I am. I think?
    5. Re:And many more... by moosesocks · · Score: 1

      ...and you can imagine where it goes from there...

      --
      -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
    6. Re:And many more... by milkman_matt · · Score: 1

      ...and you can imagine where it goes from there...

      He indexes the cable?

  6. a round of happy birthday by justforaday · · Score: 1

    Let's all sing a round of Happy Birthday. And while we're at it, we better make sure to pay our royalties to AOL.

    --
    I'll turn into a supernova and burn up everything. Well I'll turn into a black little hole and you'll turn into string.
  7. I for one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I for one accept our new 7 year old overlords

  8. a little bit late! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Google Inc was incorporated on the 7th September 1998 doesn't that make its birthday the 7th?

    I only know this 'cause that's my birthday too!

    1. Re:a little bit late! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I only know this 'cause that's my birthday too!

      You are seven years old?

  9. Happy Birthday to Lawsuit by xmuskrat · · Score: 5, Funny

    Too bad I can't sing them a birthday song without invoking a lawsuit.

    --
    activestudios web design
    1. Re:Happy Birthday to Lawsuit by BandwidthHog · · Score: 5, Funny

      I know a good voice coach if you’re really that worried.

      --

      Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
    2. Re:Happy Birthday to Lawsuit by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 1

      Hey, thanks for just requoting CmdrTaco's dept. line joke in the article submission.

      --
      "Sufferin' succotash."
    3. Re:Happy Birthday to Lawsuit by xmuskrat · · Score: 1

      I didn't just repeat it. I also fixed the spelling.

      --
      activestudios web design
    4. Re:Happy Birthday to Lawsuit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know a good voice coach if you're really that worried.

      The issue is not (only) that he's a bad singer, the issue is that the "Happy Birthday Song" is copyrighted. If he were to sing it we would have to cut a cheque to Time Warner.

  10. Damn by zegebbers · · Score: 1, Funny

    I was half expecting them to own gbirthday.com and googlebirthday.com :(

  11. Why announce 7th? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I can understand announcing 1st, 5th, 10th, 25th, or 50th but 7th???

    1. Re:Why announce 7th? by bhtooefr · · Score: 2, Insightful

      7 is a prime number? And prime numbers are badass, especially when you're named after a number?

    2. Re:Why announce 7th? by space_dude_27 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Maybe they have a birthday every year.

    3. Re:Why announce 7th? by y2dt · · Score: 5, Funny

      "7's the key number here. Think about it. 7-Elevens. 7 doors. 7, man, that's the number. 7 chipmunks twirlin' on a branch, eatin' lots of sunflowers on my uncle's ranch. You know that old children's tale from the sea. It's like you're dreamin' about Gorgonzola cheese when it's clearly Brie time, baby."
      -Hitchhiker, There's Something About Mary

    4. Re:Why announce 7th? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seven is also a significant number in the Bible. I think it means perfection or completeness.

    5. Re:Why announce 7th? by psavo · · Score: 1

      I can understand announcing 1st, 5th, 10th, 25th, or 50th but 7th???

      $ echo "7 2 o p" | dc
      111
      --
      fucktard is a tenderhearted description
    6. Re:Why announce 7th? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can understand announcing 1st, 5th, 10th, 25th, or 50th but 7th???

      You must be new here.

    7. Re:Why announce 7th? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Clearly then, you are an idiot.

    8. Re:Why announce 7th? by EiZei · · Score: 1

      Hmm.. I recall reading somewhere Hitler was somewhat obsessed over number 7 believing in it's magical properties or something like that.. guess this is the definitive proof that GOOGLE IS EVIL!

  12. I know no-one reads the department name, but.... by Roo · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "from the don't-sing-or-your-have-to-pay-royalties dept."

    Surely some mistake. Shouldn't that be "you'll"?

  13. Also known as... by toupsie · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The day Altavista died. It's amazing how fast and how hard Google crushed all the other search engines.

    --
    Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
    1. Re:Also known as... by MichaelSmith · · Score: 2, Informative
      The day Altavista died.

      I wouldn't shed too many tears over it. Altavista was just advertising for the Alpha.

      DEC did try to spin Altavista products off but it wasn't a serious effort, and people weren't running DEC operating systems on the internet anyway.

    2. Re:Also known as... by jurt1235 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That sure was incredible. My move to Google was so fast after they started, that it feels like they are around for 2 years longer. People telling other people: Use google, better than XYZengine. Altavista had that buzz once too, but were not able to stay on top. Google runs the risk of being annihilated the same way too if they do not keep improving their game.

      --

      My wife's sketchblog Blob[p]: Gastrono-me
    3. Re:Also known as... by Dogtanian · · Score: 2, Informative

      The day Altavista died. It's amazing how fast and how hard Google crushed all the other search engines.

      Didn't Yahoo eclipse Altavista long before Google became dominant?

      I remember using Altavista when I first discovered the web 11 or so years ago, and it was (*very* relatively, given the penetration of the Internet back then) one of the most well-known "search engines". This seems ages ago when I think about it; people maintained simple *lists* of interesting websites for general use, and the web was small enough for this not to be an entirely risible or unworkable concept). I'm pretty sure I'd heard of Yahoo back then, even.

      By 1998, when I was seriously back online again, Yahoo was already dominant. I used Yahoo, but switched to Google after getting one too many X-10 popunder ads.

      So; perhaps it would be more accurate to say that Yahoo crushed Altavista (or perhaps that Yahoo expanded and Altavista didn't, really).... and that Google crushed Yahoo; or rather dented them out of shape quite a bit when they knocked them off their pedestal.

      But yeah... it did happen so fast. I mean, Google *started* in 1998... the web (and Yahoo) were already pretty established by that time.

      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    4. Re:Also known as... by Mac+Degger · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Not really. It's still the case that different search engines excel in different areas. For real scientific papers/issues dealing not just with electronics, teoma.com is better than google. Althoug googles scientific paper search engine is now very helpfull aswell. But for hard to find things, a metacrawler is still better than just google.

      It's a myth perpetuated by the ignorant that google has 'crushed' all other search engines. And as soon as google only gives adsense'd websites on a search, or useless marketing pages, all users will flock to the next search engine. So I'm not too sure what your point was, but it is not tue :)

      --
      -- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
    5. Re:Also known as... by slim-t · · Score: 1
      But yeah... it did happen so fast. I mean, Google *started* in 1998... the web (and Yahoo) were already pretty established by that time.

      I can remember using Google long before September of 1998, because I was introduced to Google by a classmate who I have not seen since I left that school in the spring of 1998. Is the real Google start date out there anywhere?

    6. Re:Also known as... by shaitand · · Score: 1

      omg, yahoo.com still resolves!

    7. Re:Also known as... by xtracto · · Score: 3, Informative

      I will recommend you Scirus for scientific papers/information. It is really helpful and has nice refining features, I will try teoma anyway.

      --
      Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
    8. Re:Also known as... by xtracto · · Score: 2, Informative

      I just made a search on Teoma... from what I saw, Scirus is better at constraining the search on scientific papers/information. Teoma is more like a web search engine.

      Also the Scirus.com refining proposals are better and more (in the specific query I did) than those in Teoma.

      Anyway, nice to know there exists 3 of them (google scholar... although I do not tend to use it)

      --
      Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
    9. Re:Also known as... by Dogtanian · · Score: 1

      I can remember using Google long before September of 1998, because I was introduced to Google by a classmate who I have not seen since I left that school in the spring of 1998.

      That rings a bell; I think Google was some experimental thing for a while. I assume 1998 was the official launch date.

      Info here and here, possibly. However, it mentions that the old name was 'backrub'; was it called Google when you first used it?

      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    10. Re:Also known as... by BootNinja · · Score: 1

      I used altavista right up until they started being a portal. What I liked about them, was that the page didn't take 3 hours to load on my 28800 baud modem. when that changed, I moved to google, and that is still the feature I like best about them, even though I now have a cable connection. There's something to be said for negative space, and google understands that.

    11. Re:Also known as... by Mac+Degger · · Score: 1

      Never heard of scirus.com...thanks for the info! I'll give it a try when next I need to :)

      --
      -- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
    12. Re:Also known as... by pe1chl · · Score: 1

      I always wondered why the fact that Google runs on Linux was/is not advertised more prominently by Linux advocates.
      The fact that Altavista was an Alpha advertising effort is quite widely known, but when someone claims that "nobody would run a serious/widely-used application on Linux" there is hardly anyone mentioning Google as an example of an application that almost every Internet user uses. And that still has an impressing performance.

    13. Re:Also known as... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah, google's no factiva.

    14. Re:Also known as... by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1
      The fact that Altavista was an Alpha advertising effort is quite widely known, but when someone claims that "nobody would run a serious/widely-used application on Linux" there is hardly anyone mentioning Google as an example of an application that almost every Internet user uses. And that still has an impressing performance.

      Linux is not a product of Google. They have the ability to promote products but choose to promote their own products.

      Windows is a product of Microsoft, and they, like Google, promote their products.

      Linux isn't really a product in the true sense of the word, so it doesn't get promoted. It's like the air or the sea, something which we share, but which nobody (of financial consequence) owns.

      I see the same problem advocating alternatives to car transport. There is no money in bikes and public transport. So they don't get promoted.

      But people still use them, of course.

  14. I told you so!! by skiman1979 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Take a look at Google Moon and zoom in all the way. I TOLD YOU the moon is made of cheese!

    --
    Having a smoking section in a public restaurant is like having a peeing section in a public swimming pool.
  15. Google Moon Apollo 16th... by masterofsw · · Score: 2, Funny

    Pick the Apollo 16th site and zoom in, all the way...

    1. Re:Google Moon Apollo 16th... by CyricZ · · Score: 1

      Fancy that! It's cheese!

      --
      Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
    2. Re:Google Moon Apollo 16th... by gowen · · Score: 2, Funny

      Don't laugh. Give it a few months and it'll be part of the Kansas science curriculum.

      --
      Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
    3. Re:Google Moon Apollo 16th... by smooth+wombat · · Score: 0
      Give it a few months and it'll be part of the Kansas science curriculum.

      It's already part of the curriculum in one school district here in PA.

      So don't laugh. Cry as hundreds of years of scientific development is flushed down the drain all to drag society back to a time when diseases were caused by evil spirits and people were burned at the stake for being witches.

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    4. Re:Google Moon Apollo 16th... by Dhalka226 · · Score: 2, Funny

      That sounds like witch talk to me, buddy.

    5. Re:Google Moon Apollo 16th... by alexhmit01 · · Score: 0, Troll

      Yeah, I mean, we need to only consider science... and ignoring other thoughts, that's not at all a religion... Next thing you know in addition to blaming ills on evil spirits, we'll start treating them with leaches and possibly need to regulate maggots for health treatment.

      The fact is, not everyone who disagrees with you is a nut job, and "pissing off the religious right" may make you proud, but science is a series of tests and experiments... Science is the scientific method, and anything that doesn't fall within the scientific method isn't science.

      That includes Global Climate Change/Global Cooling/Global Warming/whatever the scare tactic of the decade is... Unless you have two earths somewhere to conduct the tests to determine if humans actually cause a difference. The level of "fact" the global climate change is argued for (with INCORRECT facts, like hurricanes being caused by it... GCC argues for 2 degrees/century, which is NOT the reason for a 2-4 degree increase in the last few years, but that's not what you hear...)

      That includes evolution, because you can't test any of it.

      GCC and Evolution are ATTEMPTS to explain what appears to be going on, they aren't SCIENCE! The biggest champions of these movements have turned it into a religion... it's an anti-Christian religion, but religion none-the-less.

      Evolution is the scientific community's best attempt to explain species, and has some big gaps that they are working on. Some people believe that evolution fails to explain certain complexity and indicates an intelligent design. Who cares... apparently you, because ALL science will now stop, because students are exposed to people that disagree...

      Independent thought and people acting different than you REALLY bothers non-conformists, huh?

      Alex

    6. Re:Google Moon Apollo 16th... by bhtooefr · · Score: 0, Troll

      *sigh*

      Why not just present both theories, and allow the students to make their own minds up?

      It would take two teachers, preferably - an evolutionist and a creationist - but it should make everyone happy, unless they want their theory to be the only one presented...

    7. Re:Google Moon Apollo 16th... by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The problem is, ID is not a competing theory. It's not even a scientific theory at all. Read some of their literature and it is ever so clear that all they're interested in is teaching a thinly veiled version of Creationism...I've seen some of these jokers on TV disputing the age of the earth, and claiming dinosaurs were hanging around the garden of eden.

      Now, we may not be able to sit down and evolve something in a lab, but radio-carbon dating is infinitely reproducable, and gives consistent results. And evolution may not be entirely correct, but as it stands it explains a hell of a lot, and it does it objectively and without any glaring inconsistencies. It's a damn fine theory.

      The problem, which you seem to miss, is that if we start teaching ID in schools, what we're really undermining is the whole idea of scientific knowledge. You may dismiss GCC as a fairy tale, but it is based on methodical data collection and analytical reasoning. There is plenty of room for mistakes but, lacking a second test earth to use as a control group, they're going about it in the right way. ID, the other hand, is pretty much just a "what if?" with no data, no analytic thought, and no science behind it.

      Teaching GCC in a classroom, with the collected data displayed, and the lines of reasoning followed, would be a good exercise. Even if it's not right, the methodology is what's important in science, because if you stick to the method and don't blind yourself with your own prejudgements, eventually you'll get the right answer.

      Teaching ID is just a way to tell students that what you believe is just as valid as any meticulously gathered experimental data, and since it's a hell of a lot easier to believe nonsense than it is to seek truth, I think that is an extrememly bad precident.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    8. Re:Google Moon Apollo 16th... by McGregorMortis · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I'm sure somebody else can answer this much more eloquently than I. But I will offer a couple observations.

      Evolutionary theories are, in fact, quite testable and falsifiable, and thus fall perfectly comfortably under the umbrella of science. You don't need a parallel earth to conduct experiments on, you only need to look for things in the fossil record you haven't looked for before. You look for the "missing links" that your theory predicts should be there. If you find them, that is evidence for your theory; if you don't, evidence against. And other people can look in other places to confirm your experiment (another basic requirement of good science.) All science works this way.

      This is why Intelligent Design is not science. Even if it is wrong, it is impossible to prove it wrong. I'm not saying there's nothing of value coming from the ID people, they do raise interesting questions. But the answer they offer to those questions ("God did it!") is not a scientific answer. That's not the same as saying it's wrong (maybe God did do it, I don't know), but it's not an answer that helps us develop a better understanding of our world. It's a dead-end. It's not science.

    9. Re:Google Moon Apollo 16th... by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 1

      Shrug. Why not do that with all bad theories?

      Earth is Round, vs Earth is Flat.

      Earthcentric Solar system, vs Heliocentric Solar system

      Newtonian Physics, vs Ether and Phlostigion.

      Chemistry, vs Alchemy

      We could go on like this forever. I don't give a damn if you want to homeschool your kids, teach them whatever the hell you want, but I am sure as hell not paying for some whack job to teach defiled science to kids. It's so bad it's like teaching pottery in a damn math class...Why not do it? Because it's not math.

      Why not teach ID in a science class? Because it's not science.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    10. Re:Google Moon Apollo 16th... by Fallus+Shempus · · Score: 1

      Evolution is testable, make random changes to DNA in
      animals and see what happens

      The evidence in support of evolution is overwhelming
      eg: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4260498.stm That's speciation buddy.

      GCC as you acronymoniously call it is not is much doubt either, it's cause
      has yet to be proven, in fact some of the evidence is shaky, something I'm
      trying to figure out myself.
      Intelligent design however has no evidence, any example I've seen brought up
      has been shot down.
      It is not science, it is a matter of faith.

      And the band played Believe It If You Like.

      I'll agree there are some weirdos who seem to have replaced religion with
      blind faith in whatever New Scientist says, but you cannot deny the evidence of
      evolution or the lack of evidence for ID, sorry, you lose.

    11. Re:Google Moon Apollo 16th... by halltk1983 · · Score: 1

      FTA: that's what Bush said. Sounds reasonable to me, as neither has been proven, nor disproven. Maybe the courts will agree. At the school where I work, the theory of evolution is taught as *what happened* not as a theory. Most teachers never use the word theory. When I was a student there, I never once even heard that it was a theory. It was only through independant research that I realized that it hadn't been proven yet... and that's just wrong. I was a firm non-Christian, because I thought God had been disproved. But He is just Unproven. Guess I'll find out when I die. But so will my teacher.

      See you in Hell Mrs. Fairbairn

      --
      Watch for Penguins, they eat Apples and throw rocks at Windows.
    12. Re:Google Moon Apollo 16th... by bigbigbison · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      What's so anti-Christian about evolution? The Catholic church has accepted it nearly since Darwin wrote about it. Of course those who beleive in creationism tend to beleive that Catholicism isn't Christian anyway...

      --
      http://www.popularculturegaming.com -- my blog about the culture of videogame players
    13. Re:Google Moon Apollo 16th... by mdwh2 · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Why not just present both theories, and allow the students to make their own minds up?

      There's only one theory.

      If you mean we should present any old idea, then there's more than two. Science lessons would be filled with hundred of teachers each having a chance to present their latest "theory" (eg, "The moon is made of cheese, and is pushed along its orbit by invisible space mice!").

    14. Re:Google Moon Apollo 16th... by mdwh2 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      The effects of using leaches and maggots has presumably been shown in repeated scientific trials. If the same is shown for "spirits", then fine. The problem is that ID has no part which can be scientifically tested, unlike evolution.

      There may or may not be holes in current evolutionary theory, but even if there are, this does not mean that some random other idea has any merit.

    15. Re:Google Moon Apollo 16th... by AddressException · · Score: 1

      If you find them, that is evidence for your theory; if you don't, evidence against.

      The lack of something in the fossil record is not evidence against a theory; it's just proof that you're not looking hard enough.

    16. Re:Google Moon Apollo 16th... by smooth+wombat · · Score: 0, Offtopic
      So tell me, how do you propose to test for a god who started the ball rolling? Because that is exactly what ID says. You and all the other supporters of ID (I'm presuming you are a supporter) can deny it all you want but that is exactly what your idea (not a theory) says.

      Since there is no way to test for a god ID cannot be a theory since the definition of a theory requires that what a theory proposes be testable in some fashion. In fact, you state as much. In your own words:

      but science is a series of tests and experiments... Science is the scientific method, and anything that doesn't fall within the scientific method isn't science.

      That is why the theory that everything revolved around Earth was found to be wrong even though the Catholic church sanctioned it and threatened Galileo with excommunication (or worse) for stating that his observations contradicted the former.

      See the difference? The previous concept was a theory because it was testable. Even though the church didn't want to accept the fact that it was wrong it didn't change the fact that the Earth was not the center of the universe and did in fact revolve around the Sun.

      As far as your attempt at using leeches (the correct spelling) to show how things that were used in the middle ages (and longer) are now being used in modern medicine, you failed. Today, thanks to science, we know that leeches can be used in certain circumstances to help one recover from an injury. However, that is not the same thing as was done in the past. In the past leeches were used to by physicians to balance the humors and to rid the body of the plethora. Again, superstition and ignorance about how the body actually works compared to scientific observation and discovery.

      As far as global warming is conerned, it is a fact. What is in dispute is if man is having an influence.

      Here's the biggest problem that people don't seem to be grasping. Theories start with a fact. Those theories then attempt to describe the fact using proposals that are testable. For instance, gravity is a fact. You drop something and it will fall. The Theory of Gravity attempts to describe how gravity works. This theory is testable and the observations of those tests agree with what the theory proposes.

      In a similar vein evolution is a fact. The description of how evolution works is a theory. So far only one theory has proposed ideas which are testable. And it isn't ID. One doesn't include in a theory that a god is at work since there is no way to test for a god.

      Lastly, so what if the current theory of evolution has gaps in it? EVERY theory has gaps in it. That is not a basis for discrediting a theory if all the other pieces of that theory are found to be correct.

      That is the biggest problem with ID. Instead of saying, "This is where our ideas trump yours" supporters of ID resort to pointing out the flaws of Darwinian evolution as if that somehow makes them correct. It does not. You, the person saying that your idea is better than someone elses, must prove that your idea is better. To date, not once have the supporters of ID ever put forth any idea of why their concept should be taught. Not one. Instead, they throw up their hands and claim that it's too complicated to have been done by chance and so it must have been done by god.

      That's not how science is done. As you yourself have pointed out, science is a series of tests and experiments.

      Independent thought is great. We need more independent thought. But simply clamining an article of religious faith as a scientific principle only serves to drag mankind backwards.

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    17. Re:Google Moon Apollo 16th... by Shaper_pmp · · Score: 1

      I'm down with that, as long as we also teach Strict Orthodox FSMism in Religious Education. I mean, there's also the same amount of evidence for either one of those, right?

      And if you think Christianity is more "true" because of the age of the Bible vs. the age of the FSMism website? Well then, at the very least we should teach Zoroastrianism too, since it appears to predate Christianity, right?

      In the same way, I'm all for the mixing of Church and State in the USA, as long as in addition to putting up the 10 Commandments in every courthouse you make a point of, in every church, stapling the Constitution to Jesus' chest.

      Short version: We should start teaching ID/Creationism in Science classes when they start teaching Evolution in Sunday School, and not before.

      --
      Everything in moderation, including moderation itself
    18. Re:Google Moon Apollo 16th... by BigCheese · · Score: 1

      As a resident of Kansas I apologize for all the loonies here. We're not all like that.

      --
      The obscure we see eventually. The completely obvious, it seems, takes longer. - Edward R. Murrow
    19. Re:Google Moon Apollo 16th... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The reason evolution is anti-Christian is because evolution does not work without death. Death did not exist until the fall of man, or at least that what I believe Genesis was on about.

    20. Re:Google Moon Apollo 16th... by databyss · · Score: 1

      For the record, evolution is what we know has happened.

      How evolution happened is what is still up for debate.

      --
      Hmmm witty sig or funny sig? Maybe elitest techy sig!
    21. Re:Google Moon Apollo 16th... by gowen · · Score: 1

      Can you apologies for the Royals too? (or do they count as Missourians).

      --
      Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
    22. Re:Google Moon Apollo 16th... by Shaper_pmp · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Oh, ok... if you really want a serious answer:

      "Why not just present both theories, and allow the students to make their own minds up?"

      Fine. We already have a mechanism to do this. We teach the currently-accepted[1] scientific theory in Science, and the religious theory in Religious Education. Damn straight Scientists don't want other viewpoints taught in Science, in the same way Sports teachers don't want Maths taught in their classes.

      "It would take two teachers, preferably - an evolutionist and a creationist - but it should make everyone happy, unless they want their theory to be the only one presented..."

      Fine. But don't erroneously label the resulting subject Science. Call it Philosophy, and there won't be any problem. The "religious side" picked this right by seeking to pass their (forgive me: baseless) beliefs off as science.

      Most scientists (with a few notable exceptions) are happy to let Science handle the "when/how" and Religion handle the "who/why". Only really in the US do you have this problem with religion overstepping its mandate.

      Footnotes:

      [1] Emphasis on the "currently-accepted". The second a theory comes along which matches the observed evidence better, without requiring the violation of known laws of physics (also, without providing any evidence whatsoever that those laws were violated), evolution would be dropped by the majority of scientists. At the very least, it'd be weakened and the new theory would eventually replace it.

      --
      Everything in moderation, including moderation itself
    23. Re:Google Moon Apollo 16th... by bhtooefr · · Score: 1

      Hey, hey, hey, who said I was talking about Christianity?

      I am most definitely NOT a Christian.

      FSMism... It would fit under creationism, no?

    24. Re:Google Moon Apollo 16th... by databyss · · Score: 1

      Which fall of man? Adam and Eve? The great flood? Sacrificing Jesus?

      The biggest driving force behind evolution, according to natural selection which seems to be the most popular method of evolution at the moment, is mating.

      That did happen but not until after Adam and Eve ate that apple.

      --
      Hmmm witty sig or funny sig? Maybe elitest techy sig!
    25. Re:Google Moon Apollo 16th... by bhtooefr · · Score: 1

      And that certainly counts as what would work in my idea.

      FWIW, most of the Christian creationists are trying to go about it by proving the laws of physics themselves wrong. If they can do it, then creationism has a much stronger case.

      Myself, I'm a hybrid creationist/evolutionist. I feel that there was an initial creation of some sort, and then evolution went from there.

    26. Re:Google Moon Apollo 16th... by bhtooefr · · Score: 0

      Sheeze...

      There's only one theory.

      They're BOTH theories.

      Evolution is a theory.

      Creationism is a theory.

      Science lessons would be filled with hundred of teachers each having a chance to present their latest "theory" (eg, "The moon is made of cheese, and is pushed along its orbit by invisible space mice!").

      OK... umm... we're not talking about how the moon orbits Earth. We're talking something that there's at MOST three theories, one of which is a combination of the other two. Creationism, evolution, and a hybrid (in which creationism was the start, but evolution finished the job, or vice versa) are the only three possible theories. Come up with another one, and we can talk again.

    27. Re:Google Moon Apollo 16th... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We actually feel the same way, except that I have to pay for the government indoctrination camps called public schools that my kids will never see the inside of. In my opinion it is child abuse to turn your children over to the government to be educated.

      You do know what the government educated people call privately educated people?

      Boss.

    28. Re:Google Moon Apollo 16th... by Mant · · Score: 2, Insightful

      GCC and Evolution are ATTEMPTS to explain what appears to be going on, they aren't SCIENCE!

      They are if they make predictions you can test, and are falsifiable. Its pretty easy to test evolution with say bacteria and anti-biotic.

      You don't need a whole nother planet to test these things you know, (although it helps, and thats what those simulations are for) when someone can make predictions you can test those.

      The biggest champions of these movements have turned it into a religion...

      Its certainly true that some people with certain agendas have jumped on board, that doesn't nullify the work done by the people actually doing science.

      it's an anti-Christian religion, but religion none-the-less.

      How is climate change anti-Christian? Even with evolution, apart from a few fundies in the US most Christians are happy with evolution.

      Evolution is the scientific community's best attempt to explain species, and has some big gaps that they are working on.

      I keep hearing this, but nobody seems able to actually point out what these supposed gaps are.

      Some people believe that evolution fails to explain certain complexity and indicates an intelligent design. Who cares... apparently you, because ALL science will now stop, because students are exposed to people that disagree...

      Well some people care that groups who state they have a wider agenda are trying to push religion into classrooms by getting something that isn't science taught in science classes.

    29. Re:Google Moon Apollo 16th... by ChocoBean · · Score: 1

      the lack of evidence that there is an invisible cat in the chair opposite me is precisely because it is insivible and you're not looking hard enough.

      I'm not trying to be argumentative, and I do realise that it's hard to always have animals fossilized. But C'mon, the theory's been out for how many years now? One would expect more, that's all.

    30. Re:Google Moon Apollo 16th... by halltk1983 · · Score: 1

      which is why there are skeleton of all the links between man and monkey right in your local museum, right? [/sarcasm]
      Really, This is exactly what I was talking about. There are too many peices of the puzzle missing. Man was the cousin of the neandrethal, we coexisted for quite a while. But they *still* haven't found the "missing link" I'm not saying God pointed a finer and *poof* there was man. What I am saying is *we don't know yet* it hasn't been proven. Even if everyone excepts it as true, we don't know. The Earth isn't flat, but people used to believe it was. This is the same way. When it is proven, I will beleive it, but not until.

      --
      Watch for Penguins, they eat Apples and throw rocks at Windows.
    31. Re:Google Moon Apollo 16th... by Shaper_pmp · · Score: 1

      My apologies - I have every respect for those who recognise the boundaries of science and religion, and don't bring them needlessly into conflict.

      I started up in full-on rant mode because you seemed to be arguing the Creationist/ID side - they're very big on claiming both subjects should be taught in science, so when you posted

      "Why not just present both theories, and allow the students to make their own minds up?"

      it sounded very much like a pro-teaching-Creationism-in-Sience-lessons troll.

      While I suspect disagree with certain points of your philosophy[1], I have every respect for your position.

      [1] I believe that humanity did arise from evolution, and that the universe is ~15bn/$best_scientific_estimate years old. I'm open to the possibility that God ultimately created it, just that if he did, he didn't violate any known laws of physics (or childishly plant needlessly misleading evidence of greater age) when he did it.

      --
      Everything in moderation, including moderation itself
    32. Re:Google Moon Apollo 16th... by spot35 · · Score: 1

      There's a damn sight more proof for evolution than there is for intelligent design!

    33. Re:Google Moon Apollo 16th... by databyss · · Score: 1

      Man and monkey's had a common ancestor.

      They're not linked any other way though. You're no similar to a monkey than you are to a very very distant cousin.

      There is also plenty of evidence in our DNA and structure of common ancestory.

      And since there is such a huge collection of bones from various periods of time, we've been able to study the small changes over time.

      I don't understand why you say "all the links" though. It's not like they jumped from one distinct form to another. It was slow changes over a long period of time. The concept of a "missing link" is a dated one that isn't valid. So I doubt they will ever find one.

      Some changes weren't big enough to be considered, by modern standards, a whole new species. To have a fossil record of the entire evolution process would require the fossils of every humanoid between the beginning and now.

      If you went to a major museum with enough resources, such as the smith, you would see a very complete fossil record though with gives more than enough solid, scientific evidence of evolution.

      And the Earth is round. Although, a poll by the National Science Foundation shows that 20% of American Adults believe the Sun revolves around the Earth. Maybe we should teach that "science" too!

      --
      Hmmm witty sig or funny sig? Maybe elitest techy sig!
    34. Re:Google Moon Apollo 16th... by BigCheese · · Score: 1

      Can't help ya there.

      --
      The obscure we see eventually. The completely obvious, it seems, takes longer. - Edward R. Murrow
    35. Re:Google Moon Apollo 16th... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Most scientists (with a few notable exceptions) are happy to let Science handle the "when/how" and Religion handle the "who/why".

      Seems doubtful. Not having an opinion on "who/why" is not letting somebody else "handle" it. Besides, I suspect most will have an inkling of opinion on the matters. The barrier to entry for nazel gazing is quiet low.

    36. Re:Google Moon Apollo 16th... by halltk1983 · · Score: 1

      First off, love the sig. And FYI, I'm not advocating (despite popular belief) the intelligent design theory. But lets look at some of the things you said:

      here is also plenty of evidence in our DNA and structure of common ancestory.
      Everyone know that architects always start with a new design. They never take one that worked and based the next design off of it.

      concept of a "missing link" is a dated one
      Why are they teaching it in schools as truth then?

      If you went to a major museum with enough resources, such as the smith, you would see a very complete fossil record though with gives more than enough solid, scientific evidence of evolution

      Then why isn't it law?

      And besides that, couldn't it be possible that someone, or something, guided evolution? Does it have to be an accident? Could life not have been a testbed scientific experiment to see how life itself worked? To prove evolution to their own culture? I don't believe this is an either/or situation. I don't think that, looking at the past at previous species, that man could have evolved *that fast* without something working in our favor, other than our intelligence. Wolves hunt in packs, as did we, monkeys use tools, as did we. How is it that we become so different, so fast? Humans are an anomaly in the theory of evolution. There was no *reason* for our intelligence. I hae yet to see science prove how *that fits into the thheory. If you can prove it I would be appreciative.I would give a pretty penny for that to be laid to rest. I have spent many nights wondering about this question. And now Slashdot to the rescue! Please answer my questions/comments with certifiable facts.

      --
      Watch for Penguins, they eat Apples and throw rocks at Windows.
    37. Re:Google Moon Apollo 16th... by databyss · · Score: 1

      Thanks :)

      Architects do reuse successful design, but they wouldn't start building a car with the same design elements that are in a house. Yet humans and our ancestors and all other life on earth have vast similarities in our DNA.

      Do they really teach about the missing link in school? If so then it's probably used to show the evolution of the theory of evolution. The missing link idea was popular when evolution was taking hold.

      Why isn't it law? Cause it wasn't passed by Congress. Ba dump dump! Thank you thank you... I'll be here all night. (applause)

      Theory, Law and Fact don't mean the same in science as they do in english.

      "Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered." - Stephen J. Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981

      No scientist will tell you that it's impossible that god is behind this. Who's to say that god didn't start this universe with the big bang and had all his plans in place then? Oh the bible did. Big deal, the bible shouldn't be considered a book of facts. Also, that's not science.

      I don't believe in god, but to argue that god didn't exist is logically impossible. Who am I to say that there wasn't a creator who created this universe a week ago and put in place everything to seem as if it were much much older? It's not science though.

      Science has nothing to do with god. That's why god doesn't come into play when answering questions scientifically. It doesn't mean there isn't a god or that he hadn't created the universe at any given point, it's just not science.

      --
      Hmmm witty sig or funny sig? Maybe elitest techy sig!
    38. Re:Google Moon Apollo 16th... by Shaper_pmp · · Score: 1

      "Not having an opinion on "who/why" is not letting somebody else "handle" it."

      Yes it is. People turn to Science and say "How did the universe start?" and Science says "It started with the Big Bang, a singularity that gave rise to the entire universe".

      People say "What happened before the Big Bang? What/Who caused it?" and Science says "Fucked if I know. In fact, from what I do know already I'm pretty sure I'll never be able to answer that question".

      "I have no idea, and I'll probably never know" is implicitely "letting someone else handle the problem".

      "Besides, I suspect most will have an inkling of opinion on the matters."

      But "having an inkling" is not the same as claiming you have the answer, or claiming that it's even your place to offer it.

      At some point ~15bn years ago, the universe came into existence from a singularity. A singularity, by definition, is a point at which every known law of physics breaks down, including the conservation of information. It's a fundamental tenet of current scientific theory that nothing, not even something as base as information, could have survived from "before" the singularity.

      Therefore any current scientist who says he knows for a fact how or why (or who caused) this singularity to come into existence (or what happened before it) is by definition not offering science, but belief. This would be bang out of order, but I defy you to offer one "proper", mainstream scientist who claims he knows for a fact what caused the universe to spring into existence. Certainly, "Science" as an institution admits this is currently beyond its purview.

      To be fair, most mainstream Religion also recognises that it has no business claiming factual status. However, there is always the same lunatic fringe (ID/Creationists in this case) who overstep the boundaries by refusing to recognise what is and isn't their side's place.

      "The barrier to entry for nazel gazing is quiet[sic] low."

      People can navel-gaze all they like, and scientists have been known to admit their personal beliefs in public. However, when scientists do this they tend to make it very clear (and it's generally accepted) that these are beliefs. When many religious people do this they tend to claim they're facts, and this is what irritates the "science" side of the dabate.

      Science deals with facts, religion deals with faith. Scientists can hold beliefs just like religious people can state facts. Anyone who claims their beliefs are facts is wrong, period.

      I'll happily slap down any scientist who claims otherwise, just as hard as I'll slap any ID/Creationist. The thing is, you don't really get well-known or public groups of "fundamentalist scientists" campaigning to have science taught in Religious Education lessons, do you?

      --
      Everything in moderation, including moderation itself
    39. Re:Google Moon Apollo 16th... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was Adam (and Eve) I was refering to. I admit that mating is extermly important in evolution but it's removing the "deadwood" before they can mate that is just as important.

      Remember micro-evolution can be seen in bacteria without the need for mating.

    40. Re:Google Moon Apollo 16th... by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      Hmm, seems like the off-topic mods are being given out at random in this entirely off-topic thread...

    41. Re:Google Moon Apollo 16th... by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

      OK... umm... we're not talking about how the moon orbits Earth.

      But you learn about that sort of thing in school - shouldn't alternative "theories" such as these be taught in physics lessons?

      We're talking something that there's at MOST three theories, one of which is a combination of the other two. Creationism, evolution, and a hybrid (in which creationism was the start, but evolution finished the job, or vice versa) are the only three possible theories. Come up with another one, and we can talk again.

      Okay, here are some made up "theories":
        - Life as we see it today arose by magic. There was no intelligence, no design, but also, things did not evolve according to natural selection.
        - Life is too complex to have evolved by chance, but all living things are surrounded by a supernatural field. Here, the laws of logic do not apply, so complex life appears despite the normally small probabilities (just like theists claim that their God is immune to the laws of logic and nature).
        - There are an infinite number of parallel universes, where life randomly appeared a few thousand years ago. Most of these universes are filled with non-complex forms, and there are therefore no sentient beings in them to question it. But we are one of the rare universes where complex life evolves.

      I could go on, but it's getting boring. All of these ideas off the top of my head are neither ID nor evolution, but are just as "valid" as ID. Should we teach them all in science lessons?

  16. Googling with excitement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow!
    First the 360 ad campaign, now Google. /. is excelling itself in the incessantly meaningless PR drivel!

    Unn - I use Google for searching, all the other stuff they provide is mass market crap for the braindead. Lets get back to basics!

  17. Who? by internewt · · Score: 1
    http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=google&FORM=Q BHP
    Oh, that Google!

    Infact, just seen this from that search above http://www.google.com/ig. Nice.

    --
    Car analogies break down.
  18. The news title is a little bit different... by the_real_nugator · · Score: 0

    4 days ago Microsoft turned 30: The Company Everyone Loves To Hate

  19. Re:I know no-one reads the department name, but... by dancingmad · · Score: 1

    A typo on Slashdot? Unheard of!

    --
    "There is no time, sir, at which ties do not matter," Jeeves, (Jeeves and the Impending Doom)
  20. together we will rule the galaxy as father and son by Errandboy+of+Doom · · Score: 5, Funny

    Doesn't someone else have a birthday around this time of year?

    Here's hoping Google stays hip at 30.

  21. Google's lego server by Understudy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    One of the early servers for Google was made from Lego blocks.
    http://www-db.stanford.edu/pub/voy/museum/pictures /display/0-4-Google.htm

    1. Re:Google's lego server by thomkt · · Score: 1

      I don't know about anybody else, but those sure look like Duplo blocks to me.

    2. Re:Google's lego server by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Definitely Duplo, not Lego.

    3. Re:Google's lego server by Quince+alPillan · · Score: 1

      Actually, those are Duplo Lego blocks to be more specific. They're meant for pre-schoolers and are larger than standard Lego bricks. Some standard Lego bricks will fit on Duplo blocks because the top buttons are hollow on the Duplo blocks (the large peg in the middle at the bottom fits inside the top buttons).

    4. Re:Google's lego server by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but duplo is a kind of lego for kids 1-3 years old

  22. First Google article? by Jacco+de+Leeuw · · Score: 1

    Does anyone remember when the first Google article was posted on Slashdot? I remember checking out the new search engine and it sucked (compared to Altavista). Then a few more articles on Slashdot and it became my preferred search engine.

    I guess the Slashdot editors deserve some Google shares... :-)

    --
    -------
    Warning: Slashdot may contain traces of nuts.
  23. Something is very wrong here! by Vengie · · Score: 4, Informative

    Google's official birthday is September 7th.... (Link is to Google Cache. Otherwise, first hit for "google birthday" and check the cache.....)

    --
    When in doubt, parenthesize. At the very least it will let some poor schmuck bounce on the % key in vi. (Larry Wall)
    1. Re:Something is very wrong here! by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 1

      I totally agree.
      It appears that between their 5th birthday and this one, they have blurred the lines.

      But google never lies, so here is a google search backing up what the parent said:

      http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=September+199 8%2C+Google+Menlo+Park%2C+California&btnG=Google+S earch&meta=

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
    2. Re:Something is very wrong here! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think September 7th is right either. I remember using Google in my first year at university (1998), but I distinctly remember accessing it from google.stanford.edu because google.com didn't exist yet. However the article states that google.com was serving 10,000 requests per day in September.

    3. Re:Something is very wrong here! by Carthag · · Score: 1
    4. Re:Something is very wrong here! by hburch · · Score: 1
      From BBC:
      The search engine site moved to its first office, actually a garage, in Menlo Park, California on 7 September 1998.
    5. Re:Something is very wrong here! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a combination of things: it's hard to nail down when a company is formed (Is it when they got the idea? Started the site? Drew up the papers? Filed the papers? Got the papers back?), and Katrina (Happy Birthday Google! Sorry New Orleans!)

  24. Mighty big for seven by Zarf · · Score: 1

    you know, thats a mighty big kid for seven. You might want to start saving money for groceries now... for when they're a teenager.

    --
    [signature]
  25. Re:I know no-one reads the department name, but... by Arathrael · · Score: 2, Funny

    Slashdot fail english? That's unpossible!

  26. In other news by TCM · · Score: 4, Funny

    Google has been renamed to Googte!

    --
    Of course it runs NetBSD. BTC: 1NT7QvbetmANwaMzhpVL6
    1. Re:In other news by burnunit0 · · Score: 1

      I guess I thought that was Googve.

      --
      yes. that's all I'm going to say in all comments from now on.
    2. Re:In other news by anaesthetica · · Score: 1

      At least it wasn't renamed Googse.cx

  27. it's my birthday too :-( by atcdevil · · Score: 1

    I'm 21!

    (So is Avril Lavigne)

    1. Re:it's my birthday too :-( by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you have lots of cool jobs to offer underemployed technies?

    2. Re:it's my birthday too :-( by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      (So is Avril Lavigne)

      How do you know that? Wait don't answer, I don't want to know.

    3. Re:it's my birthday too :-( by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm 21!

      (So is Avril Lavigne)


      Don't tell me...

  28. Silly Google... by Toaste · · Score: 2, Funny

    Anybody who's seen Wallace and Gromit knows the moon is actually made of _green_ cheese!

    1. Re:Silly Google... by steve_stern · · Score: 1
      Actually, its _greene_ cheese:

      How did the moon=green cheese myth start?

      "The moon is made of a greene cheese," greene meaning new, unaged.
  29. google Google Birthday by xtracto · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Interesting fact...
    Search for "Google Birthday" in google witht he "I am feeling lucky" option and Google will take you to a Page not Found, on this page there used to be an anser about when is google birthday...

    If you look at that page cache, you will see that the answer will be:
    Google's official birthday is September 7, 1998.

    Neat uh?

    --
    Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
  30. Google culture by ChrisF79 · · Score: 1

    I'm always interested to see the culture at Google and the things they do for the employees. We always hear about the food that's on campus there and the activities they plan for the employees. I wonder if any big celebration is planned for today. I can only imagine what they have in store...

    --
    Finance tutorials and more! Understandfinance
  31. Only 38 posts... by garethwi · · Score: 4, Funny

    Only 38 posts and their site is already... oh wait.

  32. On this day.... by AviLazar · · Score: 1

    We welcomed our new Internet Overlords!

    --

    I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
  33. Google... really 7 years and 20 days...??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I just saw the Google logo with the birthday and the 7. So I Googled "google birthday" the first hits that come up are a dead link to google.com help support indicating google's b-day is Sept. 7th.

    Google: Help Center Google's official birthday is September 7, 1998. If Google were a person, it would have started elementary school late last summer (around August 19), ... www.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=4866&t opic=367 - 8k - Cached - Similar pages

    Fourth hit, http://blog.outer-court.com/forum/10251.html,

    Google's birthday--with no logo?? - Google Blogoscoped Forum Today--september 7th--is google's birthday, but they have no logo to celebrate. isnt that strange? 09/07/05 [X] 12 days ago. XGen Technologies [PersonRank 1 ... blog.outer-court.com/forum/10251.html - 7k - Cached - Similar pages [ More results from blog.outer-court.com ]

    So is Google 7 or older? What are the making the decision off and why did they used to indicate they celebrated on the 7th? Any one have any ideas?

    Best, J - Heckler
    1. Re:Google... really 7 years and 20 days...??? by wintermute1000 · · Score: 1

      Given the state of disaster that the USA was in around September 7th what with Hurricane Katrina and all, they probably just thought it would be kind of crass to ignore the death and destruction and just pass around the cake and talk about their new index size or whatever. I'm not saying the country's in a completely jolly mood now, but at least most people are feeling a little less like the world's about to end.

      Anyway, who really knows the birthday of any corporation? I'd imagine it's pretty arbitrary, since there are a lot of steps to incorporating and they can't really all happen on the same day...I guess it's confusing that they had one day that they designated as the birthday and now they're pulling a change.

  34. They won't make any money by nighty5 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Half their shit is still in beta after 7 years, surely they are broke by now!

    Come on guys, to step up to plate and actually ship a product to make some cash, some quick decisions will have to be made :)

    1. Re:They won't make any money by CingleMolt · · Score: 1

      You tellin' me you don't understand WHY everything stays beta... Sheesh.. where've you been, hiding in one of those cheese holes? ;) You can't (easily) be sued for something that goes wrong with a beta product. You don't (necessarily) have to directly support a beta product. A beta product can disappear any time and no one can (rightfully) complain.

  35. Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It would have been nice to have had a slightly more objective description of Google's rise to dominating the search engine market, and now branching out into other areas of the Internet.

    Just because their mission state is 'do no evil' rather than 'a computer on every desktop' doesn't mean that they will be any less evil in their tactics than any other large corporation.

    I know several people who work at Google, and gadzooks, they believe ALL of the propaganda, and regurgitate it at every opportunity: "our chef used to be the Grateful Dead's chef, and we had a 'cook-off' to pick the replacement". Hello? The reason you have a chef and get free lunch and dinner is so that you never leave the office.

    When one of my friends in Google needed paternity leave (this is in the Dublin office btw), he was told he could get the statutory minimum of two weeks unpaid leave, and nothing else. Yet he says 'Well, you can see their point' instead of going 'those bastards, you think they would give me at least 1 week paid leave'.

    I used to work at a large multi-national tech company, and was similarly drawn in by their rhetoric and internal propaganda, so much so that I actually reccomended to some friends to buy some stock. Needless to say the stock has since dropped in value by 90%, and I learned some healthy scepticism.

    What will it take for Googlites to learn similar scepticism? And how are normal, non google-employees drawn in by the propaganda? Is it the flouride in the water?

    Marty

  36. Come on folks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    This isn't even a milestone birthday. Ten years old? Okay, a mention is warranted. But seven? It's very out-of-place.

    Is anyone else getting tired of watching Slashdot chase Google's tail? It's getting ridiculous.

    1. Re:Come on folks by BandwidthHog · · Score: 4, Funny

      Is anyone else getting tired of watching Slashdot chase Google's tail?

      Umm, that’s not a tail.

      --

      Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
    2. Re:Come on folks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Umm, that's not a tail.

      That reminds me. How come no one has mentioned how Google's search index was just expanded.

      Google touts size of its search index

  37. Nine Billion Names of God by kjeldor · · Score: 5, Interesting

    by Kathy Kachelries

    After three hours, the old man in front of me had worked his way through six beers, in addition to every help desk joke Id already heard. The cupholder. The any key. The write click. These are the stories people tell, now. These are the fish that got away.

    Let me ask you something, the man said. I didnt argue. One of the first tricks I learned about being a bartender is to make them think youre interested.

    Have you ever created a web site?

    I shook my head.

    Not at all? Not even one of those geocities things?

    Nope.

    What about a blog? Or an ebay About Me page? You didnt even have an AOL site or something?

    Do I look like an AOL user to you? For the record, I dont think AOL even has access numbers in the valley anymore. Im sure I have something, somewhere, I said, realizing that I was jeopardizing my tips. Besides, I had a distant memory of a single Angelfire page back in middle school.

    You know what Google is?

    Yes, I said. I was running low on patience.

    No, I mean, do you really know? More than just the site?

    Reluctantly, I shook my head.

    You ever meet anyone who worked for them?

    Dont think so.

    You havent. Nobody works for them anymore.

    I shrugged, and took the mans empty pint. I didnt offer to refill it.

    Theyre self-contained. Its all automated, in there. Its underground.

    I nudged the basket of pretzels in his direction. Why dont you eat something? I suggested. He shook his head with so much force that I thought he might knock himself off of the stool.

    Listen. Hear me out. You know how Google works, he said, but didnt want for a response. They cache things, right? Like they send out these spiders and take pictures of everything on the web, so when youre searching, youre not even searching the internet.

    Ive heard that before, but it never made much of a difference to me. Same thing, though, I said.

    You ever wonder why Google doesnt cache its own searches?

    They program around it.

    No. Thats what you think. Thats what everyone thinks. But it started back when Google was just a thesis project, back when it was just a drop in the data sea. No one thought to stop it back then. That web site you had, the one you forgot about. Almost everyones got one of those, right? But Google doesnt forget. Googles studied that thing so many times that its studied its own caches of you. What do you figure happens, when a site gets so big that its bigger than the internet?

    Its still a part of the internet, though.

    No. Now, the internet is a part of Google.

    The man had a point. I nodded.

    Heres the thing. Google has memorized who you are. Its memorized all of us, through those little forgotten bits that we leave behind like breadcrumbs. And whats more important, its memorized its own idea of you. Google is omniscient. Its omniscient and omnipotent. When it cached its cache for the first time, back in 1994, thats when Google realized what it was.

    Gradually, it dawned on me what the man was getting at. You think its sentient.

    I know its sentient.

    How?

    He smiled, but it seemed kind of empty. Me and Google go way back. But what Im saying is, he continued, It knows us. All of us. It is us.

    For the first time, the man fell silent. He touched his finger to the bar and began tracing circles in the condensation, apparently lost in thought.

    Think about that website you created, okay? That website will last forever, do you understand? That website is echoing through cyberspace. Its one of the nine billion names of God.

    1. Re:Nine Billion Names of God by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      interesting story - but please, LEARN TO USE APOSTROPHES, it makes life so much easier for the reader.

    2. Re:Nine Billion Names of God by dario_moreno · · Score: 1

      here is the proof you are right.

      --
      Google passes Turing test : see my journal
    3. Re:Nine Billion Names of God by kertong · · Score: 1

      as somebody who works for google (maintaining their infrastructure), I find this post laughable. Oh crap - I don't exist!! The drunk old man is right.

  38. Re:The word "google" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually, thats "googol"

  39. Google Video by TheSurfer · · Score: 1

    Don't forget the recently released Google Video.
    Especially the random videos page is a good way to kill boredom ;)

  40. Still Problems by ThePlague · · Score: 0

    Google is good, don't get me wrong, but the fundamental search aspect hasn't been upgraded in years. I'm not talking about skinning the search page; the minimalist approach is better. No, I'm talking about the actual searches. As an example, one that has never worked is string searches with wildcard characters as literals. Try "#Deleted" and you'll see what I mean. I've scoured the help pages, and message boards for a work-around (double quotes, double characters, characters to precede, etc) and have never been able to find it.

  41. Re:The word "google" by MooUK · · Score: 1

    No, that's a googleplex.

  42. DE - nied!!! by lucabrasi999 · · Score: 1
    From Google search to Google mail, Google Earth to Google Moon. It has even made its way into language as a common word.It is quite undeniable. Google is an amazing achievement. Happy birthday Google, and here's to many many more!

    Bah, I DENY Google! What are you gonna do about it?

  43. I like Google for one reason... by Kylere · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Anything that challenges Microsoft makes software better for everyone. IE was stagnant from the time of crushing Netscape until Firefox, even hotmail, and msn search are better as a result of google. I would never use a Microsoft product outside of work or so my wife can run Photoshop CS2, but I do appreciate the rising tide raising all boats.

  44. Playing devil's advocate by Programmer_In_Traini · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I don't really intend on bashing on Google, I use google and like google just as a much as anyone else. But that being said, Google's incredible and HUGE success is a bit scary. I can't help but compare it to Microsoft, whom we all love and cherish right ? .... right ? ... wrong.

    I can't help but notice also that Google has started spreading its wings, its not merely a search engine now, its a mail servive, a VoIP service, a map service ..well... basically a truckload of services (that we all like) but nonetheless, they're getting big.

    That's also how MS started and god knows how much I hate MS for their strategy to buy the competition, for their release-early, patch later type of software strategy, for the way they acquired (stole?) DOS, I basically hate MS for attempting to be everywhere in my house : the livingroom, the office, the basement.

    Well, I know, Google ain't MS, Google are good guys aren't they ? ... and this is where I put a question mark, in the end...Bill Gate, Eric Schmidt, Me, You, we're all human right ? By nature, humans are greedy, self conscience makes us control it but at what point will you decide that your company shouldn't grow anymore ... what business man in his right mind will say that ? they have investors to feed after all.

    So basically, I'm just afraid that we're encouraging another unkillable giant to grow and that once we realize that google just simply owns the net, we'll also realize it sorts of owns us too and that day, it will be too late because we'll be talking to MS #2.

    Ok, now I've somewhat bashed on Google on their birthday....not really intended but it seemed fitting to talk about google today.

    Now ..of course, people might (will :p) disagree with me, but if you reply, try to tell me why I'm wrong (or right) what are your opinions and such, I'd like to avoid anonymous comments like "dud3, j00 sux0rz" and more stuff like "here's why i think you're off the track..."

    --
    If you look like your passport photo, you're too ill to travel. - Will Kommen
    1. Re:Playing devil's advocate by ClearlyPennsylvania · · Score: 1

      Here's the difference between Google and Microsoft:
      1) Google makes a conscious effort to "do no evil." Culture comes from the top down. When all around you people are saying "do no evil, do no evil," you remember it in all those little decisions you're faced with. Microsoft never had such a motto, and while they're trying to get better now, it's hard to retroactively change a culture. Google's believed that from the beginning, and that makes it much easier to "do no evil."
      2) While Google may have a dominate share in the market (in certain areas), it would never the have monopolistic control that Microsoft has. Search, for example, has extremely low switching costs. As soon as the search results get bad, you can switch to using a different search engine. Compare that to Windows, where switching means giving up software (which you've paid a lot of money for), changing the way you use a computer, and possibly even getting a new computer. Microsoft software has very high switching costs, giving a microsoft the power to be evil - a power that Google doesn't have.
      3) Google's success is based on trust, and that trust is built off of Google's commitment to not being evil. If you didn't trust Google, for example, to not read your gmail, would you use it? Probably not. Google's "do no evil" motto is more than just a nice saying - it's a beneficial business practice.

      So, think about it: Google has made a commitment to not be evil (unlike Microsoft), Google doesn't have the power to control users in an evil way (unlike Microsoft), Google wouldn't benefit from being evil (unlike Microsoft). Google and Microsoft are very, very different companies and Google does believe, and will believe for a very long time, in not being evil.

    2. Re:Playing devil's advocate by FreshFunk510 · · Score: 1

      My impressions of Gates/Ballmer vs Brin/Page (thus far) is that Gates/Ballmer are on a power trip. Maybe I've watched Pirates of the Silicon Valley one too many times, but my impression also comes from their business practices.

      So far I haven't seen Brin/Page act this way. Yes, they've bought some companies but it's really in the sense that these business complement theirs.

      I'll never forget the day IE was offered for free in order to CRUSH Netscape (back in 1996). When Google starts doing this THEN I'll be scared.

      So I wouldn't say it's the greed that gets to these people. These people will have more money than they will ever need in a lifetime. It's the corruption of power. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

      --


      "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." - Martin Luther King, Jr.
  45. Re:The word "google" by BandwidthHog · · Score: 1

    And that word was “Googol.”

    Which gives them something in common with the Macintosh: both misspelled (intentionally or otherwise) the thing that inspired their names.

    (posting a link explaining where the Mac got it’s name is left as a +4, Informative exercise for the reader.

    --

    Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
  46. The REAL birthday by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  47. Seven years... by ankura · · Score: 1

    ... and how many slashdot stories later?

  48. Re:The word "google" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    It is a misspelling of googol. From what I read somewhere, it was spelled wrong on a check given to them, so they went ahead and changed the name of the company.

    Talk about pragmatism :).

  49. Happy Birthday Google! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    May you long continue accepting money from web retailiers that sell DVDs and books in return for rigging the search results in their favor, while at the same time proclaiming that your motto is "don't be evil". I know because I worked at such a retailer in the UK where you made them the offer to do this.

    Also, the amount of editorial you get here on /. is also suspicious, but I'm sure no money changed hands!

    Cheers! Let's all raise our glasses ! Here's to another 7 years of not being evil! After all, it's just business !

  50. Happy Birthday Google! by eBayDoug · · Score: 0

    Without you there would be no Booble!

    --
    Learn About Outsourcing. http://www.pioutsource.com
  51. It pays to celebrate our overlords. by jpsowin · · Score: 0, Redundant

    It pays to celebrate our overlords.

  52. Me too! by marlinSpike · · Score: 1

    It's my birthday too!! Perhaps I will be as wise someday.

  53. wtf? by Mister+Impressive · · Score: 1

    Was I the only one who read their birthday banner as 'Googte'?

    --
    Let the commencement BEGINULATE!
  54. Re:The word "google" by veganboyjosh · · Score: 2, Informative

    a 1 followed by one hundred zeros is a googol. a 1 followed by a googol zeros is a googolplex.

  55. Re:The word "google" by RandoX · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Interestingly, they allegedly misspelled googol on accident. It also seems that the founders didn't know much HTML.

  56. Beware of using Google Ads for revenue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Google has a history of closing accounts for "invalid clicks". There may be a number of people who artifically inflate their clicks, however, there are a number who have been wrongfully closed. Also, Google will close the account immediately, without paying ANYTHING, including any outstanding money owed. This is a bully tactic and illegal.

    Do a search on Google for invalid clicks for more info ... http://www.google.com/search?q=invalid+clicks

  57. Re:The word "google" by MooUK · · Score: 1

    You're right. I plead... tiredness?

  58. Re:The word "google" by hostyle · · Score: 0
    --
    Caesar si viveret, ad remum dareris.
  59. So Google has now lost its trademark? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    IANAL, but
    I believe a word can only be trademarked if it's not a part of everyday language.
    "Kentucky Fried Chicken", for example, can't take action against "Kansas Fried Chicken" or "Krunchy Fried Chicken" because 'fried chicken' is a term in the public domain.

    In some countries only Heinz can sell Ketchup, while others sell tomato sauce, because Heinz has retained its trademark. In other countries the term Ketchup became part of the public domain, and so any company can provide (own brand) Ketchup.

    If Google is becoming an everyday word for 'search', as espoused here, then surely anyone could launch their own "Yahoo! Google" or "Microsoft Google" or "Wal-Mart Google"?

    1. Re:So Google has now lost its trademark? by BootNinja · · Score: 1

      IANAL either, however, this is my understanding. Wrong. people who use the term google in everyday speech wrt search, are still talking about the actual company Google. If people were merely referring to any search engine as google, then yes, their trademark would no longer stand up in court. For precedents, see Yo-yo, kleenex, and Xerox. Duncan used to hold the copyright on the word yo-yo, so other manufacturers had to use the term return top or up and down top. This is no longer the case. kleenex in most people's mind refers to any tissue and not just Kleenex brand. Also, Most people use the term xerox to mean any copy machine. Not just xerox brand.

  60. working hard at separating the internet by country by F�an�ro · · Score: 1

    its getting harder and harder to just access google.com from germany

    they used to check your language preferences and redirect you to a localised version based on that. No prob, I removed all my language preferences.

    Now they seem to be doing that based on my IP

    They used to have a link to the main google page that would not redirect: http://www.google.com/ncr

    That link does not work anymore (redirects to the country specific version)

    http://www.google.us/ --> redirects to my country

    by chance I now found that http://www.google.com/webhp still works without a redirect, but for how long?

    Why cann't they just let ME decide which version I want to watch, the ones with all the new features or the one "customized" for the country i happen to connect from.

  61. Re:Your Have to Pay Royalties? by RobertLTux · · Score: 1

    One of PJs sisters could probably give you a good rundown (the ones that are not covering the implosion of a certain company right now). But if you Google ||copyright "happy birthday" || the second link is http://www.snopes.com/music/songs/birthday.asp so yes you could get sued (by ASCAP ) if you sing "Happy Birthday" in public

    --
    Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
  62. Microsoft to buy Google? by Tominva1045 · · Score: 1



    When Microsoft buys it we'll call it Google.Net ;-)

    --
    Cogito Ergo Sum
  63. Wha? It's not International Cake Day? by Cerdic · · Score: 5, Funny

    Damn, I was making all these cakes because I thought it was International Cake Day. Google always lets me know when to celebrate some holiday I'm not familiar with (Like Bastille Day). Now I just look like an idiot. An idiot with a bunch of cakes.

    --
    Advice for my fellow geeks: before seeking out that threesome you dream of, you might see what a TWOsome is like first.
    1. Re:Wha? It's not International Cake Day? by xmuskrat · · Score: 1

      It's far better then being an idiot without a bunch of cakes. Trust me, I KNOW!

      --
      activestudios web design
  64. Just Great by mitchulskus · · Score: 1

    Thanks CMDR I really appreciate. Slashdot is one of the last bastions of unspoiled geekism that I get to peruse on a daily basis. I've got the wife driving me crazy with Birthdays of second cousins that I've never even met. I'm going to showers for women I've never even heard about and now I've gotta worry about "Google's" frickin b-day too.

    What'd my wife call you and tell you I don't have enough to do already. Just sneak in another birthday. I'm filling out the card and flowers now. Where do I address this to...

    >you may now commence with the "I told your wife to stop calling me jokes"

  65. At least 360... by Donniedarkness · · Score: 1

    I searched for all topics on Slashdot that were classified under "Google", and the 360th was something from 2004(!)... it won't go any farther back than that.

    --
    Earn a % of cash back from Newegg, Tiger Direct, Walmart.com, and more: http://www.mrrebates.com?refid=458505
  66. Re:The word "google" by cbreaker · · Score: 1

    Mispelled or not, it's pronounced the same and obviously inspired by the original.

    --
    - It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
  67. Just think what will happen when Google is 30..... by 8127972 · · Score: 1

    ...... Google will be the top dog trying to fend off a more agile upstart. They'll be losing employees to that upstart and Eric Schmidt will be one tossing chairs in his office and claiming that he'll bury people the way he buried Microsoft.

    Just wait and see. History sometimes works out that way.

    --
    This is my opinion. To make sure you don't steal it, it's covered by the DMCA.
  68. From the Desk of William Gates by PenguinBoyDave · · Score: 1

    Dear Google,

    Happy Birthday! I hope on this day we can celebrate together your success, for tomorrow we will crush you. If we can't crush you then we'll come pee in your flowerbed. If that doesn't work...we'll...we'll...we'll launch our own search engine. It will have a really cool Blue Screen of Death look and feel. The same feel you'll have when you feel the combined power of Microsoft and AOL knocking at your door.

    Muh ha ha ha ha ha.

    If you would like to surrender, you can reach me at billgates@gmail.com.

    With Warmest Regards,

    Bill

    --
    I'm not a troll, but I play one on Slashdot.
  69. Re: gagging by batlock666 · · Score: 1
    The slashdot crew are giving blowjobs to the execs at Google for their 'birthday'.

    Those poor execs. What have they done to deserver this?

  70. Re:Your Have to Pay Royalties? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guess bad grammar must be the norm (since you didn't quite pick up on that); he was referring to the fact that Taco's "whatever-dept." remark didn't make sense grammatically.

  71. In other news.... by sillybilly · · Score: 1

    Here's hoping that Google will keep not abusing their power for another 7 years, and that we will still have a Free (as in Freedom, not as in Beer) Internet for another 7 years.

  72. I found these two by p3d0 · · Score: 1
    This one seems to introduce Google, but this one seems to be older.

    Here is the tail end of the search, sorted by date.

    --
    Patrick Doyle
    I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
  73. am i the only one by fribhey · · Score: 0

    am i the only one that for the most part lives my life google free? i honestly don't think i know anyone where google has become an integral part of their lives. every once in a while i'll use google maps but i have my own domain with all the email storage space i want and i always get better search results from yahoo. i'm sorry but i just don't see, at least right now anyway, why google would be an integral part of anyone's lives.

    --
    / http://suffocate.us
    / http://johngrayson.com
  74. Just to be clear... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You should be modded -1 Dork.

    "Look at me, I'm an expert on words! I know everything about the word Google except the fact that it's actually spelled googol!"

  75. Microsoft by Live_in_Dayton · · Score: 1

    Why don't we celebrate Microsoft's birthday on Slashdot? I'm new here, am I trolling, flame baiting or being funny?

  76. Re:The word "google" by stderr_dk · · Score: 1

    No, it's a googol.

    A googolplex is a one followed by a googol zeros.

    --
    alias sudo="echo make it yourself #" ; # https://pipedot.org/~stderr & http://soylentnews.org/~stderr
  77. Re: File Labels by KURAAKU+Deibiddo · · Score: 1

    Mac OS X has had the ability to label files for years, as did OS 9. (I switched to Mac after X, because of the BSD core and terminal, so I really can't comment on file labels prior to this.) It's not a feature that I use, but if Apple's labels don't offer enough for you, Unsanity offers a "haxie" (Labels X) that offers more features.

    Happy birthday, Google! you've been my primary choice for searches for years, and I've gotten a lot of use out of Google Maps so far.

  78. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  79. Re:The word "google" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just to be clear, the word "google" was not created by these people - it means the number one plus one hundred zeros.

    Hmm, so it means the number one?

    (1 + 0 + 0 + ... + 0 = 0)

  80. who wants to follow the sheep? by luckynoone · · Score: 1

    I thought to myself "Google farted, that sound you hear is a million Slashdotters sniffing." I hear that the new "in" thing is to bash Google because everyone loves them

  81. Remember AltaVista? by kc01 · · Score: 1
    Interesting how things change, and how quickly it happens.
    I recall when AltaVista was the most blindingly fast search engine around. I've been onsite there, and their lobby walls are (were?) covered with patents for their innovative database routines. And where are they now?

    Of course, Google (and Yahoo! and MSN) has much more going on than AltaVista did, so the possibility of fading into obscurity is much less likely. Still, it's good to see that a young upstart company can displace a large, entrenched industry leader with a good idea and the drive to do so.

  82. interesting difference by yagu · · Score: 1

    From the post: It [Google] has even made its way into language as a common word .

    It's interesting (to me) to look at the slightly different approaches between Microsoft and Google, and the lexicon of their products. I know it's a little bit of an apples and oranges thing but Microsoft, rather than having products so good they become part of the language, chose words so common you virtually can't finish a couple of sentences without having used one of their products as a word.

    Whereas Google's product arose from a good idea and great implementation, and was done so well it became part of our lexicon. Heck, they even coined it as a non-existent word (though cleverly derivative)!

    It's interesting (again, to me) how this reflects the long-standing comments about Microsoft: they don't innovate, they embrace and extend. Look, they've done it with their product names and our language! And, they've excelled at it!

  83. Re:Mod parent down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Idiot. its not a goatse link. The joke is that on moon.google.com (which is satellite imagery of the moon, like on maps.google.com) when you zoom to far, it just shows an image of swiss cheese.

  84. Re:I knew it (OT) by daikokatana · · Score: 1

    For those who long for those days of descript.ion - AcdSee32 does the same. I've been using it for years now, and it's a lot handier than the standard explorer.

    --
    http://jcsnippets.atspace.com/ - a collection of Java & C# snippets
  85. So when do we start hating Google? by Hits_B · · Score: 1

    Like many slashdotters I would like to know when is the appropriate time to turn on them, complain about their shoddy products, monopolistic practices, etc. etc. a la Microsoft and anyone else that does something that violates our dearly held , mom's-basement dwelling sense of right and wrong. When will be the tipping point? When will I come to slashdot and see articles reviling their name and casting them in Dante's 7th Level with Gates, Ballmer, SCO and the other techno-sodomites?

    1. Re:So when do we start hating Google? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seems like some people already do:

      http://www.google-watch.org/

      Seriously, is Microsoft behind the Google Watch site?

  86. New larger index by jtatum · · Score: 1

    Google announced a new larger index in the birthday message. It seems that this was accomplished at least in part by caching sites with SIDs. Among other things this adds caching for every PHPBB message ever. It's a little easier to see how they grew their index so much.

  87. Google-Friends #1 by waldoj · · Score: 2, Informative
    Some may be interested in this -- the first-ever issue of the Google-Friends newsletter. I'd exchanged e-mails with Craig Silverstein a few days beforehand, about some code changes to the front page of their site, and I was happy to find myself on this list.

    I've had to alter the formatting slightly to get it past Slashdot's spam filter.

    From: larry@google.com
    Subject: [google-friends] revised google-friends
    Date: February 25, 1999 9:50:19 PM EST
    To: google-friends@makelist.com
    X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1

    Dear Google Friends!

    Welcome to Vol. I Issue 1 of the Google Friends newsletter, news about the engine behind the search. Thank you for using Google!

    IN THIS ISSUE

    1) Introduction
    2) Google graduates
    3) Google gets great press
    4) New search operators
    5) Google gets a facelift
    6) Growing pains
    7) Want a job?

    1) Introduction

    Welcome to the first in a long line of Google Friends installments! It's taken a while, but we've been using the time to make Google even better. With new features, glowing press, and tremendous word-of-mouth, Google has been growing by leaps and bounds.

    We plan to make this newsletter a monthly, so don't worry about us flooding your mailbox. If you're worried anyway, see the end of this letter if you want to remove yourself from the mailing list.

    2) Google graduates

    Many of you have been with us while we were still at Stanford. As you've probably noticed, Google the research project has become Google.com. We want to bring higher quality and greatly improved search to the world, and a company seems to be the best vehicle for accomplishing that goal. There is a great deal that can be done to improve searching on the web, and Google.com will spend a majority of its effort developing new technologies to make your life easier.

    Google.com was founded by Larry Page and Sergey Brin, both Ph.D. students in Computer Science at Stanford University. Google received seed funding from a number of angel investors, including Andy Bechtolsheim, one of the founders of Sun. Google recently moved from its first "world headquarters" (a house with a hot tub in Menlo Park), to the new "Google-Plex," a prime office on University Ave. in downtown Palo Alto.

    3) Google gets great press

    In the February 22, 1999 issue of Newsweek, Steven Levy touts Google as "the Net's hottest new search engine, [which] draws on feedback from the Web itself to deliver more relevant answers to customer queries." In the December 1998 PC Magazine review of Google, Breck White says, "Yahoo! and newcomer Google! were the only sites in our roundup to return highly relevant hits consistently, even on searches for very general or common terms such as Internet standards."

    We've also had great mentions in recent issues of the Washington Post, the Seattle Times, TechWeb, Release 1.0, Voir, Le Monde, Konrad, Salon Magazine, and many others. Check out our always-changing press page at http://google.com/press.html for updates and links to the stories. Also, if you see us in the press, email mentions@google.com so we can add it to our press page.

    4) Google gets a facelift

    Many of you may have noticed that we've updated our website. We decided it was time to do a little Pre-Spring cleaning and give the site a face lift. Now the front page is cleaner and less cluttered, in line with our philosophy that as little as possible should get in the way of letting you search.

    You'll also notice we've changed the logo. We think we've entered the beta stages of our search engine, and thought that others should know. We can't wait until we make an official release!

    5) Growing pains

    Our capacity is going up (thanks to all you users!), and we've been expanding to meet the demand. We've been hiring more staff and putting up more servers to scale the system (we've started ordering our computers in 21-packs). We've also beg

  88. Goog7e by ShieldWolf · · Score: 1

    Next I guess is Goo8le, then Goo9le, or Googl9.

    Then I am not so sure, Go10gle? G10ogle? G0ogle?

    How long can they keep this up???

    --
    just = (My)Opinion.toCents();
  89. I remember the days.... by oliverthered · · Score: 1

    I remember the days when Altavista came along it was a godsend to the internet, now the might of Google has all but wiped out the competition. Sure Yahoo has a better media search, but have you ever tried typing in a question to the ask search engine yuk. (BTW they advertise the engine as being able to answer questions)

    Google's ok, but it can be a nightmare trying to find something that you don't know quite what it's called. Try finding 'abstraction filtration comparison' by searching for software reverse engineering clean room copyright law, or whatever.

    Google needs some kind of proximity, occurrence count, font size/layout ranking system.

    --
    thank God the internet isn't a human right.
  90. Forbes 400 cartoon by peter303 · · Score: 1

    Forbes just listed their richest 400 Americans(*), 95% of them billionaires. Sergey Brin is in the top 20 with eleven billion, and is the youngest on the list. They have a cartoon of baby carriage with the baby saying "Goo-Goo".


    (* I believe there are some younger non-American billionaires such as the Onasis granddaughter.)

  91. Reminds me of the bible.. by Bulmakau · · Score: 1

    I wonder if the past 7 years were the good 7 years or the bad seven. Anyway.. happy birthday google :) wonder if in 7 years, google will buy the world's tollroads ;)

    --
    "From the moment I could talk, I was ordered to listen" - Cat Stevens
  92. i never post by dVs-- · · Score: 1

    but /. does need more of this. thought it was great.

  93. Re:The word "google" by VJ42 · · Score: 1

    That would explain the awful W3C standards (non-)compliance that Google has

    --
    If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
  94. Reread my post by alexhmit01 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm NOT a proponent of ID, although I personally belief in the Jewish Creation story, I also understand how the lack of specifics in biblical Hebrew make the "modern" translations (especially the common Hebrew Bible -> Greek translation of Hebrew Bible -> Latin New Testament -> English translation) AWFUL. I think that one can learn an awful lot about mankind and our role in the world from Genesis, and see no conflict with Genesis's story and its moral lessons and evolution as a scientific explanation.

    I do, however, take MAJOR issue with the politicization of science. I responded to a post suggesting that the next steps was witches and evil spirits whose tag-line was "pissing of the religious right." I take SERIOUS issue with the anti-religious left that has deified "science," and not particularly useful science at that.

    I don't, however, have an issue with including ID in a school curriculum, albeit on a limited scale. I think that any high school lecture on evolution SHOULD explain the limitations and explain how others believe that there is an intelligent design involved. Traditional Jewish thought maintains that Hashem uses natural process for miracles... things like low tides splitting seas, things like that.

    The reason for the leeches/maggots post was just to point out the danger of the worship of science. For about a century those were treated as mankind's barbaric past... yet after 100 years of insulting our historical healing, we test it scientifically and find out that it is valid for certain treatments.

    I find what is lacking in these issues is any willingness to question why or question scientists. Why we've decided that people that spent 7 years in one particular institution to be granted a Ph.D are somehow immune from agendas or ideologies. Science is a tool, people use tools to accomplish goals.

    The reason I laugh... think about the impact of evolution and look at some events... notice that the proponents of "science only" don't learn the lessons of natural selection.

    Assumption: leeches and maggots were not valid forms of healing.
    Historical Experiment: some societies used them, some didn't
    Result: the societies that used them (the West) seemed to take over the planet
    Popular Conclusion: that was are barbarous past, it's remarkable that we survived
    Scientific/Evolution Conclusion: perhaps that was a factor that caused the Christian world to dominate the planet, prolonging lives and increasing child bearing

    Assumption: high child births will destroy society
    Historical Experiment: Rome collapsed within a few generations of rampant pedophilia that required the passage of marriage laws to increase population
    Recent Historical Experiment: Western birthrates have been plummeting for generations as we've "advanced," and Europe can't survive without Arab immigration, India with a higher birthrate is growing rapidly, China's enlightened "one child policy" is creating tremors in its society as marriage isn't an option for large chunks of a generation, Israel ceded Gaza to its enemies and parts of Samaria because of demographic problems, and America's social security network is showing serious stresses)
    Popular Conclusion: high birthrates are a function of stupid barbarians, enlightened societies will create gender equality and dismiss child bearing to an option
    Scientific/Evolution Conclusion: societies that aren't fruitful and multiplying enter a period of decline and collapse, political/economic growth requires political growth

    That is my issue, those that worship at the alter of science have created a idol to worship, the scientific community. They worship it as the bastion of truth the way previous generations of idolators worshipped the sun or the moon. Neither community UNDERSTOOD what they were looking at. Science is an INCREDIBLY powerful tool that can explain historical phenomenon and help us make better decisions. It Science-anity is an attempt to replace G-d with science, and worships the scientific expe

    1. Re:Reread my post by blamanj · · Score: 1

      You also have a seriously warped view of history.

      Leeches contributed to the Chrisitan domination of the planet??? For one thing, blood-letting in ancient societies was considered a cure, and while we've discovered that it may actually have some health benefits, it's certainly no cure. For another, the use of leeches has arisen again in some very specialized cases, because their "technology", created by millions of years of evolution, for handling clotting problems, is better than ours.

      As far as the decline of Rome goes, you're explanation is laughable. The marriage laws were about class distinctions. Augustus was worried that the lower classes would outnumber the "nobler" classes and was trying to encourage legitimate children in the upper classes.

      Finally, ID explains nothing, which is why it has no business in a science class. Yeah, spend a day or two on it in a philosophy class, but it has no predictive power (unlike evolution, see this discussion on some misunderstandings about progress), it's merely naysaying.

    2. Re:Reread my post by ki4iib · · Score: 1

      I also understand how the lack of specifics in biblical Hebrew make the "modern" translations (especially the common Hebrew Bible -> Greek translation of Hebrew Bible -> Latin New Testament -> English translation) AWFUL. Just as a simple note, this particular problem can be solved by avoiding things like the One And Only True King James Authorized Verion of the Bible You'll Ever Read Period, Damnit, and heading over to something like the ESV or the NASB. What's really neat is the keyed NASB with the Strong's Greek/Hebrew dictionary in the back. It makes your Bible big enough to kill someone with, but it's astoundingly useful. Just a note.

    3. Re:Reread my post by haggar · · Score: 1

      Wow, didn't think I'd ever read such a great post on slashdot. I am pleasantly surprised.

      --
      Sigged!
  95. Google Moon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Zoom in all the way, color is off....should be green?

  96. Reasonable solution until feature is implemented by thc69 · · Score: 2, Informative

    4dos rules. When I found I needed more and more to use Windows, I started using Take Command as my shell, rather than Program Manager.

    Anyway, descript.ion, and the labels discussed here which I assume are in fact similar to 4dos's use of descript.ion, seem rather obsolete now. Modern filesystems let you use long filenames with spaces and other odd characters, along with CLI filename completion to make it easier to type them. If you're naming your files in 8.3 (or similar) and wishing you could label them...why not just give them long, descriptive filenames?

    For example, if I download the latest version of Opera and it's filename is ow32enen50.exe, in the download "save as" dialog, I'll change it to "Opera 8.5 ow32enen50.exe", thereby saving the original name (in case I ever need it) and giving it a useful description too. If I use a serial number to register a shareware program (like Opera used to be), I'll put that in the filename too, like "Opera 8.01 asdf-jhkl-12345-qwerty ow32enen801.exe".

    Another example would be a file containing notes. I might name it "Notes about the broken copier.txt".

    If a file is required by the system to have a specific name, I'm likely to put in a 0 byte file with a description named the same + some notes, so it is sorted alphabetically behind, so:
    "/usr/local/bin/joe"
    "/usr/local/bin/joe is a good text editor"
    or
    "c:\windows\system32\dllcache\ctfmon.exe"
    "c:\windows\system32\dllcache\ctfmon.exe is an annoying feature that wont go away no matter how much you delete it remove it from the registry turn it off in the control panel and so on so I put in a zero byte file that causes random errors when windows trys and fails to run it"

    It's not perfect, but it's good enough for somebody who says "I wish I had this feature" to use until the feature shows up.

    --
    Procrastination -- because good things come to those who wait.
  97. Re:Nine Billion Names of God (PUNCTUATED version) by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 1

    The correctly punctuated version, from here:

    The Nine Billion Names Of God
    by Kathy Kachelries
    September 12th, 2005

    After three hours, the old man in front of me had worked his way through six beers, in addition to every help desk joke I'd already heard. The cupholder. The any key. The write click. These are the stories people tell, now. These are the fish that got away.

    "Let me ask you something," the man said. I didn't argue. One of the first tricks I learned about being a bartender is to make them think you're interested.

    "Have you ever created a web site?"

    I shook my head.

    "Not at all? Not even one of those geocities things?"

    "Nope."

    "What about a blog? Or an ebay About Me page? You didn't even have an AOL site or something?"

    "Do I look like an AOL user to you?" For the record, I don't think AOL even has access numbers in the valley anymore. "I'm sure I have something, somewhere," I said, realizing that I was jeopardizing my tips. Besides, I had a distant memory of a single Angelfire page back in middle school.

    "You know what Google is?"

    "Yes," I said. I was running low on patience.

    "No, I mean, do you really know? More than just the site?"

    Reluctantly, I shook my head.

    "You ever meet anyone who worked for them?"

    "Don't think so."

    "You haven't. Nobody works for them anymore."

    I shrugged, and took the man's empty pint. I didn't offer to refill it.

    "They're self-contained. It's all automated, in there. It's underground."

    I nudged the basket of pretzels in his direction. "Why don't you eat something?" I suggested. He shook his head with so much force that I thought he might knock himself off of the stool.

    "Listen. Hear me out. You know how Google works," he said, but didn't want for a response. "They cache things, right? Like they send out these spiders and take pictures of everything on the web, so when you're searching, you're not even searching the internet."

    I've heard that before, but it never made much of a difference to me. "Same thing, though," I said.

    "You ever wonder why Google doesn't cache it's own searches?"

    "They program around it."

    "No. That's what you think. That's what everyone thinks. But it started back when Google was just a thesis project, back when it was just a drop in the data sea. No one thought to stop it back then. That web site you had, the one you forgot about. Almost everyone's got one of those, right? But Google doesn't forget. Google's studied that thing so many times that it's studied its own caches of you. What do you figure happens, when a site gets so big that it's bigger than the internet?"

    "It's still a part of the internet, though."

    "No. Now, the internet is a part of Google."

    The man had a point. I nodded.

    "Here's the thing. Google has memorized who you are. It's memorized all of us, through those little forgotten bits that we leave behind like breadcrumbs. And what's more important, it's memorized it's own idea of you. Google is omniscient. It's omniscient and omnipotent. When it cached its cache for the first time, back in 1994, that's when Google realized what it was."

    Gradually, it dawned on me what the man was getting at. "You think it's sentient."

    "I know it's sentient."

    "How?"

    He smiled, but it seemed kind of empty. "Me and Google go way back. But what I'm saying is," he continued, "It knows us. All of us. It is us."

    For the first time, the man fell silent. He touched his finger to the bar and began tracing circles in the condensation, apparently lost in thought.

    "Think about that website you created, okay? That website will last forever, do you understand? That website is echoing through cyberspace. It's one of the nine billion names of God."

    --
    "Sufferin' succotash."
  98. Oh shit by Back+Slider+1969 · · Score: 1

    You mean its been 7 years to the day since I've been laid???? wait....n/m

  99. Very Early Google Logo's by nv5 · · Score: 2, Informative
  100. What I like about Google... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is their sense of humor:

    "What's next from Google? It's hard to say. We don't talk much about what lies ahead, because we believe one of our chief competitive advantages is surprise. And then there's innovation, and an almost fanatical devotion to our users."

    I didn't expect that kind of comment in a corporate history.

  101. Google Moon - Cheese Easteregg by defnshow · · Score: 1

    Was anyone else surprised when their google moon turned to cheese when zoomed all the way in?

    1. Re:Google Moon - Cheese Easteregg by antispam_ben · · Score: 1

      Was anyone else surprised when their google moon turned to cheese when zoomed all the way in?

      I was disappointed that it was Swiss cheese, as I prefer good old artery-clogging American Extra Sharp Cheddar.

      --
      Tag lost or not installed.
  102. Wasn't Altavista the source of Yahoo's results? by empaler · · Score: 1

    They had Inktomy for a while, too, but I believe that Yahoo used Altavista for years.

  103. A Monty Python fan wrote that?? by PhoenixPath · · Score: 1
    Anyone else see the similarities?

    From Google History:

    "our chief competitive advantages is surprise. And then there's innovation, and an almost fanatical devotion to our users."

    Monty Python:

    Our chief weapon is surprise...surprise and fear...fear and surprise.... Our two weapons are fear and surprise...and ruthless efficiency.... Our *three* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency...and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope.... Our *four*...no... *Amongst* our weapons.... Amongst our weaponry...are such elements as fear, surprise.... I'll come in again.
    -emphasis added.

    Hmmm....

  104. Re:working hard at separating the internet by coun by Jarlsberg · · Score: 1

    Why cann't they just let ME decide which version I want to watch, the ones with all the new features or the one "customized" for the country i happen to connect from.

    Two words: Localised Ads.

  105. ReGOOGLEtate by Tarbon · · Score: 1

    "It has even made its way into language as a common word."

    I use the word "ReGOOGLEtate" to describe what people do when they ignorantly spout (copy/paste) information they've found on the Internet through a quick Google search.

    It's fun to lambast those who inadvertantly use Onion articles to back their political/social views.

    This word needs further defining, and a Wikipedia entry.

  106. Parent claims google is rigging search results by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Parent claims google is rigging search results, mod parent up please.

  107. Re:easy come, easy goo? by Le+Marteau · · Score: 1

    jesus is teh kewl. he had m4d sk1llz.

    --
    Mod down people who tell people how to mod in their sigs
  108. Sigh... by game+kid · · Score: 1

    ...the good old days...*sob*

    For now, I find withdrawal therapy through dancingmad's sig. She's hawt. ;)

    --
    You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
  109. Ummm Google cache says it's on the 7th.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  110. Did anyone else type in googol.com the 1st time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    ... that they heard someone say, "Just type in googol.com"? At the time, I was just getting away from using the handy dandy Net Search button in Netscape Navigator and using Yahoo in its place. Then again, maybe it is just me, being a math major.

    Heh, my "conirm you're not a script" image is "axioms." How fitting.

  111. So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...in eleven years there will be a bunch of happy nerds celebrating that Google is then 'legal'...

    *sigh*

  112. Biblical significance by benjaminchoate · · Score: 1

    That's correct, the number Seven represents perfections/completeness. The devil's number comes from this as well (666) as it is 3 times short of perfection.

    I googled quickly and found an article that explains it fairly well:

    http://www.holyspiritinteractive.net/youth/biblege ek/19.asp

  113. GIFs have advantages too by phantomfive · · Score: 1

    It is interesting that you say PNG is typically smaller; in my experience, if the image has fewer than 256 colors, the GIF will be smaller. Some GIF writers don't compress the image to avoid the patent, this may be why you find PNGs to be smaller.

    Another advantage of GIFs is that the code to read and write a GIF is quite a bit simpler.

    Also, GIF animation is practical.

    --
    Qxe4
    1. Re:GIFs have advantages too by chgros · · Score: 1

      GIFs have advantages too
      Of course, why else would /. still use them? :)

    2. Re:GIFs have advantages too by larry+bagina · · Score: 1
      why indeed.

      Why GIF?
      by stinky_pink

      Why do you use gifs? Unisys's submarine patent on LZW, and sue-happy lawyers have made them a company-non-grata in the /. community (second only to Microsoft). Why not use jpeg or (better yet) png? All modern browsers support them, and they are generally smaller in size than gif images. You can use gif2png (or similar commandline utilites) to convert them with minimal effort?

      CmdrTaco:

      Submit a patch. Or better yet, fuck off and start your own web site.

      Hemos:

      90% of our viewers are using IE. IE has problems displaying 24-bit png with alpha channels. Complain to Microsoft, not us.

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

  114. and I thought it was An Evangelist... by antispam_ben · · Score: 1

    Monty Python:

    Our chief weapon is surprise...surprise and fear...fear and surprise.... Our two weapons are fear and surprise...and ruthless efficiency.... Our *three* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency...and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope.... Our *four*...no... *Amongst* our weapons.... Amongst our weaponry...are such elements as fear, surprise.... I'll come in again.


    This is an Insightful quote. I had thought Google was just doing a lame attempt to copy Apple Computer.

    --
    Tag lost or not installed.
  115. The negative side: groups.google.com by antispam_ben · · Score: 1

    There was much rejoicing several years ago when Google purchased the Usenet archives once made available in the 1990's at deja.com/dejanews.com, and finally made these archives available once more, so this is sort of looking a gift horse in the mouth. But it did bug me just a day or two ago (and it's far from the first time I've seen this) when I read a Usenet post saying the poster wanted to sell a [large, expensive valuable widget], and was there an appropriate Google group to post such a for-sale message to? I counted to ten (in decimal), tried to calm down, then wrote a scathing message explaining the differences between Google 's Usenet archive/web interface and Usenet newsgroups. I finally deleted the scathing explanation, and just said "Yes, there's an appropriate Usenet newsgroup in which to sell your [large, expensive valuable widget], it's ... .marketplace." I haven't checked but I'm sure the poster somehow figured out how to get there.

    I said all that to demonstrate how Google has made Usenet newsgroups look like Google owns them. AOL apparently did this when they connected to Usenet in 1993, but earlier this year AOL dropped Usenet access (I'd like to think October 1993 is immiment, but it doesn't look that way*).

    But Google went further, you can "make your own Google Group" but if you do this it isn't a newsgroup (from Usenet's perspective, this is actually a Good Thing), it's a special group like a mailing list, accessible only through "Google Groups." The interface looks a little different, but I've seen search results that return results from these "groups" as well as from Usenet posts (but not recently, maybe they already changed it because of complaints). It's annoying, dilutes the usefulness of Google's Usenet archives, and misleads people about what Usenet is.

    * For you young farts, this is a reference to "endless september" or "forever september" or whatever it was called when Usenet was overwhelmed with AOL newbies who had no net.manners. I only started on Usenet in 1996, so I'm just a newbie myself, and I've only read about the problem (surely I didn't contribute to it myself...).

    --
    Tag lost or not installed.
  116. Reposted, because I suck. by ki4iib · · Score: 1
    I also understand how the lack of specifics in biblical Hebrew make the "modern" translations (especially the common Hebrew Bible -> Greek translation of Hebrew Bible -> Latin New Testament -> English translation) AWFUL.


    Just as a simple note, this particular problem can be solved by avoiding things like the One And Only True King James Authorized Verion of the Bible You'll Ever Read Period, Damnit, and heading over to something like the ESV or the NASB. What's really neat is the keyed NASB with the Strong's Greek/Hebrew dictionary in the back. It makes your Bible big enough to kill someone with, but it's astoundingly useful.

    Just a note.
  117. Redundant? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    but it has also become an integral part of many people's online life.

    Isn't online redundant?

  118. Re:Reasonable solution until feature is implemente by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1

    Well, what if you don't want it to bloat up the output of ls? :P

    --
    Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.