Nekochan Net

Official Chat Channel: #nekochan // irc.nekochan.net
It is currently Tue Sep 23, 2014 2:22 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Forum rules


No politics, please.



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 19 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: 1984
Unread postPosted: Wed Mar 28, 2012 7:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 4:10 pm
Posts: 9649
http://dontbubble.us/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 1984
Unread postPosted: Wed Mar 28, 2012 10:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 3:18 pm
Posts: 239
Location: Warsaw, PL
hamei wrote:
http://dontbubble.us/

The problem is, alternative search engines rarely have the money to compete with Google/Bing. In the 90s I could use dozens of search engines, but now if I want to get good results I have to use Google. It works quite well for precise keywords like "sgi onyx 2000" or "powerstorm 350" and for the vague ones I go straight to Wikipedia (although sometimes the articles are biased). Quotations marks are a good way to force google to show you what you really want (a year ago the + operator was great, but they dropped it).

I don't care about search results being personalized for political/marketing reasons - I'm quite critical about what I read and as I said above - I search the Internet in a way which makes it irrelevant. What I don't like are country specific search engines. google.com and google.pl gives totally different results and google.pl prefers polish websites which often are less then sufficient content-wise. And Google makes it difficult to use the worldwide (or US?) search engine - the last time I checked it won't work without cookies.

A while ago I tried Cuil, but the results were much worse the Google's, now Cuil is gone. I'll try this duckduckgo and see how good they are. I like the Wikipedia link as the first result and clustering results by domain. And there is no auto-correct - I hate it, when google treats me like a moron ('Did you mean?').

_________________
:PI: :Indigo: :Indigo: :Indigo: :Indy: :Indy: :Indigo2: :Indigo2IMP: :Octane: :Fuel: Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 1984
Unread postPosted: Wed Mar 28, 2012 10:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 4:10 pm
Posts: 9649
GL1zdA wrote:
I'll try this duckduckgo and see how good they are.

Another one that is worth a try is https://ixquick.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 1984
Unread postPosted: Wed Mar 28, 2012 10:57 pm 
Offline
Moderator
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2003 12:09 pm
Posts: 799
Location: Europe
GL1zdA wrote:
And Google makes it difficult to use the worldwide (or US?) search engine - the last time I checked it won't work without cookies.


Use this: https://encrypted.google.com/webhp?complete=0&hl=en
It gets rid of that annoying autocomplete crap as well.

As for the auto-preview garbage which often activates when randomly moving the mouse around (wtf are their UI designers smoking), adding this to your adblock filters will fix it:
Code:
google.com##.vspi
google.com##.vspib
google.com###vspb


Last time I checked, it wasn't possible to turn off the "Did you mean?" suggestions, but the two changes above make google slightly more pleasant to use again.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 1984
Unread postPosted: Thu Mar 29, 2012 4:35 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2005 12:37 pm
Posts: 495
Location: Laurel, MD USA
I've been using www.startpage.com over HTTPS for the last month or two

_________________
:Indigo: 33mhz R3k/48mb/XS24 :Indy: 150mhz R4400/256mb/XL24 :Fuel: 600mhz R14kA/2gb/V10 Image 8x1.4ghz Itanium 2/8GB :O3x08R: 32x600mhz R14kA/24GB :Tezro: 4x700mhz R16k/8GB/V12/DCD/SAS/FC/DM5 (2x) :O3x0: 4x700mhz R16k/4GB :PrismDT: 2x1.6ghz 8mb/12gb/SAS/2xFGL


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 1984
Unread postPosted: Fri Mar 30, 2012 12:59 pm 
Offline
Moderator
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 1:10 pm
Posts: 2064
Location: Northern Nevada
GL1zdA wrote:
[...]but now if I want to get good results I have to use Google.


Really? In the last year or so, google results have become less and less relevant to me. Anyone else notice a sharp decline in google search result relevance?

ShadeOfBlue wrote:
(wtf are their UI designers smoking)


In Mountainview? The good ish. BTW, I could not agree more. That UI makes it impossible to use with older peecees.

Adrenaline wrote:
I've been using http://www.startpage.com over HTTPS for the last month or two


I was thinking about doing that, and also getting one of those VPN services that routes me through Switzerland.

Anyone else notice this article?: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/0 ... nter/all/1


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 1984
Unread postPosted: Fri Mar 30, 2012 2:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2007 7:54 pm
Posts: 1287
Location: Berkeley, CA, USA, NA, Earth, Sol
VenomousPinecone wrote:

Yes, but having every single byte and/or phoneme that I emit over any communication channel logged and analyzed by the NSA just makes me feel safer. :evil:

I admit, I do wonder what kinds of tasty technology they'll be squirreling away in there, never to be seen again or acknowledged publicly.

[Oops - rant about Cheney, TIA and the security state omitted per Forum rules, "No politics, please." Never noticed that before...]

_________________
Then? :IRIS3130: ... Now? :O3x02L: :A3504L:- :A3502L: :1600SW:+MLA :Fuel: :Octane2: :Octane: :Indigo2IMP: ... Other: DEC :BA213: :BA123: Sun, DG AViiON, NeXT :Cube:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 1984
Unread postPosted: Sat Mar 31, 2012 12:09 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 3:18 pm
Posts: 239
Location: Warsaw, PL
I just realized, that google has a major contribution to the Deep web - google books is google exclusive, you won't get it in results from other search engines:
Search @ google
Search @ startpage
Search @ duckduckgo
For most computer related searches I usually have great hits in the InfoWorld archive or hits, which will often point me to interesting books about the subject I'm looking for.

_________________
:PI: :Indigo: :Indigo: :Indigo: :Indy: :Indy: :Indigo2: :Indigo2IMP: :Octane: :Fuel: Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 1984
Unread postPosted: Sat Mar 31, 2012 12:54 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 4:10 pm
Posts: 9649
Am I hallucinating or is this the biggest crock of shit I've read in ages ?

wikipedia morons wrote:
"Bergman, in a seminal paper on the deep Web published in the Journal of Electronic Publishing, mentioned that Jill Ellsworth used the term invisible Web in 1994 to refer to websites that were not registered with any search engine ...

The lines between search engine content and the deep Web have begun to blur, as search services start to provide access to part or all of once-restricted content. An increasing amount of deep Web content is opening up to free search as publishers and libraries make agreements with large search engines.

Deep Web resources may be classified into one or more of the following categories:

* Text content using the Gopher protocol and files hosted on FTP that are not indexed by most search engines. Engines such as Google do not index pages outside of the HTTP protocol."


Hey, imbeciles ! if it is not the http protocol, it's not the www !! Ftp and gopher aren't part of the web, stoopids ! And neither is smtp nor pop ... what do they want, if a "provider registers with a large seach engine" then google can search all the email in the world, too ?

more hogwash wrote:
Jill Ellsworth used the term invisible Web in 1994 to refer to websites that were not registered with any search engine. Bergman cited a January 1996 article by Frank Garcia :

"It would be a site that's possibly reasonably designed, but they didn't bother to register it with any of the search engines. So, no one can find them! You're hidden. I call that the invisible Web."

Is this lady out of her rabbit-ass mind ? "Didn't bother to register with any of the search engines" ??? Neko, did you register nekochan with a search engine ? wtf is this crap ? they allow this garbage on wikipedia and expect to be taken seriously ?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 1984
Unread postPosted: Sat Mar 31, 2012 2:35 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2007 7:54 pm
Posts: 1287
Location: Berkeley, CA, USA, NA, Earth, Sol
I haven't heard anybody talking about anything like the "invisible web" in quite a while. But the stuff you're quoting, in the years they're citing, isn't out of line.

In 1994, the Web did mean more than just HTTP. Remember, at this point Archie is still a viable search tool, and all it does is index public FTP servers. There's tons of information that people have been putting into Gopher servers for the past five years or more. The world has just barely started down the road of making everything accessible via HTTP...

In this period Yahoo! still has human beings reviewing sites and editing their index by hand! Google won't exist for a couple years yet; AltaVista (DEC) will make automated indexing of the whole 'Net possible when they launch at the end of 1995, but it will still take a while before they automatically find new hosts/webservers as they come online. Yes, back in those days you did indeed have to figure out how to convince a search engine to crawl and index your brand new web site. Remember this was an era when the <BLINK> tag was alive and well, and a GIF of a construction sign was ubiquitous and completely non-ironic.

_________________
Then? :IRIS3130: ... Now? :O3x02L: :A3504L:- :A3502L: :1600SW:+MLA :Fuel: :Octane2: :Octane: :Indigo2IMP: ... Other: DEC :BA213: :BA123: Sun, DG AViiON, NeXT :Cube:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 1984
Unread postPosted: Sat Mar 31, 2012 4:36 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2007 9:12 pm
Posts: 2830
Location: On an Intergalactic Spaceboat of Light and Wonder
Quote:
In 1994, the Web did mean more than just HTTP.
The way I was taught:

web is all the http pages on the internet... the stuff you go to with a web browser. ftp and gopher and email are the parts of the internet that aren't the web, because they aren't http pages and you don't go to them with a web browser. (unless the ftp or email site has a web interface natch)

_________________
The people of earth never were cut out for this sedentary lifestyle. Millions of years of evolution, fine tuning these beautiful nomadic legs, and in less than two hundred years we’ve folded them up and put them away under our laptops.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 1984
Unread postPosted: Sat Mar 31, 2012 4:44 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2005 12:37 pm
Posts: 495
Location: Laurel, MD USA
smj wrote:
Remember this was an era when the <BLINK> tag was alive and well, and a GIF of a construction sign was ubiquitous and completely non-ironic.


Wow that brings back memories of my first "website" on Geocities in 1996, how far we've come :)

_________________
:Indigo: 33mhz R3k/48mb/XS24 :Indy: 150mhz R4400/256mb/XL24 :Fuel: 600mhz R14kA/2gb/V10 Image 8x1.4ghz Itanium 2/8GB :O3x08R: 32x600mhz R14kA/24GB :Tezro: 4x700mhz R16k/8GB/V12/DCD/SAS/FC/DM5 (2x) :O3x0: 4x700mhz R16k/4GB :PrismDT: 2x1.6ghz 8mb/12gb/SAS/2xFGL


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 1984
Unread postPosted: Sat Mar 31, 2012 4:48 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 4:10 pm
Posts: 9649
SM : archie, gopher, veronica, ftp, bbs'es, smtp, and pop are not the web. WWW means World Wide Web. It is http. If they wanted to say "Web searches are not finding the other sources that are available on the Internet" then hey, that's fine. But this stuff is crap. It feeds into the braindead concept that the Internet = www. It isn't, as we all know. And I dearly wish that the corpos had never found the stinking web. When Mr Berners-Lee* invented it, it was cool.

If this were Ted Stevens spouting this nonsense then we'd all laugh. But these dorks are supposedly authorities writing about a subject they understand. It's absolute crap and it's presented as a serious topic on Wikipedia. Today, not twenty years ago.

I did come across this tho - you'll love it

http://alphavilleherald.com/2004/05/int ... g_hum.html

http://alphavilleherald.com/2004/05/the ... y_of_.html


Sky should feel an instant attraction for this lady :) I wish she were still alive, she writes very well and has an independent mind ....

* Should you capitalize both halves of a compound family name or just the initial letter ? And what happens when two people with cfn's have children ? Do the children get four family names or do they truncate the two least-significant ones ? If not, within three or four generations we'll all have last names too long to fit into the 1040 forms. Then there will be real trouble :(


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 1984
Unread postPosted: Sat Mar 31, 2012 5:09 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 3:18 pm
Posts: 239
Location: Warsaw, PL
hamei wrote:
* Should you capitalize both halves of a compound family name or just the initial letter ? And what happens when two people with cfn's have children ? Do the children get four family names or do they truncate the two least-significant ones ? If not, within three or four generations we'll all have last names too long to fit into the 1040 forms. Then there will be real trouble :(

In Poland children usually have their fathers name, so their name wouldn't grow over generations, but I'm not sure if it works the same in other places. The only one affected would be the wife, if she really wanted to have both her maiden name and husbands name.

_________________
:PI: :Indigo: :Indigo: :Indigo: :Indy: :Indy: :Indigo2: :Indigo2IMP: :Octane: :Fuel: Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 1984
Unread postPosted: Sat Mar 31, 2012 5:30 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 4:10 pm
Posts: 9649
GL1zdA wrote:
In Poland children usually have their fathers name, so their name wouldn't grow over generations, but I'm not sure if it works the same in other places. The only one affected would be the wife, if she really wanted to have both her maiden name and husbands name.

In China, the wife keeps her own name. Children can go either way but in general, they go with the father's family name. But if the mother is more important, has higher status or whatever, it is not uncommon for the child to take the mother's family name. Sometimes there will be agreements about this before marriage ... sometimes the parents or grandparents will make a real issue of this. It wasn't very long ago that parents controlled whom their children could marry. I mean truly not long ago, as in ten or fifteen years. They probably still do out in the country. And really controlled, too ... the parents kept the hukou, without a hukou you can't get married.

You say "Polish children usaually take the father's name ..." Is that usually or always ?


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 19 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group