Googley Goodies
As a wee follow-up to my recent post on how to use Google to convert units of measurement, here's a few more Google tricks I've found on my relentless trawling of the intertubes.
On top of the previously -mentioned conversion tool, Google is also a fully-functioned calculator. Just tupe in the sum/problem, and Google will do the work for you. It even does complex problems and percentages, as well as power-of problems. Have a look at 20% of 4^5 as an example.
Did you know you can use Google to find out how good a movie is? Not just to search for a review, mind. Go to www.google.com/movies and type in your movie title. Here's an example for Shrek the Third (looks pretty good, might have to go see that).
Being a new-found Mac junkie as I am, I was delighted to discover that the big G has a portal dedicated to all things Mac, and it can be found at www.google.com/mac. You can find Mac versions of programs like Google Earth and Sketchup, Gmail Notifier, and (spit) Google Toolbar for Mac.
Finally, if you're looking for a weather forecast, why bother with any other website when all you needs to do is type (for example) "weather Dublin Ireland" (without the quotes) into the G and they'll give you a lovely 5-day 4-day forecast to look at.
See also: Google Labs, Google Moms, Google Dilbert, Google Translate, and many, many more.
Aren't Google great?*
*Apart from when they're evil, of course...
Interesting side-note: If you're a Gmail user, go to your "Deleted Items" folder. Instead of saying "Empty Trash" as it used to, it now says "Empty Wastebasket". Interesting huh? No? Just me on that one? Well at least it doesn't say "Recycle Bin", blah blah mutter mutter...
(posts)
4.21-en
Geek Support, fixing of bugger-ups, moral support, code splicing, tech. administration, whining, über-nerdery and fetching of fluffy coffees by 
Comments
Ahh Google, how do I love you, let me count the ways.
Email, Calendar, Docs, Reader... who CARES what OS you use, I can work on my PC or my Mac! Bliss!!
Posted by: Gordon | May 29, 2007 11:11 PM
I actually didn't mention Gmail, Gcal, Gdocs or Greader on purpose, because they go without saying.
Anyone who is unaware of their loveliness is in need of a stern talking to, and a Google account.
Posted by: Matt | May 29, 2007 11:58 PM
I still maintain offline apps are better. For one they don't die when some other program crashes my browser.
Posted by: Adrian | May 30, 2007 1:19 PM
Yes, but the great thing about Google apps is, when your browser crashes, everything you did is still there, saved.
And even if your computer crashes and burns, destroying everything in your offline app, everything in your online app is still there.
Indeed, one day, there will be no individual computers, nothing will be "offline", and there will be one central computer governing everything, and it's name will be Multivac.
Posted by: Matt | May 30, 2007 2:15 PM
Run multiple instances of your browser.
Posted by: QE | May 30, 2007 2:16 PM
Hmmm... Don't see that working, QE. From my experience, if Firefox crashes, it takes all instances down with it. Best bet is to run it in safe mode all the time, for maximum stability. But that means all your lovely extensions are gone.
Of course, if you are using IE, and it crashes, it tends to take Windows along with it. Which is why I don't use IE, ever.
Posted by: Matt | May 30, 2007 2:25 PM
Yeah, I was just guessing. After all, I've rarely if ever managed to crash Firefox.
This online/offline argument is easily settled with a question: would you rather play Runescape or LotRO?
[If the answer is 'I don't know' or 'I wouldn't play either' then you'll have to find your own way, grasshoppa.]
Posted by: QE | May 30, 2007 4:50 PM
I'd rather play Mario Strikers: Charged Football.
Online.
Or some variant of the Burnout series. Also online.
Note to Sevitz: Perhaps the internet is good for something, after all.
Posted by: Matt | May 30, 2007 7:32 PM
OI! Sevitz, put this in yer pipe and smoke it...
http://lifehacker.com/software/launch/access-your-google-reader-feeds-offline-with-google-gears-264682.php
Posted by: Gordon | May 31, 2007 8:29 AM
Google gears still doesn't solve the problem of Javascript not actually being the ideal language to code everything in. Or solving my browser crashes.
And since I use imap and synced feeds on netnewswire, my laptop burning means I loose no less than you do.
I have no issues with online apps. Some of them are astoundingly good. But currently none of them have been able to beat the speed or stability of the offlines apps. Javascript is good. It's just not that good. I know I have coded in it.
Currently I'd rather use an offline app that syncs online. Rather than an online app that works offline. Because the last thing I want is a billion browser windows open.
Posted by: Adrian | May 31, 2007 10:27 AM
The last time I had a billion browser windows open was the last time I used IE. Thanks to the magic of Firefox, I now use tabs. And now IE has tabs too.
Posted by: Matt | May 31, 2007 11:30 AM
What does Java Web Start (for example) count as?
Posted by: QE | May 31, 2007 11:52 AM
Tabs/Windows they all count as instances. I normally have about 8 windows open with at least 4 or more tabs a window.
Java Web Start counts as an attempt to subvert the web
Silly season
Too Rich For My Taste: The RIA Q&A
Posted by: Adrian | May 31, 2007 2:03 PM
Adrian, I've read your post on online/offline apps, and I'm about to read again and try and comment on it.
It's good to see you being clearer on where you think the problem lies. Your view now makes a lot of sense: treating the browser as a platform for applications is inherently limited by the things you describe (and I'll be carrying that on over there, with any luck).
I have to flag this from the comment above though:
"Java Web Start counts as an attempt to subvert the web"
Java Web Start (and ClickOnce for .NET) have little more to do with the web than downloading an installer to put a new offline app on your system. The applications downloaded run on their respective platforms (JRE or .NET) and the impression I get is that they are no less capable of interacting with the OS than any other program on those architectures.
My point in bringing it up was that the o(n|ff)line argument is more complicated than one might assume, which is why I've been quietly amused (and frustrated) by the 'o(n|ff)line good: o(ff|n)line bad' stances that seem to keep coming back.
But anyway, Adrian has now clarified (and specified) his stand, and I'm off to his blog to join his side.
Posted by: QE | June 4, 2007 12:39 PM
Damn Sevitz and his logical, educated arguments.
Posted by: Matt | June 4, 2007 1:38 PM