Computing desk
< February 3	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 5 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Computing Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

February 4

emergency! need a math library for Java

For some reason I don't think a math library is installed with my programming environment so ... I get weird errors like "method pow(int, int) is undefined for the type [class name]". Uhhh ... why can't I download a standard math library anywhere? Where do I find one, and why is it so hard to search for it on google? Doesn't everyone have a math library? John Riemann Soong (talk) 00:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like you have a variable, I'll call it x. It is of some class type, I'll call it Foo. So, you have "Foo x;" somewhere. Then, you do something like x.pow(1,2);. But, there is no method called "pow" in Foo. This has absolutely nothing to do with a math library. It is a completely incorrect usage of pow. -- kainaw ™ 00:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sun provides an excellent reference for Java. In this case, you want Java.lang.math. Note that the error message was correct: pow(int, int) IS undefined. The pow method takes two doubles. So if you convert your ints to doubles, you should be fine. Irish Souffle (talk) 01:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well actually I resolved it in another way -- I have another question though -- what is the escape sequence for printing the plus sign? I tried to use /+ but the compiler rejects it. John Riemann Soong (talk) 01:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The plus sign doesn't need an escape character. Try compiling System.out.println("+"); and you'll see it works fine. Make sure the plus sign is in quotes. Your problem may be with string concatenation. For example, if x == 5, and you want to print the value of x with a plus sign in front of it, you write System.out.println("+" + x); This prints "+5". Does that help?--el Aprel (^facta-_facienda) 01:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Booting Issue from USB Flash Drive

I'm trying to boot backtrack 4 (http://www.backtrack-linux.org/) from my flash drive, and it gives me an error every time I try to start it. It says "could not find kernel image: linux." I looked on the flash drive to see if syslinux.cfg is there, and it is. Also, I used UNetbootin to install the ISO onto the flash drive as it was recommended by the makers. Anyone know a solution? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.39.243 (talk) 03:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

www0.?

Why www0. and not www. What are the differences and what does it mean? I understand that it goes all the way to 6 www0. - www6. ??????

××√× —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brandonark13 (talk • contribs) 06:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See domain name. In the website "www.cnn.com", the www. is a subdomain of the cnn. portion of the address. The website owner chose to register the www. in the Domain Name System record. There is nothing special about "www." other than everyone in the world is familiar with it. Some websites register subdomains of www0. or www1. or en. as subdomains. So, a particular website may have subdomains of www0 through www6, but this is totally made up by the website owner — it could just as well be a123.cnn.com or sdlfajs8efsdlfjs8efsl8efj.cnn.com or what have you. Comet Tuttle (talk) 06:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Historically, I think the plan was that "company.com" would point to the top level router in a company; then "www.company.com" would point to the server(s) which could deliver www content (i.e. deliver HTML pages over HTTP). Theoretically, there would also be "ftp.company.com" for an ftp server; "smtp.company.com" for an SMTP server; "gopher.company.com" for a gopher server; and so on. In practice, virtually all users only really access a network via its HTTP server - so commonly, the top-level DNS name points to the web server. Many large websites require redundancy in the form of load balancing or Round robin DNS - so while the user types "www.company.com", they actually get directed automatically to the least-busy server. That server is properly named something else - it might be something as simple as "www1", "www2", or so on - or it can be any other name at all - but it's aliased to www.company.com. This can be done transparently (and the user thinks they are connected to "www" even though they are actually connecting to "www37", or it can be done with an HTTP redirect, in which case the user sees that the exact server they are actually pointing to. Such systems sometimes persist for a long time after they are technically required, because they are public-facing - so changing details would require informing thousands of users to alter their bookmarks, etc. As far as the number of servers, "www0-www6" - this is neither a hard limit nor an exact count of the actual number of servers in use. (Each of those might be a separate round-robin DNS for an entire data center, for example). In practice, large websites such as Google have tens of thousands of WWW mirrors. It has been estimated that a single Google query by one user uses as many as 10,000 Google servers. (source: Energy limits force complete rethinking of processors, programming, Kunle Olukotun). Think how much electricity is wasted every time you click!! Nimur (talk) 06:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Qualified Dublin Core in XHTML

Hello,

I didn't find any answer on the web, so i hope someone could answer me here.

I'm implementing DC metadata on my website. I'd like to use qualified Dublin Core to add refinements to the contributor element. I know that in XML, it is possible to use Marc relators code, but i have no idea how to implement these qualifiers in XHTML.

My question is : Is the syntax <meta name="DC.contributor.ill" content="Name of the illustrator /> (for instance) a valid syntax, according to Dublin Core and Marc relator codes specifications ?

It would be wonderful if anyone could answer me.

Thanks in advance;

Patrice —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.84.252.128 (talk) 07:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excel LOOKUP function

Can anyone please help me with the correct format and syntax to be used in the LOOKUP function in Excel? Let us say that I want to use grades of A+, A, and A- in my grading scheme. (For simplicity, I will ignore the grades of B, C, and D for now.) My cut-off points are as follows: a grade of A- is from 90 to 93.333 points; a grade of A is from 93.333 to 96.667 points; and a grade of A+ is from 96.667 to 100 points. If I use the following function, it works correctly.

=LOOKUP(A1,{0,90,93.333,96.667},{"F","A–","A","A+"})

Now, let's say that I really want to use the actual "correct" cut-off points of 90; 93 1/3; and 96 2/3. (In other words, I want the exact value of 1/3 as opposed to 0.333; and I want the exact value of 2/3 as opposed to 0.667.) How can I modify the above function to accommodate for requirement of exact fractional equivalents ... and not use merely their decimal approximations?

I tried things such as these (below), but they all seemed to create syntax or formatting errors:

I used 93+(1/3) as a cut-off point instead of 93.333;
I used =(93+1/3) as a cut-off point instead of 93.333;
I used 280/3 as a cut-off point instead of 93.333;
I used =280/3 as a cut-off point instead of 93.333;
I used =(280/3) as a cut-off point instead of 93.333.

Any thoughts, ideas, or suggestions as to what is going on exactly ... and how I can fix the problem? I cannot imagine that Excel is so simplistic that it requires decimal numbers to be used (e.g., 93.333), but it will not accommodate a simplistic division operation (e.g., 93+1/3). The problem, I suspect, is in the exact typing / format / syntax of the formula (e.g., the correct use of parentheses or equal signs or commas, etc.). But, I cannot seem to figure it out. Any thoughts? Thanks! (64.252.68.102 (talk) 16:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Fractions? We don't need no stinking fractions! Remember that to Excel, every number is a float, so asking for the 'real' value of 93 1/3 to be expressed is never going to happen. However, if you are interested in a 'more accurate' solution I would suggest using the cell array option for the LOOKUP function, thusly: =LOOKUP(A1,$D$1:$D$4,$E$1:$E$4). This will use the values in D1-D4 for the grade cutoffs, and the values in E1-E4 for the letter grades themselves (and the dollar signs allow dragging it down a column to check a bunch of grades without breaking the reference). In the range of cells you can input a fraction like 93 1/3 and it will accept it. It will, however, merely reduce it to the closest float it can find, such as 93.3333333333333, but at least it will be transparent to the user. Hope this helps! --Jmeden2000 (talk) 16:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my God. Thanks. But, in all honesty, I did not understand a word that you just said. I am not that fluent with Excel. I have no idea what a cell array is. Can you please tell me exactly what I have to do ... and exactly how to type the formula? I am gathering that ... I go to a cell (let's say B5) ... and in cell B5, I can enter the exact formula =93+1/3. And then cell B5 will "hold" my exact value. Correct? OK, but then what exactly do I do with that? And, I assume that I have to do this for every single grade (A+ in cell B5 ... A- in cell B6 ... B+ in cell B7 ... etc.) ... is that correct? If that is all correct, then what will my final function look like? Thanks, if you can reply back again! Much appreciated. (64.252.68.102 (talk) 16:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I should mention, before you go too far down this path, the lookup function works based on 'equal or less than' so if a grade of 93 1/3 is entered it will show you 'A-' given your current set of rules. There are ways around this but the discussion so far is just the LOOKUP function... --Jmeden2000 (talk) 17:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK let's step through this. Say you have ten decimal grades in column A, so they are A1:A10. You have your table of letter grade minimum values like '0, F' '90, A-' '93 1/3, A' and you put those into columns D and E respectively, so column D has F,A-, A A+ in it starting from the top at D1. Column E has the minimum value number next to the letter, so 0, 90, 93 1/3, etc starting with E1. Now, for the formula, if you put this into B1: =LOOKUP(A1,$D$1:$D$4,$E$1:$E$4) it will check the number grade in the cell next to it (a1) and compute the letter based on the table. The dollar signs are there to let you 'drag-fill' the B column by grabbing the little black square in the lower right of that cell and pulling it as far down column B as you want calculated. It will use the same lookup table against whatever number is to it's left. Finally, if you decide you want a different set of values for the letters (say you want to expand it so you can do B, C, and D; unless you are that tough of a teacher ;) you can change the formula to something like =LOOKUP(A1,$D$1:$D$10,$E$1:$E$10) if your grading rules ran from row 1 to row 10 in columns D and E. --Jmeden2000 (talk) 17:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will the above work correctly to calculate values that are in between the given ones (e.g. a 91.5)? In the past when I have tried to do such a thing I had to develop extremely odious nested IF statements (if it is smaller than X, give it an A-, otherwise see if it is smaller than Y, then give it a B+, and so on). The nesting restrictions of Excel make you have to use multiple columns for this approach, though. I can look up my old code if it would be useful, though it is not pretty. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I implemented this for a full range (F D C B A with -/+) and it works great with decimals or fractions, the only glitch is when 93 1/3 is used it decides it is an A-; whereas 83 1/3 and down doesn't show this behavior, nor do any of the + grades. I think it's a float rounding error of some sort... Researching during my lunch break, should know more soon. --Jmeden2000 (talk) 17:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To the user asking about this, I can email you the excel file showing all the work; but I should warn you against opening excel files from people you don't trust (which includes me). If you have a virus scanner and know how to say 'no' to macros, drop your email address into my talk page and I will send it to you. --Jmeden2000 (talk) 17:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect! Thanks for all of your work ... and for your patient explanations. So, now -- yes -- I do understand exactly what you are saying. I do have one more (nit picky) question ... which goes to a caveat point that you raised above. Personally, I am looking at all of these cut-off points as the minimum required to earn a grade ... which seems to be the opposite of how the LOOKUP function works (I guess?). So, once a student "hits" the cut-off point of 93 1/3, he is entitled to an A (not an A-). If he earns less than 93 1/3, he is only entitled to an A-. Once he "hits" the cut-off point of 96 2/3, he is entitled to an A+ (not an A). So, will this LOOKUP function do what I want (at the exact cut-off points) ... or do I still need further modifications? Thank you so much! (64.252.68.102 (talk) 17:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Well... yes (with exceptions.) The lookup function works thusly (according to Microsoft) "If LOOKUP cannot find the lookup_value, it matches the largest value in lookup_vector that is less than or equal to lookup_value." This would mean that since you specify the minimum required to reach the next grade in the table that entering that into the field will cause it to find the highest possible grade for that value. So, 93 1/3 should be marked an A. However, Excel is very funny about fractions. If you type in '93 1/3' it will show you that in the cell... If you type in '93.333333333333333' and set the data type to 'fraction' it will show you '93 1/3' in the cell but NOT treat it as if you had actually typed '93 1/3'! So, moral of the story, be careful when you enter values. Or, maybe you should consider just rounding up those last few decimals in the interest of student morale ;-) --Jmeden2000 (talk) 18:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The file has been sent to you. Note that I added a grade tier (100) for testing purposes, you can simply delete it from the list of grades and it will revert to the grade rules as previously set forth. The examples illustrate that when Excel 'converts' something to a fraction it is only showing you the fraction value, what it has stored may not be exactly that fraction. This is how two grades showing '100' have two different outcomes (one is actually 99.999 and the other 100). --Jmeden2000 (talk) 18:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot! I will take a look and sort through all of this tomorrow, when I have free time. Thank you! (64.252.68.102 (talk) 18:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks to all for the above help. Much appreciated! Thank you. (64.252.68.102 (talk) 23:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Slideshow software

Slideshows are ubiquitous, and finding slideshow software is easy, right? WRONG!

OK, maybe not "wrong", but I, for one, am stumped (and did you know that our photo slideshow software article is a complete joke?). I am trying to find a (Windows) program that would have the following features:

free (open-source would be good, but is not necessary);
ability to handle a large number of images (around a hundred thousand);
Exif-orientation detection;
a good selection of transition effects;
does not take forever to index the images before starting to display them (a short wait is fine);
tweakable captions (or at the minimum it should be able to show the file name).

So far I've tried ACDSee (not free; has a pretty low limit on how many images can be included in a slide show); IrfanView (no transition effects, takes long to load the file list before the start of the show); and some antique 1990s program inventively called "Slide Show", which, surprisingly, is the best of what I've found, except it's not free, can't read Exif data, is flagged by anti-virus software as "harmful", and often glitches.

Any suggestions will be very welcome. I can't believe there's nothing appropriate for a task as simple as a slide show!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:04, February 4, 2010 (UTC)

I believe that Google's Picassa meets all of your requirements. They don't call them slideshows. They call them movies (since you can make the slides move around and not just go from slide to slide). -- kainaw ™ 18:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I accidentally left out Picasa from the list of things I tried. The problem with it is that it does not seem to be able to show the pictures from a directory and its subdirectories; it only works with one directory at a time (at least it did three months ago when I tried it last). Any other suggestions?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:14, February 4, 2010 (UTC)

For me, Picasa shows pics from my computer and from my wifes computer (over the network). It spans all directories, showing photos I have in my photos directory, in my email downloads directory, and in my project directory - along with all subdirectories. -- kainaw ™ 18:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, that's not what my experience had been... I'll download a fresh version tonight and give it a go; perhaps they fixed it recently.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:51, February 4, 2010 (UTC)

This is only free if you already own it: The "My Photos" screensaver of Windows Vista is the best slideshow program I have ever seen. I think it has all your requested features except for the captions, and the part about being free. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Never even thought to try it (and it does fit my definition of "free" for this purpose). I assume it's the same in Win7? Will give it a try when I come back home tonight. No captions is a bummer, though...—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:51, February 4, 2010 (UTC)

Postscript: The Vista version is just called "Photos", not "My Photos"; and, if it matters to you, the Vista version has a bug whereby your monitor will never automatically shut off if the "Photos" screensaver is running. Comet Tuttle (talk) 07:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried XnView? I've got an old (2006) version installed (win xp), and tried it on a directory tree with ~7500 jpegs just now. It fits most of your requirements - open source, no tweakable captions, but it shows the file names, it rotates based on exif data, my old version has only one transition effect (cross-fade), there may be more in recent versions, and it handled 7,500 files nicely (I haven't got a 100,000 image directory to try it on). Optional random order or looping of images. --NorwegianBlue^talk 21:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I have not tried XnView. Thanks for the suggestion; I'll try it out this weekend! Transition effects are quite important, though...—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:23, February 5, 2010 (UTC)

Ëzhiki: curiously I wrote my own slideshow program a while ago; I'll not spam you with it, as it doesn't do a bunch of the things you asked for. But your question has given me some ideas for the features-to-do list (I hadn't thought about the exif-orientation thing), and I wanted to know what you mean by "tweakable captions" - beyond the filename (perhaps with the file extension removed) what would you expect an automated slideshow program to display? -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 00:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finlay, what I really meant by tweakable captions is an ability to include the contents of the Exif data fields into a caption. For example, if you keep comments in the exif comments field, it would be most useful to show them as a caption. That, and good old stuff like file name/path/creation date/etc. If it could pull the data from the ACDSee database, it'd be absolutely perfect, but I understand a feature like that would be too much to ask (or even hope) for. Incidentally, if you ever need the services of a beta tester for your program once it takes shape, I'm more than interested in helping :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:23, February 5, 2010 (UTC)

I would note that Irfanview allows you to save a text file of the slideshow after you've added all. Loading this text file seems quite fast, I tried it with one I created after I add all from my root drive which ended up with 33k files. Looking at the file, as I expected it's simply a list of the files with full directory trees. You could easily create a similar file with a "dir /b /s" in cmd or "get-childitem -recurse | foreach-object -process { $_.FullName }" in PowerShell or similar either making new files if you change some directories or just adding to the existing file if just add directories. This may or may not get around your loading time concern. It won't help with your transition effects one Nil Einne (talk) 08:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I noticed that feature. Problem is, the saved list is going to remain static, and since the pictures I need to run the slideshow on come and go, the list will need to be re-built quite often. It's good to know it can be updated with the dir command, but it's just too much preliminary work still. Thanks for the tips, though.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:23, February 5, 2010 (UTC)

I have used something called SuperJPG for a long time. It's shareware, but is readily cracked; handles lots of images (i've had folders with thousands); has transition effects; indexes dynamically (a separate thread maybe?); easily shows a filename caption; not sure about EXIF orientation though. Select the images you want in your slideshow and press F9 - skip through the images on a timer or on a key/mouse press. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.210.121 (talk) 02:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft have their own free program for this, called Photo Story. Not sure whether it's any good, but I presume I'd be worth a try. Chevymontecarlo (talk) 18:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I tried Win7's Photos screensaver, and it turned out to not support Exif orientation. That and no captions rule it out. XnView, on the other hand, seems to be just the ticket (except for the "quick loading" part)—they've apparently added more transition effects, and the captions are tweakable like there's no tomorrow :) For the sake of experiment, I'm also going to try out the other two suggestions (SuperJPG and Photo Story). Thank you everyone for your help!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:01, February 8, 2010 (UTC)

Stolen account / username

What is the best course of action when someone malicious has stolen your account or created an account with an almost identical name and proceeds to impersonate you? In this hypothetical example, there are no admins or mods or anyone who are around or care so you're on your own with the problem. I'm not talking about wikipedia here, but it could apply to wikipedia if you imagine there were no admins. Thank you

If this was occurring to me and I knew who the person was, I'd get a lawyer to send them a demand letter, threatening lawsuits and a referral of the matter to the police. Depending on where I lived, I might also actually refer it to the police immediately. There is a crime called "criminal impersonation" in many countries, and in some it is apparently a felony. Identity theft may also being committed. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

there's a difference between a stolen account and impersonating someone.

In the case of a stolen account (password hacked etc) - contact the site or service provider, tell them what has happened.

Impersonating you - on many sites - eg wikipedia, forums etc contact admins or moderators - and inform them. In the case of a similar e-mail address - you can contact the e-mail provider - but perhaps more important in the short term is to contact your contacts and inform them that someone is spoofing you. In the long term - you would have to decide if the similar name was accidental or malicious - in the case of malicious use of a similar name - I'd call the police -simple as that.87.102.67.84 (talk) 19:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Contacting moderators is not an option; they're either non-existent or simply do not care. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.89.14 (talk) 19:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If this isn't a hypothetical problem maybe you should say what or where the problem is? is it an email acount, a paysite, paypal etc ?? (we can't just randomly guess on a proper course of action) 87.102.67.84 (talk) 20:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what I did when my son's MSN account was hijacked by someone who obviously knew him, and who sent nasty messages to his friends, pretending to be him. They were constantly logged in, so he was unable to regain control by pressing the "forgot my password" button. He and a friend got in touch with the perpetrators while logged in using the friend's account. He asked them to stop; they just kept taunting him. I took over the keyboard, and wrote, "Hello, this is XXX's dad at the keyboard. I would like to warn you that I have recorded your ip-address, and that I will report you to the police unless you log off immediately". My threat got a silly reply, to which I responded that they had one minute to log out. They did, and we regained control of the account. I was bluffing of course. This approach will work only if the offender is not very computer-savvy and easily intimidated. --NorwegianBlue^talk 20:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How do I stop a major privacy invasion by Google?

When looking at a Google search results page, I clicked on "Web History" at the top right of the page out of curiosity. This gave me another page which had a link on it which said "Disable customisations based on search activity". When I clicked on it it changed to "Enable customisations based on search activity." There was another link for "Web History" and when I clicked on that, I was shocked to see a box which said "Sign in to Web History with your Google Account". I havnt got a Google Account!!! I don't want a Google Account!!!! However the box was already filled in - Email: my YouTube log in name, Password: presumably my YouTube password, Stay signed in: already ticked. WTF!?!?!?! So I deleted all my cookies using Ccleaner, details still there! Then with AdvancedSystemCare, details still there!! Then deleted all cookies thjrough Firefox itself, details still there!!! I'm shocked, upset, and annoyed by this invasion of privacy! I have not looked at YouTube for two or three days. I delete all my cookies every day almost. How did Google know what my YouTube account details are? How can I make it forget this information, and stop it hapening again please? I think this major invasion of privacy is disgusting and totally unacceptable! Sorry for all the exclamation marks, but I am upset. 78.146.193.0 (talk) 21:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is FAR more likely that Firefox assumed it was the same user/pass. When you save user/pass, it is not saved as a cookie. So, deleting cookies, spinning around three times, deleting cookies again, placing an ash circle around your computer, and deleting cookies again will not delete the saved passwords. You have to go into preferences and view/delete the saved passwords. -- kainaw ™ 21:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I deleted all passwords in Firefox as suggested, and the box referred to above now is blank. That is something of a relief. I would not have expected Firefox to mistake Google for YouTube. 78.146.193.0 (talk) 22:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, you know Google and YouTube are the same organisation, right? Marnanel (talk) 22:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Google owns YouTube. The YouTube login is the same as the Google login. -- kainaw ™ 22:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I did know. I do not like the monolith regarding privacy that Google has become - reading your Google emails, remembering your Google search history, your YouTube viewing history, Google websites - because of the bad arrogant uncaring insensitive privacy misuse I am seeking alternatives to Google. Do people hold demonstrations outside their offices in the US? They should do. 78.146.193.0 (talk) 23:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You don't think other the sites keep track of your usage history? $10 says they do, but just don't tell you. The problem isn't Google, per se, the problem is the total lack of any kind of serious privacy protections in the USA. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)If you don't want google to read your emails, remembering your search history etc, there's a simple solution, don't use them. Also, you're assuming that google cares what emails you send and receive? Do you really think there are people at google who sit and go through your history?--Jac16888 ^Talk 00:03, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other websites are not part of a multi-site empire where data from different websites can be collated. 78.146.193.0 (talk) 00:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, many are. For what it's worth, I don't like it either, and think I should have the ability to demand that any website purge its records of my activity, on my demand; but it's clear the only way this will happen is via government action, and this won't occur until there is some abuse that outrages the public. Ask.com is a search alternative that has a feature called AskEraser that purportedly purges its records of your activity once you log out ... except if the police has asked Ask.com to keep your search activity, which you can't find out ... so, we're all doomed. Comet Tuttle (talk) 00:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When it comes to stuff like this, I'm in the Scott McNealy-camp, I don't really care if Google knows my search history. I mean, I suppose I would prefer they wouldn't, but hell, it gives me better service, so why the hell not. Privacy is dead, get over it. And it's not like it's anything important on there like medical history or financial information. Though I guess they have that Google Medical now, so that's not good.

However, I must disagree with you. I don't think Google has committed any big privacy violation at all. You signed up for and logged in with your Google Account. No one else. You didn't have to do that, you could use Google and Youtube without an account, but when you did, you gave Google permission to collect information on what you do on their sites. If you hate it so much, go use Yahoo! or Bing, but I guarantee you that they collect your web history as well. They're just not as upfront about it.

Regardless, Google has recently introduced exactly what Comet Turtle requests. It's called Google Dashboard, where Google shows you everything it knows about you, and (for some products) gives you the option to delete the stuff. This includes clearing your Google Web History. So there you go. Of course, this is no guarantee that Google actually deletes them or just tells you it did, but I personally believe them. The information is not that valuable, and if you went to all the trouble to tell Google to delete them, it would be the decent thing to do. Belisarius (talk) 06:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe Dashboard lets you clear your search history at all, and it certainly doesn't let you clear their record of searches you performed from your current IP address while you were not signed in. Comet Tuttle (talk) 07:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Use a library computer like I am. Here are my Google search results for "car bomb the white house". :-D 192.30.202.13 (talk) 14:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dashboard allows you to manage all information associated with your google account except for the products listed at the very bottom. Additionally, some information can not be cleared as outlined in this help document. Caltsar (talk) 19:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"And it's not like it's anything important on there like medical history" -- actually, http;//health.google.com -- Google do track medical history. Granted, you have to go out of your way to get it on there, but I still thought it was funny and worth mentioning.

And to the original poster: a YouTube account is a Google account. You already have a Google account. Go ahead, sign into Google Docs with your YouTube login -- it's the same account, YouTube is a Google service. 202.10.88.233 (talk) 11:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]