Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
Google circa 1960 [image]
fury.com — What would Google have looked like if it existed in the 1960's? This image is good step in that direction.
HMTKSteve- 3224 diggs
- digg it
- pirana0, on 10/12/2007, -9/+331"The internet is a series of mail trucks."
- cramd, on 10/12/2007, -4/+67But what about the other Intrenets? If they too are trucks we could be looking at a serious traffic jam here. I suggest that we have to roads for travel; one for commerce (paying the way), and one for commuters. It is just not fair for all drives to expect to be able to travel down the highways that the others have paid for..
- palmer, on 10/12/2007, -63/+7Kudos for spelling "trucks" right.
You don't use "'s" to make something plural. So why do we have "1960's" in the description? - cramd, on 10/12/2007, -29/+6@palmer.. did you not catch the internetS reference there? This is a "Bushism"..Sorry that you are a touch slow.. please fill out attached query form and send to Google Search Headquarters to be updated.
I did notice that I had to in place of two in my comment.. oops.. - Hubajube, on 10/12/2007, -4/+51@palmer,
>You don't use "'s" to make something plural. So why do we have "1960's" in the description?
Because that's the way we were taught in school. Up until fairly recently, almost every grammar book said that you should add an apostrophe-s to pluralizes numbers (1960's), letters (dot your i's), or words as words (He misused "literally".) Thankfully, this rule has fallen out of favor, as have the rules about split infinitives, starting a sentence with a conjunction, and always moving commas within adjacent quotes. English is a moving target; there's no need to get snippy if someone was taught differently than you.
http://englishplus.com/news/news1201.htm - Rexozord, on 10/12/2007, -15/+5@Palmer: Actually, 1960's is correct. You use an apostrophe to make a number or letter plural. For example: 1960's, L's.
- DASH, on 10/12/2007, -0/+54It needs a check box for the safe search. Heaven forbid it return anything inappropriate.
- TenebrousX, on 10/12/2007, -0/+17Stevens was right, it's not a single big truck
- Lumiras, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17@palmer
I think you have a very distorted perspective of English grammar structure. As a matter of fact, you do use "s" to make something plural.
The use of "s" in 1960's is also proper usage, it's a weird little rule but you always do that with dates
@cramd
It's not a "Bush-ism" it's a "Stevens-ism" based on the famous comments made by Sen. Ted Stevens about the internet being a "series of tubes" and "not a dump truck" - washcapsfan37, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4@Lumiras
You have a very distorted view of palmer's very distorted view. His emphasis was on the "'" (apostrophe), He was stating it was improper to use "1960's" (with apostrophe) and I assume he meant "1960s" (no apotsrophe) was correct. I've always seen it without the apostrophe, but then again I ain't got none English degree. - synarchy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2The misinformed lecturing the misinformed on grammar. Funny stuff!
Start here: http://www.bartleby.com/141/ - EricJD, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@palmer
Did you even read the page you linked to?
It clearly states:
"The only time when adding apostrophe s to make something plural is when you are working with numbers written as numbers or with words, letters, numbers, or symbols as themselves. An example of working with numbers written as numbers would be if you were referring to the 1990's. In most standard writing this would be written out in words: the nineteen nineties. You use the apostrophe to separate the number from the letter to show the letter is not part of the number." - psygnisfive, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2I've done some searching to provide some statistical data. All data is in Ghits (Google hits). Theres a clear dominance by the no-apostrophe format. So let's not argue over who's right and who's wrong because Strunk and White said so. It's clear that most people prefer no-apostrophe format when dealing with year numbers, but the apostrophe format is not an insignificant proportion of the total, making up, just by eyeing it, over a fifth of all instances.
year: # 's vs. #s
-----------------------------------
1900: 2.78m vs. 8.69m
1910: 0.270m vs. 2.27m
1920: 6.15m vs. 18.4m
1930: 6.76m vs. 22.1m
1940: 5.28m vs. 17.8m
1950: 9.49m vs. 35.4m
1960: 10.8m vs. 42.4m
1970: 10.8m vs. 50.4m
1980: 11.3m vs. 65.1m
1990: 9.05m vs. 63.9m
2000: 2.95m vs. 9.59m - MannaPC, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@Lumiras
You're wrong! There a several videos (even one that made it to digg) of Bush saying "Internets." - ShuttleDisaster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0It's not a big truck!
- PoserDad, on 10/12/2007, -4/+49I remeber those days.. Things were slower.
- timdietrich, on 10/12/2007, -2/+18People lived a simpler life. They did need the instant gratification that we demand these days.
- CiXeL, on 10/12/2007, -3/+36instant gratification is killing us
- everyone wants stuff now so you have record debt.
- everyone wants instant profits immediately so you have a volatile stock market and share holders who dont give a company time to research new avenues of profit or take risks.
- everyone wants work done immediately so they're working people so hard at their jobs that they burn out.
we all need to slow down and go zen-style
if we dont we'll run this country right into the ground. - Smiegel, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13Yup. Something I learned in a business class in college really surprised me. US automakers consider and plan for "long term" decisions and opportunities as something like 3 months. Japanese automakers plan for 10-50 years as long term. They plan decades and generations ahead. I think that's why as an industry, they've stayed so strong overseas. In the US, We want our profits now. It's apparent everywhere but it's very acute here.
- teddyrux, on 10/12/2007, -13/+1@CiXel
tldr - Jamminpotato, on 10/12/2007, -0/+18My candle burns at both ends
It will not last the night;
But ah, my foes, and oh, my friends -
It gives a lovely light. - cliffotn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Ahhhh the good old days. Typing and correcting for 2 hours on a mimeograph stencil. Whoops! Made a typo, get out the surgical repair kit. But it was all worth it. After 2 hours of document creation and 10 minutes setting up the mimeograph machine, and 5 minutes of turning that freaking crank. Ahhh, the sweet payoff. 50 copies of one document that were still wet. Sweet toxic nirvana. Yes indeed skippy, those were the days.
Let us not forget that smell! Ah, that smell! I feel sorry for today's generation of school kids, they'll never know what they missed. - atbnet, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Exactly why I dugg this down, I expected the image to be downloaded into my brain. How dare they expect me to click links and look at something.
- timdietrich, on 10/12/2007, -2/+18People lived a simpler life. They did need the instant gratification that we demand these days.
- terrya64, on 10/12/2007, -35/+4What web would they be searching in the 60's?
- 0crabby0, on 10/12/2007, -5/+43Porn...
- hackwrench, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7College libraries, research papers and the like?
- mutatron, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9I used to work at a university. On breaks I would go over to the library and read journals and other publications. It was similar to web surfing, some things I would read each day, some publications I would pick at random to give some variety. I still remember installing Mosaic in '92, or maybe '91. Back then the equivalent of Digg was just a listing of new sites. There might be three or four new sites on a good day!
However, before the Web there were Usenet newsgroups. - m3mn0n, on 10/12/2007, -0/+19You never used a Library before it had computers?
You don't remember the card system? Where you stamped a book out and then search through a massive collection of cards to see if it was even there?
I'm only 22 and I remember doing that a lot... it sucked. - sigmaman2, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Web v0.01 alpha
- Plato, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15lol, thats pretty clever. Thanks for posting :)
- DiggMeUpPlsThx, on 10/12/2007, -151/+14Fake! I just checked the background info on google.com, and they didn't register the site until 1997. So THIS IS FAKE no one owned google.com in 1960s! FAKE!!!!
- 4DFX, on 10/12/2007, -12/+10You must be a genius
- jdstorer2, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17"What would Google have looked like [if it existed] in the 1960's? This image is good step in that direction."
Exactly how many people must block a person before they're completely blocked from digg? There should be a frickin' test before you can sign up. - DanteDefiance, on 10/12/2007, -1/+64Should......should I hit him?
- DiggMeUpPlsThx, on 10/12/2007, -65/+3Also my friend saids to me that the web didn't release until 1980. SO THIS IS FAKE! Marked as fake. FAKKKKKKKEE!!!
- austindkelly, on 10/12/2007, -5/+17@diggmeupplsthx
you are clearly retarded.
clicking the link would have told you that it is a parody and really quite funny.
in addition to you being possibly retarded, your user name is also teh suck. - thefutureisours, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13sarcasm...
- gonzo1043, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2[sarc]I'm glad you took the time to research the fact that a domain name was not registered in 1960. Good Work [/sarc]
- DiggMeUpPlsThx, on 10/12/2007, -52/+1Wow how would i know when the internet released? I JUST KNEW FOR A FACT that google is brand new company cauz i heard it on digg or whatev
- craftyguy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11Are you serious? This guy cannot be serious..
- VANOS, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15C'mon.... you say all that, and don't even mention that Al Gore didn't even INVENT the internet for several decades after the purported image was taken! HMPH!
- austindkelly, on 10/12/2007, -0/+23Oh God, I called him retarded, and now I feel bad, because he might actually be retarded.
- SkippyDoorknob, on 10/12/2007, -2/+19He's obviously joking...
- SundayTrain, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Tards! Hit em now!
Back in the day Webcrawler,NNTP an B-Boards was the *****. Remember vets, the days of loading the twinsock and win3.1 and then loading up Mozilla? Remember Delphi ISP? - TheRedCoat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12I thought your comment was funny. I think some may need the /sarcasm tags too often..
- weprin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8sarcasm + internet = suck (not the pleasurable kind)
- sifelltneytandi, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10God damn, you guys are retarded. He was kidding. And it was about as funny as this submission (read: not very).
- terrya64, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7I should digg all of you down for being stupid enough to think he's serious,
- venicerocco, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5"Oh God, I called him retarded, and now I feel bad, because he might actually be retarded."
There's GOT to be an image to accompany that line...
v. funny - Zantozz, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Are you an idiot, or do you just play one on TV?
- DrewBlood, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3C'mon, this is actually kind of funny. Saw his Wii comment earlier. He's becoming a regular Digg Court Jester.
- JustMatt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I love how this guy got raped for not seeing the sarcasm in the post, when really it was all the people who raped him who just didn't see the sarcasm in his comment...hmm...
- petepete, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2-133 diggs and counting for the funniest comment in the thread
- ascheinberg, on 10/12/2007, -20/+7I realize it's unpopular to leave comments like this, but I do want to ask: as funny as it is, it's YEARS old. I remember seeing this at least 2 or 3 years ago.
- webtekie, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Haven't seen it, so t's new to me. Isn't this is the reason digg is popular? I can't see all the pages at all the time but here I can see the ones that are good even if I missed them 2-3 years ago. So stop with this ***** that you've seen it 2-3 years ago. I haven't!
- ascheinberg, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9 >So stop with this ***** that you've seen it 2-3 years ago. I haven't!
That's stupid. By that rationale ANYTHING cool that has ever been online should be submitted to catch people up, and that makes the "news" section worthless - and incidentally, not "news." The "news" section ought to be actual news, not just jokes that have been around since 2003.
It's fruitless, this comment will get dugg down just like the one above, but it doesn't change the fact that submitting the same old ***** that went around in email 3 years ago, wikipedia articles, and completely unfounded rumors are what is passing for front page on digg these days. I'm just pointing that out. It will result in a very quick burying, but it's true. - Applemacmad, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3years old? it's over 40 years old.
Completely genuine, it is!
//sarcasm - wafflez, on 10/12/2007, -4/+0to follow the ways of the forum: "This is older than the internet itself, you fail, The Internet is Serious Business, Repost noob."
- mcottier, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Charles Manson: "If I haven't seen it, it's new to me!"
- DarkMeld, on 10/12/2007, -10/+3haha the news search would be weeks old before you get it
- airencracken, on 10/12/2007, -10/+1Lame.
- debuggercll, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15Please allow 4 to 6 weeks for this reply comment.
- deadlinegrunt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5"Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of tapes hurtling down the highway."
- quarsaw, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@deadlinegrunt
but don't overlook the latency
- nutsackninja, on 10/12/2007, -8/+0BORING!
- redban2, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10This was cool, when I first saw it, in 2002
- Applemacmad, on 10/12/2007, -0/+19that's how long it takes to get results
- NotAName, on 10/12/2007, -9/+0Old and really not that funny.
Way too many lame stories on digg lately. Wisdom of the crowd my ass :( - r0b0, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7thats awesome... but how would they ship the hundreds of thousands of results? or would they just ship the first 10 pages?
(A bit off topic but, this is the first time I saw dig since the update and I was like... WHOA!!) - SmackMyMac, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10I bet That was easier to use than Bable Fish in the 1960's. It took me 2 years just to find out that my Hot 18 year old French pen pal was in fact a 45 year old russian man named "Klev" because of the time it took to get each one of my Translation requests back. It was a real bummer when he sailed over and raped me before I got that final letter from babble fish reading... "My name is Klev, I'm a 45 year old Russian man and I am coming over to rape you now. Chow"
Oh well, you live and learn.- Naga10, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Ever heard of a dictionary?
- cramd, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Well this is just crap. Several weeks ago I printed this form and sent it by post, and have yet to receive my search results. I was hoping that the results to my query "how to stop sever bleeding from lost limb" would have been sent to me in a timely fashion. But alas I sit and type this as my last Oz of blood spills out.
I think I should have sent my query search mail to this new fangled Yahoo! company. I was going to send it to them as well, but with all the clutter on their query form I was lost in ads.
OH there is the postman now.. oh how I hope he has my results! - ButterBuddha, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I would think a blank "punch card" would be more accurate representation of 1960's technology ....
- Lumiras, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4yes, but it's not funny
- Killah_xxx, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Even though I find this picture quite original, I must say it has been floating around for while now on the internet.
- mattmollysdad, on 10/12/2007, -9/+1sorry guys. maybe I'm wrong n will check with my wife who lived in Los Altos from about 1960-1987 but I don't think there was an Amphitheatre Way in Mtn. View in 1960. nice try though.
your father knows best- lunarworks, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"...I don't think there was an Amphitheatre Way in Mtn. View in 1960. nice try though."
There wasn't a Google in 1960 either.
Nice to see the joke fly way over your head. - formido, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@lunarworks
Looks like he's not the only one who has a problem with jokes flying over his head.
Actually, just to be safe, I'll be more clear. He's joking. See, it's funny because he's taking something obscure and saying it didn't exist, ignoring the obvious thing that didn't exist. Get it? Hehe!
Of course, I guess you could be "joking" too.
- lunarworks, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"...I don't think there was an Amphitheatre Way in Mtn. View in 1960. nice try though."
- freff, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I don't know how this made the front page, but I'm glad it did. It made me smile, and I really needed that.
Thanks. - fakesinatra, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1I hadn't seen it.
BTW the state abbreviation for California in 1960 was CAL. Not "CA." - Habemus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3And YouTube in 1960 would look like the Vanderbilt Television News Archive looks TODAY. They have taped the the network evening news broadcasts every night from 1968 on. The way the service works is you request a video, pay a fee, then they copy it to VHS tape and PHYSICALLY MAIL it to you and after you finish watching it, you mail it back! "Internet? Never heard of it. Is that a knitting club or something?"
http://tvnews.vanderbilt.edu/ - pneumatic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4YAAPN (Yet Another Annoyingly Pedantic Nitpick), zip codes weren't introduced until 1963.
Still, Very Funny. - krizhere, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Yeah, but what about the "I Feel Lucky" feature which would deliver the first result of your query directly at your door?
- carpentc, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Only one thing missing: an SASE
- NV0U, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9WRONG! Marking this as inaccurate!
If this image was of Google in 1960, it would have had an address of:
Google Search Request
1600 Ampitheater Parkway
Mountain View 43, California
Ya see, the ZIP code did not even come into being until 1963!
(yes, I am being sarcastic. I did not digg this down.) - TOndrej, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Also see: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1149.txt
Linux support: http://www.blug.linux.no/rfc1149/
;-) - Holosoth, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Old. I saw this six to eight weeks ago.
- gostars, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1*
- everlaster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1talking of Post..
could imagine that in some countries it runs much slower!
in the 21st century!! - JrGhoull, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0hahaha perfect!
- cramd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@Lumiras
the "Bush-ism "was the Internets part. - prowling-tiger, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4Submitted the same story submitted 459 days ago.
http://www.digg.com/tech_news/Old_School_Google - remydlc, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Very Funny, specially the moron DiggMeUpPlsThx saying that google did not exist on 1960. duhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!
- biff198, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Can you imagine what would happen in you asked for in image search?
*shudders* - Avalontor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Have any of you folks heard of Archie? Not quite the 60's but it was the very first search engine. You emailed the Archie server and it returned a list of sites matching your query by email. Then you sent a email FTP request to the file server holding the search result you wanted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archie_search_engine - Touchdown, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1If that was really from the 1960's the address should read "Calif." instead CA as the two letter abbreviations didn't take off until the late 60's
- miken32, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I want to see someone do this in CSS!
- plastiqmanb, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0FAKE! they Froogle is new.... ghey....
- GeekedAtBirth, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Yeah, and I'm sure that auto insurance ad would be there, too!
- PureEvil, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Heh, love it, just absolutely love it....
- VenDrake, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1If you honestly believe that either 1960s or 1960's is somehow "incorrect" then you obviously don't realize the definition of words, the formation of grammar, and the placement of punctuation is written into textbooks to approximate the usage of the general public, not the other way around. If it's within socially accepted norms (loosely defined as two standard deviations), then it's acceptable. If it's outside of socially accepted norms, then it's simply difficult to understand. Trying to say that these things are correct or incorrect presumes that you either, have the authority to define rules about words, grammar, and punctuation that the rest of us must adhere to; or you have actually created a new word and birthed it's definition. Since isn't a monarchy you can't enforce definitions any more than the hobo in his cardboard box. So unless you recently discovered a new species or named a new element...shut the hell up. We, the English speaking public, make the definitions.
- thediggerdude2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Well If Yahoo keeps up with their antics, they may be reverted back to this state.. Here's the digg story http://www.digg.com/search?section=news&s=yahoo+natural+search
- FishEye, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0This lame Picture has over 2800 diggs?
Good God...
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by
![Google circa 1960 [image]](http://fury.com/images/weblog/google_circa_1960.jpg){kind=link}