| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Chemistry Forum » Worth to mention: Backup of all science related forums.
Page 1 of 1
|
| Author |
Message |
| Seven Stars |
 Posted: Sun Dec 28, 2003 1:03 am |
|
|
|
Joined: 28 Dec 2003
Posts: 23
|
Worth to mention: Backup of all science related forums.
Worth to mention:
From what I see, all important science newsgroups are being backed up online at www.sciencegroups.com
We'll be able to find all our posts and answers to them, even if they are long time gone from all newsgroup servers, which is pretty good idea I think.
As someone already mentioned, Google groups are the best place to go, but Google has thousands of topics and newsgroups... and it's very hard to get around in such overload of information, that is at least in my opinion, don't you think?
www.sciencegroups.com has it all in one place, simple for beginner, also good for scientists to find their topic right away.
Website and forums order looks good to me as well.
Anyways, I just though it's good to have it in our favourites.
7* |
|
|
| Back to top |
 
|
| N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) |
| Posted: Sun Dec 28, 2003 11:36 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Dear Seven Stars:
"Seven Stars" <seven777stars@hotmail-dot-com.no-spam.invalid> wrote in
message news:3fee727e$1_1@127.0.0.1...
....
Quote: As someone already mentioned, Google groups are the best place to go,
but Google has thousands of topics and newsgroups... and it's very
hard to get around in such overload of information, that is at least
in my opinion, don't you think?
Just add "sci.chem" to your search criterion. Then only posts that were
made to sci.chem (or mention sci.chem) will be included in the results.
What gets me, is that they lose posts. So depending on them as a sole
"public notification resource" is a little iffy.
David A. Smith |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| DaveC |
| Posted: Sun Dec 28, 2003 11:47 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 22:04:46 -0800, Seven Stars wrote
(in message <3fee727e$1_1@127.0.0.1>):
Quote: As someone already mentioned, Google groups are the best place to go,
but Google has thousands of topics and newsgroups... and it's very
hard to get around in such overload of information, that is at least
in my opinion, don't you think?
Or use Google's advanced search page:
http://groups.google.com/advanced_group_search?hl=en
It allows entry of groups (ie, sci.chem), and with the use of wild cards (ie,
*chem*), searches can be quite "tight".
--
DaveC
me@privacy.net
This is an invalid return address
Please reply in the news group |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Ralconte |
| Posted: Sun Dec 28, 2003 12:30 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
seven777stars@hotmail-dot-com.no-spam.invalid (Seven Stars) wrote in message news:<3fee727e$1_1@127.0.0.1>...
Quote: Worth to mention: Backup of all science related forums.
I won't say I'm not interested, so I will bookmark it. I was hoping
for another source when I heard Micro$lime was considering buying out
Google. I don't need Viagra ads and Hollywood best/worst dressed
lists as sidebars to a sci.chem search. (If you don't understand what
I'm talking about, goto msn dot com, and see the crap I wade through
to see web email.
However, I don't think anyone besides Google has the resources or
inclination to chronicle even the sci.groups. Maybe a university
somewhere, but that would just consume resources and give them, what,
our gratitude? Can't say you've got a real computer science
breakthrough just cause you built a huge database. Who is paying for
this new archive? I already see our arguments are being store for
posterity, great. I hope whoever's backrolling this doesn't read it.
The great stuff on sci.chem goes back 10-15 years ago. People asked
insightful questions based on homework and got answers. (yeah, that
happens nowadays occasionally as well.) Even our favorite uncle and
Dr Schultz were ... well, civil with each other. I hope we never lose
that stuff. Google doesn't even have all the Larry Lippman stuff.
Most people would agree that's a tragedy. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| hanson |
| Posted: Sun Dec 28, 2003 12:32 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com>
wrote in message news:4EDHb.31731$gN.29463@fed1read05...
Quote: Seven Stars:
Google groups are the best place to go, but Google ....
What gets me, is that they lose posts.
David A. Smith
Ahahahahhaa...........ahahahahaha........ahahahaha..
......ROTFLMAO........ahahaha........ahahahaha......
I am sorry, Davy, I really shouldn't be laughing, because
the profound, earthshaking, life saving, wealth producing
wisdoms as expressed in these lost posts is truly a tragedy
of epic proportions.......ahahahahaha........ahahahaha...
Still ROTFL........but have a great HAPPY NEW YEAR, dude.
ahahahaha......ahahahanson.....still ROTFL........ |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) |
| Posted: Sun Dec 28, 2003 1:10 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Dear hanson:
"hanson" <hanson@quick.net> wrote in message
news:GsEHb.22306$Pg1.1656@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Quote: "N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com
wrote in message news:4EDHb.31731$gN.29463@fed1read05...
Seven Stars:
Google groups are the best place to go, but Google ....
What gets me, is that they lose posts.
Ahahahahhaa...........ahahahahaha........ahahahaha..
.....ROTFLMAO........ahahaha........ahahahaha......
I am sorry, Davy, I really shouldn't be laughing, because
the profound, earthshaking, life saving, wealth producing
wisdoms as expressed in these lost posts is truly a tragedy
of epic proportions.......ahahahahaha........ahahahaha...
I personally have placed in the public domain the idea of using a vegetable
oil as a "zeolyte", and a procedure for smoothing a data stream that uses
only one "accumulator". They lost the first one.
Quote: Still ROTFL........but have a great HAPPY NEW YEAR, dude.
ahahahaha......ahahahanson.....still ROTFL........
And I see you have started on the Happy New Year, so carry on.
David A. Smith |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| hanson |
| Posted: Sun Dec 28, 2003 1:33 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com>
wrote in message news:p0FHb.31772$gN.22896@fed1read05...
Quote: Dear hanson:
"hanson" <hanson@quick.net> wrote in message
news:GsEHb.22306$Pg1.1656@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com
wrote in message news:4EDHb.31731$gN.29463@fed1read05...
Seven Stars:
Google groups are the best place to go, but Google ....
What gets me, is that they lose posts.
Ahahahahhaa...........ahahahahaha........ahahahaha..
.....ROTFLMAO........ahahaha........ahahahaha......
I am sorry, Davy, I really shouldn't be laughing, because
the profound, earthshaking, life saving, wealth producing
wisdoms as expressed in these lost posts is truly a tragedy
of epic proportions.......ahahahahaha........ahahahaha...
I personally have placed in the public domain the idea of using a vegetable
oil as a "zeolyte", and a procedure for smoothing a data stream that uses
only one "accumulator". They lost the first one.
Still ROTFL........but have a great HAPPY NEW YEAR, dude.
ahahahaha......ahahahanson.....still ROTFL........
And I see you have started on the Happy New Year, so carry on.
David A. Smith
Oh my Gahhhhd, Davy. That is a shame! Losing YOUR "zeolyte"!.
But the good thing is that there are about 300 other ones left
to google with. Go, check it out, be happy and do also start with
a Happy New Year...... ahahahaha......ahahahahanson |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Bruce Hamilton |
| Posted: Sun Dec 28, 2003 2:01 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
ralconte@hotmail.com (Ralconte) wrote:
Quote: I was hoping for another source when I heard Micro$lime was considering buying out
Google.
The last I heard was that they were going to set up their own search engine,
and make that the default for new versions of Windows. It was fairly common
knowledge that MS approached Google earlier this year, and were rebuffed.
Quote: However, I don't think anyone besides Google has the resources or
inclination to chronicle even the sci.groups.
Google is successful not because it chronicles the groups, but because it has a
very effective search engine, especially for the WWW. There were quite a few
places archiving Usenet, but with the advent of Google's Usenet archive, why
would people bother?. There may be some that still archive Usenet, but without
a strong search engine, it's unlikely they'll ever make their archives
available.
Quote: The great stuff on sci.chem goes back 10-15 years ago. People asked
insightful questions based on homework and got answers. (yeah, that
happens nowadays occasionally as well.) Even our favorite uncle and
Dr Schultz were ... well, civil with each other.
Actually Uncle Al didn't appear till late 1995 ( but subsequently made up for
his tardiness ), and initially had a fairly hard time as his assertions were
often tested against information on the Internet. Once he figured out how
others were mining the WWW, FTP, and Library resources, there was no stopping
him, and his % of correct answers greatly improved.
Quote: I hope we never lose that stuff. Google doesn't even have all the Larry Lippman stuff.
Most people would agree that's a tragedy.
As far as I know Google does now have all the Lippman stuff. The Google archive
now goes all the way back to the beginning of sci.chem. Norman Yarvin ( group
participant and formerly of the computer science department at Yale ) also
provided me with some large files of early Lippman posts, from which I
extracted relevant ones and reposted to the group in 1996. They should always
be around, but now you can actually read the complete original threads thanks
to Google, although why would anybody want to wade through all the Larry
Lippman - John deArmond wars?.
If you choose to use Google's advanced search for posts in sci.chem from the
author larry@kitty.UUCP , you'll get all the early gems. If you're worried
about the Internet losing them, there probably is a simple way to rearchive
them on your own computer.
Bruce Hamilton |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) |
| Posted: Sun Dec 28, 2003 11:02 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Dear hanson:
"hanson" <hanson@quick.net> wrote in message
news:6mFHb.22368$Pg1.16240@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Quote: "N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com
wrote in message news:p0FHb.31772$gN.22896@fed1read05...
Dear hanson:
"hanson" <hanson@quick.net> wrote in message
news:GsEHb.22306$Pg1.1656@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com
wrote in message news:4EDHb.31731$gN.29463@fed1read05...
Seven Stars:
Google groups are the best place to go, but Google ....
What gets me, is that they lose posts.
Ahahahahhaa...........ahahahahaha........ahahahaha..
.....ROTFLMAO........ahahaha........ahahahaha......
I am sorry, Davy, I really shouldn't be laughing, because
the profound, earthshaking, life saving, wealth producing
wisdoms as expressed in these lost posts is truly a tragedy
of epic proportions.......ahahahahaha........ahahahaha...
I personally have placed in the public domain the idea of using a
vegetable
oil as a "zeolyte", and a procedure for smoothing a data stream that
uses
only one "accumulator". They lost the first one.
Still ROTFL........but have a great HAPPY NEW YEAR, dude.
ahahahaha......ahahahanson.....still ROTFL........
And I see you have started on the Happy New Year, so carry on.
David A. Smith
Oh my Gahhhhd, Davy. That is a shame! Losing YOUR "zeolyte"!.
But the good thing is that there are about 300 other ones left
to google with. Go, check it out, be happy and do also start with
a Happy New Year...... ahahahaha......ahahahahanson
Oh, it is being done for ozone. They can get up to 30% wt. But they can't
patent concentration of ozone, only the particular method (which may be all
they could do anyway).
David A. Smith |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
Page 1 of 1
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sat Sep 06, 2008 3:26 pm
|
|