Slashdot Mirror
Google+ Runs Out of Disk Space, Swamps Users With Notifications
dkd903 writes "Yesterday, many users of Google+ noticed Google spamming their inbox with multiple email notifications in very quick succession. Earlier today, Vic Gundotra, Head of Social at Google, explained what was causing it – Google ran out of disk space on the server that keeps track of notifications."
Well its still an 'in work' product. So they made a mistake, good thing they didn't tout it as finished yet. Don't know about the rest of the allegations because I don't have an account.
It hasn't 'come out of beta', according to the page its : "in limited Field Trial" which I suppose means 'semi-open beta'.
Diaspore is the same. Haven't heard anything from them in a long time.
doubleclick managing our personal lives via google?
yeah, that will really be a hit.
(google is tolerated about as much as it can be, right now. don't push it, google. we don't buy the 'do no evil' BS line of yours. don't try to do more than you are able to. you look stupid trying, actually.)
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
doubleclick managing our personal lives via google?
yeah, that will really be a hit.
(google is tolerated about as much as it can be, right now. don't push it, google. we don't buy the 'do no evil' BS line of yours. don't try to do more than you are able to. you look stupid trying, actually.)
You speak for a very small percentage of users. .com domain with their personal information.
Most of Google's users don't know what double-click is, only know about Google's successful and usable products and trust everyone with the $5 required to register a
Never run out of disk no more !! And I am not a gillion dollar company in case you thought so !!
No they haven't released it yet. Now go collect your check from Facebook and astroturf elsewhere.
"Dam this is harder than it appeared at first glance." Enjoy.
This ain't no upwardly mobile freeway This is the road to hell
Wow... So much hatred towards google+, despite it starting to shape up as a great product! Have you even used it, or are you just a facebook "relationship manager"? If you'd use it, you'd see it is very polished, circles are thousand times better than anything fb has, hangouts are cool... And above all, google seems to care about its users, unlike fb. Anyway, for a beta, it is surely very stable and fast. I didn't see any of those "constant problems" you speak of (did anyone see them, or only zuck?), and stating it has "even bigger privacy problems" than fb - can you say that with a straight face?
Ho-hum. Google has no shortage of servers, do they? In fact, I believe I've read articles about their ability to move a data center anywhere in the world, in an emergency. If some server somewhere is short of disk space, they can and will throw something in, and get it working again, real quick.
As for the beta stuff - yeah, it's beta. No one promised that it was going to work correctly, out of the box, first time around. It's been offered up as an experiment, and I'm experimenting. Die a slow death? Not likely, not real soon. I'll keep trialing this field trial of Google+ and when it comes out of trials, I'll probably keep on running it.
Meanwhile, you go on back to Facebook, and enjoy that heaping pile of fertilizer!
Oh - did you know that you can access Facebook via Google+ ? Now THAT's pretty cool! I can close the Facebook tabs, and see it all in one tab under Google+ ! WHOOT!
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
So far my only complaint has been receiving a notification before I could sign in, and how long it took me to get an invite in general which is a real first world problem if I ever heard of one. People are getting in now so there's plenty of opportunity to see where this thing goes. At least this time it's clear what we're supposed to do with it.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
sooo... if one of google's servers runs out of disk space doesn't it mean that people are quite busy using the service? And since it's in 'limited field trial" it means you need to try hard to get in - I know I had to - hence lack of "casual people"
A monopoly? Over which commodity do they exercise a monopoly? Maybe it's a monopoly over their own algorithm, if they won't publish their search algorithms for Microsoft and others to use? Come on, stop working so hard to sound like a Microsoft Fanboi, alright?
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
It's actually pre-beta. This is what they're calling limited field trial, and they expect significant changes when it goes to beta testing.
Google did the same mistake here they've done several times earlier.. They published an unfinished product...
No, they're field testing an unfinished product. It's the reason why it's hard to get an invite.
...on a market that is already established and has the giant pain of trying to get users to move to their service.
They don't seem to be having much difficulty getting users to move to their service. In fact, most of their difficulties lies in slowing down the demand because they can't handle it at this stage of testing, as shown by this particular problem. It's expanding way faster than they want it to, with more than a million users already signed up (according to TFA). I've sent invites to a bunch of people, and none of them have actually gotten the invitation mail yet, because google is throttling the number of invites they send.
This included with the constant problems on Google+
Field testing. Finding bugs is the purpose of this.
not really offering anything new and even bigger privacy problems than with Facebook really isn't doing good.
What are these even bigger privacy problems? Google+ is centered around increased privacy controls, which is also what they're offering that's new.
Now I feel like it's going to die a slow death with no interest from casual people.
Pff...considering that a few days after they began public testing, Google+ was among the top 10 referrers to web sites, it's more likely that Facebook will die a quick death as soon as field testing is over. About as quick as myspace died once facebook opened up to non-university students.
I don't use FB (never have, never will) and just don't *approve* of google getting any more cosy with user info than they already are.
just that.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Yes I have, in fact I have an account too. When you sign up they want you to give them permission to use your data anywhere in their advertising and analytics network. AdSense is on millions of websites. Their analytics code is even on more, here on slashdot too. Facebook might try to target marketing for you, but at least they only do that within Facebook. Google on the other will do that all over the internet and collect all kinds of personal statistics over the way. They have your name and all kinds of info where you browse and what you do. They also make your profile public by default and have said they will delete any Google profiles that are private by the end of month. Their definition of "privacy" is limiting what information your friends see.. not what they see, do or give out. And this seems to work really good for the slashdot crowd too.
*sigh* Monopolies aren't illegal. Please try to remember that.
Abusing your monopoly position, that is illegal. Google doesn't abuse their monopoly.
The reason for this distinction is that you can get yourself into (and remain in) a monopoly position without harming the public. But the majority of companies can't resist abusing that power if they obtain it, and need a smack-down or break-up. (usually because it's a slow process and they just creep into a behavior of abuse as they creep into the monopoly) Technically speaking, when you have a monopoly, you become a lot more efficient - advertising costs go down, you avoid "race to the bottom" games, the best employees in a field are concentrated and working together. In the end, customers can benefit from a company having a monopoly, it just requires the company's directors to take a strong high-road stance in the face of the temptation of greed you get operating in a democracy. ("do whatever it takes, be it illegal or immoral, to maximize profit")
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
Excuse me, what does this have to do with TFA. If anything, we should be asking why the infrastructure wasn't ready to handle what it was designed for. It will only rival Facebook if it gets storage and DB right (read the /. article regarding Facebook and MySQL from earlier). BTW, I like G+ and am actively using it.
"I'm taking this loop off." - Jack O'Neill
... all I can said is that FB has nothing to worry about. The interface is utterly boring, the circles are way too hard to set up, you can't tell who you shared your posts with, and I still can't figure out how to post on someone's wall. Oh, and posting a photo, uggg. Maybe it's fixable, but this is not an encouraging start.
Why are you always in a rush to post wrong information about Google+? http://tech.slashdot.org/story/11/07/07/0252228/Google-Deleting-Private-Profiles Is Facebook playing with Slashdot commenting system?
What are you talking about? http://www.zdnet.com/blog/igeneration/facebook-instant-personalization-how-to-disable-it-and-why/8006
Facebook tracking is on something like 1 in 3 websites
What are the "bigger privacy problems" ? I see it basically as _the same_ privacy problems, I fail to see how they are bigger.
Margarita Manterola.
I finally got an invite yesterday from a friend. It still needs a bit of tweaking but hands down the best social website since Facebook was nice and clean back in the day. The fact that it's rising this fast should make some people over at Facebook a bit worried. I'm going to finally start transitioning.
Back in the day Facebook was only .edu and thus didn't have the lowest common denominator on it. We used to make fun of people on MySpace for "ThEiR HoRiBLZ Grammer" and such. But if you start reading LameBook or Failbook this group of people is now over on Facebook. And as long as Google+ remains invite only, I can't see them ever getting over to Google+.
CSB:
Facebook royally screwed me when they did the automated bans of numerous apps. My app. User 1 (me).. Was caught up in it.
When my grandma died I was tasked with scanning in family photos. I needed a faster way to upload them so I wrote my app. I had thousands, if not tens of thousands of photos uploaded, sorted, tagged. Most of my large family isn't the most technological, and facebook was much easier than Gallery. Plus they could tag each other, comment on the photos "Oh this is when Dad took us to that beach and set the house on fire" etc. When the auto ban bot came through it was all gone. My appeal reply was boiler plated. "Sorry our bot says you're doing spamming." Unlike some people, I do still have all the photos. (It looks like there were numerous photo uploading apps that got caught up in the ban.)
Thankfully with my app it only took about 24 hours of my bandwidth to reupload them, but all of the additional value added metadata that was lost. (I am not retagging them). Any photo less than 2048x2048 doesn't count towards your 1GB Picasa (Google+ Photos?) quota. I've already started looking at the PHP Google API. I'm hoping to have all my photos up there soon. Anyone that wants to see any new photos I take, will follow me to Google+.
-
Oh - did you know that you can access Facebook via Google+ ? Now THAT's pretty cool! I can close the Facebook tabs, and see it all in one tab under Google+ ! WHOOT!
like in wargames, the winning move is not to play at all.
do not play FB. do not play google+. stay the hell out of that mess, if you are smart.
you think its funny; but years later, I promise you, you will regret it. see that now before you get sucked in even farther.
the winning play is not to play at all. these are silly corporate data mining games. please don't give the corp trolls their user info. save your dignity and your privacy. corporations masquerading as 'your friends' are most CERTAINLY not your friends. better wise up sooner rather than later.
when it comes down to it, sony and google - they all are driven by the same basic goals and needs. no corporation is ever your friend. ever.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
But not everyone was allowed access. It was a limited release. When a MMO is in beta do you think the game developer should be "held responsible for what goes wrong".
Quite a long time, but this isn't a beta like the late, fully-public beta of Google Mail, its like the very early, invite-only, restricted beta of Gmail.
Uh, they aren't using to "cover their asses", they are admitting it was a mistake, apologizing for it, and explaining how it happened.
Google did the same mistake here they've done several times earlier.. They published an unfinished product on a market that is already established and has the giant pain of trying to get users to move to their service. This included with the constant problems on Google+, not really offering anything new and even bigger privacy problems than with Facebook really isn't doing good. It was hot for a few days when coming out of beta.. Now I feel like it's going to die a slow death with no interest from casual people.
Actually, if they ran out of disk space, it's more like they had a bigger response than what they anticipated, so it's probably going quite well.
As for the "same mistake they've done several times earlier", are you referring to the undoubtedly failure of products such as GMail or GTalk? Or of Google Search, maybe? They seem to have been adopted pretty widely to me...
And as both a Facebook and Google+ user, I can't really say how you manage to state that privacy is worse on Google+ than in Facebook, where they introduce new options violating your privacy all the times and without alerting you (almost all weeks I found new checkboxes to uncheck in my privacy settings, not to speak of the scam/spam apps and the poor security record FB has). Maybe you can elaborate your line of reasoning? Else, it's just trolling.
Frankly, I am closing down my Facebook account, and I'm giving a Google+ a shot. In the past three days, friends in my circles on Google+ went up from being just 6 to about 40-50. I expect this number to increase. Deep integration with other Google products, such as GMail, will most likely ensure a big number of participants.
If Google+ fails, I won't at least go back to FB. There is a lot of social pressure to do so, but quite frankly it sucks. You use it because most of your friends do, not because it works well. The only thing I will miss is the capability of creating events among friends, but there are other ways.
42.
...how about making a new category for Google news releases? This will make it easier for those of us who want to filter out the relentless stream of non-interesting Google news. Talk about editorial bias to the extreme.
Except it's not launched for the public. I've probably had at least 70 people I friended express interest in Google+, and only a handful have been able to join.
Erm, is there not simple script in place to discard all notifications when the server has 1000/500/50mb of space left? or maybe the smarter way, delete oldest to make room for newest. Even my Android phone has this. Is that not something google do?
*scratches head*
if there were consequencies to who you invite to the network, then maybe it would protect the network from trash. but that isn't the case with G+, and likely the whole invite thing will go away once it's a little more mature.
"Yesterday, many users of Google+ noticed Google spamming their inbox..."
Yesterday some users of Google+ noticed Google spamming their inbox.
There, fixed that for you.
I, e.g., did not get spammed, (And yes, I have a g+ account.)
Don't forget that it's a free product that you can choose to use. I realize that may be hard for you to remember ever since you ascended to your throne.
Oh, would you mind gracing us with a link to your myriad of bug-free products?
You're close to the mark; the OP is the original devxo guy who astroturfed /. regularly, only now he's learned to make it slightly less obvious.
you can't tell who you shared your posts with
This is not actually true. First of all, you choose who to share with. Unless you posted something as 'public' you do have an idea of who you are sharing with. On the post itself (again, unless you posted something as public) you can click on the little link that says 'limited' and it will show you who it was shared with. If you are concerned about people RE-sharing your post, then you can disable resharing on a post as well. Naturally there is always a way for people to republish what you posted, manually, with good old copy/paste, to get around these controls, but why would you have people like this in your circles of trust to begin with?
I still can't figure out how to post on someone's wall.
there is no wall. If you want to share a post with one person, then you specify that one person while you are creating your post.
the circles are way too hard to set up
Really? Dragging and dropping in a visual interface is 'too hard'? What did you expect? That it read your mind?
P.S. If you're just trolling, it's kind of obvious.
Reply to That ||
I guess it is only inevitable. Some people (most?) despise MS, some people (me) despise apple. IMHO Google has always been forthcoming with genuine and (for the most part timely reasons why they have or have had a problem. I have always had good luck and good experiences with Google, even when we went to Google Apps at the plant. I have found Google+ to be a better experience (so far) than FB. Of course they will need to load it up with a bunch of useless games to attract the masses over from FB. I suppose this post now qualifies me as a "Google Fan Boy" and fair game for the flamers, so have at it if that is what makes you happy. Google is Skynet and I am a Droid Borg.
Personally I find it comforting to know that google runs into the same sorts of problems that we do.
I imagine that Google has a larger share of the online advertising and analytics markets than Facebook, and Google+ profiles would just give Google a more reliable way to correlate the page-view-stream data with real-world identities.
The fact that the market is established does not imply that there isn't room for massive improvements. When they entered Search it was an established industry but their technology was superior and hence got people to switch. Google+ makes massive changes to the Facebook model. If these are perceived as improvements, then they might just have a winner on their hands. The point about a premature release is hard to judge. Some of their products - most recently Google App Engine - have seen extraordinary success thanks to early 'preview' releases. They've had their failures too - but as I understand it Google has formal statistical methods to gauge if a product is going to make it by looking at early interest with the preview/beta product. On that scale, Google+ seems to be tending more towards Gmail than Google Buzz.
Held responsible how? You want a money-back guarantee?
Sometimes the ungrateful attitude of the entitled whiners around here takes me aback, despite years of reading it.
Cgeys, you've made the same mistake others have done several times earlier.. This is still in beta, so stop yer whinin'!
I really don't care what they do with my data that I *PUBLICLY* post on Google+ or Facebook, .... I posted it there because I'm not concerned about the privacy of that data. Ever heard the term nothing is free? Most users of Facebook, including myself, feel that we get enough benefit from using those sites that allowing them to use some useless data for some targeted advertising, or whatever they want to do, is ok.
Privacy is easy, don't post shit you don't want to be sold, mined, or made available to anyone in the world...
+++ATH0 NO CARRIER
320GB ought to be enough space for anybody.
My biggest issue so far, beyond none of my friends having it yet, is that it doesn't support Opera. But by the same token, Facebook broke compatibility with Opera nearly every time they made a minor interface change. I stopped using FB for a year or so until they fixed the issues causing it to run horribly under Opera. Now FB runs equally horrible in all browsers.
I'd suggest getting less cozy with that stick up your ass. I'd imagine you're tasting splinters by now.
No, it's not free at all. You just don't pay with money, you pay with your information. Come back when they have an EULA that says "You as a member of Google+ own everything that you submit to us" (as it should be).
As I am not paying Google with my money, but with my privacy, I would love to have that privacy back.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
You may possibly be right. But - I kind of play by my own rules. For instance - you'll have a few day's work cut out for you, trying to find my real name on Facebook, Google+, Youtube, Myspace, and all the other places I visit on the internet. You'll have an even harder time trying to tie all my identities together. If you want to know who I am, it would be easier to phish me onto a site so that you could get my IP address, and work from that.
But, whatever. I realize that few people see any need for exercising care on the internet, so, for most people, you are right.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
How? When I try to connect my Facebook account in the G+ account settings, all I get is an error message :(
and even bigger privacy problems than with Facebook
[citation needed]
You might be surprised at the number of major companies, organizations, and institutions whose mission-critical systems are brought to a crippling halt by running out of disk space.
How are the privacy problems possibly bigger than Facebook's? Also, it seems like Google+ is focused on privacy, contrary to your statement.
a) Google __made__ the same mistakes b) It's not out of beta yet.... Oh my God!!! My Arm!! That troll just bit my arm off
You aren't paying with your privacy, because your privacy has no value to anyone but you. You may have "paid" with information, but good luck trying to make that abstraction count for anything in the real world.
Of course, if you want to be impractical about things, you can bitch till the end of time. Doesn't make it mean anything, though.
At least they admit that it's not ready unlike other companies that make you pay for the beta quality product.
Democracy requires capitalism. Capitalism encourages greed. Greed encourages corruption. That's why corruption becomes the #1 problem in any democracy. But here we can just stop to look at greed since corruption is off the topic of monopoly.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
http://crossrider.com/install/519-google-facebook
Install the extension - it works for certain in Chromium 14.0.797 (Linux) I've not yet tried connecting to Google+ with Firefox, so I can't say how well it works.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
It's not through G+, it's through Firefox, Chrome, and I think Safari...
http://crossrider.com/install/519-google-facebook
0x09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
I see Facebook's PR team is classy as ever.
As always, all IMO. Insert "I think" everywhere grammatically possible.
It's not Facebook. People trust Google. It will be a success.
Google+ uses Google's standard terms of service which say "You retain copyright and any other rights you already hold in Content which you submit."
Pretty much exactly what you're asking for, minus the ability to claim ownership of other people's work just because you uploaded a copy.
I doubt Google actually would run out of disk space. Aren't they supposed to have a megasuperduper cluster ? After all they brag about it enough, how they use cheap components and build their own racks and whatnot....
It is a publicity stunt that is all it is.
No, it's not free at all. You just don't pay with money, you pay with your information. Come back when they have an EULA that says "You as a member of Google+ own everything that you submit to us" (as it should be).
What if the information they gain simply isn't worth protecting or that the gains outweigh the cons? I personally couldn't care less if Google learns more about my shopping habits, for example, and it's something I would even just tell straight to them if they just asked me.
I personally feel you "privacy advocates" are just plain too paranoid.
Buyer's remorse? I don't see anything of value exchanged in either direction.
It's a shame they didn't label it a "beta" product or something.
/sarcasm
-Arthur
Cave ne ante ullas catapultas ambules
I have accounts on both FB and G+. I think G+ needs to get Events (and somehow tie in availability using Google Calendar or something) and needs Groups that you can join and leave. Other than that, it seems pretty good. I guess it lacks a "killer feature" though that would make anyone use it over FB. Unless it gets something that will make people use it over using FB, it will probably languish, then die like Wave, Google Health, etc.
That's not entirely true. You could have a democracy that is very socialist. Also, people confuse "Capitalism" as an economic system with "Capitalism" as a moral system. The economic system does not encourage greed. It's about economic freedom without a government dictating how you should spend/invest your money. This freedom allows you to be greedy or generous. Then there's "Capitalism" as a moral system, which is a more recent invention by rich people to justify their privilege. It's a variation on the "might makes right" mentality, claiming that wealth and economic success is the measure of virtue, and therefore anything done in the pursuit of wealth can't be bad.
Democracy requires capitalism.[citation needed]
FTFY.
If there are none of those stupid fucking games on G+, I'd call that a killer feature.
Democracy does not require capitalism. To say otherwise is completely illogical. For example, true Communism would work best in a democracy.
I'm pretty sure corruption is a major problem in most economic and political systems.
The economic system does not encourage greed. It's about economic freedom without a government dictating how you should spend/invest your money. that's free market and free market != capitalism
But, google doesn't lease that data out to third parties as FB does. Also, FB is expanding into other areas. FB encourages third party development, and exposes all of your personal data to those third parties, because your niece likes to play FarmVille, her information is tracked/shared with numerous third parties, and distributed to who knows where. Google, it just, well... Google. They aren't sharing their data, and yes, they collect more of it, this doesn't make them a bigger privacy breach, it only means they have more data to work from. IMHO the bigger breach is sharing privacy data with third parties, without consent.
Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
Human greed is a constant. Capitalism does not encourage greed, it holds greed accountable. A purely laissez-faire system has many problems, but one that it does not have is rampant corruption. You get corruption when you mix capitalism with government involvement in business, e.g. Italian fascism.
RUGBYRUGBYRUGBY
Wow, hell hath truly frozen over....
Need more proof that the world is coming to an end in 2012? :D
It didn't take too much effort for me to get in, just tweeted/fb'd that I wanted an invite, and had one a few hours later. It's a limited trial (closed beta) so wouldn't expect too much growth too quickly... as for me, my biggest appreciation is the lack of "apps" ... I really get sick of them on FB, and sick of all the cross-posts that appear in my stream because a friend or family member got a new pig in farmcity.
Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
If you look at cgeys' past, he/she has a history of posting inflammatory responses filled with Google hate. I have to ask who's paying them and how much. This is rediculous...
I see two clear differences between Facebook and Google+ that I think reduce the privacy issues.
1. Google has made a clear commitment to making sure you can export your data from all of their services, while Facebook is particularly shameless about lock-in. This makes the cost of shifting to a different service much lower if they start acting more evil.
2. The Circles feature makes it much easier to maintain privacy, not from Google, but from each other. By making different classes of friends/acquaintances core features of the system instead of Facebook's tacked-on Groups feature, it forces a user to consider whether they really need to share something with everyone. That's definitely a good thing.
Of course the fundamental issue that you can hide your information from Google or anyone that has a special arrangement with them is quite obviously still there. But I can't help but feel Google+ mitigates the issues much better.
Hi there. I live in Norway, which is a democracy where we've had a strong government and mostly no capitalism (what you would call socialism) for the last century. We have the highest standard of living in the world and a "Savings account" of more than 100% GDP. Contrast this with America's "Debt" of above 100% GDP. So I guess we can conclude that your claim, "Democracy requires capitalism", is patently false.
for i in `facebook friends "=bday" 2>/dev/null | cut -d " " -f 3-`; do facebook wallpost $i "Happy birthday!"; done
I don't feel this is really worse than FB sharing their data with 3rd parties. I use Google services, I appreciate that their advertising tends to be relevant to me, and not in my face. I'll take that over FB sharing with every third party advertiser or application that other people run in their system. A friend runs an app, and that app now has information on you. That's just not cool.
Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
When something is in beta it's common practice for peoples' accounts (items, accomplishments, etc.) to be considered expendable at all times. Often, when something comes out of beta all accounts are purged, and people are given bonuses when the real thing starts to accommodate them for the purging.
Life. Is. Good.
...Let me get this straight. From the summary, Google ran out of disk space on the server that keeps track of notifications. Something that would only happen if there's a very large number of notifications to track. And your conclusion is that there's absolutely no interest in Google+. Are you serious?
An announced test run was not a good idea. I would like to have gotten an invite and looked everywhere for a means of access. Others probably did the same. Some must have been successful. As a test it would have to be called a success because the demand is obviously there. I'll bet it's up and running again before one would imagine. It probably is all hype. Personnally I am miffed that I didn't get an invite, or did I?
You're Fred McLain, a software engineer, aren't you? See, easy.
Ah, the legions of people who insult others but don't have the courage to do so behind an account. It's a disgusting thing.
The OP is totally disingenuous -- the Google+ service having trouble due to it being overrun by interested users is hardly a sign that it's about to die a slow death due to lack of interest.
Here's an interesting article on the fact that Google Buzz also started out with "tens of millions of users" and then quickly died out. Quote:
Wow... so much hatred towards someone holding a view contrary to yours. Are you a Google "relationship manager"?
I have used it, and it's neither shaping up as a great product or a thousand times better than anything. It's Buzz with a few hacks on top combined with a piss poor news search engine and a Yahoo! chat clone. Worse yet, the hacks (Circles) make it feel like you're juggling a dozen or more FB or Twitter accounts that happen to share a single login.
As the OP said, this is a typical Google launch - trying to create 'buzz' around a product that far from ready for prime time and far from complete or polished.
They published an unfinished product on a market that is already established and has the giant pain of trying to get users to move to their service.
They're actually trying to keep users from moving to their service right now. Invites are very limited at the moment while they're slowly increasing capacity and testing scalability. As you can see by OP, they failed to scale properly and ran out of disk space. There's a reason they're not in "beta" but in a "limited field trial." Unfortunately, it's a social network and a social network will never catch on if none of your friends can be on it with you... they have to perform a very delicate balancing act in order to make sure this rollout is successful. Personally, I'm really digging Google+... it takes a lot of things Facebook does and makes them a lot better and cleaner. There are all kinds of bugs, but bugs get fixed. Facebook has a formidable opponent in Google+, and I'm willing to wait as long as it takes for my friends to be granted access.
You're right, of course, but because this is Google, you're going to get defenders voting you down and justifying everything they do. Google wants it both ways. They want the positive press of Google-friendly tech enthusiasts (who make up the majority of the users right now and dutifully advertise everything Google does) but none of the negative press that mistakes would generate among mainstream users.
What he's saying is that they cite its so-called prerelease status as justification for the existence of such mistakes.
Wait, you do understand what "beta" means, right? That's why they start many of their projects by invitation only - people are accepting the fact that it's still under development and testing. If you don't want beta quality, don't sign up for a beta.
Good thing you'll never organize anything political online then. FB ratting people out to Israel comes to mind. Are they doing the same with Wisconsin? It's not a stretch of imagination and the US is going to get worse before it gets better.
One day soon, our best and brightest scientists will create a way to alert operations staff about discs reaching 90% capacity so action can be taken before they reach 100%. In that utopia, this sort of thing won't happen.
I've seen you comment on several of these Google articles. I went back and checked your comments to see if you have given any specifics, and you haven't. I did see that you've claimed not to be a shill. Ok. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but back up what you are saying. What are the privacy concerns of G+ that are worse than FB? If you don't give verifiable specifics, you do come off like you are spreading fud.
An important change for education.
No dice on FF5... add-on installs and then sits in the background uselessly doing nothing. Trying to connect to Facebook in the "Connected Accounts" section of the Google+ still gives me an error message...
Really? I have little interest in joining, and I've received two invitations.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Diaspore is (was?) made by crying babies that want a free ball they can take home with them so you can't play. I'm a linux geek. I've got a low low user ID. I've got mods points coming out my butt. But for fuck's sake, you can't do a social network site where you get pissy about what browsers you're allowed to use. I have a wonderful idea for a "social network" than only runs pre .99 versions of linux on lynx. 386 forever!
Google is a little better at their clusterfuck. They're a sucking chest wound when you have to ask them for any personal support. At work, we spend a metric shit ton of money with them. They listen. It annoys me when I have to use work contacts to get personal Google support. It also annoys the Google contacts because I like to rub that in because I'm a bitter man.
What's the connect to Facebook/Twitter/other function there for then? G+ Settings => Connected Accounts ...?
Democracy requires capitalism? Not in any definition of "democracy" or "capitalism" which I've read. Nor, I suspect in any definitions which I'm willing to accept. All that "democracy" means, is that the members all have an equal voice in policy. On the other hand, "capitalism" is an economic machine - a tool. One does not have to subscribe to an economic philosophy to subscribe to a political philosophy. Or, vice versa. One might as well say that to be a good Christian, one must be agrarian. Or, to be a good steelworker, one must be a Republican. Or, how about, you can't be German or Bavarian if you don't love the smell and taste of vinegar?
We could go on all day with equally preposterous statements.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
The odds of you being able to join, even with 2 invites, isn't very high.
good luck trying to make that abstraction count for anything in the real world.
Just look at any number of deals involving selling marketing data, user data, usage data (the list goes on). It's not an abstract value if there's real world money being passed back and forth in exchange for information. However, don't be surprised when you find out the actual market value for your information somewhere around 25 to 50 cents.
You sure do not have an account, or, what is it that you are smoking? There is a prominent checkbox to opt out of data collection for targeted advertising right on the initial login form, even before starting to signing up for Google+. They also display your profile settings for the first time after signing up, where you get a chance to change anything you want before it goes live.
Somebody please mod this FB shill a troll...
I see what you're doing there. You expect me to deny being Fred, you'll come back with someone else, and by process of elimination, you'll narrow it down to me. Uh-huh. Yeah. How many rounds of this nonsense do we go through, to eliminate the couple billion males who COULD BE me?
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Democracy requires capitalism?
Capitalism probably requires democracy. The reverse might not be strictly true, but it would be very hard to imagine a government with the mindset that every person has an equal say in the governing of the people and yet not allow capitalism.
In other words, capitalism is not necessary for democracy, but any true democracy is very likely going to have a capitalist economy, so if there is no capitalism, it probably isn't a democracy.
If you tried to click those invites you'd probably find out they don't work. Google closed some loopholes which people spammed invites with. A friend I know invited 100 people, and he said none of the links worked on their end. Another person told me that invites now only work for a 5-15 minute random duration period.
They published an unfinished product on a market... This included with the constant problems on Google+, not really offering anything new... Now I feel like it's going to die a slow death with no interest from casual people.
So it's similar to facebook in the early days when we all used myspace. "Why would I switch to facebook? I've got myspace! All my friends are already on myspace! I've never even heard of facebook." Most of the features of facebook weren't there in those early days (unfinished). I think there was photo sharing, not sure if myspace did that, but I can't remember being impressed with facebook over myspace, aside from the lack of annoying music (and by parallel, I like that google+ doesn't have annoying app notifications about farmville).
I thought for certain that facebook was going to die a quiet death, that no one would ever use it. Since then I've learned that making far flung predictions of doom and gloom are best left to idiots on cable news, since either it happens or it don't.
even bigger privacy problems than with Facebook
Such as? People who spread FUD usually make similarly vague statements. Be more specific or shut up. All the privacy concerns I've heard of have been from people who haven't properly configured their settings and/or forgot AGAIN that social networking sites aren't for secret information. Those settings seem to have stayed set since the launch of google+, which is longer than your privacy settings stay set on facebook.
It is a question of marketing, not responsibility.
If a person has a bad experience with a beta version, then he is not likely to come back and try the final product. Therefore Google loses customers by letting people in too early.
What he's saying is that they cite its so-called prerelease status as justification for the existence of such mistakes.
And what GP was saying is that "it is, in fact, pre-release, not the fake pre-release google often does, so it's actually justified."
So how about an invite?
"No matter how cynical you get, it is impossible to keep up." -- Lily Tomlin
I personally feel that those who criticise privacy advocates are secretly ashamed of not being interesting and can't bear that there are many people out there doing things where adequate anonymity is the difference between success and detainment. There's also a bit of languor in there: "I'm so lazy I need targeted adverts to choose what I want."
That wouldn't be unusual. What makes cgeys special is that he also has a hard-on for Microsoft and Facebook both. How can you sing praises to MS & Facebook and simultaneously hate Google? It's not logical. That is, it's not logical unless you're being paid.
That being said, they have benefited from an illegal monopoly
What monopoly exactly? Seriously, someone please tell me which of the google services constitute a monopoly?
Search engine? There are like a dozen of them. Yahoo still technically exists. I hear there are people who actually use Bing. Why? I don't know. Are there any browsers that have google as the only search engine you can use? Even with Chrome, you can change the search engine.
Gmail? Again, plenty of e-mail services exist.
Google maps? No, mapquest still seems to be around.
Google+? Chrome? Don't be ridiculous.
Youtube? Maybe, but last I heard, that wasn't really "benefiting" them, it was costing them money, and there are other video sharing services.
When you sign up they want you to give them permission to use your data anywhere in their advertising and analytics network... They have your name and all kinds of info where you browse and what you do.
You allow all that to happen. You have to use google or give permission for google analytics to run for google to know what you're looking at. Stop using google as your search engine. Stop allowing google.analytics to run on your browser. Bam, you have stopped giving information to google.
Facebook might try to target marketing for you, but at least they only do that within Facebook...
No, they sell your information to the highest bidder. If that's advertisers on facebook, that will stay on facebook yes. If it's the Israeli government trying to stifle a protest by human rights activists, then that will spill over into real life and possibly involve a full body cavity search, which I would characterize as "intrusive" and a "major invasion of privacy."
Why couldn't they just name it Google Spot, you know G-Spot for short. That's hip and trendy.
I personally feel that those who criticise privacy advocates are secretly ashamed of not being interesting and can't bear that there are many people out there doing things where adequate anonymity is the difference between success and detainment. There's also a bit of languor in there: "I'm so lazy I need targeted adverts to choose what I want."
I personally criticise overly zealous advocates. So far I have not seen Google misuse the data they have obtained and thus I feel quite secure using their products. And I feel many of those advocates just think too much of themselves and believe their lives are so interesting to other people that they need to hide themselves.
As for the "I'm so lazy I need targeted adverts to choose what I want.": I use Adblock so I don't see those ads anyways, targeted or not.
"personal statistics over the way" - Along the way. And Facebook resells the information gathered to Google (and everyone else who pays for it) already. Ad cookies are on almost every single major site on the Internet. It's what pays the bills. it is not going anywhere, get off the Internet or get over it.
It's funny because you think not posting information about yourself on the internet means you still have privacy. Here's a clue, there's more information about you on the internet than you could possibly ever hope to post yourself. Something something shutting the barn door something.
That certainly does not seem to be the case. I found a large group of my friends are already on and a number of others were interested in joining, though we tend to be more technical than average.
This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
In fact, facebook has bigger privacy problems than google+. Here are a few examples:
Facebook thinks they own your friends list, and actively try to block you from downloading it: http://news.yahoo.com/facebook-blocks-friend-exporter-plugin-053907002.html. Google+, on the other hand, has a "data liberation" tool that lets you download all of your infromation in a few clicks.
Facebook does not let you prevent people from tagging you in photos. You can remove the tags, but not stop them from appearing in the first place. Google+ lets you configure this, and I have set it so all tags of myself have to be vetted by me.
Facebook is run by someone who calls his customers "dumb fucks" for being so stupid to give him their data.
having a private invite only project is publishing a product? are you a fucking moron?
apparently American Fascism now.
China is very capitalist and has been for the last decade. They have a totalitarian government.
Most of western and northern Europe would be considered a socialist system by any God fearing American Republican, yet they are all very strong democracies and have been since the early 20th century.
So... now that I have used actual examples that prove you are wrong, perhaps you can pull your head out of your ass.
All the information in my Google+ profile us available in many locations already, so I don't see a problem.
Who else has a sneaking suspicion that this story and the one after it are ... connected, hm? :-)
circles. major killer feature.
That looks like an incomplete feature at this point. (pre-release... remember?) but google+facebook provides a browser extension that gives you a facebook tab in google+ right next to the home button in the Google+ interface.
I see you saw Google Buzz. :)
It seems more of my friends are trying out Google+ than Google Buzz, but for the most part it's had a "ok, so what now" reaction.
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
But one factor of liberty is to govern and be governed in turn; for the popular principle of justice is to have equality according to number, not worth, and if this is the principle of justice prevailing, the multitude must of necessity be sovereign and the decision of the majority must be final and must constitute justice, for they say that each of the citizens ought to have an equal share; so that it results that in democracies the poor are more powerful than the rich, because there are more of them and whatever is decided by the majority is sovereign. This then is one mark of liberty which all democrats set down as a principle of the constitution. And one is for a man to live as he likes; for they say that this is the function of liberty, inasmuch as to live not as one likes is the life of a man that is a slave. This is the second principle of democracy, and from it has come the claim not to be governed, preferably not by anybody, or failing that, to govern and be governed in turns; and this is the way in which the second principle contributes to equalitarian liberty.
Put any significant part of that into a search box. I think that you will see that democracy does not depend on capitalism in any way. The key words in your own post are "it would be very hard to imagine". And, I say, hard for you to imagine, because you have lived all your life in a capitalistic society.
Independently of the Greeks, the "civilized tribes" in North America practiced democracy - and they had almost nothing that even resembled capitalism. I invite you to examine the constitutions of any member tribe of the Iroquois confederation. And, you might also note just who has the vote, and who owns property. No man was wealthy, as were the Greeks, because the women owned it all, LOL!
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
You know, I was completely thrown when I sat down at someone elses computer, and went to a few sites I frequently visit. I was surprised by all the ads. I just wasn't used to seeing them. Too bad there isn't a better way to monetize a web site.
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
I suspect all forms of power structures are vulnerable to corruption. Companies, religion, unions, and governments all have corruption problems.
If I look at the "Corruption Perceptions Index" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index , it looks like democratic governments have less issues with corruption?
I do agree that Capitalism has serious issues. http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Einstein.htm
Wave would be a better place for apps to hang out, anyway... of course, unless it gets substantial interest sometime soon, it's going away. (they have announced it has ended, but I'm sure if a bunch of volume sprang up, it would come back.)
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Contradict yourself much?
Actually, Facebook Does have an export utility. I've only tried it once (as part of an investigation into an account which we gained access to after it was used to harass people (I don't work at Facebook)), but the account was locked before the process finished. So it's there, it's just not that easy to find, and it's not instant.
Sometimes the ungrateful attitude of the entitled whiners around here takes me aback, despite years of reading it.
Ungrateful attitude and entitled whiners? You do realize that when a social network goes a little ca-ca, everybody loses, right? Apologists like you that come out of the woodwork do a lot more harm than people sending Google the message that it's okay if they fuck up the implementation of a service that depends on personal information to work.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
Adsense. When combined with double click Google had about a 90% share of the internet advertising market.a couple years ago.
Facebook has probably made a huge dent in that percentage though.
Work bio at MMWD
so because a server simply ran out of space and was easily fixed, this is an unfinished product? Really
You could have trolled much better than that.
This *MAY* succeed because A: there aren't privacy issues, b: it's not facebook, and c: it fixes the glaringly obvious and stupid shit which facebook does.
Mod +5 I Agree Wholeheartedly...
I would be, and wouldn't be, at the same time. (TDD FTW!)
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
I figured it out... For Facebook, place the URL to your wall "http://facebook.com/userID"
I still haven't even used 1% of my Gmail's space, they can have some of mine.
This is a perplexing no-brainer error. Afterall, this is the company that has brought us so much, underpinned by writing or rewriting the book on datacenters, storage and databases. I understand that its field testing or in Google-speak "Beta", but "running out of disk space"? +3 for communicating what the issue was and apologizing. -5 for it happening in the first place.
Norway is both socialist and democratic, so yes, it disproves the theory that democracy requires capitalism. But Norway also has a shitload of oil reserves, a low population (fewer than five million people), and cultural homogeneity, so it's hardly fair to compare its situation with that of the U.S.
Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
While Norway has done a great job with what it has (gas/oil/hydro/fishing), do note that when you're exporting oil, even a tribal monarchy can work fine as a government.
heya,
FB didn't rat them out, they were idiotic enough to boast on FB where anybody could have seen it *shrugs*.
And look, Israel has right of sovereignty - they can stop anybody they want from entering their country.
It's not like they came over to Britain and used suicide bombers to blow up a bus *rolls eyes*. Gee, I wonder who does that.
What they basically said was, we don't want trouble, you aren't welcome here, please go home. I fail to see why this is a story.
If I was a smart-a*se, and made it my mission to voice support for terrorists against a country that was jittery after surviving numerous failed terrorist attacks, I wouldn't exactly blame them if they said, "Bugger off mate, stay away, please don't come here..." They're perfectly within rights.
Cheers,
Victor
Yeah, lots of suicide bombers fly in from France and other European nations. Not at all people who are directly fired upon by border soldiers when they walk up to the border to protest. Leave it to Israel to bring guns to a yell off. The IRA would give loud warnings when they'd blow stuff up in Britain.
The average Palestinian rocket goes nowhere. The right to say "bugger off mate" only makes sense if you didn't occupy a territory 60 years ago and were keeping out the people who've lived there for thousands of years.
But other than the "facts" that your post makes no sense, your punctuation is wonderful.
My favorite introduction to Google plus was it scanning my gmails, then asking me if I want to add my ex-wife. WTF?! is wrong with you Google?!
Lets not even get into the lack of public groups/circles, what a fiasco. I'm not going to add 500+ people individually to make a group.
This is almost on par of Google Wave, waited weeks to get in, and nobody was on to make it useful. Google killed it off by a horrible launch. This time its a horrible lunch and major flaws. I like Google, but too many people are giving undo fan praise and not real evaluation of the product.
Your a moron
In the flurry of sending out all the other extra notifications, it forgot to send one to itself about disk space.
Hope that clears things up for you.
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
Wrong. The OP's post was full of misinformation and outright lies. That's not a difference of opinions. When talking facts and truth - or misinformation and lies, there's not much opinion. But I wont waste your time getting into that, there are already DOZENS of posts above this one that point it all out - all of which you obviously ignored as well.
StarTrekPhase2 - The Five Year Mission Continues!
If you watch the github commit log for diaspora, it shows the project has been under continuous development since the first release. Its really quite usable now and an important piece on the gameboard of social networking. Check out poddery.com for a well maintained public diaspora server.
I see what you're doing there. You expect me to deny being Fred, you'll come back with someone else, and by process of elimination, you'll narrow it down to me. Uh-huh. Yeah. How many rounds of this nonsense do we go through, to eliminate the couple billion males who COULD BE me?
I dunno, I think we're making good progress... we just managed to trick you into eliminating half the population for us! ;-)
StarTrekPhase2 - The Five Year Mission Continues!
Troll much? Many gmail users became Buzz users by default. Google+ users have had to fight their way in. So... is this (yet another) troll post, or do you simply just not know what you are talking about?
StarTrekPhase2 - The Five Year Mission Continues!
So, when will you ever stop trolling? Oh, nevermind... not until the paychecks to you stop coming in, right? It's time your bosses realize your usefulness has passed as the vast majority of us know you're a paid shill. I mean, c'mon... no one can really be so stupid unless they're being paid to be.
StarTrekPhase2 - The Five Year Mission Continues!
If that were true - then why has nobody been able to show him wrong?
Wrong. There are dozens of posts handwaving and blowing smoke, indulging in ad hominem attacks and general Google fanboyism.
heya,
They're antangonisers, and that's the reason Israel clearly gave for refusing them entry.
I mean, really, I don't come over into your house, inciting your kids to rise up against you - and if I did, you're well within rights to tell me to go away. That's exactly what Israel did - they put out a big "You're not welcome" mat, and said, please don't here, and if you do, we're pull you on the first plane and send you back home.
The average Palestinian rocket goes nowhere? *sigh*. You're quite silly. It doesn't matter if only one rocket in fifty hits a civilian, the very fact that they're firing rockets at all is wrong. Hamas supports that strategy, as do they support bombing Israeli civilians, and they've never rescinded that support. That, and they're a widely recognised terrorist group. Sorry, but if you decided to ask them to come and run your government, it's hardly unreasonable if other people stop dealing with you.
And Israel didn't "occupy" the territory fifty years ago. It was created by a U.N. mandate. And your assertion that they "kicked" out people who lived there for thousands of years is childish - please go read up on the history of the nation of Israel. The Jews originally inhabited that land since around 1200 BC until they were booted out by invaders later on, they've simply come back and claimed back a small portion of what they had before.
And using your same logic, we should "boot" out all the whites from Australia, as well as from America, Canada and New Zealand. I'm sure they can all fit back into Europe.
Hmm, and possibly we should send those Anglo-Saxon dogs back across the seas, and restore the original Briton and Pict tribes (barring the fact they're essentially extinct).
Cheers,
Victor
Well, he's paid to make such vague, inaccurate posts... what's your excuse?
StarTrekPhase2 - The Five Year Mission Continues!
And what I'm saying is that that is not, in fact, what they have done in the case of this error: they've said it was a mistake, apologized for it, and explained what the problem was that resulted in the undesirable symptoms. They didn't cite its (very real, not "so-called") pre-general-release status as justification for the existence of the mistakes. (In the Google+ thread of comments linked from TFA, there will people who did that, but they weren't the Google VP that made the post explaining and apologizing for the problem, they were Google+ users responding to the Google VP.)
Pssh. Of course, you neglect to say that Norway is rich in petroleum resources, which pretty much solve the "endless buckets of money" requirement to make that system work. How'd socialism work out in China? Soviet Union? Cambodia? Venezuela today?
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Norway is both socialist and democratic, so yes, it disproves the theory that democracy requires capitalism. But Norway also has a shitload of oil reserves, a low population (fewer than five million people), and cultural homogeneity, so it's hardly fair to compare its situation with that of the U.S.
for real?? my CITY has more people than that.
Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.
Lets not even get into the lack of public groups/circles, what a fiasco. I'm not going to add 500+ people individually to make a group.
Hmmm... are the features you are looking for stuff like the "Public" option and the "Extended Circles" option? Guess you perhaps havent tried Google+?
StarTrekPhase2 - The Five Year Mission Continues!
Well, a "proof by counterexample" does not require the new statement to hold for all (or many) cases, just a single unique one, and that one can be as special and contrived as you want it to. See e.g. the counterproof to what we think was Fermat's proof of his last theorem, which relies on the highly technical fact that beyond 17 you don't have Unique Factorization Domains anymore (an idea that didn't even exist at Fermat's time).
for i in `facebook friends "=bday" 2>/dev/null | cut -d " " -f 3-`; do facebook wallpost $i "Happy birthday!"; done
I read it like:
Google is evil but their competition is more evil, so I choose Google
Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
Sweden has no oil, but is as rich as Norway.
Saudi Arabia has lots of oil, has nothing like the economy or standard of living of Norway.
So dumb, it made me wonder...
Incompetence or Sabotage??
Cool, I'm anxiously awaiting the old Germanic tribes' return to their country as they were driven out only 1300years ago (well; depending on the tribes of course, there were others that were driven out ~2000years ago as well...) or the natives in america kicking out the invaders, as that was even less time ago,I mean, if Israel can claim land they haven't lived on for over 3000years and don't look like total idiots doing so... That entire argument is bullshit, you can't just destroy a country because you used to live there 3000years ago.
The UN making a mandate about something they have no right to mandate about doesn't make it a valid claim.
You make me sick.
Don't tell me the Google tech guy went on holiday?
"ok, so what now"
Try hanging out with webcams. Much better set-up than the Facebook/Skype hybrid.
You make the mistake of thinking you can educate the fundamental stupidity out of people. You can't.
The US was a huge exporter for many years, but unlike Norway, doesn't have the 'savings account' the GP mentioned. The oil is from the North Sea, also used/exported by the UK. Norway decided it would be better to secure their future and saved/invested the profit from their North Sea oil, the UK decided to spend it. Would you rather win $1,000,000 today or have $10,000 a year for your life, your kid's life, his kid's life etc. etc.
Same thing happens in companies - I know people who in the last big dot-con crash were working for privately owned companies, that had some money saved, and told their employees that there would be no cuts, no new R&D projects but no cancellation of existing ones, no new hires, but reasonable pay raises and so on. Basically business as usual as much as they could afford. Then when the market picks up they had a happy and committed workforce, and new products ready to go well ahead of their competition who'd upset their staff, laid everyone off, not developed anything new etc. They expanded very quickly and made a lot of money because the company owners wanted long term profitability. They had prepared for the possibility of a crash and came out of it in a better position than the majority of their competitors. If they were publicly traded I doubt they would have been allowed to operate in that fashion, and the end result would have been that a lot less money got made.
The world outside America is imaginary and therefore does not exist.
What actual examples are you speaking of?
Don't quote me on this.
[Google +] lacks a "killer feature" though that would make anyone use it over FB. Unless it gets something that will make people use it over using FB, it will probably languish, then die like Wave, Google Health, etc.
* Hangouts (up to 10 people in a video chat room)
* Circles (a method for fine-tuning whose posts appear in your stream and who can see your posts)
* Absence of FarmVille etc.
Those are killer features for me.
You make the mistake of thinking you can educate the fundamental stupidity out of people. You can't.
Just sounds like they're using "testing" titles to cover their asses when things inevitably go wrong.
I'd rather they label an almost-finished product "testing" or "beta" than doing it the Microsoft way and selling a clear-still-beta product as "finished".
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
The reason for this distinction is that you can get yourself into (and remain in) a monopoly position without harming the public.
Actually, you can't. Economics 101.
However, the reason acquiring a monopoly per se isn't illegal is that it is so profitable for the monopoly holder (you outline some reasons yourself) that everyone aspires to it. Outlawing the monopoly itself would dramatically reduce the incentives to take risk and invest in business endeavours. That's why politics doesn't do it, they don't want to reduce the incentives for big companies to invest further. If monopolies were outlawed, large companies would seek a "still safely legal" optimum point and at that point stop investing, innovating and growing and instead optimize the amount of profit they extract from the market. The detrimental effect of that happening would be far worse than a few temporary near-monopolies.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
I'm willing to wait as long as it takes for my friends to be granted access.
That's where I'm at too. On FB I only friend people I've met in real life, unless they're relatives I haven't met yet (due to the fact that my immediate family moved from Europe to New Zealand when I was 5).
Lot's of them are not techies, so I'm not sure if they'll ever move to G+. I will be giving them every encouragement though.
Yuri
You make the mistake of thinking you can educate the fundamental stupidity out of people. You can't.
Countries like the USA and Australia have a lot of work ahead of them building infrastructure. For that they need to borrow. Old European countries with stable populations don't have the same problem.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
Now I feel like it's going to die a slow death with no interest from casual people.
Didn't your father ever teach you that your feelings don't matter to anybody else? You're not a Jedi. Don't feel; think.
I write sci-fi for metalheads
Saudi Arabia has lots of oil, has nothing like the economy or standard of living of Norway.
Averaged over the population it probably does, its just that one guy who has half the wealth.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Simply hilarious. Actually, I had forgotten about that ActiveX exploder. And, I forgot about Fred, too. FFS, my "homepage" isn't MINE! It's something I stuck in there to be cute when some moron or another was bragging up the capabilities of Internet Explorer version 6.shit. Do you think I should send Fred an apology for using his page like that?
Nahhhh, Phuck Phred - he put that exploder thing up for people to see, and obviously, some people have seen it thanks to me. I think Fred owes me a beer, LMAO!
Time to change my "homepage" maybe? Lemme find something imaginative. Something from whitehouse.org should work - maybe - or the CIA - or Al Queda - or - hell, gotta let my imagination work for awhile . . .
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Well, that's one thing. Borrowing money so you can go to war halfway across the globe is another.
for i in `facebook friends "=bday" 2>/dev/null | cut -d " " -f 3-`; do facebook wallpost $i "Happy birthday!"; done
If it's free it doesn't matter if it's in testing or final release. It's a just a service that will improve over time due to natural trial and error. Accidents happen and that's ok.
Just label it released, fix things as they happen and that would be that. That's what everyone else does and it works.
When is a service ever "finished"? There's always going to be continuous development until the day they shut it down.
Certainly there are situations where IT workers are overworked & under-appreciated.
But I've also seen plenty of situations where the main IT guy(s) want it both ways - they want supreme power & control, they hide information, they explain very little, they try to make themselves irreplaceable - but they bitch when they take a long weekend out of town & they're on the phone the whole time because the network that they didn't document or explain is down.
Google having the most effective advertising is not a monopoly. There are about 266 million other webpages to advertise on. If none of them work as well as google, that's something google should be rewarded for, not punished for.
My favorite introduction to Google plus was it scanning my gmails, then asking me if I want to add my ex-wife. WTF?! is wrong with you Google?!
Lets not even get into the lack of public groups/circles, what a fiasco. I'm not going to add 500+ people individually to make a group.
This is almost on par of Google Wave, waited weeks to get in, and nobody was on to make it useful. Google killed it off by a horrible launch. This time its a horrible lunch and major flaws. I like Google, but too many people are giving undo fan praise and not real evaluation of the product.
Would you prefer that Google scanned your emails and figured out she was your ex-wife and kept her off the list?
postmodernsideshow.com
The only thing I will miss is the capability of creating events among friends, but there are other ways.
There's always Google Calendar, you can create multi user events.
"..One hosts to look them up, one DNS to find them, and in the darkness BIND them."
The majority of websites that run ads, run google ads.
Doubleclick, and adsense cover a large portion of the online ad real estate. Turn off add-block and notice that slashdot runs google ads. Then notice the percentage of websites that you regularly visit that show google ads on them. It is kind of staggering.
Google's purchase of Doubleclick was viewed as something that probably should not have been approved, but the Bush administration was not particularly assertive in anti trust enforcement.
Work bio at MMWD
... which sort-of begs the question of "how do they limit the participation in their beta?
If they did it the same way as they seemed to do with Gmail - invites to people they knew, asking them to invite other people - then did the terms of use/ invitation include some expectation that the beta testers should have some significant degree of resilience against technical failures as the project ramps? That the beta testers should actually provide some feedback (e.g. "Am I happy with the way that this project handles privacy? If not, how not and why not?") to the testing they do.
Beta testing is a two-way street.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"