Ever notice that only the loonies out there think there is an actual conspiracy, and yet the warmers of the world still use that strawman without fail?
Conspiracy no. Creating your own job security by warping any and all conclusions, regardless of any observational data, to state that "more research is required...", "it may cause positive feedbacks...", "might...", "could...", "perhaps...", you get the idea. Taglines like "this does not rule out the possibility of AGW" are the source of the shithole that climate "science" is falling into. Once warmers adjust their hypothesis to fit observational evidence, as the scientific method demands, the quotation marks can come off from around the word "science".
use of the term "deniers" is already well cemented in the minds of the warmers. Trying to convince them that we need to properly employ the scientific method is like farting in the wind.
Science is NEVER settled, it is only through questioning and skepticism that science can progress.
By default, your profile will appear in Google search results. You can change your profile settings at any time if you don't want Google and other search engines to index your profile.
If you choose not to have search engines index your profile, your profile itself won't appear in Google search results. However:
- Your profile will still remain visible to anyone with your profile URL. - Other pages and content (including websites, blogs, and Google products such as Picasa Web) that link to your profile can still appear in search results on Google and other search engines. - Changes you make to your profile visibility setting may be reflected across search engines at different times, depending on when each search engine crawls your profile page. (Learn how often Google crawls the web.)
Go to your profile, click "Edit Profile", scroll to the bottom, click "Search Visibility", un-check the box, click "Save", click "Done Editing". Voila, you aren't visible in search.
Additionally, each piece of information can be customized as to who is it visible to, be it no one, one person, a circle or circles, or public.
Do I get to point at you, and mock you so severely that you'll never want to show your tin foil hat wearing head in public every again until that day comes?
You completely missed his point. He was pointing out that if the only piece of personal information someone can track down is the person's name, it doesn't do them much good. They could find out the same information, in fact more information, by simply looking in the phone book. Now, if you are silly enough to list every piece of information about yourself, and make it all public, then you definitely have a problem on your hands.
Sending you an email with his real name and address is exactly the type of action he was describing as "being stupid about privacy", ergo, he won't do it as he clearly understands that it is stupid.
I'm sorry but how is an account on a social network when you are using a pseudonym going to help you get a job? For your account to help you get a job it would have to expressly include your real name.
Also, the examples you gave for why a person would need a smartphone:
A) have no bearing on the ability to use a pseudonym on G+; and, B) can be done without a smartphone. If you had a meeting in a location you do not know directions to, you could simply look up directions prior to leaving for the meeting using any computer with an internet connection, or use a good ol' fashioned map. Then, if you got lost, any phone, not just a smartphone, can be used to make a phone call to ask for directions. Alternatively, you could simply stop and ask someone for directions.
I'm not missing the point at all. I expressly told you exactly how you can best do what you state you are wanting to do. Using the tools they have provided for you to provide feedback is likely far more effective than posting a comment on/. or writing a blog because it gets the message directly to the people who have the ability to make changes as opposed to relying on your comment or blog being noticed indirectly.
Since I actually am Ken Boldt, I would like to first thank you for the compliment, but decline your offer. When it comes to investing, I'm sorry to tell you I'm not a risk taker. Even though tin foil hat sales are through the roof, I'm still not likely to buy stock in them. I admittedly just don't have the guts to risk my money that way. I wish you all the best with the housing market shares.
Out of curiosity, does it involve ocean view property in Nebraska?
As I said in another post: If you are interested in reporting problems, then there is a "Send Feedback" system visible at all times while you are using G+. If you don't want to sign up to use it, but still want to provide feedback, their address is 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, and sending an anonymous letter through the postal system is as easy as it always has been. If you have a Google account (Gmail, etc) there are various other avenues which can be found through the help site to provide feedback. These all likely hold more weight with Google and the G+ developers than complaints in the comments section of a/. post.
If you are interested in reporting problems, then there is a "Send Feedback" system visible at all times while you are using G+. If you don't want to sign up to use it, but still want to provide feedback, their address is 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, and sending an anonymous letter through the postal system is as easy as it always has been.
There is a difference between having a discussion, and choosing to not use a product or service because you don't like how it works.
I've used this example elsewhere, but if you wanted to buy a coffee maker, and you specifically wanted to be able to brew full pots of coffee to serve many people, would you choose to buy a single cup maker, then proceed to complain that you can't use it to brew full pots of coffee? No, of course not. So Google has created a product, and one of the features it lacks is the ability to use a pseudonym, and yet people are trying to use that product but complaining that they can't use a pseudonym.
I am saying that if you don't like a product, the appropriate behaviour is to not use it, but you are saying if someone has an opinion which differs from your own the appropriate behaviour is to remain completely silent. I do not think those two things are the same.
THANK YOU. I wonder why more people who are so up in arms about this or that with any free internet service don't ask for their money back. It is one thing when a site like Facebook suddenly changes their privacy policies, and so things that were once private are suddenly made public without your permission, however , if Google is saying that their policy is that you can only use your real name, why are people surprised when they delete accounts that don't use real names. If you don't like the TOS, don't use the product.
It's like buying a single cup coffee maker, knowing that it is a single cup coffee maker, then complaining when it won't brew a full pot.
Slashdot Mirror
If I had mod points to give out, you sir (or madam) would get them.
Ever notice that only the loonies out there think there is an actual conspiracy, and yet the warmers of the world still use that strawman without fail?
Conspiracy no.
Creating your own job security by warping any and all conclusions, regardless of any observational data, to state that "more research is required...", "it may cause positive feedbacks...", "might...", "could...", "perhaps...", you get the idea. Taglines like "this does not rule out the possibility of AGW" are the source of the shithole that climate "science" is falling into. Once warmers adjust their hypothesis to fit observational evidence, as the scientific method demands, the quotation marks can come off from around the word "science".
That's a nice strawman you've got there. Did it take you long to decorate?
use of the term "deniers" is already well cemented in the minds of the warmers. Trying to convince them that we need to properly employ the scientific method is like farting in the wind.
Science is NEVER settled, it is only through questioning and skepticism that science can progress.
You've got science backwards. AGW is the hypothesis, natural variation is the null hypothesis.
Felt it in Barrie too.
from the actual Google help page on the topic:
By default, your profile will appear in Google search results. You can change your profile settings at any time if you don't want Google and other search engines to index your profile.
If you choose not to have search engines index your profile, your profile itself won't appear in Google search results. However:
- Your profile will still remain visible to anyone with your profile URL.
- Other pages and content (including websites, blogs, and Google products such as Picasa Web) that link to your profile can still appear in search results on Google and other search engines.
- Changes you make to your profile visibility setting may be reflected across search engines at different times, depending on when each search engine crawls your profile page. (Learn how often Google crawls the web.)
You have my name, oh noes!
I wonder what the stats look like in terms of the percentage of the bullies and harassers acting under pseudonyms. Catch 22.
Wrong.
Go to your profile, click "Edit Profile", scroll to the bottom, click "Search Visibility", un-check the box, click "Save", click "Done Editing". Voila, you aren't visible in search.
Additionally, each piece of information can be customized as to who is it visible to, be it no one, one person, a circle or circles, or public.
That's a really good idea. If you haven't already, it might be worth submitting that with the G+ feedback tool. I would appreciate that feature.
Fair enough, and well said.
Do I get to point at you, and mock you so severely that you'll never want to show your tin foil hat wearing head in public every again until that day comes?
You completely missed his point. He was pointing out that if the only piece of personal information someone can track down is the person's name, it doesn't do them much good. They could find out the same information, in fact more information, by simply looking in the phone book. Now, if you are silly enough to list every piece of information about yourself, and make it all public, then you definitely have a problem on your hands.
Sending you an email with his real name and address is exactly the type of action he was describing as "being stupid about privacy", ergo, he won't do it as he clearly understands that it is stupid.
I'm sorry but how is an account on a social network when you are using a pseudonym going to help you get a job?
For your account to help you get a job it would have to expressly include your real name.
Also, the examples you gave for why a person would need a smartphone:
A) have no bearing on the ability to use a pseudonym on G+; and,
B) can be done without a smartphone. If you had a meeting in a location you do not know directions to, you could simply look up directions prior to leaving for the meeting using any computer with an internet connection, or use a good ol' fashioned map. Then, if you got lost, any phone, not just a smartphone, can be used to make a phone call to ask for directions. Alternatively, you could simply stop and ask someone for directions.
I'm not missing the point at all. I expressly told you exactly how you can best do what you state you are wanting to do. Using the tools they have provided for you to provide feedback is likely far more effective than posting a comment on /. or writing a blog because it gets the message directly to the people who have the ability to make changes as opposed to relying on your comment or blog being noticed indirectly.
Since I actually am Ken Boldt, I would like to first thank you for the compliment, but decline your offer. When it comes to investing, I'm sorry to tell you I'm not a risk taker. Even though tin foil hat sales are through the roof, I'm still not likely to buy stock in them. I admittedly just don't have the guts to risk my money that way. I wish you all the best with the housing market shares.
Out of curiosity, does it involve ocean view property in Nebraska?
As I said in another post: /. post.
If you are interested in reporting problems, then there is a "Send Feedback" system visible at all times while you are using G+. If you don't want to sign up to use it, but still want to provide feedback, their address is 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, and sending an anonymous letter through the postal system is as easy as it always has been. If you have a Google account (Gmail, etc) there are various other avenues which can be found through the help site to provide feedback. These all likely hold more weight with Google and the G+ developers than complaints in the comments section of a
If you are interested in reporting problems, then there is a "Send Feedback" system visible at all times while you are using G+. If you don't want to sign up to use it, but still want to provide feedback, their address is 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, and sending an anonymous letter through the postal system is as easy as it always has been.
There is a difference between having a discussion, and choosing to not use a product or service because you don't like how it works.
I've used this example elsewhere, but if you wanted to buy a coffee maker, and you specifically wanted to be able to brew full pots of coffee to serve many people, would you choose to buy a single cup maker, then proceed to complain that you can't use it to brew full pots of coffee? No, of course not. So Google has created a product, and one of the features it lacks is the ability to use a pseudonym, and yet people are trying to use that product but complaining that they can't use a pseudonym.
I am saying that if you don't like a product, the appropriate behaviour is to not use it, but you are saying if someone has an opinion which differs from your own the appropriate behaviour is to remain completely silent. I do not think those two things are the same.
How about this instead... if you don't like the free service being provided, don't use it.
It isn't clear to me where use of Google+ was being forced upon people. Perhaps if someone could provide a citation.
THANK YOU. I wonder why more people who are so up in arms about this or that with any free internet service don't ask for their money back. It is one thing when a site like Facebook suddenly changes their privacy policies, and so things that were once private are suddenly made public without your permission, however , if Google is saying that their policy is that you can only use your real name, why are people surprised when they delete accounts that don't use real names. If you don't like the TOS, don't use the product.
It's like buying a single cup coffee maker, knowing that it is a single cup coffee maker, then complaining when it won't brew a full pot.
Another big fat +1 from me.
buy stock in a tin foil company with all the hats that are being made lately.
huh, who knew that stating facts regarding the scientific method on website with the tagline "news for nerds" would get modded down.
More than anything, that is sad.