Nothing gets me button mashing faster than a cut scene appearing.
If I want to play a game, I want to PLAY the game. If I wanted to watch TV or a movie, I wouldn't be trying to play a videogame!
After a game of chess, I can tell you the "story" of the game, without any artificial "story" being applied. The inherent stories are awesome.
I have no objection to other stories being there for people who prefer passive entertainment, but please be sure to include a way to skip past the time sinks.
(Yes, I too play an MMORG, one with compelling stories to me, that others merrily skip.)
Twitter lost me when they ruined their search capability.
Google+ easily replaced it, more convenient than Twitter, Email, video conferencing beats telephone, etc.
But the CB analogy doesn't hold water, as Google+ replaced email/phone for many people I interact with, they are non-technical, so find it more convenient. Meanwhile my technical friends appreciate it too, given the control and ease they have with the tool.
The only frustrating part, telephones used to be ubiquitous. Nowadays, some people never check voicemail, some people never answer the phone but rely on voicemails; some people expect texts, some never text; some email, some consider email old-school/too formal; some use Twitter, some use Google+ (thankfully nobody in my varied social circles used Facebook)--to contact anyone requires not just knowing their number/address/handle/whatever, but also knowing what their preferred communication medium is!
Re:What does the hell does NP Hard mean?
on
Pac-Man Is NP-Hard
·
· Score: 3, Informative
I had the same issue, but better wiki luck... NP-hard was confusing as the article kind of defines it by itself. However, there is a link in it to a more sensible version:
Call me back when you can roll it out on a non-flat girl's back, play a video game for a half hour or an hour, and have her believe you just gave her a massage...
Choice is not currently censorship. As far as I can tell, Wikimedia is considering to add a future requirement for users to block images that have been flagged as potentially offensive. Since Wikipedia covers many aspects of humanity, some of them scary to the ignorant, it makes sense to enable ignorant users to filter some of the more graphic aspects of this. Remember, the articles themselves will not be blocked for now. I think this would make Wikipedia more useful for adults that might not have the tools to deal with looking straight into another person's guts just because their reading up on exactly that.
Many other sites, such as DeviantArt, block nudity by default, and to view it you must register an account and turn the filter off. Even though this is opt-out and a bit extreme, calling the practice censorship is predictive.
Children usually don't mind seeing new things, until they are taught by adults that the imagery/context is "dirty" or bad from an adult reaction to seeing it.
Although some are saying let's not call this a "slippery slope" yet, when do you? History has shown as soon as tools such as this are created, a government or organization somewhere requires their application. This is true to such a degree that a local library often has patrons shocked that their internet computers are not filtered in the children's department--they automatically assume they would be.
That notwithstanding, there is a version of Wikipedia written and designed for kids or second language speakers, explaining things in simpler terms and more basic fashion.
Others have recommended plenty of non-cute backpacks, so here are some more fashionable alternatives....
At Targét, this gal found the perfect solution for her laptop, camera and a few lenses, and for only $20!
Trey chic, this cotton bag with pink lace design Techie Diva found doesn't offer as much padding, but squee, cuteness!
Here are several other options Lynette compiled for us, not just purses, but messenger bag style as well, which would be easier to carry over the long haul.
For the future, just check with your favorite bloggers, if you don't like to shop as much as the next gal!;-)
First, the story wasn't not about how pseudonyms are not bad, it doesn't even talk about that but goes into other issues. (See the bullet points kindly provided in "Lord Grey's" post below.)
But to truly attack someone, you have to know something about them and be able to access an area they are vulnerable.
Anonymously "attacking" is insignificant.
If some stranger with no identity you can relate to says something about you, whether on the Internet, WWW, email, or written in your local newspaper, it has no impact on you.
But someone you know and value the opinion of? Now emotional and perhaps mental distress may be caused.
Worse, someone who knows where you live or work? Now potential financial and physical distress may be caused.
People establish positions of power and then use knowledge and identities to inflict more harm. Step one of taking someone down is learning about them. Step two is getting them to trust you.
You'll note people have been murdered based on real identities/contact, there is a "Craigslist killer" and "Facebook killer", but no "Twitter killer" (as of yet).
The first rule of being safe online is not to reveal personal information, starting with your full name, that hasn't changed--oh wait, and it seems your behavior agrees with that Mr./Ms. "EasyTarget".
There are hundreds of thousands of stubs on Wikipedia that need expanding...
I'm sorry, I disagree, the parent is getting modded up because it's insightful--I never ran across an admin, despite being very active. Years ago I used to do nothing but go through stub articles, fleshing them out, developing them with solid references, connecting them to other related articles and wikilinking them everywhere relevant, and guess what? Those pages now have seen few views and little to no activity.
Sure, what you say is marginally true, there will always be information, particularly from other languages/histories/cultures that isn't included in the English version, just as imagery I provided for articles would get duplicated in the German version but few others.
But that falls into the 5% that doesn't NEED (note, "need", not your want) to be there. Not a single one of the stubs I worked on would be found in a printed encyclopedia or included in a CD of Wikipedia.
Ironically, stub articles with more than just a name, offer most of the content people searching Wikipedia want! Fleshing it out with far more "copy" does nothing but obscure the useful main point.
I'm not saying my time was wasted (I found it fun), but years ago none of that information truly contributed to society. Of course it's valued by someone, but Wikipedia can be considered "complete" without it.
Sounds like ARexx brought to the Web (an expanded Rexx implementation on the Amiga from the '80s) but standardized.
The interaction between different applications was wonderful (Want to edit an image embedded in a document in your word processor? Update numbers in a spreadsheet or calculator? Send those updated numbers to a 3D model?) but required too much technical knowledge on the part of the user, due to lack of standard calls, or limited the end user functionality to developers who had worked together, limiting choices.
There already is a tool, Gender Genie, although it just looks only at word usage, and prefers to have over 500 words, but it would apply to something like you describe very well. (I think I learned of it from Slashdot years ago.)
(Google hasn't required "real" legal names, I guess people assume that because Facebook does? They just have been trying to combat spam accounts and impostors.)
Where is the link that proofs that pseudonyms are allowed? If they really are, Google is doing an insanely horrible job at communicating that.
Good communication requires two parts, one party expressing things, the other party paying attention and caring about what is being expressed. I believe we have seen where the lapse is here in multiple examples now, and I direct you back to the link in the first post you replied to, which specifically talks about pseudonyms.
What if different groups know me under different names, can I have multiple accounts with different names?
You wouldn't need to, you would simply make your account with your most common name, then put your alternate names in the "Other names" field (not the "Nickname" field, which is only used for some Google products, not revealed to your circles or publicly).
You may choose who may see those "other names", which dictates whether it's searchable only by your associated circles, or everyone.
As you already know from reading the first link, they are currently designing features for, "multiple accounts with different names", and other different account use cases.
(Their timeline for business accounts has already been accelerated due to demand, so who knows if they'll have other options available before release or not? That very push presumably will take time away from other features.)
PS: I have seen a feature request to have different profile pictures (and views) for different circles, which would exactly provide what you are seeking, in a much more convenient manner than having to log in and out of multiple accounts.
Except for the part where they closed accounts that didn't use a real name
They never did this. What they did do is suspend accounts of both real names, and pseudonyms, and then reinstated those (in both categories) that conformed to the guidelines.
the post you linked contains nothing that argues that real names are no longer required.
Correct, since they never were, it would be ridiculous to argue against a condition that never existed. As I said, I didn't link the naming policy, it's not hard to find. But for those of you completely lacking reading comprehension, or totally making stuff up, here is a quote from the post I linked, "common name policy" (third paragraph, first line). Nowhere in the entire post does it say "real name", "legal name", etc.
All it says is that they give you a warning before they close your account and a chance to enter your real name.
I'm sorry, but that is an outright lie.
And what the hell is a "common name" anyway?
To quote their policy, "the name that you commonly go by" (end of first paragraph), hence my referring to it as one's "common name".
They never have required your real name (check out their naming policy rather than assuming you can't use your 'common' name), but given the backlash they've received from their over-zealous attempt at restricting fake and spam accounts, see how they are changing their response to naming policy violations.
However, they have a policy that you have to use your real name when signing up for Google+.
No, they don't, this is rumor that keeps getting repeated, here is the G+ name policy.
They require you use the name you "commonly go by". "If you use your full name", they suggest it'll help people find you, but really the point is to provide what people would type in the search box to find you.
Am I missing something? What distinction are you making between a "real name" and a "common name"?
Huh?
Yeah, you are missing something apparently. Nobody uses my "real name", most people I associate with in RL don't even know my last name, nor I theirs. Some I only know by their online handles, despite spending weekends with them, hiking, traveling, etc.
I've never been called the name on my driver's license except my my mother, when I was a child, misbehaving. I'm quite sure Google isn't looking for that.
They are suggesting your common name, what most people you want to connect with would put in a search box to find you. What is strongly, uniquely associated with you. For me, that's RJFerret. Nobody would EVER put my real name in a search box to try to find me, as it's shared with a celebrity.
Slashdot Mirror
Nothing gets me button mashing faster than a cut scene appearing.
If I want to play a game, I want to PLAY the game. If I wanted to watch TV or a movie, I wouldn't be trying to play a videogame!
After a game of chess, I can tell you the "story" of the game, without any artificial "story" being applied. The inherent stories are awesome.
I have no objection to other stories being there for people who prefer passive entertainment, but please be sure to include a way to skip past the time sinks.
(Yes, I too play an MMORG, one with compelling stories to me, that others merrily skip.)
The market answers these things.
Twitter lost me when they ruined their search capability.
Google+ easily replaced it, more convenient than Twitter, Email, video conferencing beats telephone, etc.
But the CB analogy doesn't hold water, as Google+ replaced email/phone for many people I interact with, they are non-technical, so find it more convenient. Meanwhile my technical friends appreciate it too, given the control and ease they have with the tool.
The only frustrating part, telephones used to be ubiquitous. Nowadays, some people never check voicemail, some people never answer the phone but rely on voicemails; some people expect texts, some never text; some email, some consider email old-school/too formal; some use Twitter, some use Google+ (thankfully nobody in my varied social circles used Facebook)--to contact anyone requires not just knowing their number/address/handle/whatever, but also knowing what their preferred communication medium is!
I had the same issue, but better wiki luck... NP-hard was confusing as the article kind of defines it by itself. However, there is a link in it to a more sensible version:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P_versus_NP_problem
"Facemarks"
Call me back when you can roll it out on a non-flat girl's back, play a video game for a half hour or an hour, and have her believe you just gave her a massage...
Ums...metaphor?
We can't debate the Bible's creation story any more than we can debate any story in Æsop's Fables literally.
Yes, it just puts a checkmark after the name, which if you mouseover says "Verified".
Right now the announcement said it's only available for celebrity and hugely followed accounts--so just like Twitter.
PS: And just for entertainment, many of those accounts are using their common names, not their real names, nor legal names.
Fixed this for ya':
Choice is not currently censorship. As far as I can tell, Wikimedia is considering to add a future requirement for users to block images that have been flagged as potentially offensive. Since Wikipedia covers many aspects of humanity, some of them scary to the ignorant, it makes sense to enable ignorant users to filter some of the more graphic aspects of this. Remember, the articles themselves will not be blocked for now. I think this would make Wikipedia more useful for adults that might not have the tools to deal with looking straight into another person's guts just because their reading up on exactly that.
Many other sites, such as DeviantArt, block nudity by default, and to view it you must register an account and turn the filter off. Even though this is opt-out and a bit extreme, calling the practice censorship is predictive.
Children usually don't mind seeing new things, until they are taught by adults that the imagery/context is "dirty" or bad from an adult reaction to seeing it.
Although some are saying let's not call this a "slippery slope" yet, when do you? History has shown as soon as tools such as this are created, a government or organization somewhere requires their application. This is true to such a degree that a local library often has patrons shocked that their internet computers are not filtered in the children's department--they automatically assume they would be.
That notwithstanding, there is a version of Wikipedia written and designed for kids or second language speakers, explaining things in simpler terms and more basic fashion.
...haven't learned about voicemail.
Others have recommended plenty of non-cute backpacks, so here are some more fashionable alternatives....
At Targét, this gal found the perfect solution for her laptop, camera and a few lenses, and for only $20!
Trey chic, this cotton bag with pink lace design Techie Diva found doesn't offer as much padding, but squee, cuteness!
Here are several other options Lynette compiled for us, not just purses, but messenger bag style as well, which would be easier to carry over the long haul.
For the future, just check with your favorite bloggers, if you don't like to shop as much as the next gal! ;-)
Analytics???
Ohhh! Per what I saw between my browser tab and then opening it, "Can Anal" ... "Fix Your Love Life?"
It's just one part of the whole.
Naïve.
First, the story wasn't not about how pseudonyms are not bad, it doesn't even talk about that but goes into other issues. (See the bullet points kindly provided in "Lord Grey's" post below.)
But to truly attack someone, you have to know something about them and be able to access an area they are vulnerable.
Anonymously "attacking" is insignificant.
If some stranger with no identity you can relate to says something about you, whether on the Internet, WWW, email, or written in your local newspaper, it has no impact on you.
But someone you know and value the opinion of? Now emotional and perhaps mental distress may be caused.
Worse, someone who knows where you live or work? Now potential financial and physical distress may be caused.
People establish positions of power and then use knowledge and identities to inflict more harm. Step one of taking someone down is learning about them. Step two is getting them to trust you.
You'll note people have been murdered based on real identities/contact, there is a "Craigslist killer" and "Facebook killer", but no "Twitter killer" (as of yet).
The first rule of being safe online is not to reveal personal information, starting with your full name, that hasn't changed--oh wait, and it seems your behavior agrees with that Mr./Ms. "EasyTarget".
There are hundreds of thousands of stubs on Wikipedia that need expanding...
I'm sorry, I disagree, the parent is getting modded up because it's insightful--I never ran across an admin, despite being very active. Years ago I used to do nothing but go through stub articles, fleshing them out, developing them with solid references, connecting them to other related articles and wikilinking them everywhere relevant, and guess what? Those pages now have seen few views and little to no activity.
Sure, what you say is marginally true, there will always be information, particularly from other languages/histories/cultures that isn't included in the English version, just as imagery I provided for articles would get duplicated in the German version but few others.
But that falls into the 5% that doesn't NEED (note, "need", not your want) to be there. Not a single one of the stubs I worked on would be found in a printed encyclopedia or included in a CD of Wikipedia.
Ironically, stub articles with more than just a name, offer most of the content people searching Wikipedia want! Fleshing it out with far more "copy" does nothing but obscure the useful main point.
I'm not saying my time was wasted (I found it fun), but years ago none of that information truly contributed to society. Of course it's valued by someone, but Wikipedia can be considered "complete" without it.
Sounds like ARexx brought to the Web (an expanded Rexx implementation on the Amiga from the '80s) but standardized.
The interaction between different applications was wonderful (Want to edit an image embedded in a document in your word processor? Update numbers in a spreadsheet or calculator? Send those updated numbers to a 3D model?) but required too much technical knowledge on the part of the user, due to lack of standard calls, or limited the end user functionality to developers who had worked together, limiting choices.
There already is a tool, Gender Genie, although it just looks only at word usage, and prefers to have over 500 words, but it would apply to something like you describe very well. (I think I learned of it from Slashdot years ago.)
Well Gender Genie prefers having texts longer than 500 words, but feels that writing is more female than male (176 to 141).
Link to common name policy.
Link to pseudonym plans.
(Google hasn't required "real" legal names, I guess people assume that because Facebook does? They just have been trying to combat spam accounts and impostors.)
Where is the link that proofs that pseudonyms are allowed? If they really are, Google is doing an insanely horrible job at communicating that.
Good communication requires two parts, one party expressing things, the other party paying attention and caring about what is being expressed. I believe we have seen where the lapse is here in multiple examples now, and I direct you back to the link in the first post you replied to, which specifically talks about pseudonyms.
What if different groups know me under different names, can I have multiple accounts with different names?
You wouldn't need to, you would simply make your account with your most common name, then put your alternate names in the "Other names" field (not the "Nickname" field, which is only used for some Google products, not revealed to your circles or publicly).
You may choose who may see those "other names", which dictates whether it's searchable only by your associated circles, or everyone.
As you already know from reading the first link, they are currently designing features for, "multiple accounts with different names", and other different account use cases.
(Their timeline for business accounts has already been accelerated due to demand, so who knows if they'll have other options available before release or not? That very push presumably will take time away from other features.)
PS: I have seen a feature request to have different profile pictures (and views) for different circles, which would exactly provide what you are seeking, in a much more convenient manner than having to log in and out of multiple accounts.
Except for the part where they closed accounts that didn't use a real name
They never did this. What they did do is suspend accounts of both real names, and pseudonyms, and then reinstated those (in both categories) that conformed to the guidelines.
the post you linked contains nothing that argues that real names are no longer required.
Correct, since they never were, it would be ridiculous to argue against a condition that never existed. As I said, I didn't link the naming policy, it's not hard to find. But for those of you completely lacking reading comprehension, or totally making stuff up, here is a quote from the post I linked, "common name policy" (third paragraph, first line). Nowhere in the entire post does it say "real name", "legal name", etc.
All it says is that they give you a warning before they close your account and a chance to enter your real name.
I'm sorry, but that is an outright lie.
And what the hell is a "common name" anyway?
To quote their policy, "the name that you commonly go by" (end of first paragraph), hence my referring to it as one's "common name".
They never have required your real name (check out their naming policy rather than assuming you can't use your 'common' name), but given the backlash they've received from their over-zealous attempt at restricting fake and spam accounts, see how they are changing their response to naming policy violations.
Actually G+ has never required "real names", I used to link their naming policy which requests "common" name, but it's gone beyond that now, as they have explained in this post on how they are changing their response to fake and spam accounts.
However, they have a policy that you have to use your real name when signing up for Google+.
No, they don't, this is rumor that keeps getting repeated, here is the G+ name policy.
They require you use the name you "commonly go by". "If you use your full name", they suggest it'll help people find you, but really the point is to provide what people would type in the search box to find you.
Google+ =
meticulous control over how they communicate and with whom
Am I missing something? What distinction are you making between a "real name" and a "common name"?
Huh?
Yeah, you are missing something apparently. Nobody uses my "real name", most people I associate with in RL don't even know my last name, nor I theirs. Some I only know by their online handles, despite spending weekends with them, hiking, traveling, etc.
I've never been called the name on my driver's license except my my mother, when I was a child, misbehaving. I'm quite sure Google isn't looking for that.
They are suggesting your common name, what most people you want to connect with would put in a search box to find you. What is strongly, uniquely associated with you. For me, that's RJFerret. Nobody would EVER put my real name in a search box to try to find me, as it's shared with a celebrity.
...but if they're requiring real names...
They don't, and haven't as of yet, they want your "common name". Here's their remarkably readable brief policy.