I've become increasingly interested in this feature too. I see a few interesting people in my area, many references to activities going on in the area, mentions of local restaurants, etc.
However, if Google+ gains widespread adoption, there needs to be more filtering and control over how much you see. I think it needs some topic/subject filtering.
I tried following Wil and then noticed that 3/4 of my feed was Wil Wheaton. That seemed like too much.
maybe time to re-add him now that I have a few more people there.
Follow Robert Scoble, and Wil will seem downright reserved in comparison.
However, it does bring up an interesting point. Google+ has a lot of great features, but not great filtering. I want better control over the order that posts appear (not just last time someone commented and bumped it up again). I want to be able to control which circles appear in my default stream to avoid the Scoble-Effect of a small number of posters dominating my stream, while having them set in their own circle or stream.
The devices which you are citing as being stagnant are devices that didn't even exist a few years ago, and already you are complaining about how they aren't moving forward fast enough?. Seriously, what are you expectations of technology?
Also, by your logic, we could say that each generation of CPU and GPU is just "revamping an already existing idea", right?
Phone tech, like computing tech, has not simply added new gimmicks and regurgitated the same old idea. These "revamps" intended to sell more products have the secondary effects pushing prices down on existing tech and expanding on what these devices can deliver, and more importantly (for mankind), broadening the audience that this technology is accessible to.
In other parts of the world, the phone *is* their gateway to the internet, and surely you have to agree that the internet should be listed among a tech that can move mankind forward, right? Did you catch the other article posted here on/. that discussed the popularity of a cheap android phone in Kenya?
Beyond the internet, I could point out how that many in healthcare use these devices (which again, have become cheaper and more powerful due to these "revamps" caused by competition) to get information quickly that could impact the health of patients. There is also personal health. I use my Android phone all the time to assist me with matters of my personal health. I can even monitor my heart-rate, with only my phone, through an application developer's clever use of the camera hardware.
I could go on, but I think it is clear that your view of technology, and the world, are rather limited.
Do you think the cost of preventing drunk driving also exceeds the safety benefits? Because that is what study after study has been showing; that talking on a cell phone impairs a driver about the same as driving drunk.
When that means that we are pushing down limits (far below what has been shown to actually cause impairment) in order to cast a wider net that promotes state revenue and makes politicians pushing for 'Zero Tolerance' look good?
When we use techniques for catching drunk drivers that actually hurt our ability to catch the real problem drunk drivers, and instead catch the people, in that aforementioned wider net, that aren't really the ones that pose the real danger?
Smart Phones today are pocket-sized multi-media internet capable computers that (through clever use of the variety of sensors and/or internet resources) allow these devices to do surprising (and useful) tasks that go beyond what even the designers likely expected of them.
Just because the average person only uses their smart phone to make inane Facebook posts, viral cat videos (or pictures of cats that look like Hitler), and to play Angry Birds does not mean that there is some damn impressive, powerful, and useful technology here.
I want to know why Borderlands was ever referred to as a "shooter/RPG". In what way can Borderlands possibly be considered an RPG?
The same way that Diablo is sometimes referred to as an RPG. Now we both may not entirely agree with that categorization either, but it is seen as an Action RPG, and Borderlands shares much more with Diablo than it does with a typical FPS.
Both games include classes, leveling mechanics, hit points, talent trees, equipment, character stats, large amounts of random loot, and a simplistic storyline that provides the motivation to kill some monsters / bad guys and loot the bodies.
It may be hack 'n slash, but it's not really any more of a stretch than Diablo. Though many modern games have incorporated RPG elements into them, even if they aren't actually RPGs themselves.
pay attention to the narrative tense in the last stanza. The narrator isn't saying "I took a path that was different and important"; he's saying "I took one of two equal paths, and I think that IN THE FUTURE I'm going to tell people it was different and important".
He didn't say the paths were two equal paths. He said that the two paths looked equal for as far as he could see from the point where the roads diverged, as he said "And looked down one as far as I could."
Also, "hence" means from now on, not just some future.
I don't really get this line of thinking. Are you suggesting that we should infer that he is writing a poem about how his choice was inconsequential, but he is going to go forth and mislead people into thinking that it did have consequence?
It's 2011. Network connectivity is assumed, and this is nearly always a valid assumption.
It's 2011, where broadband has better coverage than 10 years ago, but it's still not universal.
90% of all of my playing of Diablo 2 was offline, or LAN. It was an even higher percentage for the original Diablo.
While technically I will almost always be online on my my PC if I were to play *now*, I still don't like it as a requirement. Despite my "always on connection", I'll still probably spend the vast majority of my time playing single-player, not multi-player, so an arbitrary online requirement is rather annoying. Especially if I take it to a laptop where I might not have internet access.
Also, it may be 2011, but network outages still exist, and interruptions in connectivity ranging from seconds, minutes, or even hours still occur.
If one could use a "real" guitar (adapted to the game), using the game as a teacher, and starting out playing simpler songs in one's own tempo, now that would be awesome. But of course it might also be too complex...
As it has already been mentioned, Rock Band has a Pro Mode, that allows both a real guitar, a custom Fender Squier, and a MIDI keyboard to be used in the game. It supports playing real notes on real instruments for many songs (including DLC), with varying degrees of difficulty. Easy level just has some of the basic foundation notes of the tune, and increasing difficulties add more notes and chords, all the way up to the fully implemented song.
There are even lessons and scales offered in game.
And one of the few people here who seems to understand that I was not making a value judgement on this, or suggesting that we don't use energy more efficiently, gets modded down.
I am quite in favor of the idea, and think energy efficient is not only a good thing, but it something that we should be morally compelled to do. However, doing so doesn't magically make money out of nowhere that gets pumped into the economy. It just shifts where it flows.
What I wrote was "could potentially slow economic growth", because I recognize that it is debatable, depending on what schools of thought one subscribes too.
However, there has been historical correlations to suggest that it may be valid. However, I also think this is due to the metrics that we use to measure the economy. There are many things that are considered "good" for the "economy" that are bad for the vast majority of individuals, and vice-versa.
I am well aware of the broken window fallacy, but I'm not advocating that reducing cooling costs is not a good thing. It certainly is. Reducing cooling costs would create benefits to individuals, however it's not magically producing more money that gets put into the economy.
So many people here seem to be making the assumption that I am promoting wasting money on less efficient energy, which I am not. If I *was* promoting that, or arguing that the wasted energy is beneficial as a whole, then yes, I would be guilty of the broken window fallacy. I am not making a value judgement on the impact of the economy here, just pointing out that it's a questionable statement (in the same way that I would question that reducing software piracy will create economic growth).
The benefit: not only will 'cool roofs' lower the utility bill in every apartment house 10 to 20 percent, but it frees cash that can be spent to increase economic growth.
So, money that is spent on heating costs doesn't have any effect on the economy? Where does that money go then?
Now, I'm all in favor of reducing energy usage, and lowering costs for the average person, but to say this will create economic growth seems a bit silly. No new money is generated by this, just shifted. It merely reduces money going into one industry, and divides among others (including the makers of white paint).
In fact, if this promotes more people to *save* money (and not spend it at all), it could even potentially slow economic growth.
McCain would take haven a backseat to Palin? Really?
Additionally, the only issues that Palin anywhere close to a Libertarian are the same issues that just about any Republican (or Tea Party candidate) just happen to share with Libertarians.
Just because she supports the right to bear arms and says we need smaller government doesn't maker her a libertarian.
If humans had ever thought that way, we'd still be living in caves. Very few people who ever started something like a cathedral ever saw it finished.
I absolutely agree, however it should be pointed out that cathedral makers also didn't have to worry about keeping their shareholders happy and quarterly profit reports.
Slashdot Mirror
I've become increasingly interested in this feature too. I see a few interesting people in my area, many references to activities going on in the area, mentions of local restaurants, etc.
However, if Google+ gains widespread adoption, there needs to be more filtering and control over how much you see. I think it needs some topic/subject filtering.
I tried following Wil and then noticed that 3/4 of my feed was Wil Wheaton. That seemed like too much.
maybe time to re-add him now that I have a few more people there.
Follow Robert Scoble, and Wil will seem downright reserved in comparison.
However, it does bring up an interesting point. Google+ has a lot of great features, but not great filtering. I want better control over the order that posts appear (not just last time someone commented and bumped it up again). I want to be able to control which circles appear in my default stream to avoid the Scoble-Effect of a small number of posters dominating my stream, while having them set in their own circle or stream.
No, you miss the point.
The devices which you are citing as being stagnant are devices that didn't even exist a few years ago, and already you are complaining about how they aren't moving forward fast enough?. Seriously, what are you expectations of technology?
Also, by your logic, we could say that each generation of CPU and GPU is just "revamping an already existing idea", right?
Phone tech, like computing tech, has not simply added new gimmicks and regurgitated the same old idea. These "revamps" intended to sell more products have the secondary effects pushing prices down on existing tech and expanding on what these devices can deliver, and more importantly (for mankind), broadening the audience that this technology is accessible to.
In other parts of the world, the phone *is* their gateway to the internet, and surely you have to agree that the internet should be listed among a tech that can move mankind forward, right? Did you catch the other article posted here on /. that discussed the popularity of a cheap android phone in Kenya?
Beyond the internet, I could point out how that many in healthcare use these devices (which again, have become cheaper and more powerful due to these "revamps" caused by competition) to get information quickly that could impact the health of patients. There is also personal health. I use my Android phone all the time to assist me with matters of my personal health. I can even monitor my heart-rate, with only my phone, through an application developer's clever use of the camera hardware.
I could go on, but I think it is clear that your view of technology, and the world, are rather limited.
Do you think the cost of preventing drunk driving also exceeds the safety benefits? Because that is what study after study has been showing; that talking on a cell phone impairs a driver about the same as driving drunk.
When that means that we are pushing down limits (far below what has been shown to actually cause impairment) in order to cast a wider net that promotes state revenue and makes politicians pushing for 'Zero Tolerance' look good?
When we use techniques for catching drunk drivers that actually hurt our ability to catch the real problem drunk drivers, and instead catch the people, in that aforementioned wider net, that aren't really the ones that pose the real danger?
Then, I have to answer yes.
Smart Phones today are pocket-sized multi-media internet capable computers that (through clever use of the variety of sensors and/or internet resources) allow these devices to do surprising (and useful) tasks that go beyond what even the designers likely expected of them.
Just because the average person only uses their smart phone to make inane Facebook posts, viral cat videos (or pictures of cats that look like Hitler), and to play Angry Birds does not mean that there is some damn impressive, powerful, and useful technology here.
I want to know why Borderlands was ever referred to as a "shooter/RPG". In what way can Borderlands possibly be considered an RPG?
The same way that Diablo is sometimes referred to as an RPG. Now we both may not entirely agree with that categorization either, but it is seen as an Action RPG, and Borderlands shares much more with Diablo than it does with a typical FPS.
Both games include classes, leveling mechanics, hit points, talent trees, equipment, character stats, large amounts of random loot, and a simplistic storyline that provides the motivation to kill some monsters / bad guys and loot the bodies.
It may be hack 'n slash, but it's not really any more of a stretch than Diablo. Though many modern games have incorporated RPG elements into them, even if they aren't actually RPGs themselves.
Be careful, you are invoking Truthiness!
Browser choice has a lot more to do with a combination of personal preference, tech savvy.
As much as some here might like to believe it, tech savviness (or lack thereof) is not a reliable indicator of intelligence level.
pay attention to the narrative tense in the last stanza. The narrator isn't saying "I took a path that was different and important"; he's saying "I took one of two equal paths, and I think that IN THE FUTURE I'm going to tell people it was different and important".
He didn't say the paths were two equal paths. He said that the two paths looked equal for as far as he could see from the point where the roads diverged, as he said "And looked down one as far as I could."
Also, "hence" means from now on, not just some future.
I don't really get this line of thinking. Are you suggesting that we should infer that he is writing a poem about how his choice was inconsequential, but he is going to go forth and mislead people into thinking that it did have consequence?
Prisoner 6: "I published a link on my blog to Prisoner 5's algorithm."
It's 2011. Network connectivity is assumed, and this is nearly always a valid assumption.
It's 2011, where broadband has better coverage than 10 years ago, but it's still not universal.
90% of all of my playing of Diablo 2 was offline, or LAN. It was an even higher percentage for the original Diablo.
While technically I will almost always be online on my my PC if I were to play *now*, I still don't like it as a requirement. Despite my "always on connection", I'll still probably spend the vast majority of my time playing single-player, not multi-player, so an arbitrary online requirement is rather annoying. Especially if I take it to a laptop where I might not have internet access.
Also, it may be 2011, but network outages still exist, and interruptions in connectivity ranging from seconds, minutes, or even hours still occur.
Well played sir!
What happens after the 'Bubble' bubble?
Is anyone else tired of hearing the term 'bubble' being used so ubiquitously and loosely now?
Sorry, I meant to say two different groups, each making up 10%, in contradictory unshakeable beliefs.
+1 is implemented in Goggle+, but it did not come out of Google+ (at least not publicly).
+1 came preceded Google+ by a few months. Google is trying to tie +1 into other Google services as well, not just Google+.
Interesting, but what what about when two different groups make up 10% each in an unshakeable belief?
It does remind me of a story I heard on NPR once called Nature's Secret: Why Honey Bees Are Better Politicians Than Humans, which was discussing information from the book Honeybee Democracy .
If one could use a "real" guitar (adapted to the game), using the game as a teacher, and starting out playing simpler songs in one's own tempo, now that would be awesome. But of course it might also be too complex...
As it has already been mentioned, Rock Band has a Pro Mode, that allows both a real guitar, a custom Fender Squier, and a MIDI keyboard to be used in the game. It supports playing real notes on real instruments for many songs (including DLC), with varying degrees of difficulty. Easy level just has some of the basic foundation notes of the tune, and increasing difficulties add more notes and chords, all the way up to the fully implemented song.
There are even lessons and scales offered in game.
That's interesting, but that then brings up another question. Should you qualify what is or isn't a planet based on it's size, or it's mass?
To a real estate agent, size is pretty important, but I would think that mass would be more important to an astronomer.
And one of the few people here who seems to understand that I was not making a value judgement on this, or suggesting that we don't use energy more efficiently, gets modded down.
I am quite in favor of the idea, and think energy efficient is not only a good thing, but it something that we should be morally compelled to do. However, doing so doesn't magically make money out of nowhere that gets pumped into the economy. It just shifts where it flows.
What I wrote was "could potentially slow economic growth", because I recognize that it is debatable, depending on what schools of thought one subscribes too.
However, there has been historical correlations to suggest that it may be valid. However, I also think this is due to the metrics that we use to measure the economy. There are many things that are considered "good" for the "economy" that are bad for the vast majority of individuals, and vice-versa.
I am well aware of the broken window fallacy, but I'm not advocating that reducing cooling costs is not a good thing. It certainly is. Reducing cooling costs would create benefits to individuals, however it's not magically producing more money that gets put into the economy.
So many people here seem to be making the assumption that I am promoting wasting money on less efficient energy, which I am not. If I *was* promoting that, or arguing that the wasted energy is beneficial as a whole, then yes, I would be guilty of the broken window fallacy. I am not making a value judgement on the impact of the economy here, just pointing out that it's a questionable statement (in the same way that I would question that reducing software piracy will create economic growth).
The benefit: not only will 'cool roofs' lower the utility bill in every apartment house 10 to 20 percent, but it frees cash that can be spent to increase economic growth.
So, money that is spent on heating costs doesn't have any effect on the economy? Where does that money go then?
Now, I'm all in favor of reducing energy usage, and lowering costs for the average person, but to say this will create economic growth seems a bit silly. No new money is generated by this, just shifted. It merely reduces money going into one industry, and divides among others (including the makers of white paint).
In fact, if this promotes more people to *save* money (and not spend it at all), it could even potentially slow economic growth.
McCain would take haven a backseat to Palin? Really?
Additionally, the only issues that Palin anywhere close to a Libertarian are the same issues that just about any Republican (or Tea Party candidate) just happen to share with Libertarians.
Just because she supports the right to bear arms and says we need smaller government doesn't maker her a libertarian.
That's the problem these days.
If humans had ever thought that way, we'd still be living in caves. Very few people who ever started something like a cathedral ever saw it finished.
I absolutely agree, however it should be pointed out that cathedral makers also didn't have to worry about keeping their shareholders happy and quarterly profit reports.
If only they could have used this technology to predict them creating this technology.
Forget Jeopardy, let's get a computer to pass the bar exam. ;-) As long as we don't program in self-interest too..
"April 19, 2015 ... at 8:11 PM ... Lawnet became self aware, starting a chain of events that led to an intense legal battle between man and machine."