It took me a little over a year to upgrade my samsung galaxy s 1, as it was complete load of fail, and needed to be replaced. It still works, but OS is so buggy and as a phone, it was very unreliable.
While 1080p is impressive for a 5" screen, i think it's over the top. Can't see the additional detail so why give up battery life to drive more pixels. Also is the sub pixel layout pentile?
As an ex-android user, the things which i will mention, from experience as i learnt the hard way are; look at the google nexus phones first, if they don't offer the sort of hardware you are interested in, then think twice before going to other phones. If you can, avoid getting a carrier branded phone. Google phones are better because they, first and foremost, get updates, but they're also generally free of bloatware. Carriers are notorious for loading up useless apps which they also make sure that you can't delete. Phone manufacturers also do this, but often they provide useful software as well. Carrier bloatware is rarely useful, they put it in like as if they're laughing at you for giving them money.
I stopped using an android phone, because, it was very buggy. This isn't indicative of android on the whole, but i got annoyed with android because, there are so many pitfalls that can catch out a new unsuspecting user, like me. I pretty much bought the worst possible device available; carrier branded samsung galaxy s, which almost daily needed the battery to be pulled to reboot. The bloatware couldn't be deleted and what killed android for me was, it just needed some updates to solve all these software issues. Phone was no longer supported a little later than a year old.
I didn't buy the phone to have to root it and find better firmware, while some people enjoy that, i just wanted what i paid for. If you want a reliable phone, first and foremost, any smartphone may take a bit of getting used to, mainly due to the single day battery life, but a phone which couldn't reliably make or receive calls was unacceptable for me, happy to be rid of it now.
I thought crysis 1 was a somewhat weak game with a slightly stronger ending. Once i left the alien space ship or whatever, I thought the game got better. No doubt it had incredibly good graphics for the time.
Crysis 1 took me a while to finish, i thought it went better towards the end, too much of the game was just running through forest from one area to another, because the mission took place there. Crysis 2, i got bored and never finished it. I always thought of crysis as dull games, just something to bring your pc to its knees. The good thing crysis 1 did was become the gaming benchmark, it had the graphics to justify it, but it spawned a period where nvidia and ati were bringing out good gpu's, getting them to compete with each other, trying to claim the crysis crown, so relatively quickly, you had acceptable gpu's which could run it quite easily.
Well, i had an android phone, a samsung galaxy s, and it was a major piece of fail in terms of bugs, battery would often go flat, regularly in 6 hours when the phone is supposed to be sleeping, it would need a reboot almost daily but all it needed was clearly some unavailable software updates; and no, custom firmware isn't a feature for someone who just wants a phone to work, it's a major pain in the arse. I liked android for its functionality, it did behave like a pc, albeit annoying to use for any major things, like any phone, all due to limited input options and small screen size, but at the end of the day, i wanted a phone first and foremost, and for me, it quite comprehensively failed on that part. My one was unfortunately carrier locked as well, so it had a stack of bloatware, and even fewer updates. I had to learn the hard way, that unless you buy a google nexus phone, then forget about android.
As for windows phone, the other sorts of files i'd like to be able to save is any audio, video, text files, and, if i can, use the storage on the phone, without having to connect to a computer and drag and drop. Basically, I should be able to download any file, even if it can't be used on the phone, i should be able to download any attachment, or upload any attachment, if i may need to send some sort of file, unusable on the phone, i should be able to; if i know i'm heading somewhere without internet access, but don't currently have a laptop, i should be able to use my phone instead, it's just that sort of functionality which, not often, but every now and again hobbles WP8 as a smart phone OS. Also, the third party office apps on android worked better than MS's own office app, it's going to need heaps of work; any functions beyond the most basic ones in excel, make a spreadsheet only viewable.
I have a lumia 920, and hardware wise, it's brilliant. The problem is MS with the software, they need to start burning the midnight oil to get some features in. Very annoying that you can't download files off the internet, only photos, and from the email app, you can only attach photos, and the only other files you can attach, are office documents, which have to be opened in the office app and shared through there, one at a time.
With the L920, i think nokia have pretty much done everything they can to make an excellent phone, the ball is solely in MS's court. I recommend my phone, but i do mention the limitations. I would like for WP to be inbetween ios and android, having the functionality of an android phone, but being on a closed platform, which may sound like sacrilege to/.ers, but i'm just looking for a phone that works well, isn't buggy, and especially, doesn't get plagued with malware, maybe i watch too much person of interest, but phones have cameras, gps, internet, private info, all that stuff which can potentially be very bad if malware gets on.
That table isn't providing the most valuable metric, and that is, how much has energy density in the battery improved? Yes from those technologies, there has been improvement, but it's not enough. You went from expensive and useless technologies, to expensive and heavily limited technologies. Until you can get a battery that weighs 45kg and stores 140 kW-h of energy and takes up 60 litres of space, you haven't reached parity with petrol as a fuel source. (i've obtained the energy number by getting the lower heating value of petrol and multiplying it by 0.25 as that's roughly the thermodynamic efficiency of otto cycle engines, then multiplied by the density and volume to get the value for the predetermined constraints)
According to the values in wikipedia, for a lithium ion battery one which takes up 60 litres of space would have approximately only 44 kW-h or energy stored, less than a third and weigh 130kg, almost three times more. I've used the best figures in wikipedia, so i'm assuming the best possible batteries. Further to that, with about 31% of the energy storage, and lets assume 1200 cycle count, for a vehicle which gets a gas mileage of say 12 litres per 100 km's, that means 500 km off a tank with a petrol engine, since it has more than three times the energy stored in its fuel tank, that means from the previous ratios, an EV would get ~160 km's off a charge. Multiply that by 1200, and after 192000 km's, you're up for new batteries, which is a bit more than i thought, because my last laptop battery was down to a third of its new life after 400 cycles.
What i haven't accounted for is regenerative braking, which i can't calculate with the data i can easily get, and I haven't calculated heater use, as ICE vehicles use waste heat for the heater, whereas EV's will be using battery power for heating; not good in cold climates at all. I'm not saying that there isn't a push, but to think that trains, planes, and trucks can go electric is absurd, at this point in time, the only realistic use of an electric vehicle is for a city runabout, it's just too limiting to use it as a commercial vehicle, when you need to carry lots of stuff, or go large distances. For my purposes, i would love to have an EV, but again just because it may suit me, doesn't mean it will suit everyone. Times will change, but i wouldn't hold my breath, we were meant to have fully functioning AI in the 70's, and 10 ghz CPU's from intel (list can just go on and on)...
Laptops aren't a good example, any electronics for that matter, as semi-conductor design, and die shrinks have reduced power consumption. Battery tech, hasn't kept up at the same pace.
As for power stations, where the overwhelming majority use steam turbines, there's around 13% improvement in overall thermal efficiency over the otto cycle. Since car engines are at the source, you have fewer energy conversions (chemical -> heat -> mechanical) whereas with electric vehicles, assuming coal powered stations (i'm in australia, most power is generated with coal) you start off with chemical -> heat -> kinetic -> electrical to generate the power, then, from electrical (to charge batteries) -> chemical (batteries - energy storage) -> electrical -> kinetic. Each one of those conversions has a loss, so, while they're not major, the improvement with power stations literally isn't much, like someone said earlier, ~10%.
Lets just idealise for a moment, 10% (vehicular emissions) of 10% (CO2 improvement using EV's) is 1% of the total, so if everyone stopped using ICE's, then you'd reduce CO2 emissions by 1%, emissions are growing by about 0.5% per year, so that means after 2 years, you are back to where you started. Hopefully that puts into perspective the enormity of cutting CO2 emissions, and how, just dealing with the most visible things isn't sufficient.
The only problem i can see with EV's is that the energy density of batteries isn't as good as combustible fuels; the reason why we use ICE vehicles is because it's a very cheap and easy way to store lots of energy, like electric passenger aircraft are simply not possible at this point in time, and don't appear to be any time soon; meanwhile there are passenger aircraft which can go from one point on the earth to any other point without refueling. For a city runabout, EV's are perfectly usable, but any long distance transport, or movement of large mass, they're just not viable at the moment.
Renewable power for the grid, is largely not plausible, not for the amount of power we do consume, the footprint would be enormous to use solar and wind power, and energy consumed to just make all of the infrastructure, also enormous, that's why solar and wind are such expensive alternatives, then with solar and wind, you need to store the energy, since it's not base load, and that will probably resort back to batteries. What i'm saying is, there's good reason why these technologies aren't being used at the moment; because there are better alternatives, and going to the renewable energy is going to need wide sweeping changes, anyway. There is no free lunch; this problem can't be resolved through technology, it was completely brought along because of technology.
Look, to be perfectly honest, that battery tech development has been painstakingly slow. It might get there, it might not. Internal combustion engines pollute, but so do the power plants that provide the electricity to charge the batteries in EV's; someone else mentioned on here that about 10% more CO2 from ICE vehicles, as opposed to power sourced from the grid to do same amount of work. You then have the added burden of disposing the worn out batteries, which do wear out, and the chemicals in batteries are not environment friendly in any way, shape or form.
The reality is, there is no free lunch; want to cut down on CO2 emissions, better get out that push bike and start cutting out luxuries that not just consume power, but also require very large amounts of it to manufacture. It is by no means, a simple problem to solve. Vehicles only contribute ~10% of CO2 emissions.
This is what i don't understand, it's like as if these anti-electric car people feel threatened by them. I'm a fan of internal combustion engines, and enjoy performance vehicles, and I understand that electric vehicles are different in some aspects, and still have a few technical limitations, but really can't see the reason why some people have to delude themselves and others about them. I also think top gear is not a car show, it's a variety show with cars in it. The show is so dumbed down, and so much of it is spent with the presenters just doing unrelated stupid activities.
The cold war was the epilogue to WW2, it in fact was the continuation, because without WW2, the UK and USA wouldn't have equipped the USSR with a lot of technology (a lot of it was given directly, but then more decisive tech was appropriated through espionage, such as nuclear weapons). If Germany didn't have an expansionist agenda, then I think that what would have happened was that the USSR would have attempted to invade west, like they attempted in 1919-1920 immediately after their own "revolution".
The theological/philosophical response I've heard is, that evil doesn't exist, just like cold doesn't actually exist; cold is relative, less heat than what it is being compared to, the actual opposite of heat is absence of heat (or more correctly, absence of energy, i think), this follows on with religion. Evil is an absence of good, and since God is good, therefore evil is an absence of God.
I think that it's disingenuous though, to say that a volcano is evil, it may cause suffering, but when you couple choice with it, a volcano has no choice, whereas people do have a choice! Free will is something which is believed by catholics, and ultimately that is why God doesn't intervene; if God were to intervene with Hitler, then why would we live? We wouldn't really have much purpose except live our lives according to a script.
I think it's bad to get bogged in the definition of ones beliefs, most of them play little role in the morality of a religion. What is important is to recognise ones choices, and figure out what consequences your own actions have on other people. Some people can't accept a belief structure, and as a result, throw out the baby with the bath water.
What about the slavs? The nazi's wanted to sterilise all of them and take over the vast lands in the east for lebensraum. Jews were the first ones to be dealt with by the nazi regime, but their plans were so much worse.
Fuck that, we (australians) are rich, we'll keep on buying (cr)apple stuff and get reamed up the arse, regardless.
I know what you are saying is the correct thing to do, but the public just won't. I think australian history is a big part of it; we actually have never had to fight for anything, well maybe kill off the natives, but we don't have any great revolutionary tales, nor critical events where australians had to fight for their rights or seriously risk invasion; we also don't really get taught about other nations plights (like the US war of independence, or french revolution) probably so that it doesn't give people ideas, we're just told we're the lucky country and most people are happy little vegemites as a result.
I think you hit the nail on the head. We accept stupid american copyright laws, and this is how they treat us, give us price gouging. Clearly there isn't enough competition.
Yea, you couldn't extract audio digitally off a MD, definitely not easily, all the consumer level gear wouldn't allow it. So once it was on a MD, you could only record it to something else via analogue.
I didn't use hi md, so im not sure what that was like, but md was a really great replacement for a cassette player, on the basis that you used it in the same ways, ie copied music onto it, made recordings which were better quality, but didn't need to copy over to something else. Once flash started to get cheaper, there wasn't any real reason to look back at md though.
I had no choice, if i wanted to post a comment on youtube, it made me become a G+ user. Still won't use it though, one friend went to G+ and was prosthelytising to convert me, but i resisted.
Slashdot Mirror
It took me a little over a year to upgrade my samsung galaxy s 1, as it was complete load of fail, and needed to be replaced. It still works, but OS is so buggy and as a phone, it was very unreliable.
While 1080p is impressive for a 5" screen, i think it's over the top. Can't see the additional detail so why give up battery life to drive more pixels. Also is the sub pixel layout pentile?
Maybe they should have said biggest revolution since 3D TV.
As an ex-android user, the things which i will mention, from experience as i learnt the hard way are; look at the google nexus phones first, if they don't offer the sort of hardware you are interested in, then think twice before going to other phones. If you can, avoid getting a carrier branded phone. Google phones are better because they, first and foremost, get updates, but they're also generally free of bloatware. Carriers are notorious for loading up useless apps which they also make sure that you can't delete. Phone manufacturers also do this, but often they provide useful software as well. Carrier bloatware is rarely useful, they put it in like as if they're laughing at you for giving them money.
I stopped using an android phone, because, it was very buggy. This isn't indicative of android on the whole, but i got annoyed with android because, there are so many pitfalls that can catch out a new unsuspecting user, like me. I pretty much bought the worst possible device available; carrier branded samsung galaxy s, which almost daily needed the battery to be pulled to reboot. The bloatware couldn't be deleted and what killed android for me was, it just needed some updates to solve all these software issues. Phone was no longer supported a little later than a year old.
I didn't buy the phone to have to root it and find better firmware, while some people enjoy that, i just wanted what i paid for. If you want a reliable phone, first and foremost, any smartphone may take a bit of getting used to, mainly due to the single day battery life, but a phone which couldn't reliably make or receive calls was unacceptable for me, happy to be rid of it now.
I'm glad i don't have android. samsung didn't work for me :(
That's why girls are so bad at maths!
I thought crysis 1 was a somewhat weak game with a slightly stronger ending. Once i left the alien space ship or whatever, I thought the game got better. No doubt it had incredibly good graphics for the time.
Crysis 1 took me a while to finish, i thought it went better towards the end, too much of the game was just running through forest from one area to another, because the mission took place there. Crysis 2, i got bored and never finished it. I always thought of crysis as dull games, just something to bring your pc to its knees. The good thing crysis 1 did was become the gaming benchmark, it had the graphics to justify it, but it spawned a period where nvidia and ati were bringing out good gpu's, getting them to compete with each other, trying to claim the crysis crown, so relatively quickly, you had acceptable gpu's which could run it quite easily.
Well, i had an android phone, a samsung galaxy s, and it was a major piece of fail in terms of bugs, battery would often go flat, regularly in 6 hours when the phone is supposed to be sleeping, it would need a reboot almost daily but all it needed was clearly some unavailable software updates; and no, custom firmware isn't a feature for someone who just wants a phone to work, it's a major pain in the arse. I liked android for its functionality, it did behave like a pc, albeit annoying to use for any major things, like any phone, all due to limited input options and small screen size, but at the end of the day, i wanted a phone first and foremost, and for me, it quite comprehensively failed on that part. My one was unfortunately carrier locked as well, so it had a stack of bloatware, and even fewer updates. I had to learn the hard way, that unless you buy a google nexus phone, then forget about android.
As for windows phone, the other sorts of files i'd like to be able to save is any audio, video, text files, and, if i can, use the storage on the phone, without having to connect to a computer and drag and drop. Basically, I should be able to download any file, even if it can't be used on the phone, i should be able to download any attachment, or upload any attachment, if i may need to send some sort of file, unusable on the phone, i should be able to; if i know i'm heading somewhere without internet access, but don't currently have a laptop, i should be able to use my phone instead, it's just that sort of functionality which, not often, but every now and again hobbles WP8 as a smart phone OS. Also, the third party office apps on android worked better than MS's own office app, it's going to need heaps of work; any functions beyond the most basic ones in excel, make a spreadsheet only viewable.
I have a lumia 920, and hardware wise, it's brilliant. The problem is MS with the software, they need to start burning the midnight oil to get some features in. Very annoying that you can't download files off the internet, only photos, and from the email app, you can only attach photos, and the only other files you can attach, are office documents, which have to be opened in the office app and shared through there, one at a time.
With the L920, i think nokia have pretty much done everything they can to make an excellent phone, the ball is solely in MS's court. I recommend my phone, but i do mention the limitations. I would like for WP to be inbetween ios and android, having the functionality of an android phone, but being on a closed platform, which may sound like sacrilege to /.ers, but i'm just looking for a phone that works well, isn't buggy, and especially, doesn't get plagued with malware, maybe i watch too much person of interest, but phones have cameras, gps, internet, private info, all that stuff which can potentially be very bad if malware gets on.
That table isn't providing the most valuable metric, and that is, how much has energy density in the battery improved? Yes from those technologies, there has been improvement, but it's not enough. You went from expensive and useless technologies, to expensive and heavily limited technologies. Until you can get a battery that weighs 45kg and stores 140 kW-h of energy and takes up 60 litres of space, you haven't reached parity with petrol as a fuel source. (i've obtained the energy number by getting the lower heating value of petrol and multiplying it by 0.25 as that's roughly the thermodynamic efficiency of otto cycle engines, then multiplied by the density and volume to get the value for the predetermined constraints)
According to the values in wikipedia, for a lithium ion battery one which takes up 60 litres of space would have approximately only 44 kW-h or energy stored, less than a third and weigh 130kg, almost three times more. I've used the best figures in wikipedia, so i'm assuming the best possible batteries. Further to that, with about 31% of the energy storage, and lets assume 1200 cycle count, for a vehicle which gets a gas mileage of say 12 litres per 100 km's, that means 500 km off a tank with a petrol engine, since it has more than three times the energy stored in its fuel tank, that means from the previous ratios, an EV would get ~160 km's off a charge. Multiply that by 1200, and after 192000 km's, you're up for new batteries, which is a bit more than i thought, because my last laptop battery was down to a third of its new life after 400 cycles.
What i haven't accounted for is regenerative braking, which i can't calculate with the data i can easily get, and I haven't calculated heater use, as ICE vehicles use waste heat for the heater, whereas EV's will be using battery power for heating; not good in cold climates at all. I'm not saying that there isn't a push, but to think that trains, planes, and trucks can go electric is absurd, at this point in time, the only realistic use of an electric vehicle is for a city runabout, it's just too limiting to use it as a commercial vehicle, when you need to carry lots of stuff, or go large distances. For my purposes, i would love to have an EV, but again just because it may suit me, doesn't mean it will suit everyone. Times will change, but i wouldn't hold my breath, we were meant to have fully functioning AI in the 70's, and 10 ghz CPU's from intel (list can just go on and on)...
Laptops aren't a good example, any electronics for that matter, as semi-conductor design, and die shrinks have reduced power consumption. Battery tech, hasn't kept up at the same pace.
As for power stations, where the overwhelming majority use steam turbines, there's around 13% improvement in overall thermal efficiency over the otto cycle. Since car engines are at the source, you have fewer energy conversions (chemical -> heat -> mechanical) whereas with electric vehicles, assuming coal powered stations (i'm in australia, most power is generated with coal) you start off with chemical -> heat -> kinetic -> electrical to generate the power, then, from electrical (to charge batteries) -> chemical (batteries - energy storage) -> electrical -> kinetic. Each one of those conversions has a loss, so, while they're not major, the improvement with power stations literally isn't much, like someone said earlier, ~10%.
Lets just idealise for a moment, 10% (vehicular emissions) of 10% (CO2 improvement using EV's) is 1% of the total, so if everyone stopped using ICE's, then you'd reduce CO2 emissions by 1%, emissions are growing by about 0.5% per year, so that means after 2 years, you are back to where you started. Hopefully that puts into perspective the enormity of cutting CO2 emissions, and how, just dealing with the most visible things isn't sufficient.
The only problem i can see with EV's is that the energy density of batteries isn't as good as combustible fuels; the reason why we use ICE vehicles is because it's a very cheap and easy way to store lots of energy, like electric passenger aircraft are simply not possible at this point in time, and don't appear to be any time soon; meanwhile there are passenger aircraft which can go from one point on the earth to any other point without refueling. For a city runabout, EV's are perfectly usable, but any long distance transport, or movement of large mass, they're just not viable at the moment.
Renewable power for the grid, is largely not plausible, not for the amount of power we do consume, the footprint would be enormous to use solar and wind power, and energy consumed to just make all of the infrastructure, also enormous, that's why solar and wind are such expensive alternatives, then with solar and wind, you need to store the energy, since it's not base load, and that will probably resort back to batteries. What i'm saying is, there's good reason why these technologies aren't being used at the moment; because there are better alternatives, and going to the renewable energy is going to need wide sweeping changes, anyway. There is no free lunch; this problem can't be resolved through technology, it was completely brought along because of technology.
Look, to be perfectly honest, that battery tech development has been painstakingly slow. It might get there, it might not. Internal combustion engines pollute, but so do the power plants that provide the electricity to charge the batteries in EV's; someone else mentioned on here that about 10% more CO2 from ICE vehicles, as opposed to power sourced from the grid to do same amount of work. You then have the added burden of disposing the worn out batteries, which do wear out, and the chemicals in batteries are not environment friendly in any way, shape or form.
The reality is, there is no free lunch; want to cut down on CO2 emissions, better get out that push bike and start cutting out luxuries that not just consume power, but also require very large amounts of it to manufacture. It is by no means, a simple problem to solve. Vehicles only contribute ~10% of CO2 emissions.
This is what i don't understand, it's like as if these anti-electric car people feel threatened by them. I'm a fan of internal combustion engines, and enjoy performance vehicles, and I understand that electric vehicles are different in some aspects, and still have a few technical limitations, but really can't see the reason why some people have to delude themselves and others about them. I also think top gear is not a car show, it's a variety show with cars in it. The show is so dumbed down, and so much of it is spent with the presenters just doing unrelated stupid activities.
I like the windows 2000 response.
The cold war was the epilogue to WW2, it in fact was the continuation, because without WW2, the UK and USA wouldn't have equipped the USSR with a lot of technology (a lot of it was given directly, but then more decisive tech was appropriated through espionage, such as nuclear weapons). If Germany didn't have an expansionist agenda, then I think that what would have happened was that the USSR would have attempted to invade west, like they attempted in 1919-1920 immediately after their own "revolution".
The theological/philosophical response I've heard is, that evil doesn't exist, just like cold doesn't actually exist; cold is relative, less heat than what it is being compared to, the actual opposite of heat is absence of heat (or more correctly, absence of energy, i think), this follows on with religion. Evil is an absence of good, and since God is good, therefore evil is an absence of God.
I think that it's disingenuous though, to say that a volcano is evil, it may cause suffering, but when you couple choice with it, a volcano has no choice, whereas people do have a choice! Free will is something which is believed by catholics, and ultimately that is why God doesn't intervene; if God were to intervene with Hitler, then why would we live? We wouldn't really have much purpose except live our lives according to a script.
I think it's bad to get bogged in the definition of ones beliefs, most of them play little role in the morality of a religion. What is important is to recognise ones choices, and figure out what consequences your own actions have on other people. Some people can't accept a belief structure, and as a result, throw out the baby with the bath water.
What about the slavs? The nazi's wanted to sterilise all of them and take over the vast lands in the east for lebensraum. Jews were the first ones to be dealt with by the nazi regime, but their plans were so much worse.
Fuck that, we (australians) are rich, we'll keep on buying (cr)apple stuff and get reamed up the arse, regardless.
I know what you are saying is the correct thing to do, but the public just won't. I think australian history is a big part of it; we actually have never had to fight for anything, well maybe kill off the natives, but we don't have any great revolutionary tales, nor critical events where australians had to fight for their rights or seriously risk invasion; we also don't really get taught about other nations plights (like the US war of independence, or french revolution) probably so that it doesn't give people ideas, we're just told we're the lucky country and most people are happy little vegemites as a result.
I think you hit the nail on the head. We accept stupid american copyright laws, and this is how they treat us, give us price gouging. Clearly there isn't enough competition.
With a company like that, i'd be looking for software alternatives, and giving adobe the flick.
I suppose it would be pretty good if i said somewhere that "sony created blu-ray"
I don't think sony has much in the tank left, sure they beat HD-DVD, but can you honestly say that blu-ray is a successful technology?
Yea, you couldn't extract audio digitally off a MD, definitely not easily, all the consumer level gear wouldn't allow it. So once it was on a MD, you could only record it to something else via analogue.
I didn't use hi md, so im not sure what that was like, but md was a really great replacement for a cassette player, on the basis that you used it in the same ways, ie copied music onto it, made recordings which were better quality, but didn't need to copy over to something else. Once flash started to get cheaper, there wasn't any real reason to look back at md though.
I had no choice, if i wanted to post a comment on youtube, it made me become a G+ user. Still won't use it though, one friend went to G+ and was prosthelytising to convert me, but i resisted.