NASA didn't fund this. The probe to Jupiter was an existing project with a real (non-Lego-related) purpose. They thought it'd be fun to toss some Lego minifigs in the probe. So they approached Lego who paid for the figures to be made. NASA had a zero net cost for including these figures versus not including them. (A few ounces of aluminum isn't going to cost much more in rocket fuel.)
We'll combat them with toddlers who destroy their Lego machines. Of course, they will fight back with Lego mines planted all over the Earth that hurt our feet when we step on them. Wait... (checks living room where my kids were playing) the aliens have already invaded!!!
Probes going to Jupiter is a pretty abstract concept to younger kids. They might understand that this machine is flying through space to another planet, but it doesn't relate to anything they've seen or done. Add Lego figures into the mix and it relates to something they've seen and done. They've played with Legos before. So now it becomes Legos (similar to the ones in their own room) being flung through space to arrive on a completely different planet. Teens and older can appreciate the scientific achievements that might result from the mission, but younger kids will appreciate that a toy similar to one they own is hurtling through space.
That's why I treat gambling as entertainment and not as a money-making opportunity. $10 can buy you an hour or two's entertainment at a slot machine. (Some of them are all but arcade games.) I'm well aware that, at the end of the time, I'll more than likely be left without any cash, but it's the experience rather than the money that I'm after. Any money I win is just a bonus. (Then again, I also rarely gamble so it isn't like I'm spending a ton of money on a "gambling experience.")
My first reaction was "Tweeting criticism of a public figure is Freedom of Speech! End of Case."
However, if this guy did indeed send several thousand public messages to Zeoli, including many that were threatening, then I could see where a case could be built. Just because you have Freedom of Speech doesn't mean you have the freedom to harass and threaten.
In that respect, Google+ and Twitter seem to get it right. (Facebook probably does too, but I don't use it so I can't speak for it.) You won't see people's updates unless you decide to follow the person. And, if the person begins posting updates that you don't care to see, you can unfollow them quickly and easily, removing their updates from your main screen. This is in contrast with message boards/comment sections, like Slashdot, where you see everyone's responses whether you want to or not. (Perhaps filtered by some moderation routines, but still effectively 'everyone.')
Under my blog nickname, I share photos of my kids and activities we undertake. I don't reference my real name nor any personally identifying information (town we live in, schools my kids go to, etc). Last year, I wound up with a cyber-stalker. Real deranged woman who was convinced that I was really someone else posing as me... someone who was secretly in love with her. (Of course, telling her I wasn't this guy didn't help because I was just "lying" about not being him.) It was bad enough dealing with the stalker's antics. If the stalker knew my real name, she could have looked up where I really live and then who knows what would have happened. (I actually contacted the FBI about this. Not sure if they did anything but she stopped stalking me after I let her know that the feds were involved.)
If I choose to go by CleverNickName online, then I shouldn't be required to reveal the real name behind this nickname.
(In case you think this is hypocritical coming from a Slashdot user who uses his real name as his username, I signed up for Slashdot way before I thought privacy mattered. If I could change my username, I would.)
It'd be easy to incorporate pseudonyms in Google+. Just let the user set what nicknames their circles would see them as. So your blogging friends might see you as CleverBlogNickName while your family might see you as Real Name and your college buddies might see you as Frat Nickname. Your blogging friends wouldn't be able to see your real name even if Google had it in the Profile.
A few days back, a Google exec said that a Google Profile ban wouldn't affect GMail, Docs or other Google services. Only Google+ and Reader. Now, the Google spokesperson quoted by the article is saying that Gmail, Contacts and all other Google account services won't work. Which is it? Given that I have so much of my data in GMail, Docs, Reader, etc, the idea of being banned for my name not being "real enough" makes me nervous.
I bought a Samsung TV recently too. Our first HDTV. (One of our non-HDTVs died and needed to be replaced.) I tried out the USB port last night using a spare USB thumb drive with some photos, MP3s and MPEG video files. It worked beautifully. That feature alone would make me more likely to buy a Samsung TV in the future when our non-HD, CRT television in the living room fails.
Right now, Twitter has some advantages that Google+ doesn't have. They aren't insurmountable, but Google+ as it stands now won't replace Twitter.
- SMS Updates: Right now, I can text 40404 with a tweet and it'll appear on my Twitter stream. Google is apparently testing this in India. No news on when/if this will appear in America and other countries.
- API/Third Party Tools: Right now, I can run Seesmic Desktop to check my tweets. I can have my blog tweet for me. I can program my own application to interact with Twitter. Twitter lets me do all this thanks to their open APIs. Google+ currently doesn't have any APIs. Once they get an API-set, then people can develop tools to let me access Google+ without actually having to go to Google's website. Until then, they'll lag behind.
- Names: I use a pseudonym on my blog and Twitter. I don't use my real name (unlike on Slashdot, but this account was from years back when I didn't care about privacy as much). Google+, however, demands that I use my real name. I don't want everyone I tweet/blog to to know my real name. I'd rather show them the pseudonym and let certain circles see my real name. If Google+ would let me choose who gets to see my real name and who doesn't, they would solve this problem. (They could require you input your real name but then have you set which circles see which names/nicknames.)
I'll keep an eye on Google+, but until they fix the above items I'm not abandoning Twitter for it.
Twitter is an exercise in brevity. I've found that it helps you get your point across without flourishing words. Assuming that "thought" was the cut-off word, you could go the abbreviation route and tweet:
For my part, I don’t see the prob with Twitter. I mean, 140 chars is more than enough to develop a fully formed & well articulated thought.
You now have a 139 character tweet.
Or, you could realize that "I mean, " is really unnecessary to the meaning of the sentence and cut it out. That takes you within one character of the limit. Do the "and=>&" replacement or leave off the last period and you're there. Like so:
For my part, I don’t see the problem with Twitter. 140 characters is more than enough to develop a fully formed & well articulated thought.
No, Twitter isn't good for long, protracted arguments/discussions. It's not meant for that. Instead, it's meant for quick ideas & comments.
Actually, you will be locked out of Google Reader if your Google Profile is suspended thanks to not using a real name in Google+. Since I use Google Reader daily, this is a deal-breaker for me. (Though I am happy that I won't be locked out of Docs or GMail if they deem my Google+ name not good enough.)
SMS will come to Google+ eventually, but right now that SMS update system is for India-only. As I don't live in India, I can't take advantage of this.
I've also got to comment on one other thing from that article:
we are seeing people like Kevin Rose ditch their blogs in favor of Google+
No offense, but Kevin (the founder of Digg) is an idiot if he's ditching his personal blog for Google+. With your personal blog, you maintain control over everything. I even figured out a way to post photos from my mobile phone to my blog via picture messaging. (Replacing services like TwitPic that don't give you total control of your content.) By all means, promote your blog postings on Google+ (as well as on Facebook and Twitter), but don't close down your blog entirely and rely on Google+ entirely.
That's a huge benefit to me. I blog and tweet under a pseudonym. Nowhere there do I mention my real name. (My Slashdot account is from my younger days when I didn't care as much about using my real name. I don't link the two up in any way.) My Google+ profile, however, can't use my pseudonym. It has to use my real name. Big benefit to Twitter.
If you don't like these users, there's an easy solution: Unfollow them. Suddenly marketing departments and mundane-updaters will vanish from your stream and you'll see only the users whose updates you like seeing.
My sons (7 and 4) are like yours. I watch the Avengers: Earth's Mightiest Heroes with them and they love Green Lantern and other superheroes too. We went to the store yesterday with some leftover gift cards they had received and my oldest picked out an Iron Man mash and chest plate. My younger child picked out a Captain America mask and shield. He even strikes the perfect Captain America pose (though he refuses to let me take a photo of him doing it and then calls himself "Captain Ameri-CON!"). I might go to see it and then decide whether or not to show it to them once it comes out on video.
I don't think any scientist would argue that Evolution should be taught as gospel. However, Intelligent Design isn't a valid competing theory. All that is is thinly veiled Creationism. It's not science it's a reduction of all arguments to "God Did It!" Intelligent Design doesn't fit into all of the facts/evidence we have gathered. Instead, it thrives when you ignore, twist and misinterpret them. If you come up with a theory that actually fits in with the facts/evidence better than Evolution does, then you'll have a valid competing theory and I'll agree that it should be taught in schools. (You'll also likely win the Nobel prize in science, but that's besides the point.) Personally, though, I won't be holding my breath that such a theory will come along. Evolution fits the facts so nicely that the only thing that keeps it from being called "A Theory" instead of "A Fact" are the rules of scientific terminology.
Allergies shouldn't really come into play. Most people aren't deathly allergic to dogs such that a quick dog-sniff would cause them life threatening illness. My wife gets some bad reactions to dogs and cats. She would have trouble breathing at my parents' house thanks to their dog. However, a casual "meet a dog on the street corner" (equivalent to "dog sniffs you at TSA checkpoint then you go on your way") doesn't cause any trouble. Even if it did, she can prepare by taking allergy meds ahead of time to prep her body.
Still, I would agree with your assessment. Note the Mythbusters episode where they tried to hide the explosives from the bomb sniffing dog. Even in a jar of peanut butter in a filing cabinet hidden away in a room filled with distracting items the dog still found the goods. I have no doubt that we could have bomb sniffing dogs roaming our airports (and situated at a checkpoint area) and it'd be more secure than our current setup. Of course, that would mean money for training the dogs and hiring talented handlers. You couldn't just toss a radiation emitting machine in, give some minimum wage employees a quick run-down and then proclaim "Everything's Secure Now!!!"
This is how I back up our files. We have about 40GB of photos (not to mention music, documents, etc). The grand total of data is probably in the 100-200GB range. I purchased two 1TB external hard drives. All of our computers are backed up to one hard drive. This drive is then, on a monthly basis, backed up to the second drive. This second drive is stored offsite. If something were to happen to one of the drives, I still have the data in the other one. If something were to happen to my house (fire, burglary, etc), I'd still have the data from my offsite backup.
I can backup all of our computers and replicate the backup in a night or two (depending on how many hours I dedicate to it). Best of all, it's very inexpensive. NewEgg sells 1TB external hard drives for about $60 each shipped. You can have an effective backup solution for about $120.
In defense of the politicians, they aren't as bad at math as it might first appear. Remember, they're looking at the systems and factoring in the money that will be added into their political campaigns. Approving the systems might also multiply their opportunity to land cushy lobbying jobs after they leave office. As a bonus, approving this subtracts any chance that their opponents could call them weak on terrorism. Thus, these systems get their undivided support.
Slashdot Mirror
NASA didn't fund this. The probe to Jupiter was an existing project with a real (non-Lego-related) purpose. They thought it'd be fun to toss some Lego minifigs in the probe. So they approached Lego who paid for the figures to be made. NASA had a zero net cost for including these figures versus not including them. (A few ounces of aluminum isn't going to cost much more in rocket fuel.)
The Schrodinger minifig package comes with a smaller opaque package that both contains and doesn't contain a cat until someone opens it.
We'll combat them with toddlers who destroy their Lego machines. Of course, they will fight back with Lego mines planted all over the Earth that hurt our feet when we step on them. Wait... (checks living room where my kids were playing) the aliens have already invaded!!!
Probes going to Jupiter is a pretty abstract concept to younger kids. They might understand that this machine is flying through space to another planet, but it doesn't relate to anything they've seen or done. Add Lego figures into the mix and it relates to something they've seen and done. They've played with Legos before. So now it becomes Legos (similar to the ones in their own room) being flung through space to arrive on a completely different planet. Teens and older can appreciate the scientific achievements that might result from the mission, but younger kids will appreciate that a toy similar to one they own is hurtling through space.
That's why I treat gambling as entertainment and not as a money-making opportunity. $10 can buy you an hour or two's entertainment at a slot machine. (Some of them are all but arcade games.) I'm well aware that, at the end of the time, I'll more than likely be left without any cash, but it's the experience rather than the money that I'm after. Any money I win is just a bonus. (Then again, I also rarely gamble so it isn't like I'm spending a ton of money on a "gambling experience.")
My first reaction was "Tweeting criticism of a public figure is Freedom of Speech! End of Case."
However, if this guy did indeed send several thousand public messages to Zeoli, including many that were threatening, then I could see where a case could be built. Just because you have Freedom of Speech doesn't mean you have the freedom to harass and threaten.
In that respect, Google+ and Twitter seem to get it right. (Facebook probably does too, but I don't use it so I can't speak for it.) You won't see people's updates unless you decide to follow the person. And, if the person begins posting updates that you don't care to see, you can unfollow them quickly and easily, removing their updates from your main screen. This is in contrast with message boards/comment sections, like Slashdot, where you see everyone's responses whether you want to or not. (Perhaps filtered by some moderation routines, but still effectively 'everyone.')
Under my blog nickname, I share photos of my kids and activities we undertake. I don't reference my real name nor any personally identifying information (town we live in, schools my kids go to, etc). Last year, I wound up with a cyber-stalker. Real deranged woman who was convinced that I was really someone else posing as me... someone who was secretly in love with her. (Of course, telling her I wasn't this guy didn't help because I was just "lying" about not being him.) It was bad enough dealing with the stalker's antics. If the stalker knew my real name, she could have looked up where I really live and then who knows what would have happened. (I actually contacted the FBI about this. Not sure if they did anything but she stopped stalking me after I let her know that the feds were involved.)
If I choose to go by CleverNickName online, then I shouldn't be required to reveal the real name behind this nickname.
(In case you think this is hypocritical coming from a Slashdot user who uses his real name as his username, I signed up for Slashdot way before I thought privacy mattered. If I could change my username, I would.)
It'd be easy to incorporate pseudonyms in Google+. Just let the user set what nicknames their circles would see them as. So your blogging friends might see you as CleverBlogNickName while your family might see you as Real Name and your college buddies might see you as Frat Nickname. Your blogging friends wouldn't be able to see your real name even if Google had it in the Profile.
A few days back, a Google exec said that a Google Profile ban wouldn't affect GMail, Docs or other Google services. Only Google+ and Reader. Now, the Google spokesperson quoted by the article is saying that Gmail, Contacts and all other Google account services won't work. Which is it? Given that I have so much of my data in GMail, Docs, Reader, etc, the idea of being banned for my name not being "real enough" makes me nervous.
I would think that Redbox would be more in competition with Wal-Mart's in-store DVD sales than with their online streaming service.
I bought a Samsung TV recently too. Our first HDTV. (One of our non-HDTVs died and needed to be replaced.) I tried out the USB port last night using a spare USB thumb drive with some photos, MP3s and MPEG video files. It worked beautifully. That feature alone would make me more likely to buy a Samsung TV in the future when our non-HD, CRT television in the living room fails.
Right now, Twitter has some advantages that Google+ doesn't have. They aren't insurmountable, but Google+ as it stands now won't replace Twitter.
- SMS Updates: Right now, I can text 40404 with a tweet and it'll appear on my Twitter stream. Google is apparently testing this in India. No news on when/if this will appear in America and other countries.
- API/Third Party Tools: Right now, I can run Seesmic Desktop to check my tweets. I can have my blog tweet for me. I can program my own application to interact with Twitter. Twitter lets me do all this thanks to their open APIs. Google+ currently doesn't have any APIs. Once they get an API-set, then people can develop tools to let me access Google+ without actually having to go to Google's website. Until then, they'll lag behind.
- Names: I use a pseudonym on my blog and Twitter. I don't use my real name (unlike on Slashdot, but this account was from years back when I didn't care about privacy as much). Google+, however, demands that I use my real name. I don't want everyone I tweet/blog to to know my real name. I'd rather show them the pseudonym and let certain circles see my real name. If Google+ would let me choose who gets to see my real name and who doesn't, they would solve this problem. (They could require you input your real name but then have you set which circles see which names/nicknames.)
I'll keep an eye on Google+, but until they fix the above items I'm not abandoning Twitter for it.
Twitter is an exercise in brevity. I've found that it helps you get your point across without flourishing words. Assuming that "thought" was the cut-off word, you could go the abbreviation route and tweet:
You now have a 139 character tweet.
Or, you could realize that "I mean, " is really unnecessary to the meaning of the sentence and cut it out. That takes you within one character of the limit. Do the "and=>&" replacement or leave off the last period and you're there. Like so:
No, Twitter isn't good for long, protracted arguments/discussions. It's not meant for that. Instead, it's meant for quick ideas & comments.
And, yes, you could tweet that last line.
Actually, you will be locked out of Google Reader if your Google Profile is suspended thanks to not using a real name in Google+. Since I use Google Reader daily, this is a deal-breaker for me. (Though I am happy that I won't be locked out of Docs or GMail if they deem my Google+ name not good enough.)
SMS will come to Google+ eventually, but right now that SMS update system is for India-only. As I don't live in India, I can't take advantage of this.
I've also got to comment on one other thing from that article:
No offense, but Kevin (the founder of Digg) is an idiot if he's ditching his personal blog for Google+. With your personal blog, you maintain control over everything. I even figured out a way to post photos from my mobile phone to my blog via picture messaging. (Replacing services like TwitPic that don't give you total control of your content.) By all means, promote your blog postings on Google+ (as well as on Facebook and Twitter), but don't close down your blog entirely and rely on Google+ entirely.
That's a huge benefit to me. I blog and tweet under a pseudonym. Nowhere there do I mention my real name. (My Slashdot account is from my younger days when I didn't care as much about using my real name. I don't link the two up in any way.) My Google+ profile, however, can't use my pseudonym. It has to use my real name. Big benefit to Twitter.
If you don't like these users, there's an easy solution: Unfollow them. Suddenly marketing departments and mundane-updaters will vanish from your stream and you'll see only the users whose updates you like seeing.
My sons (7 and 4) are like yours. I watch the Avengers: Earth's Mightiest Heroes with them and they love Green Lantern and other superheroes too. We went to the store yesterday with some leftover gift cards they had received and my oldest picked out an Iron Man mash and chest plate. My younger child picked out a Captain America mask and shield. He even strikes the perfect Captain America pose (though he refuses to let me take a photo of him doing it and then calls himself "Captain Ameri-CON!"). I might go to see it and then decide whether or not to show it to them once it comes out on video.
I don't think any scientist would argue that Evolution should be taught as gospel. However, Intelligent Design isn't a valid competing theory. All that is is thinly veiled Creationism. It's not science it's a reduction of all arguments to "God Did It!" Intelligent Design doesn't fit into all of the facts/evidence we have gathered. Instead, it thrives when you ignore, twist and misinterpret them. If you come up with a theory that actually fits in with the facts/evidence better than Evolution does, then you'll have a valid competing theory and I'll agree that it should be taught in schools. (You'll also likely win the Nobel prize in science, but that's besides the point.) Personally, though, I won't be holding my breath that such a theory will come along. Evolution fits the facts so nicely that the only thing that keeps it from being called "A Theory" instead of "A Fact" are the rules of scientific terminology.
Either that or the politicians want a raise... I mean increased campaign contributions.
"Don't want to give us more money for our campaigns? That's ok. Oh, by the way, about that merger you want to have... we have some concerns."
Allergies shouldn't really come into play. Most people aren't deathly allergic to dogs such that a quick dog-sniff would cause them life threatening illness. My wife gets some bad reactions to dogs and cats. She would have trouble breathing at my parents' house thanks to their dog. However, a casual "meet a dog on the street corner" (equivalent to "dog sniffs you at TSA checkpoint then you go on your way") doesn't cause any trouble. Even if it did, she can prepare by taking allergy meds ahead of time to prep her body.
Still, I would agree with your assessment. Note the Mythbusters episode where they tried to hide the explosives from the bomb sniffing dog. Even in a jar of peanut butter in a filing cabinet hidden away in a room filled with distracting items the dog still found the goods. I have no doubt that we could have bomb sniffing dogs roaming our airports (and situated at a checkpoint area) and it'd be more secure than our current setup. Of course, that would mean money for training the dogs and hiring talented handlers. You couldn't just toss a radiation emitting machine in, give some minimum wage employees a quick run-down and then proclaim "Everything's Secure Now!!!"
This is how I back up our files. We have about 40GB of photos (not to mention music, documents, etc). The grand total of data is probably in the 100-200GB range. I purchased two 1TB external hard drives. All of our computers are backed up to one hard drive. This drive is then, on a monthly basis, backed up to the second drive. This second drive is stored offsite. If something were to happen to one of the drives, I still have the data in the other one. If something were to happen to my house (fire, burglary, etc), I'd still have the data from my offsite backup.
I can backup all of our computers and replicate the backup in a night or two (depending on how many hours I dedicate to it). Best of all, it's very inexpensive. NewEgg sells 1TB external hard drives for about $60 each shipped. You can have an effective backup solution for about $120.
In defense of the politicians, they aren't as bad at math as it might first appear. Remember, they're looking at the systems and factoring in the money that will be added into their political campaigns. Approving the systems might also multiply their opportunity to land cushy lobbying jobs after they leave office. As a bonus, approving this subtracts any chance that their opponents could call them weak on terrorism. Thus, these systems get their undivided support.
So then one Pastafarian bad driver will cause all of the others to lose their licenses.