There is considerably less benefit to engaging in a discussion on a site where there are just a few people, none of whom you know or really care about you, as compared to where your family, friends, job, local government, and a lot of sites comment sections now reside, isn't there?
And you're surprised that your family, friends and people who know and care about you are to be found on the site with real names and not the one with pseudonyms?
google plus pushes this idea of circles and "following" people because they are internet stars which most people don't care to do
They did it because they were trying to compete with both Facebook and Twitter at the same time. They've failed at both. The only question is how long before Google+ is officially pronounced dead.
I don't understand why they're selling this book through bookstores. Surely Google could have covered all active Google+ users by simply issuing it to staff.
So have some sites that are pseudonymous and some that use real names. Like in fact there is. Not every site in the world has to be pseudonymous just because you prefer it. Most sites are already are pseudonymous, so you're not spoilt for choice.
Facebook's real name policy makes it a much more pleasant place to hang out than here. Not much good for tech topics. But full of far pleasanter people.
Now if there was a tech discussion site which had real names and a proper friend/ignore mechanism, that would beat Slashdot hands down.
Oh yes, I remember who you are not. You're the one who whenever he's stuck for something to whine about posts some off topic link attacking Apple. And you question me on why I criticise Google?
FB Doesn't have an "Add acquaintance" button, so of course it's friends and acquaintances rolled in together. But nevertheless still people one knows in real life and want to keep in touch with at some level.
Many of mine are people I've spent some time with abroad, scattered in many countries, and so many of them I won't ever run into again. But still I do know them as real people, and I do want to stay in touch, and see in a broad way what life brings them. And them with me. Facebook is ideal for that.
Similarly, I'm not one to pick up the phone to my siblings and nephews and nieces on a regular basis. But again it's nice to have a general idea what's happening in their lives in between the occasional get together. Facebook is ideal for that too.
Simple. Because I've seen that Google has information about me that I never gave to them. It's got it from spying on my web activity on non-Google sites.
Facebook has information on me because I (or one of my friends) explicitly gave it to them.
Because serving ads according to a single search term, or what is in a particular email at the time is a very different proposition to STORING that information, together with many other sources of information to keep extensive records on individuals. Google has changed, whether you noticed it or not.
Hmm, last time I saw you here on Slashdot you were turboposting in support of Apple. What am I to make of that?
That as things stand right now, I find Google to be a company that abuses my personal information and that I want nothing more to do with them. And I find Apple be a company that makes great products and doesn't abuse my data.
Companies change, and my opinion reflects that. I used to support Google, introduced my friends to it when most people were using AltaVista or Webcrawler. Loves Google maps, even more so when street view came along. And I even argued against those that found street view to be an invasion of privacy. Of late they have become a spyware company, and I detest that.
Similarly at one time I liked Microsoft. But when they became an abusive monopoly my feelings to them changed.
Prior to about 2003 I couldn't care less about Apple. But when I tried their products I liked them, and they haven't done anything much to piss me off. The only thing I can think of off hand is that they've started using Open Street Maps without giving acknowledgement.
What about you. There must be some teach companies that you currently like and others that you dislike or even despise? So why the question?
No, my problem is that Google is spying on me. I was first alerted to it when Google+ suggested friend to me, and 2 of the suggestions were only linked to me because they are the authors of blogs that I visit from time to time. I don't visit them by searching on Google. They are not hosted on Google's Blogger. And I'd never posted any links from those blogs on my Google+ account.
Then more recently Google was asking me a question about security, and presented me a list of all the searches I'd done on Google for the last X months. Well, that's not information that I believe Google ought to be storing, and at that point deleted my account, and switched to using non-Google services.
THEN I found out that Google will continue to store my searches against my name even though I don't have an account any more.
At one time "Don't be evil" meant something. Now Google is a creepy spyware company. I want nothing more to do with them.
Pay for a mail service. That way you have a contract that doesn't permit them to misuse you information. And their business model doesn't require them to.
It's not a question of COULD. Google are already mining my information when I'm not even on Google's own sites and using it in ways I disapprove of.
I pay for my own domain name and for an email service. They don't mine my data. I mean it's theoretically possible that they are spying on me and I haven't caught them yet, but: a) They don't need to because their business model is me paying money directly. b) I KNOW Google is.
No, Google has changed in recent years. That's been obvious even from the outside. At one time I was a big supporter of Google, recommended their stuff to friends. A month or two I deleted my Google accounts, and avoid using Google as much as possible now.
The change? It seemed they used to be dedicated to producing the best technology, and in making the ads that supported that as unobtrusive as possible. The "Do no evil" phrase was idealistic, but believable.
Now, I feel that Google is dedicated to spying on us all. They have information on me that I don't understand how they got, and I resent them having it. I believe they've crossed the line into spyware. "Do no evil" is now a ridiculous joke.
And now iPad pretty much offers that. OK, there's one upgrade a year, but it's almost completely backward compatible. But there's certainly not the infinite variety of permutations of a PC.
I agree with most of your points, except for the presumption that you're playing a "real-life friend". Other than a dozen people, I've never met any of my Facebook friends in real life.
I think you're unusual. Most people use facebook to keep up with real life friends and family, old friends from school who now live far away, people they met on holidays or courses. People that you want to keep in touch with, sometimes daily, sometime just from time to time.
When I see my friends playing against their buddies on their XBox or PS3, they're using headphones. They're coaching each other. They're cursing each other. They're talking to each other. It's a FAR more "social" game environment than Facebook has ever been or could ever dream to be.
Casual gamers don't really want that. If they wanted a pre-longed real-time conversation with a friend they'd pick the phone up or skype or chat. Short, non-real time contacts fit the bill better for casual social gaming.
You're assuming that things are constant, and are ignoring trends. As the OP said, what if Android sales are growing while iPhone sales are plateauing? If this were the case, then ignoring the fast-growing platform isn't necessarily a good business decision (of course, this depends on real numbers; exactly how much are the Android sales growing, etc.).
Sure. But if the Android growth of app sales is accompanied with even more Android models, then it can be becoming even more of a problem for indie developers in spite of rising sales.
On the other side also have to consider that iOS release versions of a game or app from a single code base. And Android likewise can do it for Android phones and Tablets. So it's not just the phone market to consider but phone+tablet. And in tablets iPad is where it's at.
The simple fact that iPhone is only available on two out of four US carriers (and one of those only recently) makes me question the wisdom of focusing solely on that platform.
3 out of 4. AT&T, Sprint and Verizon all have iPhone. It's only T-Mobile that doesn't. And they are struggling and admit much of the reason they're struggling is because they don't have the iPhone.
In Britain all the networks have iPhone, and I think that's more typical around the world.
Lots of interesting stuff there. But as far as I can see the topic and the demos of this particular presentation haven't made their way on to his web site yet.
Of course, everyone that does not have a hard-on for javascript guy and his cargo pants must have a prejudiced opinion.
Cargo pants? You're judging someones presentation by what trousers they're wearing? I was using the term prejudiced in it's simple "pre-judging" definition. Turns out you're actually prejudiced in the bigoted sad-sack definition. How truly pathetic you are.
End of conversation. You have nothing worthwhile to say.
Slashdot Mirror
There is considerably less benefit to engaging in a discussion on a site where there are just a few people, none of whom you know or really care about you, as compared to where your family, friends, job, local government, and a lot of sites comment sections now reside, isn't there?
And you're surprised that your family, friends and people who know and care about you are to be found on the site with real names and not the one with pseudonyms?
Well Daniel Phillips, it's questionable whether you're a rapist or not.
http://mssparky.com/2011/01/rapist-hides-out-in-iraq-while-working-for-us-contractor/
google plus pushes this idea of circles and "following" people because they are internet stars which most people don't care to do
They did it because they were trying to compete with both Facebook and Twitter at the same time. They've failed at both. The only question is how long before Google+ is officially pronounced dead.
I don't understand why they're selling this book through bookstores. Surely Google could have covered all active Google+ users by simply issuing it to staff.
So have some sites that are pseudonymous and some that use real names. Like in fact there is. Not every site in the world has to be pseudonymous just because you prefer it. Most sites are already are pseudonymous, so you're not spoilt for choice.
Facebook's real name policy makes it a much more pleasant place to hang out than here. Not much good for tech topics. But full of far pleasanter people.
Now if there was a tech discussion site which had real names and a proper friend/ignore mechanism, that would beat Slashdot hands down.
Oh yes, I remember who you are not. You're the one who whenever he's stuck for something to whine about posts some off topic link attacking Apple. And you question me on why I criticise Google?
You hypocritical cunt.
OK so you mention graphics adventures, physics games and board games. Yes they're all good.
Then there's RTS games. Simulators of all kinds. Artillery games such as Angry Birds. Puzzlers. Sports games. Rhythm games. Tap to shoot games. etc.
FB Doesn't have an "Add acquaintance" button, so of course it's friends and acquaintances rolled in together. But nevertheless still people one knows in real life and want to keep in touch with at some level.
Many of mine are people I've spent some time with abroad, scattered in many countries, and so many of them I won't ever run into again. But still I do know them as real people, and I do want to stay in touch, and see in a broad way what life brings them. And them with me. Facebook is ideal for that.
Similarly, I'm not one to pick up the phone to my siblings and nephews and nieces on a regular basis. But again it's nice to have a general idea what's happening in their lives in between the occasional get together. Facebook is ideal for that too.
Simple. Because I've seen that Google has information about me that I never gave to them. It's got it from spying on my web activity on non-Google sites.
Facebook has information on me because I (or one of my friends) explicitly gave it to them.
Huge difference.
Because serving ads according to a single search term, or what is in a particular email at the time is a very different proposition to STORING that information, together with many other sources of information to keep extensive records on individuals. Google has changed, whether you noticed it or not.
Hmm, last time I saw you here on Slashdot you were turboposting in support of Apple. What am I to make of that?
That as things stand right now, I find Google to be a company that abuses my personal information and that I want nothing more to do with them. And I find Apple be a company that makes great products and doesn't abuse my data.
Companies change, and my opinion reflects that. I used to support Google, introduced my friends to it when most people were using AltaVista or Webcrawler. Loves Google maps, even more so when street view came along. And I even argued against those that found street view to be an invasion of privacy. Of late they have become a spyware company, and I detest that.
Similarly at one time I liked Microsoft. But when they became an abusive monopoly my feelings to them changed.
Prior to about 2003 I couldn't care less about Apple. But when I tried their products I liked them, and they haven't done anything much to piss me off. The only thing I can think of off hand is that they've started using Open Street Maps without giving acknowledgement.
What about you. There must be some teach companies that you currently like and others that you dislike or even despise? So why the question?
At some stage you'll have your own "Google is spying on me" anecdote. You just haven't noticed what they've been doing in recent months yet.
No, my problem is that Google is spying on me. I was first alerted to it when Google+ suggested friend to me, and 2 of the suggestions were only linked to me because they are the authors of blogs that I visit from time to time. I don't visit them by searching on Google. They are not hosted on Google's Blogger. And I'd never posted any links from those blogs on my Google+ account.
Then more recently Google was asking me a question about security, and presented me a list of all the searches I'd done on Google for the last X months. Well, that's not information that I believe Google ought to be storing, and at that point deleted my account, and switched to using non-Google services.
THEN I found out that Google will continue to store my searches against my name even though I don't have an account any more.
At one time "Don't be evil" meant something. Now Google is a creepy spyware company. I want nothing more to do with them.
Pay for a mail service. That way you have a contract that doesn't permit them to misuse you information. And their business model doesn't require them to.
It's not a question of COULD. Google are already mining my information when I'm not even on Google's own sites and using it in ways I disapprove of.
I pay for my own domain name and for an email service. They don't mine my data. I mean it's theoretically possible that they are spying on me and I haven't caught them yet, but:
a) They don't need to because their business model is me paying money directly.
b) I KNOW Google is.
Oh well that's hugely different, Mr apologist.
No, Google has changed in recent years. That's been obvious even from the outside. At one time I was a big supporter of Google, recommended their stuff to friends. A month or two I deleted my Google accounts, and avoid using Google as much as possible now.
The change? It seemed they used to be dedicated to producing the best technology, and in making the ads that supported that as unobtrusive as possible. The "Do no evil" phrase was idealistic, but believable.
Now, I feel that Google is dedicated to spying on us all. They have information on me that I don't understand how they got, and I resent them having it. I believe they've crossed the line into spyware. "Do no evil" is now a ridiculous joke.
But 98% sell 0 copies (I'm not talking a few thousands, I'm talking about zero, nil, nada).
99% of all statistics are made up on he spot. Usually they aren't as blatantly bullshit as that one.
And now iPad pretty much offers that. OK, there's one upgrade a year, but it's almost completely backward compatible. But there's certainly not the infinite variety of permutations of a PC.
I agree with most of your points, except for the presumption that you're playing a "real-life friend". Other than a dozen people, I've never met any of my Facebook friends in real life.
I think you're unusual. Most people use facebook to keep up with real life friends and family, old friends from school who now live far away, people they met on holidays or courses. People that you want to keep in touch with, sometimes daily, sometime just from time to time.
When I see my friends playing against their buddies on their XBox or PS3, they're using headphones. They're coaching each other. They're cursing each other. They're talking to each other. It's a FAR more "social" game environment than Facebook has ever been or could ever dream to be.
Casual gamers don't really want that. If they wanted a pre-longed real-time conversation with a friend they'd pick the phone up or skype or chat. Short, non-real time contacts fit the bill better for casual social gaming.
You're assuming that things are constant, and are ignoring trends. As the OP said, what if Android sales are growing while iPhone sales are plateauing? If this were the case, then ignoring the fast-growing platform isn't necessarily a good business decision (of course, this depends on real numbers; exactly how much are the Android sales growing, etc.).
Sure. But if the Android growth of app sales is accompanied with even more Android models, then it can be becoming even more of a problem for indie developers in spite of rising sales.
On the other side also have to consider that iOS release versions of a game or app from a single code base. And Android likewise can do it for Android phones and Tablets. So it's not just the phone market to consider but phone+tablet. And in tablets iPad is where it's at.
The simple fact that iPhone is only available on two out of four US carriers (and one of those only recently) makes me question the wisdom of focusing solely on that platform.
3 out of 4. AT&T, Sprint and Verizon all have iPhone. It's only T-Mobile that doesn't. And they are struggling and admit much of the reason they're struggling is because they don't have the iPhone.
In Britain all the networks have iPhone, and I think that's more typical around the world.
Trouble is it wouldn't be very effective as it'd float. What you need to do is open the case up and fill it with Linux distro CDs. That'd sink it.
Bret does have a lot of that kind of thing on his website.
http://worrydream.com/
Lots of interesting stuff there. But as far as I can see the topic and the demos of this particular presentation haven't made their way on to his web site yet.
Of course, everyone that does not have a hard-on for javascript guy and his cargo pants must have a prejudiced opinion.
Cargo pants? You're judging someones presentation by what trousers they're wearing? I was using the term prejudiced in it's simple "pre-judging" definition. Turns out you're actually prejudiced in the bigoted sad-sack definition. How truly pathetic you are.
End of conversation. You have nothing worthwhile to say.