Why would that lead to more quiet? Many people seem to prefer sharing publicly, but if you want to share something, but don't want to share it with everybody you know, G+ still lets you do that. In Facebook it's apparently possible, but definitely harder. There are less obstacles to sharing on G+.
I met a lot of university friends on G+ (and even a few from highschool). Most of them I'd never encountered on Facebook, yet a few days after launch, there was a whole bunch of us discussing every possible aspect of G+. And then other stuff. And then they started following other people, and I started following those other people, and now there's quite a lot of interesting stuff in my stream, and not nearly as much crap as on Facebook (unless you count Robert Scoble's ramblings as crap).
Having said that - if you click on a game (any game as far as I can tell) you get a dialog like this:
Angry Birds is requesting permission to:
View basic information about your account
View a list of people from your circles, ordered based on your interactions with them across Google
Why does Angry Birds need to know who I interact with and how much?
Practically every game asks for those permissions, and they're to give the game a social aspect. In Angry Birds, for example, you can see the scores of the people in your circles, which is kind of interesting. Makes it a bit more competitive.
The only game worth playing on G+ is Angry Birds. If you hate Angry Birds, I can assure you the other games are even worse. Just grinding Farmville clones.
Fortunately G+ filters game notifications out by default.
The searches have a far bigger impact than Google+ or anything else. I switched to DuckDuckGo for a main search engine, and happily use Google for everything else.
My friends find them for me. I can see who they have in their circles. If I see anyone there I don't know, I check if it's someone interesting. If it is, I follow him or her (often her, in fact). Of course plenty of my friends are pretty interesting themselves, so maybe that makes it easier.
There are some famous people that are interesting to follow, like Tom Anderson (of MySpace) who posts faster than I can read; Robert Scoble, in case you're interested in startups and new trends (though I don't find him all that interesting, really); Felicia Day, obviously; and plenty of others. Look around in the comments to their posts and see who says something interesting, and then check what else they shared. It's a great way of finding interesting people.
Facebook has pages for all sorts of topics, and through them you could potentially meet likeminded people
Twitter gives you lists of people in different categories who you should follow, to give you ideas.
But Google+, you go there and... I don't know.
It's still a bit short on helpful features like that, but the way the basic system works, it's not too hard to find them without it. I'm lobbying for a tagging system that would make it easier not just to decide who to follow, but also to control which of their posts actually show up in your stream.
Google+ looks interesting, and I like how easy it is to direct your posts to subsets of people, but it's still too empty
Experiences differ, I suppose. For me, G+ is really crowded. Much more stuff going on there than on Facebook, and it's generally more interesting stuff too. G+ seems brainier than Facebook, though. That might not be everybody's thing.
There are plenty of use cases where anonymity is a good idea, and Google should be fully aware of that. Remember how Google set up a phone line in Egypt so people could still access Twitter during the revolution there? There are many countries where anonymity is a requirement for free speech.
"Social Network" doesn't have to mean "has to be exactly like Facebook". Twitter is also considered "social", despite the fact that people just throw stuff out into the world. Google+ is a bit of Facebook and a bit of Twitter (though with full articles instead of short cryptic messages and a link). You can discuss stuff publicly, or you can share stuff privately with just your friends.
My impression of the real difference, though, is that Facebook is used more for sharing silly stuff, jokes, funny/cute pictures, or announcing that you're really drunk right now, whereas on Google+, people tend to share intellectual discussion topics that complete strangers then discuss. The end result feels very different from Facebook or Twitter, but I like it more. Less crap, more content. Maybe less sharing with just your friends, though that choice is entirely up to you.
I still generally like Google in most things (though I switched to DuckDuckGo for my main search engine), but their approach to open source is definitely questionable at times.
Why would you credit them (the USPTO, I assume?) with the progress of the last 100 years? I'm pretty sure we'd have seen just as much progress without them. The USPTO is just a money sink that creates expensive paperwork for people who just want to get stuff done.
I think it's the opposite. We have so many ideas that we don't recognize them anymore. We have more people on earth, a greater percentage of those people is educated, involved in science, technology, or other sources of big ideas. In centuries past, when somebody wrote a book, it was a Big Thing. Nowadays, thousands of books are published every day. Any one of them could hold some big ideas, but no book is read by everybody, and we're too spread out to let any one idea get a significant impetus. But below the surface, some ideas still grow, and suddenly erupt, and then everybody wonders where it's coming from.
The big ideas of today are mostly about democratization. About getting stuff done without needing big corporations or governments. Look at the open source movement, MythTV, CyanogenMod, musicians, writers and others publishing their work without help from record labels and publishers, crowd-sourcing/crowd-funding stuff that used to require big studios and deep pockets, Wikipedia, organizations like WikiLeaks, Anonymous and Lulzsec taking on really big opponents in ways nobody considered possible, revolts in northern Africa fueled partially by social networks, etc.
We have people tinkering with Arduino, with 3D printers, changing the firmware on commercial products. We've got this "maker" thing (subculture?). We've got social networks fueling revolutions, we've got increasing conflict between governments and corporations stamping down on freedom, and people starting to resist it. We've got crowd-funded series and movies being made. We've got artists, musicians, TV-makers, writers and programmers making it big without requiring the blessing of record companies, big studios, or publishers.
We've got plenty of interesting stuff going on that's going on right now. It's just that the big media always only notices this stuff when it's over, so to them it seems as if there's nothing new happening. But the '80s were no different in that regard. And I doubt Einstein made the front pages in 1905 either.
Bad assumption on my part. Because so many Droid phones are made by Motorola, the name automatically makes me assume it's from them. But it just means it's Verizon.
Which leads to the next question: what's the carrier-free version of the Droid Charge called?
Slashdot Mirror
Why would that lead to more quiet? Many people seem to prefer sharing publicly, but if you want to share something, but don't want to share it with everybody you know, G+ still lets you do that. In Facebook it's apparently possible, but definitely harder. There are less obstacles to sharing on G+.
I met a lot of university friends on G+ (and even a few from highschool). Most of them I'd never encountered on Facebook, yet a few days after launch, there was a whole bunch of us discussing every possible aspect of G+. And then other stuff. And then they started following other people, and I started following those other people, and now there's quite a lot of interesting stuff in my stream, and not nearly as much crap as on Facebook (unless you count Robert Scoble's ramblings as crap).
Who cares about that, if you don't get to brag about it? Bragging rights, that's where the real value is!
Having said that - if you click on a game (any game as far as I can tell) you get a dialog like this:
Angry Birds is requesting permission to:
View basic information about your account
View a list of people from your circles, ordered based on your interactions with them across Google
Why does Angry Birds need to know who I interact with and how much?
Practically every game asks for those permissions, and they're to give the game a social aspect. In Angry Birds, for example, you can see the scores of the people in your circles, which is kind of interesting. Makes it a bit more competitive.
Before G+, I posted geek stuff on Facebook, and only one friend ever responded to that. On G+, I see way more people post geek stuff.
Sure, it's a culture thing. But also the fact that G+ lets you follow people who don't know you, helps a lot here.
But whatever the cause is, I also see much better discussions on G+ than on Facebook.
The only game worth playing on G+ is Angry Birds. If you hate Angry Birds, I can assure you the other games are even worse. Just grinding Farmville clones.
Fortunately G+ filters game notifications out by default.
The searches have a far bigger impact than Google+ or anything else. I switched to DuckDuckGo for a main search engine, and happily use Google for everything else.
Yeah, it needs more filtering options. Still, you could put Wheaton and Scoble in a circle of their own.
My wife loves shows like Master Chef. I suppose discussions about cooking could help her get more active on G+.
Ok. How do I find interesting people?
My friends find them for me. I can see who they have in their circles. If I see anyone there I don't know, I check if it's someone interesting. If it is, I follow him or her (often her, in fact). Of course plenty of my friends are pretty interesting themselves, so maybe that makes it easier.
There are some famous people that are interesting to follow, like Tom Anderson (of MySpace) who posts faster than I can read; Robert Scoble, in case you're interested in startups and new trends (though I don't find him all that interesting, really); Felicia Day, obviously; and plenty of others. Look around in the comments to their posts and see who says something interesting, and then check what else they shared. It's a great way of finding interesting people.
Facebook has pages for all sorts of topics, and through them you could potentially meet likeminded people
Twitter gives you lists of people in different categories who you should follow, to give you ideas.
But Google+, you go there and... I don't know.
It's still a bit short on helpful features like that, but the way the basic system works, it's not too hard to find them without it. I'm lobbying for a tagging system that would make it easier not just to decide who to follow, but also to control which of their posts actually show up in your stream.
Google+ looks interesting, and I like how easy it is to direct your posts to subsets of people, but it's still too empty
Experiences differ, I suppose. For me, G+ is really crowded. Much more stuff going on there than on Facebook, and it's generally more interesting stuff too. G+ seems brainier than Facebook, though. That might not be everybody's thing.
It's not like they ask for ID.
They do, actually. They just don't check it.
There are plenty of use cases where anonymity is a good idea, and Google should be fully aware of that. Remember how Google set up a phone line in Egypt so people could still access Twitter during the revolution there? There are many countries where anonymity is a requirement for free speech.
"Social Network" doesn't have to mean "has to be exactly like Facebook". Twitter is also considered "social", despite the fact that people just throw stuff out into the world. Google+ is a bit of Facebook and a bit of Twitter (though with full articles instead of short cryptic messages and a link). You can discuss stuff publicly, or you can share stuff privately with just your friends.
My impression of the real difference, though, is that Facebook is used more for sharing silly stuff, jokes, funny/cute pictures, or announcing that you're really drunk right now, whereas on Google+, people tend to share intellectual discussion topics that complete strangers then discuss. The end result feels very different from Facebook or Twitter, but I like it more. Less crap, more content. Maybe less sharing with just your friends, though that choice is entirely up to you.
I still generally like Google in most things (though I switched to DuckDuckGo for my main search engine), but their approach to open source is definitely questionable at times.
Exactly what I thought. Isn't it supposed to be open in the first place? What's the confidentiality agreement for?
Ctrl v does nothing...
Ctr-V quotes the next character, which is useful if it's a special one. Try typing Ctrl-M, for example. Now try Ctrl-V Ctrl-M.
No I don't. First to market usually wins. And when it doesn't, patents aren't going to save your market share either.
I the word "denied".
It would be so awesome if the Patent Office denied every patent when there's a good reason to do so. Unfortunately they just don't seem to check them.
It would be so awesome if the Patent Office every patent when there's a good reason to do so. Unfortunately they just don't seem to check them.
Why would you credit them (the USPTO, I assume?) with the progress of the last 100 years? I'm pretty sure we'd have seen just as much progress without them. The USPTO is just a money sink that creates expensive paperwork for people who just want to get stuff done.
I checked their site, and they don't seem to be very big on keyboards. Not in combination with touch screens, at least.
(I prefer rubberized steel, by the way.)
I think it's the opposite. We have so many ideas that we don't recognize them anymore. We have more people on earth, a greater percentage of those people is educated, involved in science, technology, or other sources of big ideas. In centuries past, when somebody wrote a book, it was a Big Thing. Nowadays, thousands of books are published every day. Any one of them could hold some big ideas, but no book is read by everybody, and we're too spread out to let any one idea get a significant impetus. But below the surface, some ideas still grow, and suddenly erupt, and then everybody wonders where it's coming from.
The big ideas of today are mostly about democratization. About getting stuff done without needing big corporations or governments. Look at the open source movement, MythTV, CyanogenMod, musicians, writers and others publishing their work without help from record labels and publishers, crowd-sourcing/crowd-funding stuff that used to require big studios and deep pockets, Wikipedia, organizations like WikiLeaks, Anonymous and Lulzsec taking on really big opponents in ways nobody considered possible, revolts in northern Africa fueled partially by social networks, etc.
We have people tinkering with Arduino, with 3D printers, changing the firmware on commercial products. We've got this "maker" thing (subculture?). We've got social networks fueling revolutions, we've got increasing conflict between governments and corporations stamping down on freedom, and people starting to resist it. We've got crowd-funded series and movies being made. We've got artists, musicians, TV-makers, writers and programmers making it big without requiring the blessing of record companies, big studios, or publishers.
We've got plenty of interesting stuff going on that's going on right now. It's just that the big media always only notices this stuff when it's over, so to them it seems as if there's nothing new happening. But the '80s were no different in that regard. And I doubt Einstein made the front pages in 1905 either.
Bad assumption on my part. Because so many Droid phones are made by Motorola, the name automatically makes me assume it's from them. But it just means it's Verizon.
Which leads to the next question: what's the carrier-free version of the Droid Charge called?