This just proves how powerful the iPhone 5 is and that it's the best phone on the market! What other phone is capable of photographing Steve Jobs' Reality Distortion Field as he looks down on us from Heaven? None!
I'm using G+ only for people I actually know unlike Facebook.
Funny, I'm doing exactly the opposite. Facebook treats all of my contacts as friends and when I share something it has to be shared with all of them. Yes, I can exclude people, but for that I have to pick them one by one...
You can exclude lists as well as individual friends. Just like Circles, you create specific lists and when you don't want the members of that list to see a post, you exclude the list. The functionality is the same as Circles.
No, because you're too stubborn to be enlightened.
if you can't see how Facebook's DOA feature that no one uses because the UI sucks and it's not core to the product is crappier than Google+'s Circles metaphor, whose UI doesn't suck, and which is core to the product and ubiquitous throughout the UI, then you're either a) too dumb to think, or b) too stubborn to learn, but either way, responding to you is c) a fucking waste of time.
Or: Google+ == Facebook without the suck.
No one said it was revolutionary. Just that it's a far better implementation.
I asked for someone to point out what the differences (if any) are and you resort to attacks. You, sir, are a class-a twit.
Reading between the lines, I'm taking that there are no differences between the two and that those who are saying Circles are better are simply fanboys. If there's no difference in functionality, then people ought to stop crowing over a perceived superiority that doesn't exist. FB friends lists are NOT difficult to set up; any argument to the contrary is based on stubbornness to learn or an inability to think. In fact, I found the need to drag people into circles rather tiresome; FB's implementation in which I can either type names or click on them is to me, quicker. That said, I understand that Google+ is not Facebook, nor do I expect it to be; I simply didn't see any functional difference between the two methods of grouping people and was wondering if I'd missed something since some people were praising Circles as if it were the Second Coming of Christ.
But since responding to me is a waste of time, then that's a reflection on you, not me.
Google+ so far has no "killer features" that would make me want to ditch Facebook; in fact, I see it more as a novelty at this point than a real alternative to Facebook. But, that's just my view at this early stage in Google+'s development.
I've been on G+ for a couple of days now (admittedly not too long), but I simply do not see the difference between Google's Circles and Facebook's friend lists. From what I can tell, the functionality is identical in that I can use both to limit who sees what. I'm really not understanding all this "Circles are better than what Facebook has" hubbub I'm seeing in various places (including/.).
We'll have to see, however there is one thing that Facebook sorely lacked that Google is addressing. The abilility to seperate people into different social "Circles" to control what you want to share with who. How many stories have we all heard about posts causing issues for a person because Facebook putting all your posts and friends all in one bucket.
To me, it seems like a no-brainer. The things I want my family, friends, highschool and college acquaintances, coworkers, and potential dating partners to see are quite often different enough that I don't bother saying anything at all.
I dislike Zuckerburg, Zynga, and the many other sleazy players involved with the scene. I have an account, and I use it as little as I can. Unfortunately, it has become so prevalent that ignoring it completely effectively makes one a pariah these days.
Not to suggest that this is unfamiliar territory for many of us here.;-)
I don't see the issue. You can do that on Facebook with friends lists. Example: you work with Joe, Bob, Marge, and John. Tom is your boss. You, Joe, and Bob are drinking buddies whereas you don't socialize with Marge and John.
You can have lists such as: Work: Joe, Bob, Marge, John, Tom. Buddies: Joe, Bob Family: all your relatives Friends: Everyone else Do Not Share: Marge, John, Tom, Mom, Dad
When you post a status update, you can customize who sees it. For example, you could post something that you only wanted your Work and family lists to be able to see, but then under "Hide this from," you enter the Do Not Share list. Your family members, Joe and Bob will be able to see the post; but Marge, John, Tom, Mom and Dad won't (even though they also belong to your Work and Family lists).
All this complaining about Facebook allowing posts to be viewed by everyone is a result of not knowing how to use the privacy settings. It's not that difficult.
I've never had that impression. I thought it cost around $9.99 to download most complete albums off of itunes (I'm guessing I don't use itumes). I can pay this for most albums on amazon.com to get the physical disc + album art - DRM.
I think the closest we'll get to seeing cities on alien worlds through a telescope anytime soon (as in the next century or two), is by observing city lights on the night side of the planet.
To be perfectly honest, I'm not sure why the opinion of a Star Trek character is at all newsworthy. What's next? Commander Data wants to be free? Wesley Crusher posting on slashdot?
Given the size of the universe (and whatever is beyond that) and the number of stars in it. Even if there are very, very few planets that could support humanoid-like life and even if only very few of those actually do, did, or will support such life, it still seems quite likely that at least one of them in fact does. With a place as big as EVERYTHING even very remote possibilities become statistical likelihoods. Yep, I would say that it's quite likely that it's true that at least one planet in the universe supports humanoid-like life. It's called Earth.
I have always felt that the blending of the two humanoid Races is what created modern humans, but it's my feeling the one race brought the ability to organize/socialized and coordinate large groups while the other Neanderthal man, brought tool building and artistic abilities.
Each one on there own wasn't nearly as capable as the hybrid Modern Humans that came forth.
It would stand the reason, that based on current social behavior, that the mixed race groups that blended in physical appearance with the "so call modern humans" but kept the intelligence of the Neanderthals would survive the best.
So how do you account for populations of modern humans in locations where Neanderthals never existed? (e.g. the aboriginals of Australia who settled Australia 40,000 to 50,000 years ago)
Basically it is nothing but a bunch of fearmongering. We see this pattern time and time again, and it has been happening since way before the Spanish American War in 1898. It continues to happen today with Iraq and "the terrorists".
You know, I can just make stuff up too. How about a citation from this "scientist"?
After praising the Ebola virus for its efficiency at killing, Pianka paused, leaned over the lectern, looked at us and carefully said, "We've got airborne 90 percent mortality in humans. Killing humans. Think about that."
What? No. Macs are typically 1.1-1.5X as expensive as comparable PCs.
Actually, after running prices through my Illudium Q-36 Price Analyzer, I've determined that they're only 1.098247391X as expensive. I call shenanigans!
Slashdot Mirror
That was a comet.
This just proves how powerful the iPhone 5 is and that it's the best phone on the market! What other phone is capable of photographing Steve Jobs' Reality Distortion Field as he looks down on us from Heaven? None!
I'll chip in $5.00 if they provide it on a nice big flash drive.
I'll chip in $6.99. ;)
I'm using G+ only for people I actually know unlike Facebook.
Funny, I'm doing exactly the opposite. Facebook treats all of my contacts as friends and when I share something it has to be shared with all of them. Yes, I can exclude people, but for that I have to pick them one by one...
You can exclude lists as well as individual friends. Just like Circles, you create specific lists and when you don't want the members of that list to see a post, you exclude the list. The functionality is the same as Circles.
No, because you're too stubborn to be enlightened.
if you can't see how Facebook's DOA feature that no one uses because the UI sucks and it's not core to the product is crappier than Google+'s Circles metaphor, whose UI doesn't suck, and which is core to the product and ubiquitous throughout the UI, then you're either a) too dumb to think, or b) too stubborn to learn, but either way, responding to you is c) a fucking waste of time.
Or: Google+ == Facebook without the suck.
No one said it was revolutionary. Just that it's a far better implementation.
I asked for someone to point out what the differences (if any) are and you resort to attacks. You, sir, are a class-a twit.
Reading between the lines, I'm taking that there are no differences between the two and that those who are saying Circles are better are simply fanboys. If there's no difference in functionality, then people ought to stop crowing over a perceived superiority that doesn't exist. FB friends lists are NOT difficult to set up; any argument to the contrary is based on stubbornness to learn or an inability to think. In fact, I found the need to drag people into circles rather tiresome; FB's implementation in which I can either type names or click on them is to me, quicker. That said, I understand that Google+ is not Facebook, nor do I expect it to be; I simply didn't see any functional difference between the two methods of grouping people and was wondering if I'd missed something since some people were praising Circles as if it were the Second Coming of Christ.
But since responding to me is a waste of time, then that's a reflection on you, not me.
Google+ so far has no "killer features" that would make me want to ditch Facebook; in fact, I see it more as a novelty at this point than a real alternative to Facebook. But, that's just my view at this early stage in Google+'s development.
I've been on G+ for a couple of days now (admittedly not too long), but I simply do not see the difference between Google's Circles and Facebook's friend lists. From what I can tell, the functionality is identical in that I can use both to limit who sees what. I'm really not understanding all this "Circles are better than what Facebook has" hubbub I'm seeing in various places (including /.).
Can someone enlighten me?
We'll have to see, however there is one thing that Facebook sorely lacked that Google is addressing. The abilility to seperate people into different social "Circles" to control what you want to share with who. How many stories have we all heard about posts causing issues for a person because Facebook putting all your posts and friends all in one bucket.
To me, it seems like a no-brainer. The things I want my family, friends, highschool and college acquaintances, coworkers, and potential dating partners to see are quite often different enough that I don't bother saying anything at all.
I dislike Zuckerburg, Zynga, and the many other sleazy players involved with the scene. I have an account, and I use it as little as I can. Unfortunately, it has become so prevalent that ignoring it completely effectively makes one a pariah these days.
Not to suggest that this is unfamiliar territory for many of us here. ;-)
I don't see the issue. You can do that on Facebook with friends lists.
Example: you work with Joe, Bob, Marge, and John. Tom is your boss. You, Joe, and Bob are drinking buddies whereas you don't socialize with Marge and John.
You can have lists such as:
Work: Joe, Bob, Marge, John, Tom.
Buddies: Joe, Bob
Family: all your relatives
Friends: Everyone else
Do Not Share: Marge, John, Tom, Mom, Dad
When you post a status update, you can customize who sees it. For example, you could post something that you only wanted your Work and family lists to be able to see, but then under "Hide this from," you enter the Do Not Share list. Your family members, Joe and Bob will be able to see the post; but Marge, John, Tom, Mom and Dad won't (even though they also belong to your Work and Family lists).
All this complaining about Facebook allowing posts to be viewed by everyone is a result of not knowing how to use the privacy settings. It's not that difficult.
Nothing of value was lost.
how would you type up a commendation, award recommendation, or promotion order in the field (at war)?
Or is the modern Army just totally predicated on having power, and can't function without it?
This is pretty much the case.
I've never had that impression. I thought it cost around $9.99 to download most complete albums off of itunes (I'm guessing I don't use itumes). I can pay this for most albums on amazon.com to get the physical disc + album art - DRM.
iTunes music hasn't had DRM for several years.
Darl? Just sayin...
But do they have pulpy orange juice for blood?
I think the closest we'll get to seeing cities on alien worlds through a telescope anytime soon (as in the next century or two), is by observing city lights on the night side of the planet.
What about the impact of whole classes of C++ bugs that don't exist in C++
I've spent many a sleepless night worrying about C++ bugs that don't exist in C++. I'm glad I'm not alone.
Yeah but theres no advantage to it. Its sorta like a prostitute doing volunteer work
Would that be pro boner work?
You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Then what's the point of having cake?!?
|It works|
He already does. :-p
No touch interface games exist?
The word you want here is they're," not "their." They're similar, but "their" is possessive while "they're" is a contraction of "they are."
So how do you account for populations of modern humans in locations where Neanderthals never existed? (e.g. the aboriginals of Australia who settled Australia 40,000 to 50,000 years ago)
Fearmongering?
After praising the Ebola virus for its efficiency at killing, Pianka paused, leaned over the lectern, looked at us and carefully said, "We've got airborne 90 percent mortality in humans. Killing humans. Think about that."
Meeting Doctor Doom