My phone told me that an update to google talk was available, and that it would be replaced with hangouts. Google+ hasnt had a lot of traction with me, so I am not really sure if this is just going to be one less google product that I will be using now.
This is nothing to so with Google+ in fact you can use it from your Gmail account, as for Google+ its been going through some changes just lately...and its getting a lot of traction from other users. There are advantages of using Google+ which are group video calls; Sending Photos to everyone in your hangout; Start a hangout with the right people (Circle:)
Of course you would know that if you used Google Talk
Of course you would know that if you used Google Talk
You have always been able to add multiple users to Google Talk without needing Google+.
There are some serious privacy concerns with Google+, and a lot of people smart enough to avoid the whole Facebook clusterfuck are not at all keen to surrender to Google even if Google appears to be somewhat more responsible with your data.
I've never found a problem sending pictures to people, even groups of people. Why do you feel you need to surrender all your privacy instead of just emailing a photo?
I've never found a problem sending pictures to people, even groups of people. Why do you feel you need to surrender all your privacy instead of just emailing a photo?
This is something a lot of Slashdotters - especially the "privacy" tinfoil hat crowd, not that I'm saying that includes you - fail to grasp about the popularity of Facebook. The fundamental tradeoff of social networking sites is that you willingly give up some of your privacy - on the information you choose to make public - in exchange for making the information you consume from others less obtrusive.
For example: I use Facebook and have accumulated around 200+ friends, ranging from best friends to interesting people I met at a conference or my child's preschool. If each one of those people e-mailed me every time they had a photo to share of their lunch, or some cause they wanted to support, or some other piece of datum they felt like sharing with the world, it would be chaos. I would blacklist them all from my mailbox to avoid hundreds of spams a day and would only communicate with my very closest friends.
But with Facebook (or Google+ if anyone else I knew actually used it), people can post as much or as little as they like and I can consume that content as much or as little as I like. For you, the experience all depends on how often you want to check your social networking site. Many of my friends are Facebook-obsessed zombies, and they can check and post to FB all day, commenting back and forth all day on each others' cute cat pictures. For me, I check FB every week or so when I'm bored, and it will only show me updates from the friends I correspond with the most - but if I have time to kill and want to see what my freshman year roommate is doing, I can keep reading to see. Or if I'm going to meet a friend I haven't seen in a while, I can skim through their profile to catch up. At any rate, I have a feed of "social" information that I can pay as much or as little attention to as I like, and can easily keep in touch with a much broader range of people than I otherwise would have if I had to restrict the list to just the people I wanted to get regular e-mails from.
Your expletive-laden post makes clear your generally a-social tendencies.
You don't get out of the house much, do you? Take a peek some time, because most people speak that way.
Perhaps this is so in the circles you frequent, when you're outside the house; but I can assure you there are many places and times where "most people" definitely do not speak that way.
Communication is a skill; optimal communication is an art. Overuse of superlatives or expletives shows a lack of both skill and artistry. These words
Why do you think the above post shows asocial tendencies? I can't see that when I read it. The way I read it, this person is quite social but has high, yet not completely unreasonable standards to their social interactions. Based on what was said, it seems that the AC has friends who are also like minded. What is asocial about that?
The way I understand it, someone who is asocial would avoid all sorts of social interaction, and not just have standards that differ to your own.
For example: I use Facebook and have accumulated around 200+ friends, ranging from best friends to interesting people I met at a conference or my child's preschool. If each one of those people e-mailed me every time they had a photo to share of their lunch, or some cause they wanted to support, or some other piece of datum they felt like sharing with the world, it would be chaos. I would blacklist them all from my mailbox to avoid hundreds of spams a day and would only communicate with my very closest frien
For example: I use Facebook and have accumulated around 200+ friends, ranging from best friends to interesting people I met at a conference or my child's preschool. If each one of those people e-mailed me every time they had a photo to share of their lunch,
Why would someone you met at a conference send you a picture of their lunch?
The tradeoff with facebook is not what you think it is. It's not about making the content you consume from others less obtrusive, it removes the burden to them of figuring out wh
If each one of those people e-mailed me every time they had a photo to share of their lunch, or some cause they wanted to support, or some other piece of datum they felt like sharing with the world, it would be chaos.
If people I knew started e-mailing me pictures of their cats I'd be most obliged to redirect their mail to/dev/null. However, if people ran their own website or blog or whatever I would happily subscribe to their RSS feed and ignore the junk I didn't care about. And the best part of it is that there's no middle man, making money from it, datamining it, or whatever.
None of the features facebook/Google+/whatever offers wasn't available before all of this "social networking" craze took hold. Somehow I was abl
None of the features facebook/Google+/whatever offers wasn't available before all of this "social networking" craze took hold. Somehow I was able to attend BBQs, see pictures from people's holidays (and cats), discuss stuff that mattered to groups of people (and with less inane bullshit in between on how the kids just puked on the carpet, including a video on youtube). Somehow people seemed to be more aware of the fact that when they put things on a website it's there for the world at large to see, but instead now we get people complaining "My privacy options". I get the feeling eternal september got upped to a whole new level, where "Me too" has been replaced with +1 or "Like".
This is about the wisest thing I've seen written about the subject in a while, but your comment about Eternal September betrays your age/generation and I think this is a generational thing.
I was generally into Google until recently, but I notice a trend of them removing or deprecating open protocols in favor of new closed protocols or services that don't interoperate. Maybe that's how you make money in this round of "Internet Monopoly Game" but it means I'll be using Google less. I'm already forced to h
Until today, Jabber for chat - that's going to be a problem or maybe I just won't chat anymore
First thing I installed on Android was xabber. Maybe second, as I tried one or two free XMPP clients more, but stayed with xabber. I haven't used GoogleTalk since. Not sure if I even installed it.
Spamfiltering, would allow you to safely check mail "when you have time to kill".
Alas, choosing Facebook means no spam filter will ever be available.
Indeed, I buy your 'less obstrusive' argument -that's the first one I find in favor of FB. But, I fear it's an answer for the lazy ones: setting up a good spamfilter was long, involving training etc. Setting up FB is faster.
And because it is faster, and almost all young adopters are lazy, FB will *undoubtedly* destroy the idea of spam filter itself. A bit like G
Eh, I don't think Google Groups destroyed Usenet, newsgroups were well, well on their way out by then. The rise of the web destroyed newsgroups, and the rise of forums on individual websites.
Spam also destroyed just about any non-moderated newsgroup; certainly all the ones that I paid attention to.
"No, no, I don't mind being called the smartest man in the world. I just wish
it wasn't this one."
-- Adrian Veidt/Ozymandias, WATCHMEN
not surprising (Score:5, Insightful)
My phone told me that an update to google talk was available, and that it would be replaced with hangouts. Google+ hasnt had a lot of traction with me, so I am not really sure if this is just going to be one less google product that I will be using now.
Google+ has 390Million Actice users (Score:0, Troll)
Google+ hasnt had a lot of traction
This is nothing to so with Google+ in fact you can use it from your Gmail account, as for Google+ its been going through some changes just lately...and its getting a lot of traction from other users. There are advantages of using Google+ which are group video calls; Sending Photos to everyone in your hangout; Start a hangout with the right people (Circle :)
Of course you would know that if you used Google Talk
Re: (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course you would know that if you used Google Talk
You have always been able to add multiple users to Google Talk without needing Google+.
There are some serious privacy concerns with Google+, and a lot of people smart enough to avoid the whole Facebook clusterfuck are not at all keen to surrender to Google even if Google appears to be somewhat more responsible with your data.
I've never found a problem sending pictures to people, even groups of people. Why do you feel you need to surrender all your privacy instead of just emailing a photo?
Re:Google+ has 390Million Actice users (Score:5, Insightful)
I've never found a problem sending pictures to people, even groups of people. Why do you feel you need to surrender all your privacy instead of just emailing a photo?
This is something a lot of Slashdotters - especially the "privacy" tinfoil hat crowd, not that I'm saying that includes you - fail to grasp about the popularity of Facebook. The fundamental tradeoff of social networking sites is that you willingly give up some of your privacy - on the information you choose to make public - in exchange for making the information you consume from others less obtrusive.
For example: I use Facebook and have accumulated around 200+ friends, ranging from best friends to interesting people I met at a conference or my child's preschool. If each one of those people e-mailed me every time they had a photo to share of their lunch, or some cause they wanted to support, or some other piece of datum they felt like sharing with the world, it would be chaos. I would blacklist them all from my mailbox to avoid hundreds of spams a day and would only communicate with my very closest friends.
But with Facebook (or Google+ if anyone else I knew actually used it), people can post as much or as little as they like and I can consume that content as much or as little as I like. For you, the experience all depends on how often you want to check your social networking site. Many of my friends are Facebook-obsessed zombies, and they can check and post to FB all day, commenting back and forth all day on each others' cute cat pictures. For me, I check FB every week or so when I'm bored, and it will only show me updates from the friends I correspond with the most - but if I have time to kill and want to see what my freshman year roommate is doing, I can keep reading to see. Or if I'm going to meet a friend I haven't seen in a while, I can skim through their profile to catch up. At any rate, I have a feed of "social" information that I can pay as much or as little attention to as I like, and can easily keep in touch with a much broader range of people than I otherwise would have if I had to restrict the list to just the people I wanted to get regular e-mails from.
Re: (Score:3)
Your expletive-laden post makes clear your generally a-social tendencies. You have a small circle of close friends and F--- everybody else.
Fine. But don't think you are the majority.
Re: (Score:1)
Perhaps this is so in the circles you frequent, when you're outside the house; but I can assure you there are many places and times where "most people" definitely do not speak that way.
Communication is a skill; optimal communication is an art. Overuse of superlatives or expletives shows a lack of both skill and artistry. These words
Re: (Score:1)
Why do you think the above post shows asocial tendencies? I can't see that when I read it. The way I read it, this person is quite social but has high, yet not completely unreasonable standards to their social interactions. Based on what was said, it seems that the AC has friends who are also like minded. What is asocial about that?
The way I understand it, someone who is asocial would avoid all sorts of social interaction, and not just have standards that differ to your own.
I'm just curious about what m
Re: (Score:1)
For example: I use Facebook and have accumulated around 200+ friends, ranging from best friends to interesting people I met at a conference or my child's preschool. If each one of those people e-mailed me every time they had a photo to share of their lunch, or some cause they wanted to support, or some other piece of datum they felt like sharing with the world, it would be chaos. I would blacklist them all from my mailbox to avoid hundreds of spams a day and would only communicate with my very closest frien
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
For example: I use Facebook and have accumulated around 200+ friends, ranging from best friends to interesting people I met at a conference or my child's preschool. If each one of those people e-mailed me every time they had a photo to share of their lunch,
Why would someone you met at a conference send you a picture of their lunch?
The tradeoff with facebook is not what you think it is. It's not about making the content you consume from others less obtrusive, it removes the burden to them of figuring out wh
Re: (Score:3)
If each one of those people e-mailed me every time they had a photo to share of their lunch, or some cause they wanted to support, or some other piece of datum they felt like sharing with the world, it would be chaos.
If people I knew started e-mailing me pictures of their cats I'd be most obliged to redirect their mail to /dev/null. However, if people ran their own website or blog or whatever I would happily subscribe to their RSS feed and ignore the junk I didn't care about. And the best part of it is that there's no middle man, making money from it, datamining it, or whatever.
None of the features facebook/Google+/whatever offers wasn't available before all of this "social networking" craze took hold. Somehow I was abl
Re: (Score:2)
None of the features facebook/Google+/whatever offers wasn't available before all of this "social networking" craze took hold. Somehow I was able to attend BBQs, see pictures from people's holidays (and cats), discuss stuff that mattered to groups of people (and with less inane bullshit in between on how the kids just puked on the carpet, including a video on youtube). Somehow people seemed to be more aware of the fact that when they put things on a website it's there for the world at large to see, but instead now we get people complaining "My privacy options". I get the feeling eternal september got upped to a whole new level, where "Me too" has been replaced with +1 or "Like".
This is about the wisest thing I've seen written about the subject in a while, but your comment about Eternal September betrays your age/generation and I think this is a generational thing. I was generally into Google until recently, but I notice a trend of them removing or deprecating open protocols in favor of new closed protocols or services that don't interoperate. Maybe that's how you make money in this round of "Internet Monopoly Game" but it means I'll be using Google less. I'm already forced to h
Re: (Score:2)
First thing I installed on Android was xabber. Maybe second, as I tried one or two free XMPP clients more, but stayed with xabber. I haven't used GoogleTalk since. Not sure if I even installed it.
In another world you'd have filtered spam... (Score:2)
Spamfiltering, would allow you to safely check mail "when you have time to kill".
Alas, choosing Facebook means no spam filter will ever be available.
Indeed, I buy your 'less obstrusive' argument -that's the first one I find in favor of FB.
But, I fear it's an answer for the lazy ones: setting up a good spamfilter was long, involving training etc. Setting up FB is faster.
And because it is faster, and almost all young adopters are lazy, FB will *undoubtedly* destroy the idea of spam filter itself. A bit like G
Re: (Score:2)
A bit like Google groups destroyed Usenet
Eh, I don't think Google Groups destroyed Usenet, newsgroups were well, well on their way out by then. The rise of the web destroyed newsgroups, and the rise of forums on individual websites.
Spam also destroyed just about any non-moderated newsgroup; certainly all the ones that I paid attention to.