Wednesday, 29 June 2011

Good First Sign: I Have A Strong Desire To Keep Using Google+

Good First Sign: I Have A Strong Desire To Keep Using Google+: "

I’ve spent the last several hours using Google+. That’s a good sign.


While I first got a glimpse of the project when meeting with Google last week ahead of today’s story, such meetings are usually little more than fast-paced tutorials or worse, sales pitches. I definitely prefer to sit down and use things myself in a somewhat regular setting and see how I react. And seeing as the roll-out for Google+ is very limited right now, I thought I’d share some of those thoughts.


First of all, Google+ is easily already the most compelling social project Google has ever done. Yes, I know that’s not saying much, but it is saying something. That statement includes Wave, which was more ambitious, but was not nearly as polished at any point in its brief life as Google+ is right now.


That’s not to say Google+ doesn’t have bugs — it does. But they’re relatively minor and the team seems on top of all them. They should go away long before most people actually use the service. Even in this trial phase, Google+ is solid.


To me, Google+ feels closer to Google Buzz — but it feels like the version of Google Buzz that should have launched. There is no question in my mind that Google Buzz is now dead as a result of what Google+ is. It’s better in every way.


To that end, Google+ actually may remind me more of FriendFeed than anything else. But instead of being the ghost town that FriendFeed became after its acquisition by Facebook, Google+ feels like an frontier town that could erupt with growth if gold is found.


But it’s also substantially different from both Buzz and FriendFeed in that those services rely heavily on users importing data from other services to populate feeds. Google+ doesn’t give you any options to do that beyond manually brining in outside links. This is important because it means that any information users put in, they explicitly want to put it. As a result, they’re more likely to both be more discerning and to interact with it.


One thing that Google appears to have learned from the failure of Wave is that there needs to be some sort of notification system alerting you to new activity. The activity email options which are on by default will be annoying for users with a lot of activity (I turned those off within a few minutes of signing up). But for casual users, they’ll be key.


More vital to me is the new black toolbar which spans all of Google’s properties and brings with it a notification system. It’s brilliant. A few times today I left Google+ and probably wouldn’t have come back for a while, but these notifications pulled me back in. I’d be reading an email in Gmail and I’d see the red number calling to me. Or I’d be doing a Google search. Same thing.


I even found myself looking for the notifications when I wasn’t on a Google property. That’s how I know the idea is a winner. Google needs to release browser extensions ASAP to give you these alert no matter where you are. And if they really want to ensure that Google+ takes off in the long run, they should bake this system into Chrome itself.


Would that be evil? Some would say so. Facebook, for example, might. But remember, Chrome is Google’s — they control it. Chromium is the open source one that they don’t control. I’d be in favor of such an option. I’m sure Google is going to take a long wait-and-see approach there. I’m just thinking out loud here.


Regardless, the notifications are great. The fact that you can interact with the content (+1, comment, etc) right from the drop down is brilliant.


The +1 Button, which now resides beneath every Google+ post and every comment, still strikes me as a bit silly. But all of this usage of the button coming together is bringing it into perspective. It is Google’s “Like” button, and they want it to be just as ubiquitous as Facebook’s.


Have I mentioned how nice Google+ looks? Oh I have? Well, I’ll say it again. The design work here is well beyond what we usually see from Google. The Circles stuff in particular is good. That shouldn’t be too surprising given who created it.


The whole Circles concept is still going to be difficult for many users to understand at first. They’ll understand that when they share something, they’re doing it with a certain group of people, but when something is shared with them and random people start commenting, it will seem a bit strange. If they comment back, who sees that? — will be a common question. Google has a way to show you this, but it may need to be more apparent.


Overall, it took me about 15 minutes to get fairly comfortable with all the major elements of the Google+ system. That’s good, especially given how much you can do. At first, it seemed a bit overwhelming, but the concepts are actually pretty easy to learn once you experiment and understand how things work.


The Sparks area sounds great in concept. In reality, it needs a lot of work. Still, there’s a lot of potential there.


The Incoming area (where you see the updates from people who have connected to you but you haven’t connected back with) won’t make sense to most people at first.


The concept of “Extended Circles” is interesting but also odd. It’s not public, but it’s not your circle. It’s not clear who exactly you’re sharing with at all. I guess you’ll just have to trust the people you trust enough to put in a circle.


While the Stream will be the focal point at first, the real power of Google+ could eventually be the ancillary features. Hangouts are one such particularly promising feature right now. It uses the Stream to draw users in, but doesn’t over-pollute it. Hangouts work well, and as a bonus, they don’t require Flash (though they do require another plug-in which you already have installed if you have gChat video installed).


The “+” concept to add people to a conversation (or share) makes a lot more sense than using “@”, which is of course the norm on Twitter and other services these days. This change takes a little bit of getting used to.


Google+ finally gives Google Profiles a purpose. And the new editing functionality for them is very, very slick. The “View profile as” area is also great.


Right now, most people seem to be sharing information publicly. This is to be expected since there are relatively few users of the service, so Circles are being fully fleshed out. But as Google+ scales, the publicly sharing will have to slow down significantly or it will be chaos. Can you imagine a million (which would be a low number for Google) people using this and sharing publicly? Conversations under shared items would be filled with nonsense.


Mobile may be the real key to all of Google+. While it’s being largely downplayed for now, I suspect that when (hopefully when) the iPhone app is approved, that will be the primary way I interact with the service. Notifications will be key there, just like they are on the web. The mobile web app is great, but lacks the necessary push notification.


Overall, I’m impressed by Google+ after day one. Of course, like many, I also had fairly low expectations of anything Google tried to do in the social sphere after Wave and Buzz. Still, I used Google+ for hours and kept coming back. And I have a desire to come back tomorrow. That’s never a bad thing.


Google has done a very good job with the early execution. Can they maintain that? Once the novelty is gone, will there be a reason to use it? And will the idea scale — meaning both in absolute size and in terms of moving beyond an early adopter market? Remember, as great as FriendFeed was, it never really went beyond the early adopters.


Of course, you could also make the case (as I once presciently did) that a lot of what FriendFeed was is now being used by hundreds of millions of people around the world inside of Facebook. Google, given its size, will have a similar opportunity to take their concepts to the masses. It didn’t work with Buzz, will it with Google+?


Let’s revisit the question in about a month.








"

Google+

Google+: "On one hand, you'll never be able to convince your parents to switch. On the other hand, you'll never be able to convince your parents to switch!"

Tuesday, 28 June 2011

Introducing the Google+ project: Real-life sharing, rethought for the web

Introducing the Google+ project: Real-life sharing, rethought for the web: "Update: For our international readers, this post is also available in French, German, Italian, Japanese, Portuguese, Russian and Spanish. - Ed.



Among the most basic of human needs is the need to connect with others. With a smile, a laugh, a whisper or a cheer, we connect with others every single day.



Today, the connections between people increasingly happen online. Yet the subtlety and substance of real-world interactions are lost in the rigidness of our online tools.



In this basic, human way, online sharing is awkward. Even broken. And we aim to fix it.



We’d like to bring the nuance and richness of real-life sharing to software. We want to make Google better by including you, your relationships, and your interests. And so begins the Google+ project:









+Circles: share what matters, with the people who matter most

Not all relationships are created equal. So in life we share one thing with college buddies, another with parents, and almost nothing with our boss. The problem is that today’s online services turn friendship into fast food—wrapping everyone in “friend” paper—and sharing really suffers:

  • It’s sloppy. We only want to connect with certain people at certain times, but online we hear from everyone all the time.

  • It’s scary. Every online conversation (with over 100 “friends”) is a public performance, so we often share less because of stage fright.

  • It’s insensitive. We all define “friend” and “family” differently—in our own way, on our own terms—but we lose this nuance online.

In light of these shortcomings we asked ourselves, “What do people actually do?” And we didn’t have to search far for the answer. People in fact share selectively all the time—with their circles.



From close family to foodies, we found that people already use real-life circles to express themselves, and to share with precisely the right folks. So we did the only thing that made sense: we brought Circles to software. Just make a circle, add your people, and share what’s new—just like any other day:









+Sparks: strike up a conversation, about pretty much anything

Healthy obsessions inspire sharing, and we’ve all got one (or two, or three...). Maybe it’s muscle cars, or comic books, or fashion, but the attraction is always the same: it comes up in conversation, we immediately jump in, and we share back and forth with other fans. Often for hours. The trick is getting things started, and getting over that initial hump. Fortunately, the web is the ultimate icebreaker.



The web, of course, is filled with great content—from timely articles to vibrant photos to funny videos. And great content can lead to great conversations. We noticed, however, that it’s still too hard to find and share the things we care about—not without lots of work, and lots of noise. So, we built an online sharing engine called Sparks.



Thanks to Google’s web expertise, Sparks delivers a feed of highly contagious content from across the Internet. On any topic you want, in over 40 languages. Simply add your interests, and you’ll always have something to watch, read and share—with just the right circle of friends:









+Hangouts: stop by and say hello, face-to-face-to-face

Whether it's inside a pub or on a front porch, human beings have always enjoyed hanging out. And why not? It's how we unwind, recharge, and spend unscheduled time with old and new friends alike. Hanging out is deceptively simple though, and the nuance gets lost online.



Just think: when you walk into the pub or step onto your front porch, you're in fact signaling to everyone around, “Hey, I've got some time, so feel free to stop by.' Further, it’s this unspoken understanding that puts people at ease, and encourages conversation. But today’s online communication tools (like instant messaging and video-calling) don’t understand this subtlety:

  • They’re annoying, for starters. You can ping everyone that’s “available,” but you’re bound to interrupt someone’s plans.

  • They’re also really awkward. When someone doesn't respond, you don't know if they’re just not there, or just not interested.

With Google+ we wanted to make on-screen gatherings fun, fluid and serendipitous, so we created Hangouts. By combining the casual meetup with live multi-person video, Hangouts lets you stop by when you're free, and spend time with your Circles. Face-to-face-to-face:









+Mobile: share what’s around, right now, without any hassle

These days a phone is the perfect sharing accessory: it's always with you, it's always online, and it's how we stay close with our closest friends. We didn’t want “just” a mobile experience, however, so with Google+ we focused on things (like GPS, cameras, and messaging) to make your pocket computer even more personal.



+Location, location, location

In life, the places we visit shape conversations in lots of meaningful ways. If we call John from the airport, he’ll likely ask about our trip. Or if Jane texts from a nearby restaurant, we might join her for dessert. With Google+ you can add your location to every post. (Or not. It’s always up to you.)



+Instant Upload

Getting photos off your phone is a huge pain, so most of us don't even bother. Of course pictures are meant to be shared, not stranded, so we created Instant Upload to help you never leave a photo behind. While you're snapping pictures, and with your permission, Google+ adds your photos to a private album in the cloud. This way they're always available across your devices—ready to share as you see fit.









+Huddle

Coordinating with friends and family in real-time is really hard in real life. After all, everyone's on different schedules, in different places, and plans can change at any moment. Phone calls and text messages can work in a pinch, but they're not quite right for getting the gang together. So Google+ includes Huddle, a group messaging experience that lets everyone inside the circle know what's going on, right this second.









Starting today Google+ is available on Android Market and the mobile web, and it’s coming soon to the App Store.



+You: putting you first, all across Google

That’s the Google+ project so far: Circles, Sparks, Hangouts and mobile. We’re beginning in Field Trial, so you may find some rough edges, and the project is by invitation only. But online sharing needs a serious re-think, so it’s time we got started. There’s just one more thing—really the only thing: You.



You and over a billion others trust Google, and we don’t take this lightly. In fact we’ve focused on the user for over a decade: liberating data, working for an open Internet, and respecting people’s freedom to be who they want to be. We realize, however, that Google+ is a different kind of project, requiring a different kind of focus—on you. That’s why we’re giving you more ways to stay private or go public; more meaningful choices around your friends and your data; and more ways to let us know how we’re doing. All across Google.



When your invite arrives we hope you’ll join the project. But it’s entirely up to +You.



Posted by Vic Gundotra, Senior Vice President, Engineering


"

[krekk] (Image)

[krekk] (Image):

7342_6891_400

[Reposted from blaueslicht via nomnomnom]

Saturday, 25 June 2011

But the Win Is Having That Name

But the Win Is Having That Name:
Montoya is a fairly common Spanish surname. Inigo is a much less common, but still not unusual, first name. The Princess Bride is not very popular on the Continent. Therefore, when the new guy starts and introduces himself with "Hello, my name is Inigo Montoya," bursting into laughter and choking out the words, "You killed my father, prepare to die!" will not be funny. HR will have serious words with you. #LFMF

Thursday, 23 June 2011

First Official Hobbit Pics Show Martin Freeman As Bilbo & Ian McKellen As Gandalf!

First Official Hobbit Pics Show Martin Freeman As Bilbo & Ian McKellen As Gandalf!: "Thanks to EW, we have our first official looks at both Martin Freeman as Bilbo and Ian McKellen as Gandalf The Grey. You can also see some of the Dwarves in the background of the first pic. I can't be sure but I think the closet one in black might be Thorin? There are also quotes from director Peter Jackson under each pic..



'He fits the ears, and he's got some very nice feet', Jackson says of his Bilbo. 'I think he's got the biggest hobbit feet we've had so far. They're a little bit hard to walk in, but he's managed to figure out the perfect hobbit gait.'



''He's in fantastic form,'' Peter Jackson says of McKellan. ''In a way, his role in The Hobbit has more technical difficulties than Lord of the Rings did, because he has scenes with 14 smaller characters — obviously the dwarves and the hobbit are"

Wednesday, 22 June 2011

Oh No, Somebody Hacked the Sega Genesis! [Old News]

Oh No, Somebody Hacked the Sega Genesis! [Old News]:
If this is true (if!), somebody at CBS needs to update their company files. Though they get props for using a Mini-Mega. Via VG247. More »


LEAKED: UK copyright lobby holds closed-door meetings with gov't to discuss national Web-censorship regime

LEAKED: UK copyright lobby holds closed-door meetings with gov't to discuss national Web-censorship regime: A group of UK copyright lobbyists held confidential, closed-door meetings with Ed Vaizey, Minister for Culture, Communications and Creative Industries to discuss a plan to allow industry groups to censor the Internet in the UK. The proposal has leaked, and it reveals a plan to establish 'expert bodies' that would decide which websites British people were allowed to see, to be approved by a judge using a 'streamlined' procedure. The procedure will allow for 'swift' blocking in order to shut down streaming of live events.


Public interest groups like the Open Rights Group asked to attend the meeting, but were shut out, presaging a regulatory process that's likely to be a lopsided, industry-centric affair that doesn't consider the public. The process is characterised as 'voluntary,' but the proposal makes reference to the Digital Economy Act, which allows for mandatory web-blocking (thanks to the action of LibDem Lords who submitted a proposal written by a record industry lobbyist as an amendment to the DEA).


The Open Rights Group has a campaign to repeal the DEA that you can sign onto.




We would like confirmation from the government that these are genuine proposals which they are actively considering. We would also like to know what steps they will be taking to consider the views of organisations such as Open Rights Group, and those others who recently wrote to rights holders expressing their concern and requesting such proposals are made public.


So far these discussions have involved only rightsholders and Internet companies, with only in the most recent meeting involving Consumer Focus. (As Jim blogged yesterday, Consumer Focus' response to the proposals they discussed is here). This is a welcome concession. But it is a concession. Open policy making that takes on board the broadest range of views is not something within the gift of politicians but a responsibility they bear.



Premier League joins group lobbying for web blocking, proposing confused 'voluntary' scheme - overseen by the courts (James Firth)


Rights holders' proposed voluntary website blocking scheme (Open Rights Group)


Response to 'Addressing websites that are
substantially focused on infringement' working paper (Consumer Focus PDF)


Mad Men: Jon Hamm signs up for three more years

Mad Men: Jon Hamm signs up for three more years:
Jon Hamm : Mad Men

Jon Hamm inks a brand new deal that’s going to see him sticking with Mad Men for a further three years…

As mighty as Mad Men is, and it really is, there's inevitably the question as to whether it can keep the standard high as it heads into seasons five, six and seven. For AMC and Lionsgate are looking to make at least three more seasons of the show, it seems, and all concerned will be very aware that the quality needs to be retained in doing so. We couldn't call what the optimum amount of time is for the show to run, and hopefully, we're set to get three more strong years of Mad Men to enjoy.


We do know that Jon Hamm will continue to be front and centre of the show, though. Deadline is reporting that the actor has signed a brand new deal that will keep him on board the show for three years. And it's a deal that reportedly makes him one of the best paid actors of cable television (the deal is 'in the eight figures'). By some distance, we'd suspect.


The next season of the show, the fifth, will return in March 2012. And Hamm's directed the premiere episode of that, too...


Deadline


You'll find more of our Mad Men coverage here.


Follow Den Of Geek on Twitter right here. And be our Facebook chum here.

Tuesday, 21 June 2011

The Always Up-to-Date Guide to Managing Your Facebook Privacy [Video]

The Always Up-to-Date Guide to Managing Your Facebook Privacy [Video]:
Keeping your Facebook info private seems to be getting harder and harder all the time, since Facebook keeps trying to make it public. To help you out, we've created a comprehensive guide to keeping your Facebook locked down and in your control, and we're going to keep it updated whenever Facebook decides to add a new feature or change its privacy defaults...yet again. More »

TiVo iPhone and Android apps on the way

TiVo iPhone and Android apps on the way: "It is being reported that TiVo apps are on their way for both Apple and Android smartphones and tablets. More details: TiVo iPhone and Android apps 'coming soon'
http://feeds.feedburner.com/VirginMediaHighDefinition
"

Are weak physics teachers using experiments as props in lessons?

Are weak physics teachers using experiments as props in lessons?: "

Pupils generally enjoy carrying out experiments - but do teachers overuse them when they should in fact be teaching more theory, asks Alom Shaha

Remember burning magnesium in school? Doing this for the first time as an 11-year-old who has just started secondary school is one of those magical experiences that all students should have. But I'm not convinced that the same is true of all practical work carried out in school science lessons.

Practical lessons are popular with both students and teachers. But their popularity with students may lie in the fact that they are less demanding than theory lessons. The same may be true for teachers - after all, it's easier to check that a child has lit his or her bunsen correctly than it is to check that he or she has fully grasped the particle theory of matter, it's easier to teach a child how to connect an ammeter than teach a correct understanding of electric current. Indeed, a study of student teachers reported in this month's School Science Review found that 'most were approaching it as a means of lower order learning objectives such as names of equipment and use of standard procedures'.

Many standard school science practicals purport to be experiments when they are nothing of the sort. What we are doing a lot of the time, for example when asking them to 'investigate the factors that affect the resistance of a wire', is getting students to carry out practical work with the intention that they discover something which is already known. This approach was described as 'intellectually dishonest' by Rosalind Driver in her important essay, The Fallacy of Induction. It is naive and pedagogically unsound to think that all we need to do as science teachers is provide children the opportunity to discover the laws of science for themselves. As Driver wrote, 'explanations do not spring clearly or uniquely from data'. Yet this approach to practical work persists, according to Professor Robin Millar, due to 'the prevalence of the empiricist/inductive view of science... the belief that ideas will 'emerge' automatically from the event itself, if students work carefully enough'. As Millar, who has carried out extensive research into what students learn from practical work, points out, 'in practice this rarely happens'.

I have a simple suggestion to make: perhaps the time we spend doing such experiments could be better spent? Perhaps our students would learn more if we approached doing these practicals in a different way, stopping the pretence that they are doing real science and using the practical to draw out specific teaching points about, say, the limitations of laboratory measurements. Perhaps some practicals would be better done as class demonstrations so that we can spend more time discussing the results and less time faffing around with apparatus. Millar and others suggest that one of the most valuable things we can do in a practical lesson is to talk about the practical and yet their research shows that this doesn't happen nearly as much as it should.

It is not unreasonable to assume that doing science might be a pretty good way of learning science. But, as my old PGCE physics tutor, Professor Jonathan Osborne, points out, this is a 'dangerous assumption'. According to Osborne, the role of science education is 'to construct in the young student a deep understanding of a body of existing knowledge. In doing so, it needs to show why this knowledge is valued; that it was hard won; and that science is a creative process – that it offers you the opportunity to free yourself from the shackles of received wisdom by creating your own knowledge. However, that is not the same as the doing of science and there is a clear line in the sand that needs to be drawn between the two activities'.

Despite the views of Osborne and other senior figures in science education, many people see practical work as an innate part of science education and feel it needs no further justification. Every so often, the media seems to report a decline in the amount of practical work we do in science lessons and there is the suggestion that we ought to be doing more practical work, that somehow, if we could do more experiments we would radically improve the quality of science teaching in this country. These reports seem to ignore the fact that students in the UK spend more time on practicals than their peers in other countries and that 'there is limited evidence that practical work actually motivates students, rather than alleviating their boredom with 'theory' by providing a break from listening and writing'. Words like 'motivation' and 'enthuse' are put forward in defence of practical work yet when students were asked to choose the methods that were 'most useful and effective in helping them to understand school science' the top two approaches were 'having a discussion/debate in class' and 'taking notes from the teacher'.

Science education in the UK faces a number of challenges, not least of which is the drastic shortage of physics teachers. Those with the power to bring about change would do well to acknowledge the complexity of the situation rather than put forward 'more practical work' as some sort of panacea. Energy and resources should be focussed on improving the quality of practical work being carried out in schools rather than simply increasing the quantity of it.

There is a large amount of research relating to the role and value of practical work in science lessons, much of which has been summarised in a review by Professor Justin Dillon of King's College London. Dillon makes a crucial point that is worth repeating here: 'there is a danger that the rhetoric surrounding 'practical work' neglects important findings from research and ignores the complexity of several key issues relating to the teaching of science in schools'. It would be painfully ironic if we were to allow policy decisions about how to teach science be made without properly considering the available evidence.

Alom Shaha is a teacher and filmmaker. You can watch his series of short physics demonstrations here


guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2011 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

"

If There Had Always Been An Internet

If There Had Always Been An Internet: "







Created by Jesse Eisemann.




"