Google Requires Proof of Google+ Activity to Attend SFPD's Bike Theft Workshop(sfappeal.com)
sfappeal.com
Google Requires Proof of Google+ Activity to Attend SFPD's Bike Theft Workshop
http://sfappeal.com/news/2012/12/google-adds-bizarre-requirement-for-sfpds-bike-theft-workshop-attendees.php
41 comments
By literally you mean metaphorically?
lit·er·al·ly
/ˈlitərəlē/
Adverb
- In a literal manner or sense; exactly: "the driver took it literally when asked to go straight over the traffic circle".
- Used to acknowledge that something is not literally true but is used for emphasis or to express strong feeling.
emphasis mine.
- In a literal manner or sense; exactly: "the driver took it literally when asked to go straight over the traffic circle".
- Used to acknowledge that something is not literally true but is used for emphasis or to express strong feeling.
emphasis mine.
So the new definition of literally is literally "not literally"?
Yes. Think about the word awful -it used to mean "inspiring awe" but it flipped and now always means bad.
I got curious so I looked up some examples that still can mean something or the exact opposite:
Bolt - run away or secure in place
Cleave - cut or join
Garnish - add (parsley) or remove (wages)
Weather - weather the storm or become weathered
I got curious so I looked up some examples that still can mean something or the exact opposite:
Bolt - run away or secure in place
Cleave - cut or join
Garnish - add (parsley) or remove (wages)
Weather - weather the storm or become weathered
King James II of England, when he saw the restored and expanded St. Paul's Cathedral, called it "amusing, awful and artificial." The architect, Sir Christopher Wren, was not offended. On the contrary, he was flattered.
The king did not mean that it was funny or entertaining. He was not calling it atrocious or appalling. He did not consider it fake or pretentious.
In 17th century England, amusing meant "riveting." Awful meant "full of awe" or "awe inspiring." And artificial meant "artistic."
The king did not mean that it was funny or entertaining. He was not calling it atrocious or appalling. He did not consider it fake or pretentious.
In 17th century England, amusing meant "riveting." Awful meant "full of awe" or "awe inspiring." And artificial meant "artistic."
Some of your examples are very different from the case of "literally".
"Awful" isn't a reversal of meaning, it's a narrowing of meaning.
> Bolt - run away or secure in place
These are homynyms, not divergent meanings. A crossbow bolt is fast, a door bolt is secure.
> Cleave - cut or join
These appear to have converged from the separate Old English verbs "cleofan" and "clifian": http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&s...
(Interestingly, "literally" has been misused to mean its opposite since at least the 1680s: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=literally&allow... . We've held off the "it means just what I choose it to mean" hordes so far, why give up now?)
"Awful" isn't a reversal of meaning, it's a narrowing of meaning.
> Bolt - run away or secure in place
These are homynyms, not divergent meanings. A crossbow bolt is fast, a door bolt is secure.
> Cleave - cut or join
These appear to have converged from the separate Old English verbs "cleofan" and "clifian": http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&s...
(Interestingly, "literally" has been misused to mean its opposite since at least the 1680s: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=literally&allow... . We've held off the "it means just what I choose it to mean" hordes so far, why give up now?)
Some more of these "contronyms"
http://www.rinkworks.com/words/contronyms.shtml
Words that are their own antonyms.
My favorite is off: "off - off, on (e.g., the alarm went off)"
http://www.rinkworks.com/words/contronyms.shtml
Words that are their own antonyms.
My favorite is off: "off - off, on (e.g., the alarm went off)"
Language, it's awesome like that.
"My solution has been to logout and read it."
Too much trouble. My solution is not to bother. People putting their content behind Google+, Facebook, and other fences should know that they are excluding a potentially large audience that prefers to stick with the open web. They might not care, but they should be aware of it, in case they might be interested some day in allowing people to read what they have to say.
Too much trouble. My solution is not to bother. People putting their content behind Google+, Facebook, and other fences should know that they are excluding a potentially large audience that prefers to stick with the open web. They might not care, but they should be aware of it, in case they might be interested some day in allowing people to read what they have to say.
"My solution has been to logout and read it."
Whenever I need to sign out for something, I just open up incognito mode/private browsing.
Whenever I need to sign out for something, I just open up incognito mode/private browsing.
Agreed. I have a gmail account and I use them for search -- that's ENOUGH of my data for any one company to have (and it's probably too much, at that).
Everytime I visit another Google property I'm presented with yet-another "turn your account into a G+ account" popup.
It's very annoying, to say the least. I wish they'd just let me pay for the damn service, I'm getting very tired of being the product they sell (and not behaving exactly as they think a good little product should).
Everytime I visit another Google property I'm presented with yet-another "turn your account into a G+ account" popup.
It's very annoying, to say the least. I wish they'd just let me pay for the damn service, I'm getting very tired of being the product they sell (and not behaving exactly as they think a good little product should).
I stopped leaving my Gmail account logged in while browsing almost two years ago because I was already sick of all their recommendations, personalizations and tracking (search history being shared across all devices was especially creepy). Now I just log in to check my mail and immediately log out, making sure not to do any random browsing in between.
Sounds like I haven't been missing out on any of the fun.
Sounds like I haven't been missing out on any of the fun.
This may be perilously close to (mis)using a public service for private gain. I kind of hope it ends up in court, so that we can find out.
Google should just stop it, and behavior like this. 1) The Google+ control-freak obsession mania; 2) Self-serving "public service" attempts.
Mind you, Google has done and does a lot of good and generous public service. (Even when and as it is good PR and perhaps also promotes their interests -- on an optional, "opt-in" basis.)
But tying a public service to a self-serving promotion? Doesn't pass the smell test.
Google should just stop it, and behavior like this. 1) The Google+ control-freak obsession mania; 2) Self-serving "public service" attempts.
Mind you, Google has done and does a lot of good and generous public service. (Even when and as it is good PR and perhaps also promotes their interests -- on an optional, "opt-in" basis.)
But tying a public service to a self-serving promotion? Doesn't pass the smell test.
I hope the few fake reviews they got out of this was worth the bad PR. Whoever decided this was a good idea should be relieved of these kinds of decisions.
Shouldn't you hope it wasn't worth the bad PR?
Hmmmmm, you make a good point. My heart's not in it, so I guess 'doubt' would have been a better choice of words than 'hope'.
I've been increasingly dissatisfied with Google products lately, and stuff like this is a big part of that. Once a company gets pushy and in your face trying to get you to use their stuff, it can really backfire.
It seems like we're a long way from the original Google model of just providing a good, unobtrusive product (one that I choose to use, voluntarily) and otherwise getting out of the way.
It seems like we're a long way from the original Google model of just providing a good, unobtrusive product (one that I choose to use, voluntarily) and otherwise getting out of the way.
This is pretty crass on Google's part, and horrific PR.
Looks like it has been fixed (the checkboxes in question have been removed from the signup form). There's still a field for G+ info, but it's not mandatory.
Not very classy. I've usually come to expect better from Google, but it seems like they really want to shove Google+ down everyone's throats despite people being very clear about not wanting to take part of it.
Gmail used to be the easiest way to set up a spamcatcher email account for simple anonymity. Now their user authentication and real name policies have made that harder.
It's easy to throwaway an old single-purpose Gmail account. But it's very very hard to walk away from your social network account that has all of your friends and followers connected to it.
Targeted ads were small potatoes, I believe the top social networks are seeking to be society's future arbiters of identity.
But do they have a good plan to monetize this identity provider business? That, I don't know.
It's easy to throwaway an old single-purpose Gmail account. But it's very very hard to walk away from your social network account that has all of your friends and followers connected to it.
Targeted ads were small potatoes, I believe the top social networks are seeking to be society's future arbiters of identity.
But do they have a good plan to monetize this identity provider business? That, I don't know.
Whatever next, burglars using social media to work out who can attend based upon reviews and profiles and posts so they can target houses of people who wont be in at a certain time. Worrying thought and not totaly impossible sadly at this time of year.
From Googles perspective this is perhaps logical in that it generates revenue potentual from those that do reviews and yet this has nothing to do with wanting to attend a Bike theft workshop.
If anything it is comparable to collect 5 can ring pulls for free ticket to an event, which is what happens marketing wise for many events/products out there all the time and nobody complains. So I can understand googles approach and how it does not fall into the evil pile. But it does seem a little bit lacking in synergy for that warm comfort feeling.
Sad part is there will be many people do half-haearted reviews at the detrement of buisness's in the area and from that worrying factor alone I would have to say that Google have perhaps not thought this thru on many levels.
Maybe it is some new marketing guru with a background in soft drinks that has yet to adapt to the digital World in there marketing approach on promotional synergy. That is what I'm wondering given this approach.
From Googles perspective this is perhaps logical in that it generates revenue potentual from those that do reviews and yet this has nothing to do with wanting to attend a Bike theft workshop.
If anything it is comparable to collect 5 can ring pulls for free ticket to an event, which is what happens marketing wise for many events/products out there all the time and nobody complains. So I can understand googles approach and how it does not fall into the evil pile. But it does seem a little bit lacking in synergy for that warm comfort feeling.
Sad part is there will be many people do half-haearted reviews at the detrement of buisness's in the area and from that worrying factor alone I would have to say that Google have perhaps not thought this thru on many levels.
Maybe it is some new marketing guru with a background in soft drinks that has yet to adapt to the digital World in there marketing approach on promotional synergy. That is what I'm wondering given this approach.
How about bikes with internal gears built into the frame? These bikes would also have a small low power device with a radio receiver. When a key fob is close enough, the device would unlock the internal gears, otherwise the pedals spin free. Also, if the device doesn't receive a signal from the fob within 6 hours, the device starts waking up and listening for a cell signal. If it receives the right token, it self destructs, taking the gearbox with it.
Why not have your bike alert you to its location if starts moving away from your phone?
Running cellular radio and GPS is several orders of magnitude more power intensive than low power communications. For this reason, you want the high power cellular radio and GPS to only come on in exceptional situations, and then only for short bursts if possible.
That said, it's a good idea. But making the bike hard to sell is the main deterrent. It's hard to sell a non-functional bike. By removing most of the profit motive for stealing the bike, you decrease the amount of security necessary to protect it effectively.
That said, it's a good idea. But making the bike hard to sell is the main deterrent. It's hard to sell a non-functional bike. By removing most of the profit motive for stealing the bike, you decrease the amount of security necessary to protect it effectively.
So, how do you fix it if you accidentally make it non-functional yourself?
In other words, what will thieves have to do to make it work again?
In other words, what will thieves have to do to make it work again?
> So, how do you fix it if you accidentally make it non-functional yourself?
You don't. I think it would be worth the risk of such an accident if the setup really deterred theft.
You don't. I think it would be worth the risk of such an accident if the setup really deterred theft.
Doesn't really stop me from throwing your bike on a truck.
Yes, but if you notice that you can't sell that particular kind of bike, there will be less profit motive to steal it. (Scrap metal only. Why would someone buy a bike you can't pedal, and which will break if you try to fix it?) Also, the risk/reward equation might change if the device started reporting its GPS location to the owner and/or police.
I would also put a photocell on the device inside the internal shifter which would also set off the self-destruct mechanism. If I sold these, I'd have a warranty in case of malfunction. The trick would be to make them malfunction infrequently enough.
I would also put a photocell on the device inside the internal shifter which would also set off the self-destruct mechanism. If I sold these, I'd have a warranty in case of malfunction. The trick would be to make them malfunction infrequently enough.
I could be way off on this but I doubt meth addicts are as discriminating as you think.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Look at the screenshot... it's not a required field.
They're giving priority to those who have used Google Local. It may still be uncouth but the headline is baity.
>But, Friedman made clear, "If you RSVP you will definitely get a spot."
>He told The Appeal that an RSVP is necessary for security and catering reasons. "Everyone who goes needs a [security] badge to get in," he said. The space where the event is being held has a capacity of 200 people, he said.
>It's worth nothing, however, that at the same event last year only 25 people showed up, reports the Weekly.
etc.
They're giving priority to those who have used Google Local. It may still be uncouth but the headline is baity.
>But, Friedman made clear, "If you RSVP you will definitely get a spot."
>He told The Appeal that an RSVP is necessary for security and catering reasons. "Everyone who goes needs a [security] badge to get in," he said. The space where the event is being held has a capacity of 200 people, he said.
>It's worth nothing, however, that at the same event last year only 25 people showed up, reports the Weekly.
etc.
Wrong and wrong. Google added it without the SFPD's knowledge:
> None of the San Francisco city officials who organized the event, it seems, knew about the marketing language Google inserted on the RSVP page.
> The officer spearheading the program, Matt Friedman also didn't know about the additional marketing language.
And you are required to indicate whether or not you've reviewed 5 businesses on Google+ Local.
The intention was clear: To coerce people into using Google+. I'm not sure why you're trying to justify it by arguing semantics.
> None of the San Francisco city officials who organized the event, it seems, knew about the marketing language Google inserted on the RSVP page.
> The officer spearheading the program, Matt Friedman also didn't know about the additional marketing language.
And you are required to indicate whether or not you've reviewed 5 businesses on Google+ Local.
The intention was clear: To coerce people into using Google+. I'm not sure why you're trying to justify it by arguing semantics.
... I quoted the article and made an observation about the screenshot. Nothing you wrote contradicts anything I wrote.
"Wrong and wrong" yourself. The headline is absolutely false.
I make no excuses for, as I said, the uncouth nature of this addition. It's a pretty stupid way to encourage G+ usage anyway. (25 people last year, pfft)
"Wrong and wrong" yourself. The headline is absolutely false.
I make no excuses for, as I said, the uncouth nature of this addition. It's a pretty stupid way to encourage G+ usage anyway. (25 people last year, pfft)
Post five honest reviews of Google+ on the Place pages for local offices. Problem solved.
How does Google even guarantee that those reviews are honest? Bob's Bait Shoppe could easily pay five employees to post five glowing reviews about how Bob's Fish Annihilator brings all the fish to the yard. Unless you actually know the person, it doesn't seem there's any way to guarantee the honesty.
By the same token, if Bob's having a bad day, five people could easily write how the Fish Annihilator ruined their marriage and stole their dog, without ever having any evidence of either occurrence.
Anecdotally, I know of one business here in Austin where the owner ordered his employees to post good reviews on various social services using their private email accounts.
By the same token, if Bob's having a bad day, five people could easily write how the Fish Annihilator ruined their marriage and stole their dog, without ever having any evidence of either occurrence.
Anecdotally, I know of one business here in Austin where the owner ordered his employees to post good reviews on various social services using their private email accounts.
Reread parent post more carefully.
At least a half dozen times I have clicked on a public google+ post only to be coerced into attaching my google account with a google+ account. Screw being able to read said PUBLIC posts. My solution has been to logout and read it. But I'm sure plenty of people fill up that form mostly out of disdain and google gets to count them as a new user.
Really, getting new users by uber trickery is bad not just for the user but as much for Google Inc because it isn't a signal for a quality product(in this case, the exact opposite).