Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Google+ Officially Open To Teens

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the rebellion-doesn't-spring-to-mind dept.

Google 93

hypnosec writes "Google+ made a landmark move and opened itself to users who are over the age of 13. Google+ did not initially target the younger crowd and kept itself available only for users above the age of 18. While opening up to youngsters over the age of 13 the social network also added improved safety features to keep the younger crowd protected. Now it features more rigid default settings for privacy, but they can be overridden nonetheless. The vice president of product management at Google+, Bradley Horowitz, in a Google+ post stated, 'With Google+, we want to help teens build meaningful connections online. We also want to provide features that foster safety alongside self-expression. Today we're doing both, for everyone who's old enough for a Google Account.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Your mom's ass is offically open (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38849659)

Your mom is having sex with Goatse right now.

And nothing changes... (5, Insightful)

watermark (913726) | more than 2 years ago | (#38849679)

Tell a thirteen year old they can't sign up for something they want and you'll see how many of them were born in 1990.

NCLB (1, Insightful)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 2 years ago | (#38849693)

They only know to put 1990 because they read it on an intertweet. Most of them couldn't do the necessary calculation.

Even with a calculator.

Re:And nothing changes... (3, Insightful)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#38849827)

Tell a thirteen year old they can't sign up for something they want and you'll see how many of them were born in 1990.

Yep. Sure fire way for your club for young people to go out of business is call it "Teen Club" they won't just avoid it, but flee.

Call it something innocuous and they'll show up. Don't even mention it's for teens though.

Re:And nothing changes... (2)

Legion303 (97901) | more than 2 years ago | (#38856081)

"As a matter of fact, we're only opening the site to younger users under extreme protest. We don't feel they can handle the amount of cool involved with G+." --Google Marketing

Re:And nothing changes... (5, Funny)

CAIMLAS (41445) | more than 2 years ago | (#38851277)

At first I thought, "yeah, so?" and then I realized that people born in 1990 are no longer 13, they're 22 now.

God, I feel old.

Re:And nothing changes... (1)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | more than 2 years ago | (#38851421)

We must enjoy this time while it lasts, before young adults start thinking the 20th century was a mythical time when dinosaurs walked the earth, the computer had not yet been invented, and people couldn't count past a hundred. ("Yeah, sure, I was born in one thousand nine-hundred and ninety-nine. So what?")

Yours,
- Samantha (b. 1988)

Re:And nothing changes... (1)

garaged (579941) | more than 2 years ago | (#38854463)

Hi there fellow little girl

Best regards
Max (b. 1974)

P.s. Not hiting, Im married and stuff

The January that never ended (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 2 years ago | (#38849681)

Shouldn't they have waited 8 months?

Re:The January that never ended (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38850619)

Heh, you beat me to it, and for any of you teens that didn't catch the reference. [wikipedia.org]

Re:The January that never ended (1)

SwedishPenguin (1035756) | more than 2 years ago | (#38850941)

Doesn't really change much, there are probably more immature assholes over 18 than below 18 anyways. If they tend to show up in your facebook/google+ stream then that should tell you to either be more restrictive with whom you add or that you're hanging out with an immature crowd IRL.

Re:The January that never ended (1)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | more than 2 years ago | (#38851435)

That's a fair point. In lieu of proper public forums (y'know, ones that actually promote discourse between diverse people rather than just facilitating our already-existing limited interpersonal relationships), like other forms of spam, the Eternal September isn't really a big deal for social networks. Unfortunately that comes at the cost of never having your worldview challenged.

Oh great! (2)

motang (1266566) | more than 2 years ago | (#38849685)

There goes the neighbourhood!

core demographic (5, Insightful)

tverbeek (457094) | more than 2 years ago | (#38849687)

So they've figured out that grown-ups don't drive the popularity of social networking sites?

Re:core demographic (1)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 2 years ago | (#38849761)

indoctrinate early.

google takes a lesson from 'organized' religion.

(and apple: apple puts computers into schools so that they indoctrinate kids with the 'mac way' early).

on topic: g+ will be seen as the new myspace soon enough. nice going, goog. you're on your way to being irrelevant (again).

Re:core demographic (1)

jez9999 (618189) | more than 2 years ago | (#38850099)

on topic: g+ will be seen as the new myspace soon enough. nice going, goog. you're on your way to being irrelevant (again).

What? This is utter bullshit. G+ isn't a millionth as shitty as Myspace was, and in fact has some nice features that Facebook doesn't (eg. Circles, Hangouts).

Re:core demographic (1)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 2 years ago | (#38850173)

people swarmed to myspace. deny that? it was hugely popular.

until it wasn't.

the next thing came. hugely popular. and now it is on its decline.

g+ is no different. give it time, it will (already does, from what I've seen and read) suck as badly and people will leave.

this stuff can't be stable over long-term. my only bet is to not bet on this at all. time washes all this crap away, just like every fad out there.

'the internet' and 'social interaction online' will always stay; but this centralized company-owned shit will go away over time. one way or another, people will reject it. it might take some major act (google-gate? lol) but eventually some serious shit will hit the fan and people will stay away and leave in droves.

people are social but a company owned site is not really serving anyone's needs but the company.

and so they all will go away eventually. eventually we'll be more neutral. at least I'm really hoping for a positive, non-corp owned future...

Re:core demographic (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38850721)

Your post reminds me of MySpace - not because that's the subject, but because it's badly formatted, poorly spaced, uncapitalised, lunatic drivel with no factual content or coherent point. Seriously, your argument appears to be "I know of something that was popular but now isn't, therefore all popular things will become unpopular over time". You can't even apply that uniformly, because Facebook isn't declining at all despite matching your criteria for being a "fad".

You're either on drugs, stupid, or on drugs because you're stupid and your parents are worried about how you're doing at school.

Re:core demographic (1)

toddmbloom (1625689) | more than 2 years ago | (#38851411)

Circles are just lists with a "cute" animation. And didn't Facebook implement video chat last year?

Re:core demographic (1)

Phics (934282) | more than 2 years ago | (#38849921)

So they've figured out that grown-ups don't drive the popularity of social networking sites?

They already knew this. The're just doing the Google thing of tossing a product out there early before throwing the doors wide open and implementing every idea or option all at once. Might as well get the product out there early, then start slowly adding in the features and opening up the access. You can do that with a "cloud" product if you want to. Kind of tough to do that with traditional off the shelf software.

I'd be shocked if they hadn't planned this from the start, and just decided to try and get it right first. Heck, they're Google. I bet they know more metrics about browsing habits and demographics than just about anyone.

Re:core demographic (1)

cultiv8 (1660093) | more than 2 years ago | (#38849993)

Today we're doing both, for everyone who's old enough for a Google Account.

So does this mean anyone younger than 13 can't have an Android phone?

Re:core demographic (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#38850157)

Phone service has to be in the name of a grown-up anyway because most Android phones are sold on a 24-month contract.

Re:core demographic (1)

JWSmythe (446288) | more than 2 years ago | (#38850625)

    Actually, I was just shopping for phones. There are plenty of Android phones on prepaid providers. The only proof of age that's really required for a prepaid is your ability to walk into a store with cash. Buy the phone for cash. Buy a reload card for cash. Done.

    They're also useful for sending out to your secret network of spies. "Well, the phones and cards were purchased with cash by a 15 year old kid in Podunk, Alabama."

    Just kidding. No self respecting spy would have a 15 year old kid buy a burn phone for them. It's too much of a liability. :)

Grown-ups? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38851061)

Cool is born on university campuses.
Kids and teens are doomed to follow, despite what they like to think, because they simply don't have the sorts of connections or influence to be anything else.

Re:Grown-ups? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38851145)

College students are grown-ups?

Re:Grown-ups? (2)

reboot246 (623534) | more than 2 years ago | (#38851495)

Technically, yes. :)

Lots of people in the same age group are married and have children, so you could say they're grown up even if they're not mature yet.

Grammar alert! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38849701)

"Besides, opening up to youngsters over the age of 13 the social network also added improved safety features to keep the younger crowd protected."
That comma is unnecessary and totally confused me at first.

Opening G+ up to young people will change nothing, they'll just stop lying on the birthday form.

Re:Grammar alert! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38850621)

Opening G+ up to young people will change nothing, they'll just stop lying on the birthday form.

And then we can ban them for lying originally. It's brilliant.

It was a good run. (3, Interesting)

Lewrker (749844) | more than 2 years ago | (#38849753)

The only appeal of G+ was not having all the bs teenage drama there, and people seemed a little bit less mentally challenged.
Good night sweet prince.

Re:It was a good run. (1)

Overzeetop (214511) | more than 2 years ago | (#38850031)

So, if you are concerned about the teenage drama, why do you associate with them? It's not like you're forced to add teens to your circle.

Re:It was a good run. (1)

Lewrker (749844) | more than 2 years ago | (#38850281)

I'm just worried that all the worst aspects of facebook (attention-whoring, crappy games, internet-disease solarflare photos etc) will inevitably be ported to g+, either making it a replacement for fb or rendering it useless when it becomes a clone of it. "If you don't like it just ignore it" doesn't work when the developers are actively pushing that stuff to generate more ad revenue.

Re:It was a good run. (1)

JWSmythe (446288) | more than 2 years ago | (#38850673)

The abundance of crappy games is the only thing holding G+ back right now. Why would anyone even use it on a regular basis? There's no incentive for the general population.

Coolio (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38849779)

That's really cool, because I'm also a 13 year old teen (male) and am looking for cool online friendships with nice chicks. My hobbies are: /., programming microcontrollers with Ada, helicopter simulations, and long-term role-playing games (BDSM/TPE) over Google Video chat.

Re:Coolio (1)

Sarten-X (1102295) | more than 2 years ago | (#38849971)

Alas, I have no mod points, but I do now have coffee on my keyboard. Subtle and well done.

Re:Coolio (5, Funny)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | more than 2 years ago | (#38850471)

Why did you list programming in Ada separately from BDSM?

Re:Coolio (1)

orono2011 (2563131) | more than 2 years ago | (#38857981)

Hey Now Android Development help to advance modern life. For any android problem visit :http://tbldevelopmentfirm.com/services/mobile-applications-development/android-development/ For android training visit:http://tbldevelopmentfirm.com/android-training/

Re:Coolio (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38851353)

I know Black Dragonscale Mail (though I prefer gray myself), but what's TPE?

Re:Coolio (1)

game kid (805301) | more than 2 years ago | (#38851563)

That is Touareg's Platinum Excalibur, forged in the Mountains of Deutschland and lost in the hazy forest of Googleania. Legends, thus far unconfirmed, say that the ancient dragon Laripej has a 3% chance to drop it there after you publicly +1 the game's website.

realname policy (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38849787)

the first thing, parents tell their children: do not give anyone your full name on the internet.

Re:realname policy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38851045)

Don't forget that the Eric Schmidt asshole said that Google+ is an "identity platform", so they cannot support pseudonyms properly. Can't wait until that Vic Gundotra shithead completely fucks up Google's social project and finally gets fired.

--
Jordyn Buchanan

Re:realname policy (1)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 2 years ago | (#38851793)

Then why do so many people use facebook and use their real name?

Should have done this a long time ago (4, Interesting)

cullen_johnson (2562715) | more than 2 years ago | (#38849799)

I was always kind of surprised that they hadn't done this already. The only way for a general-purpose social network like G+ to compete with facebook is to win the younger generation of social networkers. They can't expect everyone to leave facebook and their 1000+ friends just for a cleaner interface and about 50 friends.

Re:Should have done this a long time ago (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38849941)

The younger generation doesn't need social networking. Here is what I mean: I don't want my child to have a Facebook or G+ account. You can argue all you like, but that is my right as a parent. However, other fuck-head parents let their kids have these accounts, as well as smart-phones. Then their hell-spawn take photos of my kid, and open a Facebook account for them, all without my knowledge. All this crap empowers other adults (and their children) to interfere in my parenting. That shit pisses me off. Furthermore, there is not much I can do about it.

Re:Should have done this a long time ago (1)

Sarten-X (1102295) | more than 2 years ago | (#38849987)

All this crap empowers other adults (and their children) to interfere in my parenting. That shit pisses me off.

Because your parenting is perfect, right? You're not doing any of the terrible things your parents did to you, or that other parents do to their kids. So what if the kids are ostracized by their peers because they didn't see that hilarious picture everybody's talking about? They should be studying astrophysics, not participating in those silly social interactions!

Re:Should have done this a long time ago (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38850075)

It doesn't matter if my parenting is perfect -- I don't even know what that means. I don't give a damn if they are ostracized by their peers ... that is not my concern. Your example boils down to "Everybody else is doing it, so I have to do it too." Tell you what, I'll go print up a bunch of pamphlets that promote Communism, or Satan worship, or the joys of homosexuality, and have my kid pas them out at school. How does that sit with you?

Re:Should have done this a long time ago (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38850261)

Satan worship is cool.

Re:Should have done this a long time ago (3, Insightful)

Sarten-X (1102295) | more than 2 years ago | (#38850387)

It worries me. More specifically, I worry that your child will grow up without the social interaction required to empathize with others, so they'll treat every slight criticism as a major offense. Perhaps worse, without understanding other people's thought processes, I worry they'll be unable to recognize the complex interactions of society, and will end up with extreme opinions on important issues, and thinking everyone opposing them is crazy.

Re:Should have done this a long time ago (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38850491)

That is the most blatant nonsense. Facebook does not facilitate empathy or understanding -- it's just another echo chamber. Do you posit that empathy and understanding are new to society, and are a direct consequence of technology? Indeed, children are more likely to use this technology to further their ability to bully others in their own home. Children are irresponsible, intellectually and morally deficient ... incomplete. That is why they are under the care of adults.

Re:Should have done this a long time ago (2)

Sarten-X (1102295) | more than 2 years ago | (#38850911)

Facebook, Google+, and Neopets, and whatever other social time sinks are popular now, are only a part of the picture. Today they serve the same functions as Boy Scouts, football teams, and 4-H did in the 70's. They provide social interaction and reaffirm that the child is a part of society. It's the activity in society that contributes the experience that becomes the responsibility and moral completeness children lack. As children participate in society with their peers, they are increasingly shown that other people have feelings and thoughts of their own. They see that life moves on regardless of their own desires, and they see that the world does not, in fact, revolve entirely around their demands as it seemed to when they were infants.

Re:Should have done this a long time ago (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38851055)

So you equate socialization that is guided by adults (Boy Scouts, football teams, 4-H) with electronic solitaire and Lord of the Flies peer social interaction. My god, man ... you are a fool.

Re:Should have done this a long time ago (1)

Sarten-X (1102295) | more than 2 years ago | (#38851183)

They are not perfectly equal, and indeed, I believe both adult- and peer-led socialization is important. However, both provide the social interaction that allows children to experiment with social norms and understand each other.

Too little peer-led interaction, and children lack the recognition that they, too, can be leaders. Too little adult-led interaction and, as you seem to fear, children learn to disregard all authority. The key is balance, and the recognition that your child knows their own development better than you do.

As an aside, Boy Scouts troops are groups of peer-led patrols, who can plan and execute activities without any adult guidance. Sports teams are often led by captains, with the coaches providing support and guidance, but not much of direct leadership. 4-H often encourages collaboration among peers with adults present primarily for answering questions. Many (if not most) such organizations recognize the balance of leadership required for growth, and encourage it.

Re:Should have done this a long time ago (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38852377)

Wow, gee, I guess you're wrong [slashdot.org] .

Re:Should have done this a long time ago (1)

Sarten-X (1102295) | more than 2 years ago | (#38854215)

Shocking discovery: Anything in excess is bad.

Anything being completely cut out for paranoia is also bad.

Re:Should have done this a long time ago (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38853559)

...grow up without the social interaction required to empathize with others. Perhaps worse, without understanding other people's thought processes, they'll be unable to recognize the complex interactions of society, and will end up with extreme opinions on important issues, and thinking everyone opposing them is crazy.

Apparently our U.S. congresspeople were using some secret DARPAnet social infrastructure that later became Facebook when they open-sourced it back in the '90s. Now it's working to preserve the status quo.

Re:Should have done this a long time ago (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38850005)

I beat my children with a belt. That's my right as a parent.

Not saying keeping them off of FB/G+ isn't a perfectly "OK" parental thing to do, but your argument is horrible.

Re:Should have done this a long time ago (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38850369)

Right back at you with: Little Johnny's parents let Johnny smoke. So, it's okay for Johnny to give cigarettes to my kid. Or porn. Or drugs. Hell, just let 'em do what they want.

Re:Should have done this a long time ago (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38850699)

Yes, let them do whatever they want and let Darwin and real consequences sort them out.

Re:Should have done this a long time ago (1)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 2 years ago | (#38854541)

The younger generation doesn't need social networking. Here is what I mean: I don't want my child to have a Facebook or G+ account. You can argue all you like, but that is my right as a parent. However, other fuck-head parents let their kids have these accounts, as well as smart-phones. Then their hell-spawn take photos of my kid, and open a Facebook account for them, all without my knowledge. All this crap empowers other adults (and their children) to interfere in my parenting. That shit pisses me off. Furthermore, there is not much I can do about it.

that's all good and well, but were you yourself really so stupid that you couldn't have had that(social networking accounts, ug-chats- everything) despite whatever your parents tried when you were 13?

btw. maybe you should move to the mountains and pull a pussy over your face as the expression goes. nobody "needs" social networking just like nobody needs friends, nobody needs to go out dancing, nobody needs to read classical literature, nobody needs to watch cars drive in circles, nobody needs to play competitive sports and nobody needs to read stupid scifi - to be truly alive though you need to do something with someone sooner or later though.

Re:Should have done this a long time ago (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38854689)

Hey, moron, I didn't say nobody needs social networking. Try reading closely next time so that you can discover the true meaning of a statement.

Re:Should have done this a long time ago (0)

DerekLyons (302214) | more than 2 years ago | (#38850171)

I was always kind of surprised that they hadn't done this already.

Given Google's "throw darts at the dartboard" and "swerve and skid all over the landscape" strategies for G+ to date - how can you be surprised? The only thing Google has done right so far was to give early access to niche net celebrities (like Thomas Hawk or Marc Spagnuolo).
 

The only way for a general-purpose social network like G+ to compete with facebook is to win the younger generation of social networkers. They can't expect everyone to leave facebook and their 1000+ friends just for a cleaner interface and about 50 friends.

Five or ten years ago, the "younger generation" may have ruled the roost - but this is 2012, not 2007. The "younger generation" that built Facebook is now mostly twentysomething and firmly embedded on Facebook, along with their parents, grandparents, etc... All generations are deeply involved with all the things G+ lacks. Not just applications and games (though both are obviously huge), but high school, veterans and other fraternal groups and reunion pages. Pages for their favorite causes. Pages for their favorite websites. Pages for their town, neighborhood, and favorite local businesses and national brands. Pages for their favorite bands, both indy newcomers and ancient dinosaurs. Etc... etc...
 
No, G+'s problem isn't the lack of the younger generation. It's that their attempt to replace Facebook by not being Facebook has resulted in a sterile empty desert. Like requiring those who create a Google account to create a G+ account, this is nothing more than a desperate bid to boost their numbers without having to actually go to the bother of boosting their features.

Re:Should have done this a long time ago (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38860791)

Spot on. Google+ was really exciting at first - quite a bit of buzz with some cool features that Facebook didn't have (I personally find G+ to be a more intuitive interface than Facebook).

But a series of missteps, more notably their distain for all people who want to maintain a small iota of privacy has sent them sliding down. I cannot understand why you would advertise a better level of privacy than Facebook, but then role out a product that was much more revealing than facebook (altering ALL google accounts, requiring real names and banning if they weren't real 'enough'). It was a hypocritical and stupid move.

Huh? (1, Insightful)

Ol Biscuitbarrel (1859702) | more than 2 years ago | (#38849805)

That headline made me think of an Onion piece: TIME Announces New Version Of Magazine Aimed At Adults. [youtube.com] Would help if I knew what Google+ is. OK, it's their answer to Facebook, got it. Wow. Why did they give it a name that sounds like a multivitamin?

Re:Huh? (1)

flyingfsck (986395) | more than 2 years ago | (#38849943)

Google+ is actually a multi-vitamin for those over 50. They are now trying to attract the younger crowd, but it lost its cool factor long ago.

I disagree (-1, Offtopic)

BrianErvin (2552524) | more than 2 years ago | (#38849811)

my best friend's mom makes $77 an hour on the computer. She has been out of job for 9 months but last month her check was $7487 just working on the computer for a few hours. Read about it here http://cashsharp.com/ [cashsharp.com]

Do they have to use their real names? (4, Insightful)

Sark666 (756464) | more than 2 years ago | (#38849929)

I would think being able to use a nickname would add a level of privacy.

Re:Do they have to use their real names? (2)

Overzeetop (214511) | more than 2 years ago | (#38850037)

I would think requiring that they use their real name would add a level of restraint.

Sorry, couldn't help myself - I'm joking, of course. Nothing will lead to any sort of level of restraint in the 13-17yo crowd. :-)

Re:Do they have to use their real names? (1)

TheDarkNose (1613701) | more than 2 years ago | (#38853177)

a level of restraint. Sorry, couldn't help myself

Pot calling the kettle black? :-)

Re:Do they have to use their real names? (1)

Abreu (173023) | more than 2 years ago | (#38850051)

They now allow nicknames, but you have to tell bigGoogle your real name.

Re:Do they have to use their real names? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38858819)

They now allow nicknames, but you have to tell bigGoogle your real name.

And it still displays your real name anyway. If you select a nickname it just *adds* your nickname to display (re: real) name. It's bogus.

Re:Do they have to use their real names? (4, Insightful)

Karlb (87776) | more than 2 years ago | (#38850121)

Remind me, what part of joining a social networking site is about privacy?

Re:Do they have to use their real names? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38850375)

Truth be told, this is why I bailed out of the social networking trend. That, coupled with the hypocrisy.

Re:Do they have to use their real names? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38860793)

The part where you don't get to know what the site does with your data.

Re:Do they have to use their real names? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38850373)

Of course they do. It's an "identity service." i.e. A service in which you tell the biggest advertising company in the world your identity so they can track all your online communication and friendships to build a perfect marketing profile of you for a few years, just in time for when you're old enough to have that first credit card and be out from under your parents' roof.

how google know the truth? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38850103)

how does google know if someone really has aged 13 years?

Hook 'em while they're young, right? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38850195)

Go ahead, try it, everybody else is doing it. It's so cool.

You won't be hooked, I promise.

Signed up? Good.

We've got you now. MWAHAHAHAHAHA

Accurate info is valueable info (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38850297)

Allowing teens who would otherwise use fake birthdates to use the social network are now going to give google their real ages, making their information more valuable. Falls in line with the reasoning behind Googles real name policy.

I think it's totally fine (1)

joelletoon88 (2562747) | more than 2 years ago | (#38850357)

Hey so I have kids below that age and I guess it's totally fine for me to let them use G+ its not that much of a worry for me. Not saying I have great parenting though but I guess it's fine at the end of the day. Loves, joelle http://sgbrandedbags.com/ [sgbrandedbags.com]

Re:I think it's totally fine (1)

Trax3001BBS (2368736) | more than 2 years ago | (#38856179)

Welcome to my HOSTS file!

Too late. (1)

CyberSnyder (8122) | more than 2 years ago | (#38850385)

They told everyone under 18 to go away, they're not going to return. Google+ had the worst launch of any product I've ever seen.

Re:Too late. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38850855)

Bradley Horowitz tries his best, but at the end of the day he has to do what that piece of shit Vic Gundotra guy wants. It is really sad when you think that this idiot singlehandedly managed to ruin mobile and social.

--
There is a new arrogant asshole [mailto] in town.

Google to acquire Myspace? (1)

Animats (122034) | more than 2 years ago | (#38851007)

Now what? Will Google acquire Myspace and pick up the kids still on there?

(Does Myspace still actually have members, or is it just a promotional site for entertainment now?)

Re:Google to acquire Myspace? (1)

Githaron (2462596) | more than 2 years ago | (#38851029)

What is Myspace? :)

Re:Google to acquire Myspace? (1)

swillden (191260) | more than 2 years ago | (#38854045)

Now what? Will Google acquire Myspace and pick up the kids still on there?

(Does Myspace still actually have members, or is it just a promotional site for entertainment now?)

I just performed a quick survey of a dozen kids hanging out at my house (my kids and their friends)... and no one under 14 had any idea what myspace was. They're all on Facebook, even the ones under 13, and most are on Google+ as well.

Re:Google to acquire Myspace? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38855311)

Fuck off, fucking asshole. Still enjoying killing innocent animals? I hope someone blows up your fucking face a .50 cal rifle!

--
Jordynb

Re:Google to acquire Myspace? (1)

swillden (191260) | more than 2 years ago | (#38857387)

Mmm... pheasant for dinner tonight.

Re:Google to acquire Myspace? (1)

Animats (122034) | more than 2 years ago | (#38858283)

I just performed a quick survey of a dozen kids hanging out at my house (my kids and their friends)... and no one under 14 had any idea what myspace was. They're all on Facebook, even the ones under 13, and most are on Google+ as well.

Ask them how often they check Facebook, and do they check it more, or less, than a few months ago.

Place Away From Parents (1)

Githaron (2462596) | more than 2 years ago | (#38851019)

With everyone and their grandparents on Facebook, the kids are going to want to go somewhere where their parents don't have an account. Of course, on Google+, when the parents eventually get a Google+ account, the kids could always put their parents in a separate circle and only share what they want with them.

"10 mpg" fuel mileage comments don't belong here (1)

CAIMLAS (41445) | more than 2 years ago | (#38851261)

10MPG for an H1? If that's all you're getting, you're doing something wrong. (Probably not running the turbo Detroit, I imagine, and driving poorly.)

Look folks. I'm tired of the "big gas guzzling beasts" argument being made, particularly where people are supposed to be educated.

The H1 was primarily offered in 6.5 and 6.2 liter Detroit diesel packages, both with and without a turbo. It weighs around 6500lb-7000lb and came with a 3 or 4 speed transmission. The vehicle has 4 wheel drive. These specifications are almost identical (both in actual parts used and how they're paired up) to every single diesel truck Chevy/GM made for 20 years (albeit about 1000-1500lb heavier).

A full-size 1 ton early 80s 6.2 aspirated Detroit with a 3 speed transmission and a curb weight of 5200lb. gets about 15-18mpg highway and about 13-14mpg city. The vehicle has the 'tow package' and a low geared real differential very similar to the H1. These are my numbers and have been roughly consistent at different altitudes (sea level to 5,000 feet). I drive like a maniac (accelerate quickly). I got slightly worse mileage with about 1100-1300lb in the rear end going over the Sierra Nevadas last summer - about 13.5mpg. I was driving well above the 'optimal' band for fuel economy at the time.

A M1009 Blazer (also 4wd), which I also know the numbers on, with the exact same drive train and weighing 1200lb more, gets 16-18mpg highway and around 12 city (more inclines where this one drives, as well as slightly higher gearing).

In contrast for gas engines: a 4wd 1 ton mid-90s Suburban will get right around 13/16 mpg with the 'normal' 350/5.7 small block and a 4 speed transmission.
There are very, very few "gas guzzlers" out there which are anywhere near that 10mpg mark.

I realize there's a lot of appeal to Prius type vehicles here, but let me ask you, Slashdotters... let's be a little more intelligent about our stereotypes and digs. Keep this up and it won't be long until we start seeing stupidity like "brown people don't work hard".

Re:"10 mpg" fuel mileage comments don't belong her (1)

Thing 1 (178996) | more than 2 years ago | (#38852123)

Your 12 mpg rating does seem awfully close to 10 mpg. To your argument, i would say, "Go boil a frog." (Yes, I know that's been mythbusted as well.)

Re:"10 mpg" fuel mileage comments don't belong her (1)

CAIMLAS (41445) | more than 2 years ago | (#38854251)

There is quite a difference in practicality between 12 and 10mpg - it's 20% better fuel economy.

In contrast, a 30mpg mini-sedan isn't even 100% better fuel economy than my van.

Boiling frogs has nothing to do with it. That'd be like arguing a negligible difference.

Re:"10 mpg" fuel mileage comments don't belong her (1)

Thing 1 (178996) | more than 2 years ago | (#38857473)

You're right; I was somewhat, and perhaps overly, cryptic (due to aligning with your signature :). Let me try to recall... You ended your argument with:

let's be a little more intelligent about our stereotypes and digs. Keep this up and it won't be long until we start seeing stupidity like "brown people don't work hard".

... and I'm still coming up blank, my apologies for vomiting in your direction; I'll try to be more careful in the future.

I do agree about the 20% improvement.

Always Use Fake Info To Create Accounts (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38851695)

Anybody who uploads their real personal information to Google+ or Facebook is an idiot.

Cartman marketing in full effect? (1)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 2 years ago | (#38854513)

"AND YOU CAN'T USE THIS!!! ONLY FOR DECENT HONEST ADULTS!!".

first let nobody in and then start allowing everyone.

they're not doing the cartman marketing trick quite right though.. maybe that's because they're not running an amusement park.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?