Profile

Cover photo
Chris Luper
Works at AZZ/WSI
Attended The Universe
93 followers|70,419 views
AboutPostsPhotosVideosReviews

Stream

Chris Luper

Shared publicly  - 
 
 
Steve Denning reveals how clueless he is about Google+... again!

Pro tip: If you want serious traffic to your column, say Google+ is dead. Your page will be hammered by hoards of passionate Google+ fans who come to disagree with you. 

It's a lesson Steve Denning learned for his first "Google+ is dead column," so now he's back for another helping of Google+ traffic in his latest missive, called "Has Google+ really died"? 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2015/04/23/has-google-really-died/

(I'm not criticizing Denning -- yet! -- I myself drive huge traffic from Google+ to my own columns. That's because Google+ is very much alive.) 

Anyway, Denning launches into a defense of his first column, but succeeds mainly in demonstrating a profound ignorance about Google+. 

I'm here to help. 

Here's what Steve Denning got wrong: 

1. Assuming public posts = active use.

Denning is relying on a spectacularly useless metric for defining active use, which is public posting (by relying on the Stone Temple Consulting report) 

It doesn't take into account the default kind of post, which is non-public. A huge number of users have stage fright about posting publicly, and a probably even huger number don't know their posts are public. (If you want to criticize Google+, here's one criticism you can levy -- the whole Public vs. Circles posting issue is confusing to new users.) 

It doesn't take into account people who mainly or exclusively engage through comments. Because Google+ organizes posts differently than, say, Twitter, comments are not viewed as "posts," even though people are fully engaged in social interaction through comments. If I comment on something posted on Twitter, my comment is counted as a full-blown "post" or Tweet. If I post the same comment to the same post on Google+, my comment is not counted as anything by Stone Temple. 

It doesn't take into account people who mainly "consume" content without commenting much, even though they feel they're active users of Google+. 


2. Trying to have it both ways on the accidental "users."

Denning again goes astray by relying on Stone Temple's skewed messaging on their report. Yes, when you get a Google password for some other Google property, that counts as a Google+ account. So most of the 2.2 billion Google users aren't really Google+ users in actual fact. They then go on to use "randomly selected" profiles knowing full well that most of these are non users. 

You can't have it both ways. Either they're users to be counted as users, in which case Google+ is vastly bigger than Facebook -- or they're non users, and not to be counted in numbers about how active the average "user" is. 


3. Failing to appreciate the nature of the Google+ "cult."

Denning points out that many comments on his first column "seemed to resemble that of people defending a struggling religious cult, rather than the users of a mere software tool."

The gratuitous word "struggling" is passive-aggressive spin to support his narrative. But the point is well taken. Google+ people sound like a cult. Just like Apple fans. Or Android fans. Or Reddit users. 

Unlike Twitter or Facebook, Google has created an army of truly passionate users. 

In fact Apple is a perfect comparison. Apple has less than 7% of the global PC market. Does anyone say Apple's PC business is "dead"? No, because they have the highest-quality PCs and laptops and the highest-quality customers (in terms of income and education levels) -- exactly like Google+. 

Nobody likes to hear me say this, but Google+ is the Apple of social networks. (Actually, I think Guy Kawasaki was first to say something like this.) 

It's not a place like Facebook for grandma to post cat photos. And it's not a place like Twitter for people to speak in hashtag code and URLs. It's the only place where you can pursue your passions will brilliant, like-minded people who are truly interested in the same things you are. 

Yes: Google+ is a "cult." Only the highest quality tech products produce "cults." 


4. Equating tech press echo chamber bias with the "emerging consensus."

Denning trots out a smattering of Google+ hater headlines to provide "evidence" for the "emerging consensus" about Google+. (And check the numbers: Those articles got HUGE traffic from the Google+ "cult," too.)

As I've said many times, the press hates Google+ precisely BECAUSE it's not a ghost town. Any post on Google+ by a prominent writer will be greeted by long, well thought-out criticisms, challenging the writer's assumptions and calling the writer out for mistakes. Google+ isn't easy and breezy for public writers like Twitter and even Facebook are. 

This is the last thing a journalist wants after writing and editing all day. 

What the tech press wants is Twitter, where they can dash off quick and clever lines off the top of their heads (like this one: https://twitter.com/MikeElgan/status/591584837347061762 ) that will be neither challenged nor heavily discussed. 

That's why the tech press feels so threatened by Google+. There's too much going on: too much argument, too much to read. And so they've been out to kill it from the beginning. 


5. Equating dismantling with abandonment.

Denning quotes more Twitter-loving echo chamber journalists who assume Google spinning off things like Hangouts or Photos would be evidence for neglect and decline. (These are the same kind of journalists who said that Google moving Glass into its own product group meant that they're killing it.) It's all just wishful thinking by Plus haters in the press.

Fact is, the unnatural integration of everything years ago was just a strategy Google was trying. It didn't have the desired effect, honked off a bunch of people who didn't want things to be integrated, so now they've changed the strategy. 

The experience of using Google+, and the benefits, haven't changed one bit. (In fact, It would be improved by further de-coupling, specifically if YouTube and their trolls were surgically removed.)


6. Pretending to have tried Google+.

Denning says his "own efforts to love Google+ were unsuccessful." Looking at his profile, I see that he's posted publicly twice ever, hasn't even filled out his profile or even uploaded a profile banner pic. Running a search, I see that he doesn't engage with comments or communities. 

Steve Denning is a non-user. He has NOT made an effort to love Google+. I imagine if he had only posted two tweets on Twitter, he wouldn't understand that social network either. 

And this item is related to....


7. Completely failing to understand Google+ fan opposition to yet another non-user saying Google+ is dead.

Denning is making the mistake of publically making the same mistake many people have before. As I've pointed out many times, you cannot understand the power and the glory of Google+ unless you really use it. 

Denning is just another Arthur Spooner: 

https://plus.google.com/113117251731252114390/posts/9LE3GM6sLBF

Denning and other Arthur Spooners are confused about why Google+ fans have an issue with this phenomenon. And so I'm going to make it so clear that nobody who reads this can retain their confusion. Here goes. 

1. Google+ is the best social anything ever. 

2. This can be only understood if you're truly active on G+ for weeks or months. 

3. Influential writers who have not taken the time to understand have slammed Google+ from a place of ignorance. 

4. Because this has been repeated so many times, many, many people think Google+ is "bad" in some way. 

5. Bottom line: Ignorant people are the biggest threat to Google+, and are hurting the reputation of best social anything ever. 

Is that clear enough? 


8. Failing to appreciate the importance of Google+ for Google itself.

Google isn't going to kill Google+ because the site provides huge benefits for the company. 

First, Google+ is a necessary social component for Google's wearable computing platforms -- you know, the future of computing? 

Google Glass and Android Wear and future initiatives rely heavily on Google+ for understanding user social graphs, displaying birthdays, sharing photos and videos and much more. 

Google+ is a great platform for Google employees, engineers and executives to brainstorm, announce things, and learn about their most passionate fans and users. (Where else would they do this, Facebook?)

Google+ is still useful for cultivating the most passionate fans of Google itself, as well as Android. Google+ puts the "cult" in cultivating. Google would be insane to cut their most loyal, passionate and enthusiastic users off at the knees. 

In a nutshell, Steve Denning is just plain wrong about Google+. 

(Photo is massively unrelated to the post)
123 comments on original post
1
Add a comment...

Chris Luper

Shared publicly  - 
 
 
Colonialism lives on for inhabitants of Norfolk Island

The strongly monarchist descendants of The Mutiny on the Bounty are not happy that Australia wants to end their self-rule. 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/11482125/Mutiny-on-the-Bounty-descendants-to-lose-self-rule.html
Norfolk Island, 900 miles east of the Australian coast and settled by the descendants of Fletcher Christian and other Bounty mutineers in 1856, is effectively bankrupt
View original post
1
Add a comment...
 
 
Ooooooh…..

#augmentedreality   #magicleap  
Late last year, Google invested in a company called Magic Leap, which aimed to bring augmented reality to us on a broader scale. The promise was neat, and the
View original post
1
Add a comment...

Chris Luper

Shared publicly  - 
 
More than 5,000 of you nominated. More than 60,000 of you voted. And now the results are in. The winners of NPR's Top 100
14 comments on original post
1
Add a comment...

Chris Luper

Shared publicly  - 
 
 
Happy birthday to the +Canadian Space Agency from all of us at Penny4NASA!

For nearly as long as the agency has been active, NASA’s various activities on the ground, in low-Earth orbit, and beyond, have been rooted in well-built relationships with other nations around the world who share their drive for knowledge and purpose beyond Earth’s atmosphere.

While competition drove early activities, we’ve witnessed an increasing shift towards a more collaborative and shared presence in space with the construction of space station Mir and the International Space Station (ISS). One of NASA’s 22 partners actively part of the International Space Station program has been their neighbor to the north, the Canadian Space Agency.

Since its creation on March 1, 1989, the Canadian Space Agency has been a dynamic partner that has contributed both astronauts, including Col. Chris Hadfield, and technological contributions like Canadarm on the Space Shuttle, and Canadarm 2 and the rest of the Mobile Servicing Unit aboard the International Space Station.

Future projects for the Canadian Space Agency include but are not limited to the RADARSAT Constellation Mission, a three-spacecraft fleet of Earth observation satellites scheduled for a 2018 launch, and the Polar Communication and Weather Mission, which involves the planned launch of two satellites in polar orbit to provide improved weather and communications capabilities in the high Arctic.

Canada has continued to be a vital member of the ISS program throughout the past ten years and continues to play a major role in space exploration as a central partner of NASA.

Read more about the Canadian Space Agency:
http://goo.gl/ri1Dq9
http://goo.gl/udf1Tl
http://goo.gl/uoD253

Read more about the RADARSAT Constellation Mission:
http://goo.gl/wuC

Read more about the Polar Communication and Weather Mission:
http://goo.gl/jrTr2A

#CSA #ISS #NASA #Penny4NASA #Space
22 comments on original post
1
Add a comment...

Chris Luper

Shared publicly  - 
 
 
Cradle to Grave

Gravity is perhaps the best known of the four fundamental forces. It’s also the one that’s easiest to understand. At a basic level, gravity is simply the mutual attraction between any two masses. It’s the force that lets the Sun hold the planets in their orbits, and the force that holds the Earth to you. The force is always attractive, and the strength of the force between two masses depends inversely on the square of their distances, making it an inverse square force. But gravity’s simplicity is just a veneer that hides a deeply subtle and complex phenomenon.

When Newton proposed his model of universal gravity, one criticism of the model was how gravity could act at a distance. How does the Moon “detect” the presence of Earth and “know” to be pulled in Earth’s direction? A few ideas were proposed, but never really panned out. Since Newton’s model was so incredibly accurate, the action-at-a-distance problem was largely swept under the rug. Regardless of how masses detected each other, Newton’s model let us calculate their motion. Another difficulty came to be known as the 3-body problem. Calculating the gravitational motion of any two masses was straight forward, but the motion of three or more masses was impossible to calculate exactly. The motion could be approximated to great precision, and was even used to discover Neptune, but an exact, general solution for three masses would never be found. Newton’s idea was simple, but it’s application was complex.

In the early 1900s, we found that gravity wasn’t a force at all. In Einstein’s model, gravity isn’t a force, but rather a warping of spacetime. Basically, mass tells space how to bend, and space tells mass how to move. General relativity isn’t just a mathematical trick to calculate the correct forces between objects, it makes unique predictions about the behavior of light and matter, which are different from the predictions of gravity as a force. Space really is curved, and as a result objects are deflected from a straight path in a way that looks like a force.

But despite its simple approximation as a force, and its beautifully subtle description as a property of spacetime, we’ve come to realize over the past century that we still don’t know what gravity actually is. That’s because both Newton’s and Einstein’s models of gravity are classical in nature. We now know that objects have quantum properties, with particle-like and wave-like behaviors.  When we try to apply quantum theory to gravity, things become complicated and confusing. In most quantum theory, quantum objects exist within a background framework of space and time. Since gravity is a property of spacetime itself, fully quantizing gravity would require a quantization of space and time. There are several models that attempt this, but none of them have yet achieved a fully quantum model.

Usually our current understanding of gravity is just fine. We can accurately describe the motions of stars and planets. Seemingly odd predictions such as black holes and the big bang have been confirmed by observation. Every experimental and observational test of general relativity has validated its accuracy. Large objects with strong gravity can be described just fine by classical gravity. For small objects with weak gravity we our approximate quantum gravity is good enough. The problem comes when we want to describe small objects with strong gravity, such as the earliest moments of the big bang.

Without a complete theory of quantum gravity, we won’t fully understand the earliest moment of the universe. We know from observation that the early observable universe was both very small and very dense. From general relativity this would imply that the universe began as a singularity. Most cosmologists don’t think the universe actually began as a singularity, but without quantum gravity we aren’t exactly sure. Even if we put the quantum aspects of gravity aside, there is still a part of gravity we don’t understand. Within general relativity it is possible to have a cosmological constant. Adding this constant to Einstein’s equations causes the universe to expand through dark energy, just as we observe. While general relativity allows for a cosmological constant, it doesn’t require one. The cosmological constant agrees with what we observe, but there are other proposed models for dark energy that agree as well (at least for now). If dark energy is really due to the cosmological constant, then the constant must be very close to zero, at about 10-122. Why would a constant be so incredibly close to zero? Why does it even exist when general relativity doesn’t require it?

We don’t know, and without that understanding, both the origin and fate of the universe remain mysteries.

Tomorrow: Electromagnetism was the first unified theory, combining the forces of magnets and charges. The result gave us a new understanding of light, and led us down a path toward a theory of everything.
We often speak of gravity as a force. More accurately it is a feature of spacetime. Even more accurately, we don't know what it is.
58 comments on original post
1
Jason Acker (pbjacker)'s profile photo
 
That was written well. Long, but a fast read if you have some basic familiarity.
Add a comment...
 
 
The king of the seven seas
First look at aquaman.
We have the King Of Atlantis!  Zach Snyder took to Twitter late last night to unleash upon us the first image of actor Jason Momoa as Aquqman, with the cryptic tag line of “Unite The Seven”.  He is expected to appear in the upcoming Batman v Superman: Dawn Of justice...
13 comments on original post
1
Add a comment...
In his circles
906 people
Have him in circles
93 people
Golden Change Foundation's profile photo
John Fletcher's profile photo
patrick davidson's profile photo
Jennifer Luper's profile photo
john fletcher's profile photo
Miranda Partin's profile photo
Sabrina Sanchez's profile photo
Ross Walker's profile photo
Janese Parker's profile photo

Chris Luper

Shared publicly  - 
 
 
I was asked to contribute to this blog post offering airbrush tips and tricks honorably alongside some elite names in the industry.

Check it out!

http://badasshelmetstore.com/want-to-level-up-your-airbrushing-game-here-are-10-tips-from-the-experts-that-will-clean-up-your-pro-hand/
Contents1 1. Airbrushtutor  – by Mitch Lowther2 Airbrush Painting Secrets – by Alisa Amor3 Roustan Bodypaint – by Paul Roustan4 4.  Airbrush Action Mag - by Craig Fraiser5 5. Airbrush Technique Mag – by Don Johnson6 6. Airbrush Doc – by Sergej Voronko7 7.  Piersdowell.com8 8. How to airbrush skulls – by Stuart Vimpani9 9. Coast Airbrush TV - by Dave Monnig10 10. …
1 comment on original post
1
Add a comment...

Chris Luper

Shared publicly  - 
 
 
Craft your own all-purpose survival bracelet to better prepare you for any adventure or worst case scenario. This compact bug out kit comes equipped with gear to start a fire, repair your tent, purify water, signal for help, waterproof a poncho, replace a shoelace, fish, carve an arrow/fashions bow, set a snare trap, tighten a lose screw, or navigate to safety.

http://www.instructables.com/id/Bug-Out-Survival-Bracelet/
2 comments on original post
1
Add a comment...

Chris Luper

Shared publicly  - 
 
 
Dance of the Hag

On the face of it both electricity and magnetism are remarkably similar to gravity. Just as two masses are attracted to each other by an inverse square force, the force between two charged objects, or two poles of a magnet are also inverse square. The difference is that gravity is always attractive, whereas electricity and magnetism can be either attractive or repulsive. For example, two positive charges will push away from each other, while a positive and negative charge will pull toward each other. As with gravity, electricity and magnetism raised the question of action-at-a-distance. How does one charge “know” to be pushed or pulled by the other charge? How do they interact across the empty space between them? The answer to that question came from James Clerk Maxwell.

Maxwell’s breakthrough was to change the way we thought electromagnetic forces. His idea was that each charge must reach out to each other with some kind of energy. That is, a charge is surrounded by a field of electricity, a field that other charges can detect. Charges possess electric fields, and charges interact with the electric fields of other charges. The same must be true of magnets. Magnets possess magnetic fields, and interact with magnetic fields. Maxwell’s model was not just a description of the force between charges and magnets, but a also description of the electric and magnetic fields themselves. With that change of view, Maxwell found the connection between electricity and magnetism. They were connected by their fields. A moving electric field creates a magnetic field, and a moving magnetic field creates an electric field. Not only are the two connected, but one type of field can create the other. Maxwell had created a single, unified description of electricity and magnetism. He had united two different forces into a single unified force, which we now call electromagnetism.

Maxwell’s theory not only revolutionized physics, it gave astrophysics the tools to finally understand some of the complex behavior of interstellar space. By the mid-1900s Maxwell’s equations were combined with the Navier-Stokes equations describing fluids to create magnetohydrodynamics (MHD). Using MHD we could finally begin to model the behavior of plasma within magnetic fields, which is central to our understanding of everything from the Sun to the formation of stars and planets. As our computational powers grew, we were able to create simulations of protostars and young planets. Although there are still many unanswered questions, we now know that the dance of plasma and electromagnetism plays a crucial role in the formation of stars and planets.

While Maxwell’s electromagnetism is an incredibly powerful theory, it is a classical model just like Newton’s gravity and general relativity. But unlike gravity, electromagnetism could be combined with quantum theory to create a fully quantum model known as quantum electrodynamics (QED). A central idea of quantum theory is a duality between particle-like and wave-like (or field-like) behavior. Just has electrons and protons can interact as fields, the electromagnetic field can interact as particle-like quanta we call photons. In QED, charges and a electromagnetic fields are described as interactions of quanta. This is most famously done through Richard Feynman’s figure-based approach now known as Feynman diagrams.

Feynman diagrams are often mis-understood to represent what is actually happening when charges interact. For example, two electrons approach each other, exchange a photon, and then move away from each other. Or the idea that virtual particles can pop in and out of existence in real time. While the diagrams are easy to understand as particle interactions, they are still quanta, and still subject to quantum theory. How they are actually used in QED is to calculate all the possible ways that charges could interact through the electromagnetic field in order to determine the probability of a certain outcome. Treating all these possibilities as happening in real time is like arguing that five apples on a table become real one at a time as you count them.

QED has become the most accurate physical model we’ve devised so far, but this theoretical power comes at the cost of losing the intuitive concept of a force. Feynman’s interactions can be used to calculate the force between charges, just as Einstein’s spacetime curvature can be used to calculate the force between masses. But QED also allows for interactions that aren’t forces. An electron can emit a photon in order to change its direction, and an electron and positron can interact to produce a pair of photons. In QED matter can become energy and energy can be come matter.

What started as a simple force has become a fairy dance of charge and light. Through this dance we left the classical world and moved forward in search of the strong and the weak.

Tomorrow: The strong force answered the question of how positive charges could be bound in the nuclei of atoms, and allowed us to understand the origin of matter itself.
Electromagnetism can produce a force between charges or magnets, but it is much more than a simple force.
22 comments on original post
1
Add a comment...
People
In his circles
906 people
Have him in circles
93 people
Golden Change Foundation's profile photo
John Fletcher's profile photo
patrick davidson's profile photo
Jennifer Luper's profile photo
john fletcher's profile photo
Miranda Partin's profile photo
Sabrina Sanchez's profile photo
Ross Walker's profile photo
Janese Parker's profile photo
Education
  • The Universe
    Earth, 1980
Links
Work
Employment
  • AZZ/WSI
    7 - present
Basic Information
Gender
Male
Food: ExcellentDecor: ExcellentService: Excellent
Public - 2 years ago
reviewed 2 years ago
1 review
Map
Map
Map