(JT's post: https://plus.google.com/u/0/115404182941170857382/posts/33LhoxoEuPw )
(This is the 3rd most popular question I hear!)
Short version: Just grab the URL for the single photo from your Picasa and paste it into a new post!
1) Click on "Photos" on the black bar at the top. This will take you to your Picasa album.
2) Go navigate to the specific photo you want to share.
3) Copy the URL.
4) Go back to Google+ and do a new post and Paste in the URL
5) Additionally, you can add whatever descriptive text you like to the post. Perhaps a little story or something... go for it... we like the little stories and micro-thoughts that bounce around your head... you're not alone, you know.
I have done this below by selecting this photo, as you can see in the URL at the bottom.
[spoiler] This is the prison where they kept Marie Antoinette. It's called the Conciergerie, and, of course, it's not a secret at all; the place just never shows up on the "Top 10" spots in Paris. There's hardly anyone inside visiting, so it can be eerie walking around the open and empty prison...
http://klout.com/#/Scobleizer/list/most-influential-in-tech has a list of technology VIPs and their scores. All the scores changed today in order to better reflect offline influence. So Bill Gates moved up the list.
But things are still pretty wacky.
My score of 86, for instance, still puts me ahead of lots of people. Here's just a small portion of the more deserving people of high Klout scores that are on that list:
invented Wikipedia, but he only has 85.
+Steve Case came up with AOL and he's only 85.
invented Twitter and runs +Square but he only has 85.
runs Yahoo and gets paid tens of millions, yet she only has a score of 84.
has invested in half a dozen huge winners (me, none) and he has 84.
is the director of MIT's Media Lab and only has 84.
cofounded Apple and only has 83.
started and sold Techcrunch. Me? I only linked to it. He only has 82.
started Automattic, the company that makes Wordpress, yet only has 81.
runs TED, which gets more views than my videos do, and he only has 81.
started LinkedIn and he only has 81.
started and runs Salesforce.com and he only has 81.
ran Google for years, still is on its board, and he only has 81.
started Yammer and sold it to Microsoft for a billion dollars and he only has 80.
started LeWeb, the most influential tech conference in Europe and he only has 79.
is one of the top VCs alive (invested in Google) and he has a score of only 78.
+Philip Schiller is a VP at Apple and only has 77.
started YouTube and only has 76.
invented the Web and only has 73.
started Wired Magazine and only has 72.
Shall I go on? There are lots of examples on this list of people who should have a higher real-world score than me, but that don't.
So, should we take Klout seriously?
Now, on the other side of the fence, I will defend Klout. If you are measuring online popularity AND activity AND ability to get other people to engage, ala click +1 on a post, then I guess I deserve to be higher than most, but what good is measuring just that?
That said, if you compare someone with a score of, say, 60 or more, with someone with a score of 20 or less, you can see a HUGE difference in quality of content and engagement and influence and all that. So, there is some value when you compare the high end of the scale with the low end. But the numbers are just funny money in my book.
On the other hand, my number is 86 and that's pretty damn cool to my overinflated ego. :-) All that means is my wife is gonna make me change more diapers and clean more dishes tonight. Sigh.
UPDATE: Klout CEO commented and responded to this below in the comments.
MailChimp's a local Atlanta company (who I use for marketing e-mails) and awesome because they're free (you can pay to upgrade certain things), have a great UI, and are super-duper helpful if you ever need it...oh, and they also have well-designed templates and GREAT downloadable PDFs for things like "Common Rookie Mistakes" (http://mailchimp.com/resources/guides/common-rookie-mistakes) and "MailChimp for Designers."
At the moment, they have 998,179 subscribers to their newsletter. I'd recommend subscribing anyway, but if you do it now, there's a good chance you could snag some cool swag, too. Check em out if you have a minute...
You can head straight over to sign the petition here:
Or, if you're interested, here are my thoughts on why this idea is, at best, misguided...
First of all, I'm not totally clear on how ($75,740 x 260) could be less than ($63,184 x 140), so Mike Adams' statement that "it would be more cost-effective for the university to raze the structure and build a larger dormitory" (quoting "Students Organize..." article that paraphrases his quote) is specious...
$19.7M is NOT less than $8.85M.
The additional 120 beds (net gain: 110 beds) increases the price tag $10,850,000. That's $90,417 per/new bed.
Remember that the cost of demolishing and building from scratch was approx $75,740 per/bed. This means that building somewhere that doesn't require tearing out one of South Campus' few historic buildings would likely also cost around $75,740 per/bed.
(for reference, Rutherford beds currently rent for approx $2000 per/semester (fall + spring) in a double-occupancy room)
Seriously, a difference of 120 rooms (net gain: 110) at an additional cost of $10.85M + losing a historic and much-beloved building + losing one of the few remaining small-dorm housing options in the heart of campus (Myers Quadrangle = cool)...irresponsible.
And if I hear one more time about "increased energy efficiency" as justification to demolish a building and construct a new one, I'll scream.
(and yes, every time UGA mentions Rutherford they say something about the "new, more energy-efficient building," as though operating efficiency were more than a tiny fraction of the total energy costs involve in the life-cycle of a building)
Think "cradle-to-cradle," meaning: energy "costs" are much, much more than just the numbers on your monthly power bill. There is a tremendous sunk cost in any construction project long before it opens for operation, and “The greenest building is the one that is already built.”
Consider the costs of construction such as:
-oil for materials manufacturing and transport;
-resources (embedded energy) lost by sending chunks of the existing (livable!) building to a landfill;
-resources consumed in construction of new building;
-energy consumed demolishing and transporting existing building scraps away;
-energy consumed sorting and recycling anything they opt to repurpose from the existing building;
...and I could go on and on about the costs in terms of coal, water, carbon emissions, etc. which are all SUBSTANTIALLY higher in demolish-and-rebuild vs. reuse-and-adapt, but I think you get the point.
And while buildings constructed in 1939 may have issues with asbestos and need to be updated (if it's not already clear: I totally support rehabilitation and DON'T think we should just keep Rutherford as-is), they are often more energy-efficient than we'd expect. Built in the deep south prior to the widespread adoption of air-conditioning, Rutherford's design necessarily utilizes once-standard passive energy-saving techniques that architects now tend to only consider for high-end and LEED-eligible buildings. Deep-set windows, an orientation to minimize solar gain, etc.
And, let's face it: South Campus needs to keep whatever historic buildings it has if it wants to ever feel like "campus." The open-space redesign in recent years has been a great start! Let's build on what we've temporarily inherited and make it better for future generations of students. No need to scrap it and start anew.
I fully support your support of the non-support of this project, despite my own opinions that lead to my lack of opinions. To be honest, I felt screwed over by UGA and, as such, haven't participated in anything as an alumnus, so even if I did have feelings in any particular direction about this then I'd not sign a petition just because it would be inconsistent with the rest of my non-participation in UGA matters.
Go to Photos > My Albums > Album and click the title to edit.
This was the most requested photos feature since launch. We're listening to your feedback.
May your mountains rise into and above the clouds.
World Cup: USA Hammers New Zealand, 377-8 | Derby News Network
DNN's full live coverage from the first ever Roller Derby World Cup begins Thursday! login | register. Username: *. Enter your Derby New
The 30 Harshest Artist-on-Artist Insults In History « Flavorwire
MailChimp Email Marketing Blog – New MailChimp Logo By Jon Hicks
Our beloved mascot has gone through a bunch of iterations over time, each one slightly less clumsy than the preceding version, but I've neve
Trojan Introduces ‘No One’s Pleasure’ Condoms For Bitter, Resentful Couples
PRINCETON, NJ—Contraceptive manufacturer Trojan unveiled its new line of “No One’s Pleasure” condoms Wednesday, the first prophylactic spe
Missing Teen's Friends Go On TV To Plead For Her Release, Gossip About U...
Two teens visit Today Now! in the hopes of finding their kidnapped friend and letting her know that their classmate is totally knocked up.
Video: Gringo Star - Shadow - Music News at Undertheradar
Atlanta-based band Gringo Star are due to release sophomore album Count Yer Lucky Stars off the Gringo Star,video,Count Yer Lucky Stars, ...
This Is How Lenses Beautify or Uglify Your Pretty Face
Ever wonder why you may look prettier in some photos and uglier in others, even with the same smile and the same lighting? It's all about th
Download: NPR Music's Favorite New Artists Of 2011 : NPR
At some point in 2011, all of them gave us something new to fall in love with. At the end of the year, we're happy to offer a little gift f
NPR Music: The Year's Biggest Surprises And Discoveries : NPR
Pop acts embraced the ukulele and the saxophone. Rock bands crafted weird, widescreen albums that still brimmed with solid, hummable songs.