"Facemarks"

Call me back when you can roll it out on a non-flat girl's back, play a video game for a half hour or an hour, and have her believe you just gave her a massage...

Ums...metaphor?

We can't debate the Bible's creation story any more than we can debate any story in Æsop's Fables literally.

Yes, it just puts a checkmark after the name, which if you mouseover says "Verified".

Right now the announcement said it's only available for celebrity and hugely followed accounts--so just like Twitter.

PS: And just for entertainment, many of those accounts are using their common names, not their real names, nor legal names.

Fixed this for ya':

Children usually don't mind seeing new things, until they are taught by adults that the imagery/context is "dirty" or bad from an adult reaction to seeing it.

Although some are saying let's not call this a "slippery slope" yet, when do you? History has shown as soon as tools such as this are created, a government or organization somewhere requires their application. This is true to such a degree that a local library often has patrons shocked that their internet computers are not filtered in the children's department--they automatically assume they would be.

That notwithstanding, there is a version of Wikipedia written and designed for kids or second language speakers, explaining things in simpler terms and more basic fashion.

...haven't learned about voicemail.

Others have recommended plenty of non-cute backpacks, so here are some more fashionable alternatives....

At Targét, this gal found the perfect solution for her laptop, camera and a few lenses, and for only $20!

Trey chic, this cotton bag with pink lace design Techie Diva found doesn't offer as much padding, but squee, cuteness!

Here are several other options Lynette compiled for us, not just purses, but messenger bag style as well, which would be easier to carry over the long haul.

For the future, just check with your favorite bloggers, if you don't like to shop as much as the next gal! ;-)

Analytics???

Ohhh! Per what I saw between my browser tab and then opening it, "Can Anal" ... "Fix Your Love Life?"

It's just one part of the whole.

Naïve.

First, the story wasn't not about how pseudonyms are not bad, it doesn't even talk about that but goes into other issues. (See the bullet points kindly provided in "Lord Grey's" post below.)

But to truly attack someone, you have to know something about them and be able to access an area they are vulnerable.

Anonymously "attacking" is insignificant.

If some stranger with no identity you can relate to says something about you, whether on the Internet, WWW, email, or written in your local newspaper, it has no impact on you.

But someone you know and value the opinion of? Now emotional and perhaps mental distress may be caused.

Worse, someone who knows where you live or work? Now potential financial and physical distress may be caused.

People establish positions of power and then use knowledge and identities to inflict more harm. Step one of taking someone down is learning about them. Step two is getting them to trust you.

You'll note people have been murdered based on real identities/contact, there is a "Craigslist killer" and "Facebook killer", but no "Twitter killer" (as of yet).

The first rule of being safe online is not to reveal personal information, starting with your full name, that hasn't changed--oh wait, and it seems your behavior agrees with that Mr./Ms. "EasyTarget".

I'm sorry, I disagree, the parent is getting modded up because it's insightful--I never ran across an admin, despite being very active. Years ago I used to do nothing but go through stub articles, fleshing them out, developing them with solid references, connecting them to other related articles and wikilinking them everywhere relevant, and guess what? Those pages now have seen few views and little to no activity.

Sure, what you say is marginally true, there will always be information, particularly from other languages/histories/cultures that isn't included in the English version, just as imagery I provided for articles would get duplicated in the German version but few others.

But that falls into the 5% that doesn't NEED (note, "need", not your want) to be there. Not a single one of the stubs I worked on would be found in a printed encyclopedia or included in a CD of Wikipedia.

Ironically, stub articles with more than just a name, offer most of the content people searching Wikipedia want! Fleshing it out with far more "copy" does nothing but obscure the useful main point.

I'm not saying my time was wasted (I found it fun), but years ago none of that information truly contributed to society. Of course it's valued by someone, but Wikipedia can be considered "complete" without it.

Sounds like ARexx brought to the Web (an expanded Rexx implementation on the Amiga from the '80s) but standardized.

The interaction between different applications was wonderful (Want to edit an image embedded in a document in your word processor? Update numbers in a spreadsheet or calculator? Send those updated numbers to a 3D model?) but required too much technical knowledge on the part of the user, due to lack of standard calls, or limited the end user functionality to developers who had worked together, limiting choices.

There already is a tool, Gender Genie, although it just looks only at word usage, and prefers to have over 500 words, but it would apply to something like you describe very well. (I think I learned of it from Slashdot years ago.)

Well Gender Genie prefers having texts longer than 500 words, but feels that writing is more female than male (176 to 141).

Link to common name policy.
Link to pseudonym plans.

(Google hasn't required "real" legal names, I guess people assume that because Facebook does? They just have been trying to combat spam accounts and impostors.)

Good communication requires two parts, one party expressing things, the other party paying attention and caring about what is being expressed. I believe we have seen where the lapse is here in multiple examples now, and I direct you back to the link in the first post you replied to, which specifically talks about pseudonyms.

You wouldn't need to, you would simply make your account with your most common name, then put your alternate names in the "Other names" field (not the "Nickname" field, which is only used for some Google products, not revealed to your circles or publicly).

You may choose who may see those "other names", which dictates whether it's searchable only by your associated circles, or everyone.

As you already know from reading the first link, they are currently designing features for, "multiple accounts with different names", and other different account use cases.

(Their timeline for business accounts has already been accelerated due to demand, so who knows if they'll have other options available before release or not? That very push presumably will take time away from other features.)

PS: I have seen a feature request to have different profile pictures (and views) for different circles, which would exactly provide what you are seeking, in a much more convenient manner than having to log in and out of multiple accounts.