Max Huijgen2013-03-06 22:56:27
#Imagine social networks would be owned by the people that fuel it: would ´disruptive´ innovation like today´s new features be acceptable?
Should a social network disrupt the user experience or should it just offer new options for those who want to use it? 

Check this post for the description of the new roll-out of today. It destroyed most people´s carefully tuned profiles and the work put into their banners. Cover photos just got bigger like there is no choice and we are all happy with blurred text and superimposed profiles.

https://plus.google.com/108713714482790711568/posts/JCvsy7x7iQs
  • 25 plusses - 114 comments - 1 shares | Read in G+
  • Max Huijgen2013-03-06 22:56:27
    #Imagine social networks would be owned by the people that fuel it: would ´disruptive´ innovation like today´s new features be acceptable?
    Should a social network disrupt the user experience or should it just offer new options for those who want to use it? 

    Check this post for the description of the new roll-out of today. It destroyed most people´s carefully tuned profiles and the work put into their banners. Cover photos just got bigger like there is no choice and we are all happy with blurred text and superimposed profiles.

    https://plus.google.com/108713714482790711568/posts/JCvsy7x7iQs
  • 25 plusses - 114 comments - 1 shares | Read in G+
  • Max Huijgen2012-06-03 23:15:45
    Is the growth of the photo community on G+ stalling?
    After runnning a few checks it suggests there are less people circling the fairly well known photographers, but I need you to to confirm the findings!
    edit: some people seem to think this is a conclusion or an attack, but it´s nothing more than an attempt to crowdsource some data to see if the thesis is right. Conclusions follow data, not the other way around!

    A few days ago I asked why people decide to circle someone. The topic got a lot of comments and touched the general feeling that people didn´t see as many people circling them lately.
    You can read up over here A little survey: What causes people to circle you? https://plus.google.com/u/0/112352920206354603958/posts/GkvUCtktzcR 

    +CircleCount showed recently that overall there was still a healthy grow on G+. I contributed with a number of comments and asked +CircleCount to produce even more graphs. I noticed that the group between the 5.000 and 500.000 (the under limit of the Suggested User List) had the lowest growth. 

    My own topic ended in a dialogue between me and +Thomas Hawk over  some claims of a photographer that he noticed a severe drop over time of 20% in six weeks. Checking the reality this turned out to be a figure of imagination, but *I noticed that this photog CircleCount growth curve was indeed almost flat.* 

    I started to wonder if the photo community which is very strong on G+ and has many users in the middle group of 20-50K followers could be stalling. That would explain the overall lackluster perfomance of the middle group on G+ outside of the SUL

    Now it makes no sense to check people on the SUL as they get the steady inflow of all new people on G+. However as a reference I checked +Thomas Hawk growth between April 15 and June 3. He went from 1,938,686 million to 2,450,475 which is a growth of 26%

    This strongly suggest that there were sufficient photo lovers coming to G+ as Thomas is not a general celebrity. People need to chose for the Art and Photography section to circle Thomas. A good baseline to check against.  

    Next step was to research all the reasonably well known photographers who were not yet superstars. An impossible tasks so I ask you to help out here by complementing my data.

     If you know a photographer who has a following between the 20.000 and 60.000 check his CircleCount stats and tell me by what percentage his circle grew between April 15 and June 3.
    Please provide the details in the format I used in the table. 

    The conclusion on just a few profiles: the average growth is 5% with variations between 3% and 11%. Compare this with Thomas circle growth of 26% in the same period and something doesn´t measure up!

    +Joel Tjintjelaar  Netherlands 39,002 41,865 1,07
    +Noze P. France 29,497 31,798 1,08
    +Julia Su  Spain 22,487 23,707 1,05
    +Benjamin Cortis  Germany 54,439 57,901 1,06
    +Julia Schiller Germany 20,074 20,755 1,03
    +Pawel Tomaszewicz  UK 36,647 37,812 1,03
    +Heidi Anne Morris  UK 38,189 42,407 1,11
    +Christina Lawrie  US 35,528 38,646 1,09
    +Guy Tal  US 41,071 41,185 1,00
    +Chris Gachot  US 35,815 36,551 1,02
    +Dino Morrow  US 24,251 25,368 1,05

    If you are willing to help me out in determining how healthy the photo community on G+ is please do some checks yourself and comment. Maybe you know others who are willing to help out?


    Notes:
    I only checked a more or less random group with a distribution of 6 Europeans and 5 Americans. Random between quotes, but I used circlecount, blindly pointed at the screen once I had a list of people in the right range and took the nearest person who had "photographer" in his profile. 

    Why look only at the people who are not on the SUL but still have a large following? To make sure we avoid all flukes. A great, new  photographer could just have been discovered and be shared in circles with an enormous growth. Or someone with 2000 folllowers would have stopped posting for a month. The middle group is resistant against these  variations. 

    and the graph should say 5% instead of 1,05 but shit happens....
  • 22 plusses - 112 comments - 5 shares | Read in G+
  • Max Huijgen2012-04-06 14:31:22
    New limit on seeing your own followers. You can´t see them all!
    You can´t see all the people who follow you anymore. Google now artificially limits this to a subset as is illustrated in the attached picture. In my case I can not even see half of them but for people with a million followers the percentage is a lot lower.

    I don´t know about you, but I am really interested in the people who chose to follow me, so I sometimes look at the whole list sorted on relevance. If people are close to the top and I didn´t circle them back, I check them out and often circle them.

    To make this easier I have used a smart trick to get a complete list of followers out of Google. Enter the following string https://plus.google.com/u/0/_/socialgraph/lookup/followers/?m=1000000 to get your million followers. In case you don´t have the million yet you could use a lower figure for m ;)

    What happens is that you get a text file with all your followers and their profiles. With some Perl or other regular expression stuff you can extract handy lists out of these text files. Without going into this, I can assure you that this trick used to work although it gave time out errors for people who really had hundreds of thousands of followers.

    However it´s no longer working! Just when I was working on an interesting experiment I discovered that the file no longer contains *all the followers.* Tests with some people for who 1 million is limiting as they have even more followers point out the same. We all get just a small sample, fluctuating but below 10.000. You can try it out yourself and confirm it gives you a text file with your followers sorted on relevance. Fill in m=50 and it works without any problem.

    Without all that fuss you can check for yourself by doing what I illustrated below:
    Go to circles, select ´have you in circles´, notice that you only have a limited number of people this way, but that there is a ´More´ button at the end. Keep pressing this until you no longer see this.

    Now select all and check the number to the left. If you have more followers than 10.000 you will see a lower number. To check there was no flaw in my approach I checked this by sorting them on surname and surely they go well beyond the ´z´ into other alphabets so the system works.

    This shows once again that Google didn´t think through its own features before they launched G+. This is the core concept of circles so you should be able to do whatever you want with them. However at the beginning it was all about loosely connected relations with people, not about huge numbers of followings and suggested user lists. The original concept broke when people started to get ´followings´ instead of a bunch of friends.

    I fully understand that Google doesn´t want to pull my almost 20.000 followers out of its database and serve the whole list every time I open that window. Would be a waste of their server time and more importantly render the user interface completely unusable for people with really large followings.

    However not being able to access it at all, not even by some button ´Yes, I realize this is taking some time and I understand I can only do this once a day´ is upsetting. After all it are people who follow you, so you should have a chance to know who they are and look through them.

    Am I missing something or should Google give us back the option we used to have, to see all people who choose to follow us? It would help to engage with the people outside your close circle if you were allowed to see your followers!

    sorry to disturb some of you with a notification but I assumed you would find this important enough; if not then accept my excuses
  • 73 plusses - 112 comments - 37 shares | Read in G+
  • Max Huijgen2012-06-03 23:15:45
    Is the growth of the photo community on G+ stalling?
    After runnning a few checks it suggests there are less people circling the fairly well known photographers, but I need you to to confirm the findings!
    edit: some people seem to think this is a conclusion or an attack, but it´s nothing more than an attempt to crowdsource some data to see if the thesis is right. Conclusions follow data, not the other way around!

    A few days ago I asked why people decide to circle someone. The topic got a lot of comments and touched the general feeling that people didn´t see as many people circling them lately.
    You can read up over here A little survey: What causes people to circle you? https://plus.google.com/u/0/112352920206354603958/posts/GkvUCtktzcR 

    +CircleCount showed recently that overall there was still a healthy grow on G+. I contributed with a number of comments and asked +CircleCount to produce even more graphs. I noticed that the group between the 5.000 and 500.000 (the under limit of the Suggested User List) had the lowest growth. 

    My own topic ended in a dialogue between me and +Thomas Hawk over  some claims of a photographer that he noticed a severe drop over time of 20% in six weeks. Checking the reality this turned out to be a figure of imagination, but *I noticed that this photog CircleCount growth curve was indeed almost flat.* 

    I started to wonder if the photo community which is very strong on G+ and has many users in the middle group of 20-50K followers could be stalling. That would explain the overall lackluster perfomance of the middle group on G+ outside of the SUL

    Now it makes no sense to check people on the SUL as they get the steady inflow of all new people on G+. However as a reference I checked +Thomas Hawk growth between April 15 and June 3. He went from 1,938,686 million to 2,450,475 which is a growth of 26%

    This strongly suggest that there were sufficient photo lovers coming to G+ as Thomas is not a general celebrity. People need to chose for the Art and Photography section to circle Thomas. A good baseline to check against.  

    Next step was to research all the reasonably well known photographers who were not yet superstars. An impossible tasks so I ask you to help out here by complementing my data.

     If you know a photographer who has a following between the 20.000 and 60.000 check his CircleCount stats and tell me by what percentage his circle grew between April 15 and June 3.
    Please provide the details in the format I used in the table. 

    The conclusion on just a few profiles: the average growth is 5% with variations between 3% and 11%. Compare this with Thomas circle growth of 26% in the same period and something doesn´t measure up!

    +Joel Tjintjelaar  Netherlands 39,002 41,865 1,07
    +Noze P. France 29,497 31,798 1,08
    +Julia Su  Spain 22,487 23,707 1,05
    +Benjamin Cortis  Germany 54,439 57,901 1,06
    +Julia Schiller Germany 20,074 20,755 1,03
    +Pawel Tomaszewicz  UK 36,647 37,812 1,03
    +Heidi Anne Morris  UK 38,189 42,407 1,11
    +Christina Lawrie  US 35,528 38,646 1,09
    +Guy Tal  US 41,071 41,185 1,00
    +Chris Gachot  US 35,815 36,551 1,02
    +Dino Morrow  US 24,251 25,368 1,05

    If you are willing to help me out in determining how healthy the photo community on G+ is please do some checks yourself and comment. Maybe you know others who are willing to help out?


    Notes:
    I only checked a more or less random group with a distribution of 6 Europeans and 5 Americans. Random between quotes, but I used circlecount, blindly pointed at the screen once I had a list of people in the right range and took the nearest person who had "photographer" in his profile. 

    Why look only at the people who are not on the SUL but still have a large following? To make sure we avoid all flukes. A great, new  photographer could just have been discovered and be shared in circles with an enormous growth. Or someone with 2000 folllowers would have stopped posting for a month. The middle group is resistant against these  variations. 

    and the graph should say 5% instead of 1,05 but shit happens....
  • 22 plusses - 112 comments - 5 shares | Read in G+
  • Max Huijgen2012-04-06 14:31:22
    New limit on seeing your own followers. You can´t see them all!
    You can´t see all the people who follow you anymore. Google now artificially limits this to a subset as is illustrated in the attached picture. In my case I can not even see half of them but for people with a million followers the percentage is a lot lower.

    I don´t know about you, but I am really interested in the people who chose to follow me, so I sometimes look at the whole list sorted on relevance. If people are close to the top and I didn´t circle them back, I check them out and often circle them.

    To make this easier I have used a smart trick to get a complete list of followers out of Google. Enter the following string https://plus.google.com/u/0/_/socialgraph/lookup/followers/?m=1000000 to get your million followers. In case you don´t have the million yet you could use a lower figure for m ;)

    What happens is that you get a text file with all your followers and their profiles. With some Perl or other regular expression stuff you can extract handy lists out of these text files. Without going into this, I can assure you that this trick used to work although it gave time out errors for people who really had hundreds of thousands of followers.

    However it´s no longer working! Just when I was working on an interesting experiment I discovered that the file no longer contains *all the followers.* Tests with some people for who 1 million is limiting as they have even more followers point out the same. We all get just a small sample, fluctuating but below 10.000. You can try it out yourself and confirm it gives you a text file with your followers sorted on relevance. Fill in m=50 and it works without any problem.

    Without all that fuss you can check for yourself by doing what I illustrated below:
    Go to circles, select ´have you in circles´, notice that you only have a limited number of people this way, but that there is a ´More´ button at the end. Keep pressing this until you no longer see this.

    Now select all and check the number to the left. If you have more followers than 10.000 you will see a lower number. To check there was no flaw in my approach I checked this by sorting them on surname and surely they go well beyond the ´z´ into other alphabets so the system works.

    This shows once again that Google didn´t think through its own features before they launched G+. This is the core concept of circles so you should be able to do whatever you want with them. However at the beginning it was all about loosely connected relations with people, not about huge numbers of followings and suggested user lists. The original concept broke when people started to get ´followings´ instead of a bunch of friends.

    I fully understand that Google doesn´t want to pull my almost 20.000 followers out of its database and serve the whole list every time I open that window. Would be a waste of their server time and more importantly render the user interface completely unusable for people with really large followings.

    However not being able to access it at all, not even by some button ´Yes, I realize this is taking some time and I understand I can only do this once a day´ is upsetting. After all it are people who follow you, so you should have a chance to know who they are and look through them.

    Am I missing something or should Google give us back the option we used to have, to see all people who choose to follow us? It would help to engage with the people outside your close circle if you were allowed to see your followers!

    sorry to disturb some of you with a notification but I assumed you would find this important enough; if not then accept my excuses
  • 73 plusses - 112 comments - 37 shares | Read in G+
  • Max Huijgen2012-06-03 23:15:45
    Is the growth of the photo community on G+ stalling?
    After runnning a few checks it suggests there are less people circling the fairly well known photographers, but I need you to to confirm the findings!
    edit: some people seem to think this is a conclusion or an attack, but it´s nothing more than an attempt to crowdsource some data to see if the thesis is right. Conclusions follow data, not the other way around!

    A few days ago I asked why people decide to circle someone. The topic got a lot of comments and touched the general feeling that people didn´t see as many people circling them lately.
    You can read up over here A little survey: What causes people to circle you? https://plus.google.com/u/0/112352920206354603958/posts/GkvUCtktzcR 

    +CircleCount showed recently that overall there was still a healthy grow on G+. I contributed with a number of comments and asked +CircleCount to produce even more graphs. I noticed that the group between the 5.000 and 500.000 (the under limit of the Suggested User List) had the lowest growth. 

    My own topic ended in a dialogue between me and +Thomas Hawk over  some claims of a photographer that he noticed a severe drop over time of 20% in six weeks. Checking the reality this turned out to be a figure of imagination, but *I noticed that this photog CircleCount growth curve was indeed almost flat.* 

    I started to wonder if the photo community which is very strong on G+ and has many users in the middle group of 20-50K followers could be stalling. That would explain the overall lackluster perfomance of the middle group on G+ outside of the SUL

    Now it makes no sense to check people on the SUL as they get the steady inflow of all new people on G+. However as a reference I checked +Thomas Hawk growth between April 15 and June 3. He went from 1,938,686 million to 2,450,475 which is a growth of 26%

    This strongly suggest that there were sufficient photo lovers coming to G+ as Thomas is not a general celebrity. People need to chose for the Art and Photography section to circle Thomas. A good baseline to check against.  

    Next step was to research all the reasonably well known photographers who were not yet superstars. An impossible tasks so I ask you to help out here by complementing my data.

     If you know a photographer who has a following between the 20.000 and 60.000 check his CircleCount stats and tell me by what percentage his circle grew between April 15 and June 3.
    Please provide the details in the format I used in the table. 

    The conclusion on just a few profiles: the average growth is 5% with variations between 3% and 11%. Compare this with Thomas circle growth of 26% in the same period and something doesn´t measure up!

    +Joel Tjintjelaar  Netherlands 39,002 41,865 1,07
    +Noze P. France 29,497 31,798 1,08
    +Julia Su  Spain 22,487 23,707 1,05
    +Benjamin Cortis  Germany 54,439 57,901 1,06
    +Julia Schiller Germany 20,074 20,755 1,03
    +Pawel Tomaszewicz  UK 36,647 37,812 1,03
    +Heidi Anne Morris  UK 38,189 42,407 1,11
    +Christina Lawrie  US 35,528 38,646 1,09
    +Guy Tal  US 41,071 41,185 1,00
    +Chris Gachot  US 35,815 36,551 1,02
    +Dino Morrow  US 24,251 25,368 1,05

    If you are willing to help me out in determining how healthy the photo community on G+ is please do some checks yourself and comment. Maybe you know others who are willing to help out?


    Notes:
    I only checked a more or less random group with a distribution of 6 Europeans and 5 Americans. Random between quotes, but I used circlecount, blindly pointed at the screen once I had a list of people in the right range and took the nearest person who had "photographer" in his profile. 

    Why look only at the people who are not on the SUL but still have a large following? To make sure we avoid all flukes. A great, new  photographer could just have been discovered and be shared in circles with an enormous growth. Or someone with 2000 folllowers would have stopped posting for a month. The middle group is resistant against these  variations. 

    and the graph should say 5% instead of 1,05 but shit happens....
  • 22 plusses - 112 comments - 5 shares | Read in G+
  • Max Huijgen2012-04-06 14:31:22
    New limit on seeing your own followers. You can´t see them all!
    You can´t see all the people who follow you anymore. Google now artificially limits this to a subset as is illustrated in the attached picture. In my case I can not even see half of them but for people with a million followers the percentage is a lot lower.

    I don´t know about you, but I am really interested in the people who chose to follow me, so I sometimes look at the whole list sorted on relevance. If people are close to the top and I didn´t circle them back, I check them out and often circle them.

    To make this easier I have used a smart trick to get a complete list of followers out of Google. Enter the following string https://plus.google.com/u/0/_/socialgraph/lookup/followers/?m=1000000 to get your million followers. In case you don´t have the million yet you could use a lower figure for m ;)

    What happens is that you get a text file with all your followers and their profiles. With some Perl or other regular expression stuff you can extract handy lists out of these text files. Without going into this, I can assure you that this trick used to work although it gave time out errors for people who really had hundreds of thousands of followers.

    However it´s no longer working! Just when I was working on an interesting experiment I discovered that the file no longer contains *all the followers.* Tests with some people for who 1 million is limiting as they have even more followers point out the same. We all get just a small sample, fluctuating but below 10.000. You can try it out yourself and confirm it gives you a text file with your followers sorted on relevance. Fill in m=50 and it works without any problem.

    Without all that fuss you can check for yourself by doing what I illustrated below:
    Go to circles, select ´have you in circles´, notice that you only have a limited number of people this way, but that there is a ´More´ button at the end. Keep pressing this until you no longer see this.

    Now select all and check the number to the left. If you have more followers than 10.000 you will see a lower number. To check there was no flaw in my approach I checked this by sorting them on surname and surely they go well beyond the ´z´ into other alphabets so the system works.

    This shows once again that Google didn´t think through its own features before they launched G+. This is the core concept of circles so you should be able to do whatever you want with them. However at the beginning it was all about loosely connected relations with people, not about huge numbers of followings and suggested user lists. The original concept broke when people started to get ´followings´ instead of a bunch of friends.

    I fully understand that Google doesn´t want to pull my almost 20.000 followers out of its database and serve the whole list every time I open that window. Would be a waste of their server time and more importantly render the user interface completely unusable for people with really large followings.

    However not being able to access it at all, not even by some button ´Yes, I realize this is taking some time and I understand I can only do this once a day´ is upsetting. After all it are people who follow you, so you should have a chance to know who they are and look through them.

    Am I missing something or should Google give us back the option we used to have, to see all people who choose to follow us? It would help to engage with the people outside your close circle if you were allowed to see your followers!

    sorry to disturb some of you with a notification but I assumed you would find this important enough; if not then accept my excuses
  • 73 plusses - 112 comments - 37 shares | Read in G+
  • Max Huijgen2012-06-03 23:15:45
    Is the growth of the photo community on G+ stalling?
    After runnning a few checks it suggests there are less people circling the fairly well known photographers, but I need you to to confirm the findings!
    edit: some people seem to think this is a conclusion or an attack, but it´s nothing more than an attempt to crowdsource some data to see if the thesis is right. Conclusions follow data, not the other way around!

    A few days ago I asked why people decide to circle someone. The topic got a lot of comments and touched the general feeling that people didn´t see as many people circling them lately.
    You can read up over here A little survey: What causes people to circle you? https://plus.google.com/u/0/112352920206354603958/posts/GkvUCtktzcR 

    +CircleCount showed recently that overall there was still a healthy grow on G+. I contributed with a number of comments and asked +CircleCount to produce even more graphs. I noticed that the group between the 5.000 and 500.000 (the under limit of the Suggested User List) had the lowest growth. 

    My own topic ended in a dialogue between me and +Thomas Hawk over  some claims of a photographer that he noticed a severe drop over time of 20% in six weeks. Checking the reality this turned out to be a figure of imagination, but *I noticed that this photog CircleCount growth curve was indeed almost flat.* 

    I started to wonder if the photo community which is very strong on G+ and has many users in the middle group of 20-50K followers could be stalling. That would explain the overall lackluster perfomance of the middle group on G+ outside of the SUL

    Now it makes no sense to check people on the SUL as they get the steady inflow of all new people on G+. However as a reference I checked +Thomas Hawk growth between April 15 and June 3. He went from 1,938,686 million to 2,450,475 which is a growth of 26%

    This strongly suggest that there were sufficient photo lovers coming to G+ as Thomas is not a general celebrity. People need to chose for the Art and Photography section to circle Thomas. A good baseline to check against.  

    Next step was to research all the reasonably well known photographers who were not yet superstars. An impossible tasks so I ask you to help out here by complementing my data.

     If you know a photographer who has a following between the 20.000 and 60.000 check his CircleCount stats and tell me by what percentage his circle grew between April 15 and June 3.
    Please provide the details in the format I used in the table. 

    The conclusion on just a few profiles: the average growth is 5% with variations between 3% and 11%. Compare this with Thomas circle growth of 26% in the same period and something doesn´t measure up!

    +Joel Tjintjelaar  Netherlands 39,002 41,865 1,07
    +Noze P. France 29,497 31,798 1,08
    +Julia Su  Spain 22,487 23,707 1,05
    +Benjamin Cortis  Germany 54,439 57,901 1,06
    +Julia Schiller Germany 20,074 20,755 1,03
    +Pawel Tomaszewicz  UK 36,647 37,812 1,03
    +Heidi Anne Morris  UK 38,189 42,407 1,11
    +Christina Lawrie  US 35,528 38,646 1,09
    +Guy Tal  US 41,071 41,185 1,00
    +Chris Gachot  US 35,815 36,551 1,02
    +Dino Morrow  US 24,251 25,368 1,05

    If you are willing to help me out in determining how healthy the photo community on G+ is please do some checks yourself and comment. Maybe you know others who are willing to help out?


    Notes:
    I only checked a more or less random group with a distribution of 6 Europeans and 5 Americans. Random between quotes, but I used circlecount, blindly pointed at the screen once I had a list of people in the right range and took the nearest person who had "photographer" in his profile. 

    Why look only at the people who are not on the SUL but still have a large following? To make sure we avoid all flukes. A great, new  photographer could just have been discovered and be shared in circles with an enormous growth. Or someone with 2000 folllowers would have stopped posting for a month. The middle group is resistant against these  variations. 

    and the graph should say 5% instead of 1,05 but shit happens....
  • 22 plusses - 112 comments - 5 shares | Read in G+
  • Max Huijgen2012-04-06 14:31:22
    New limit on seeing your own followers. You can´t see them all!
    You can´t see all the people who follow you anymore. Google now artificially limits this to a subset as is illustrated in the attached picture. In my case I can not even see half of them but for people with a million followers the percentage is a lot lower.

    I don´t know about you, but I am really interested in the people who chose to follow me, so I sometimes look at the whole list sorted on relevance. If people are close to the top and I didn´t circle them back, I check them out and often circle them.

    To make this easier I have used a smart trick to get a complete list of followers out of Google. Enter the following string https://plus.google.com/u/0/_/socialgraph/lookup/followers/?m=1000000 to get your million followers. In case you don´t have the million yet you could use a lower figure for m ;)

    What happens is that you get a text file with all your followers and their profiles. With some Perl or other regular expression stuff you can extract handy lists out of these text files. Without going into this, I can assure you that this trick used to work although it gave time out errors for people who really had hundreds of thousands of followers.

    However it´s no longer working! Just when I was working on an interesting experiment I discovered that the file no longer contains *all the followers.* Tests with some people for who 1 million is limiting as they have even more followers point out the same. We all get just a small sample, fluctuating but below 10.000. You can try it out yourself and confirm it gives you a text file with your followers sorted on relevance. Fill in m=50 and it works without any problem.

    Without all that fuss you can check for yourself by doing what I illustrated below:
    Go to circles, select ´have you in circles´, notice that you only have a limited number of people this way, but that there is a ´More´ button at the end. Keep pressing this until you no longer see this.

    Now select all and check the number to the left. If you have more followers than 10.000 you will see a lower number. To check there was no flaw in my approach I checked this by sorting them on surname and surely they go well beyond the ´z´ into other alphabets so the system works.

    This shows once again that Google didn´t think through its own features before they launched G+. This is the core concept of circles so you should be able to do whatever you want with them. However at the beginning it was all about loosely connected relations with people, not about huge numbers of followings and suggested user lists. The original concept broke when people started to get ´followings´ instead of a bunch of friends.

    I fully understand that Google doesn´t want to pull my almost 20.000 followers out of its database and serve the whole list every time I open that window. Would be a waste of their server time and more importantly render the user interface completely unusable for people with really large followings.

    However not being able to access it at all, not even by some button ´Yes, I realize this is taking some time and I understand I can only do this once a day´ is upsetting. After all it are people who follow you, so you should have a chance to know who they are and look through them.

    Am I missing something or should Google give us back the option we used to have, to see all people who choose to follow us? It would help to engage with the people outside your close circle if you were allowed to see your followers!

    sorry to disturb some of you with a notification but I assumed you would find this important enough; if not then accept my excuses
  • 73 plusses - 112 comments - 37 shares | Read in G+
  • Max Huijgen2012-06-03 23:15:45
    Is the growth of the photo community on G+ stalling?
    After runnning a few checks it suggests there are less people circling the fairly well known photographers, but I need you to to confirm the findings!
    edit: some people seem to think this is a conclusion or an attack, but it´s nothing more than an attempt to crowdsource some data to see if the thesis is right. Conclusions follow data, not the other way around!

    A few days ago I asked why people decide to circle someone. The topic got a lot of comments and touched the general feeling that people didn´t see as many people circling them lately.
    You can read up over here A little survey: What causes people to circle you? https://plus.google.com/u/0/112352920206354603958/posts/GkvUCtktzcR 

    +CircleCount showed recently that overall there was still a healthy grow on G+. I contributed with a number of comments and asked +CircleCount to produce even more graphs. I noticed that the group between the 5.000 and 500.000 (the under limit of the Suggested User List) had the lowest growth. 

    My own topic ended in a dialogue between me and +Thomas Hawk over  some claims of a photographer that he noticed a severe drop over time of 20% in six weeks. Checking the reality this turned out to be a figure of imagination, but *I noticed that this photog CircleCount growth curve was indeed almost flat.* 

    I started to wonder if the photo community which is very strong on G+ and has many users in the middle group of 20-50K followers could be stalling. That would explain the overall lackluster perfomance of the middle group on G+ outside of the SUL

    Now it makes no sense to check people on the SUL as they get the steady inflow of all new people on G+. However as a reference I checked +Thomas Hawk growth between April 15 and June 3. He went from 1,938,686 million to 2,450,475 which is a growth of 26%

    This strongly suggest that there were sufficient photo lovers coming to G+ as Thomas is not a general celebrity. People need to chose for the Art and Photography section to circle Thomas. A good baseline to check against.  

    Next step was to research all the reasonably well known photographers who were not yet superstars. An impossible tasks so I ask you to help out here by complementing my data.

     If you know a photographer who has a following between the 20.000 and 60.000 check his CircleCount stats and tell me by what percentage his circle grew between April 15 and June 3.
    Please provide the details in the format I used in the table. 

    The conclusion on just a few profiles: the average growth is 5% with variations between 3% and 11%. Compare this with Thomas circle growth of 26% in the same period and something doesn´t measure up!

    +Joel Tjintjelaar  Netherlands 39,002 41,865 1,07
    +Noze P. France 29,497 31,798 1,08
    +Julia Su  Spain 22,487 23,707 1,05
    +Benjamin Cortis  Germany 54,439 57,901 1,06
    +Julia Schiller Germany 20,074 20,755 1,03
    +Pawel Tomaszewicz  UK 36,647 37,812 1,03
    +Heidi Anne Morris  UK 38,189 42,407 1,11
    +Christina Lawrie  US 35,528 38,646 1,09
    +Guy Tal  US 41,071 41,185 1,00
    +Chris Gachot  US 35,815 36,551 1,02
    +Dino Morrow  US 24,251 25,368 1,05

    If you are willing to help me out in determining how healthy the photo community on G+ is please do some checks yourself and comment. Maybe you know others who are willing to help out?


    Notes:
    I only checked a more or less random group with a distribution of 6 Europeans and 5 Americans. Random between quotes, but I used circlecount, blindly pointed at the screen once I had a list of people in the right range and took the nearest person who had "photographer" in his profile. 

    Why look only at the people who are not on the SUL but still have a large following? To make sure we avoid all flukes. A great, new  photographer could just have been discovered and be shared in circles with an enormous growth. Or someone with 2000 folllowers would have stopped posting for a month. The middle group is resistant against these  variations. 

    and the graph should say 5% instead of 1,05 but shit happens....
  • 22 plusses - 112 comments - 5 shares | Read in G+
  • Max Huijgen2012-04-06 14:31:22
    New limit on seeing your own followers. You can´t see them all!
    You can´t see all the people who follow you anymore. Google now artificially limits this to a subset as is illustrated in the attached picture. In my case I can not even see half of them but for people with a million followers the percentage is a lot lower.

    I don´t know about you, but I am really interested in the people who chose to follow me, so I sometimes look at the whole list sorted on relevance. If people are close to the top and I didn´t circle them back, I check them out and often circle them.

    To make this easier I have used a smart trick to get a complete list of followers out of Google. Enter the following string https://plus.google.com/u/0/_/socialgraph/lookup/followers/?m=1000000 to get your million followers. In case you don´t have the million yet you could use a lower figure for m ;)

    What happens is that you get a text file with all your followers and their profiles. With some Perl or other regular expression stuff you can extract handy lists out of these text files. Without going into this, I can assure you that this trick used to work although it gave time out errors for people who really had hundreds of thousands of followers.

    However it´s no longer working! Just when I was working on an interesting experiment I discovered that the file no longer contains *all the followers.* Tests with some people for who 1 million is limiting as they have even more followers point out the same. We all get just a small sample, fluctuating but below 10.000. You can try it out yourself and confirm it gives you a text file with your followers sorted on relevance. Fill in m=50 and it works without any problem.

    Without all that fuss you can check for yourself by doing what I illustrated below:
    Go to circles, select ´have you in circles´, notice that you only have a limited number of people this way, but that there is a ´More´ button at the end. Keep pressing this until you no longer see this.

    Now select all and check the number to the left. If you have more followers than 10.000 you will see a lower number. To check there was no flaw in my approach I checked this by sorting them on surname and surely they go well beyond the ´z´ into other alphabets so the system works.

    This shows once again that Google didn´t think through its own features before they launched G+. This is the core concept of circles so you should be able to do whatever you want with them. However at the beginning it was all about loosely connected relations with people, not about huge numbers of followings and suggested user lists. The original concept broke when people started to get ´followings´ instead of a bunch of friends.

    I fully understand that Google doesn´t want to pull my almost 20.000 followers out of its database and serve the whole list every time I open that window. Would be a waste of their server time and more importantly render the user interface completely unusable for people with really large followings.

    However not being able to access it at all, not even by some button ´Yes, I realize this is taking some time and I understand I can only do this once a day´ is upsetting. After all it are people who follow you, so you should have a chance to know who they are and look through them.

    Am I missing something or should Google give us back the option we used to have, to see all people who choose to follow us? It would help to engage with the people outside your close circle if you were allowed to see your followers!

    sorry to disturb some of you with a notification but I assumed you would find this important enough; if not then accept my excuses
  • 73 plusses - 112 comments - 37 shares | Read in G+
  • Max Huijgen2012-06-03 23:15:45
    Is the growth of the photo community on G+ stalling?
    After runnning a few checks it suggests there are less people circling the fairly well known photographers, but I need you to to confirm the findings!
    edit: some people seem to think this is a conclusion or an attack, but it´s nothing more than an attempt to crowdsource some data to see if the thesis is right. Conclusions follow data, not the other way around!

    A few days ago I asked why people decide to circle someone. The topic got a lot of comments and touched the general feeling that people didn´t see as many people circling them lately.
    You can read up over here A little survey: What causes people to circle you? https://plus.google.com/u/0/112352920206354603958/posts/GkvUCtktzcR 

    +CircleCount showed recently that overall there was still a healthy grow on G+. I contributed with a number of comments and asked +CircleCount to produce even more graphs. I noticed that the group between the 5.000 and 500.000 (the under limit of the Suggested User List) had the lowest growth. 

    My own topic ended in a dialogue between me and +Thomas Hawk over  some claims of a photographer that he noticed a severe drop over time of 20% in six weeks. Checking the reality this turned out to be a figure of imagination, but *I noticed that this photog CircleCount growth curve was indeed almost flat.* 

    I started to wonder if the photo community which is very strong on G+ and has many users in the middle group of 20-50K followers could be stalling. That would explain the overall lackluster perfomance of the middle group on G+ outside of the SUL

    Now it makes no sense to check people on the SUL as they get the steady inflow of all new people on G+. However as a reference I checked +Thomas Hawk growth between April 15 and June 3. He went from 1,938,686 million to 2,450,475 which is a growth of 26%

    This strongly suggest that there were sufficient photo lovers coming to G+ as Thomas is not a general celebrity. People need to chose for the Art and Photography section to circle Thomas. A good baseline to check against.  

    Next step was to research all the reasonably well known photographers who were not yet superstars. An impossible tasks so I ask you to help out here by complementing my data.

     If you know a photographer who has a following between the 20.000 and 60.000 check his CircleCount stats and tell me by what percentage his circle grew between April 15 and June 3.
    Please provide the details in the format I used in the table. 

    The conclusion on just a few profiles: the average growth is 5% with variations between 3% and 11%. Compare this with Thomas circle growth of 26% in the same period and something doesn´t measure up!

    +Joel Tjintjelaar  Netherlands 39,002 41,865 1,07
    +Noze P. France 29,497 31,798 1,08
    +Julia Su  Spain 22,487 23,707 1,05
    +Benjamin Cortis  Germany 54,439 57,901 1,06
    +Julia Schiller Germany 20,074 20,755 1,03
    +Pawel Tomaszewicz  UK 36,647 37,812 1,03
    +Heidi Anne Morris  UK 38,189 42,407 1,11
    +Christina Lawrie  US 35,528 38,646 1,09
    +Guy Tal  US 41,071 41,185 1,00
    +Chris Gachot  US 35,815 36,551 1,02
    +Dino Morrow  US 24,251 25,368 1,05

    If you are willing to help me out in determining how healthy the photo community on G+ is please do some checks yourself and comment. Maybe you know others who are willing to help out?


    Notes:
    I only checked a more or less random group with a distribution of 6 Europeans and 5 Americans. Random between quotes, but I used circlecount, blindly pointed at the screen once I had a list of people in the right range and took the nearest person who had "photographer" in his profile. 

    Why look only at the people who are not on the SUL but still have a large following? To make sure we avoid all flukes. A great, new  photographer could just have been discovered and be shared in circles with an enormous growth. Or someone with 2000 folllowers would have stopped posting for a month. The middle group is resistant against these  variations. 

    and the graph should say 5% instead of 1,05 but shit happens....
  • 22 plusses - 112 comments - 5 shares | Read in G+
  • Max Huijgen2012-04-06 14:31:22
    New limit on seeing your own followers. You can´t see them all!
    You can´t see all the people who follow you anymore. Google now artificially limits this to a subset as is illustrated in the attached picture. In my case I can not even see half of them but for people with a million followers the percentage is a lot lower.

    I don´t know about you, but I am really interested in the people who chose to follow me, so I sometimes look at the whole list sorted on relevance. If people are close to the top and I didn´t circle them back, I check them out and often circle them.

    To make this easier I have used a smart trick to get a complete list of followers out of Google. Enter the following string https://plus.google.com/u/0/_/socialgraph/lookup/followers/?m=1000000 to get your million followers. In case you don´t have the million yet you could use a lower figure for m ;)

    What happens is that you get a text file with all your followers and their profiles. With some Perl or other regular expression stuff you can extract handy lists out of these text files. Without going into this, I can assure you that this trick used to work although it gave time out errors for people who really had hundreds of thousands of followers.

    However it´s no longer working! Just when I was working on an interesting experiment I discovered that the file no longer contains *all the followers.* Tests with some people for who 1 million is limiting as they have even more followers point out the same. We all get just a small sample, fluctuating but below 10.000. You can try it out yourself and confirm it gives you a text file with your followers sorted on relevance. Fill in m=50 and it works without any problem.

    Without all that fuss you can check for yourself by doing what I illustrated below:
    Go to circles, select ´have you in circles´, notice that you only have a limited number of people this way, but that there is a ´More´ button at the end. Keep pressing this until you no longer see this.

    Now select all and check the number to the left. If you have more followers than 10.000 you will see a lower number. To check there was no flaw in my approach I checked this by sorting them on surname and surely they go well beyond the ´z´ into other alphabets so the system works.

    This shows once again that Google didn´t think through its own features before they launched G+. This is the core concept of circles so you should be able to do whatever you want with them. However at the beginning it was all about loosely connected relations with people, not about huge numbers of followings and suggested user lists. The original concept broke when people started to get ´followings´ instead of a bunch of friends.

    I fully understand that Google doesn´t want to pull my almost 20.000 followers out of its database and serve the whole list every time I open that window. Would be a waste of their server time and more importantly render the user interface completely unusable for people with really large followings.

    However not being able to access it at all, not even by some button ´Yes, I realize this is taking some time and I understand I can only do this once a day´ is upsetting. After all it are people who follow you, so you should have a chance to know who they are and look through them.

    Am I missing something or should Google give us back the option we used to have, to see all people who choose to follow us? It would help to engage with the people outside your close circle if you were allowed to see your followers!

    sorry to disturb some of you with a notification but I assumed you would find this important enough; if not then accept my excuses
  • 73 plusses - 112 comments - 37 shares | Read in G+
  • Max Huijgen2012-06-03 23:15:45
    Is the growth of the photo community on G+ stalling?
    After runnning a few checks it suggests there are less people circling the fairly well known photographers, but I need you to to confirm the findings!
    edit: some people seem to think this is a conclusion or an attack, but it´s nothing more than an attempt to crowdsource some data to see if the thesis is right. Conclusions follow data, not the other way around!

    A few days ago I asked why people decide to circle someone. The topic got a lot of comments and touched the general feeling that people didn´t see as many people circling them lately.
    You can read up over here A little survey: What causes people to circle you? https://plus.google.com/u/0/112352920206354603958/posts/GkvUCtktzcR 

    +CircleCount showed recently that overall there was still a healthy grow on G+. I contributed with a number of comments and asked +CircleCount to produce even more graphs. I noticed that the group between the 5.000 and 500.000 (the under limit of the Suggested User List) had the lowest growth. 

    My own topic ended in a dialogue between me and +Thomas Hawk over  some claims of a photographer that he noticed a severe drop over time of 20% in six weeks. Checking the reality this turned out to be a figure of imagination, but *I noticed that this photog CircleCount growth curve was indeed almost flat.* 

    I started to wonder if the photo community which is very strong on G+ and has many users in the middle group of 20-50K followers could be stalling. That would explain the overall lackluster perfomance of the middle group on G+ outside of the SUL

    Now it makes no sense to check people on the SUL as they get the steady inflow of all new people on G+. However as a reference I checked +Thomas Hawk growth between April 15 and June 3. He went from 1,938,686 million to 2,450,475 which is a growth of 26%

    This strongly suggest that there were sufficient photo lovers coming to G+ as Thomas is not a general celebrity. People need to chose for the Art and Photography section to circle Thomas. A good baseline to check against.  

    Next step was to research all the reasonably well known photographers who were not yet superstars. An impossible tasks so I ask you to help out here by complementing my data.

     If you know a photographer who has a following between the 20.000 and 60.000 check his CircleCount stats and tell me by what percentage his circle grew between April 15 and June 3.
    Please provide the details in the format I used in the table. 

    The conclusion on just a few profiles: the average growth is 5% with variations between 3% and 11%. Compare this with Thomas circle growth of 26% in the same period and something doesn´t measure up!

    +Joel Tjintjelaar  Netherlands 39,002 41,865 1,07
    +Noze P. France 29,497 31,798 1,08
    +Julia Su  Spain 22,487 23,707 1,05
    +Benjamin Cortis  Germany 54,439 57,901 1,06
    +Julia Schiller Germany 20,074 20,755 1,03
    +Pawel Tomaszewicz  UK 36,647 37,812 1,03
    +Heidi Anne Morris  UK 38,189 42,407 1,11
    +Christina Lawrie  US 35,528 38,646 1,09
    +Guy Tal  US 41,071 41,185 1,00
    +Chris Gachot  US 35,815 36,551 1,02
    +Dino Morrow  US 24,251 25,368 1,05

    If you are willing to help me out in determining how healthy the photo community on G+ is please do some checks yourself and comment. Maybe you know others who are willing to help out?


    Notes:
    I only checked a more or less random group with a distribution of 6 Europeans and 5 Americans. Random between quotes, but I used circlecount, blindly pointed at the screen once I had a list of people in the right range and took the nearest person who had "photographer" in his profile. 

    Why look only at the people who are not on the SUL but still have a large following? To make sure we avoid all flukes. A great, new  photographer could just have been discovered and be shared in circles with an enormous growth. Or someone with 2000 folllowers would have stopped posting for a month. The middle group is resistant against these  variations. 

    and the graph should say 5% instead of 1,05 but shit happens....
  • 22 plusses - 112 comments - 5 shares | Read in G+
  • Max Huijgen2012-04-06 14:31:22
    New limit on seeing your own followers. You can´t see them all!
    You can´t see all the people who follow you anymore. Google now artificially limits this to a subset as is illustrated in the attached picture. In my case I can not even see half of them but for people with a million followers the percentage is a lot lower.

    I don´t know about you, but I am really interested in the people who chose to follow me, so I sometimes look at the whole list sorted on relevance. If people are close to the top and I didn´t circle them back, I check them out and often circle them.

    To make this easier I have used a smart trick to get a complete list of followers out of Google. Enter the following string https://plus.google.com/u/0/_/socialgraph/lookup/followers/?m=1000000 to get your million followers. In case you don´t have the million yet you could use a lower figure for m ;)

    What happens is that you get a text file with all your followers and their profiles. With some Perl or other regular expression stuff you can extract handy lists out of these text files. Without going into this, I can assure you that this trick used to work although it gave time out errors for people who really had hundreds of thousands of followers.

    However it´s no longer working! Just when I was working on an interesting experiment I discovered that the file no longer contains *all the followers.* Tests with some people for who 1 million is limiting as they have even more followers point out the same. We all get just a small sample, fluctuating but below 10.000. You can try it out yourself and confirm it gives you a text file with your followers sorted on relevance. Fill in m=50 and it works without any problem.

    Without all that fuss you can check for yourself by doing what I illustrated below:
    Go to circles, select ´have you in circles´, notice that you only have a limited number of people this way, but that there is a ´More´ button at the end. Keep pressing this until you no longer see this.

    Now select all and check the number to the left. If you have more followers than 10.000 you will see a lower number. To check there was no flaw in my approach I checked this by sorting them on surname and surely they go well beyond the ´z´ into other alphabets so the system works.

    This shows once again that Google didn´t think through its own features before they launched G+. This is the core concept of circles so you should be able to do whatever you want with them. However at the beginning it was all about loosely connected relations with people, not about huge numbers of followings and suggested user lists. The original concept broke when people started to get ´followings´ instead of a bunch of friends.

    I fully understand that Google doesn´t want to pull my almost 20.000 followers out of its database and serve the whole list every time I open that window. Would be a waste of their server time and more importantly render the user interface completely unusable for people with really large followings.

    However not being able to access it at all, not even by some button ´Yes, I realize this is taking some time and I understand I can only do this once a day´ is upsetting. After all it are people who follow you, so you should have a chance to know who they are and look through them.

    Am I missing something or should Google give us back the option we used to have, to see all people who choose to follow us? It would help to engage with the people outside your close circle if you were allowed to see your followers!

    sorry to disturb some of you with a notification but I assumed you would find this important enough; if not then accept my excuses
  • 73 plusses - 112 comments - 37 shares | Read in G+
  • Max Huijgen2012-08-25 00:55:43
    Apple just got the most expensive court room win ever: Pyrrhic victory

     This case should never have reached a jury court, but the verdict is in. One billion dollar in damages although the jury was just sent back to recalculate it as judge Koh noticed some errors. 

    By all means this is a commercial conflict with a worldwide impact, but it ended up before nine ordinary citizens, laymen, two women and seven man who were asked to answer a very long list of detailed questions on very technical stuff. They were treated to endless streams of expert witnesses and the few journalist who reported from the court room often noticed ´jury looks blank while expert goes on an on´.

    Patents, an important part of this court case are extremely dull material. You need to read every sentence of dense technical and legal documents, look at that description and check if no prior art was found which again is not easy to do as the devil is again in the details. Patent experts are often unsure what should be the verdict; a jury of ordinary citizens has a hard time even following the argument. 

    So the jury didn´t. They ignored all that stuff when a document surfaced where Samsung itself said it had to study and copy Apple´s success. Do note that it didnt´t say ´copy Apple´s devices´ but it´s easy to pick up that message so they did and skipped all those boring details and just said yes to all accusations of patent violations by Samsung.

    That same jury was also asked if Samsung damaged the iPhone ´trade dress´. Now this is a lot easier for laymen. Did Samsung copy the look and feel of iPhones to create consumers with consumers? Suddenly the jurors woke up: this was their territory and no, they didn´t feel consumers would not be capable to see the differences. They skipped two questions and answered the other two with a mixture of yes on some models and no on others. Home turf.

    That´s jurors territory: look and feel and consumer perception, not the technical implementations of patents like ´381 which describes the bounce back at the end of list. That patent has been discussed by professional judges and is not even considered a safe Apple asset.

    The jury ignored all that boring stuff and fell asleep when Samsung countered with claims about the details of 3G and UMTS implementations. The witnesses were nerdy professors who were hard to follow so these claims were refused out of hand.

    What happened is that a huge commercial conflict ended up in a completely wrong setting. Judge Koh has done everything to keep this out of her court and get the parties to solve this at a boardroom table. Jurors can´t decide this conflict and this will certainly go to an appeal court with possibly different, but also inherently false outcomes.

    False because these same questions will also be addressed outside of the US where juries are rare and professional judges will decide completely different. They will study the prior art and take note of all the witness statements. Net result: it will take at least another half year before some o the worldwide dust settles and meanwhile models of both parties will be temporarily banned from sales in some regions.

     Meanwhile this and the other high profile cases outside of the US will damage Apple´s image enormously. Remember when an iPhone was cool? If an expert in 2010 would have testified about Apple´s brand image the taxation would have been in the tens, possibly hundreds of billions.  

    That same image in 2012 is tarnished. A company which doesn´t innovate (the 4s only brought the already forgotten SIRI) but tries to monopolize both the smart phone and the tablet sector by using lawyers is not cool at all.

    When Samsung has to withdraw its products, consumers will feel duped. They lost their choice and they will blame Apple as Samsung will surely drive that point home; is that worth $1.05 billion?

    The answer is in the market share: Samsung surpassed Apple a long time ago and even in the last stronghold, - the US -, are the high-end Samsungs outselling the iPhone.

    A brand which didn´t have to spend money on advertising will suddenly find the need to rebuild an image. Marketeers can tell you this is so hard that most companies never succeed. Those who did, spend an awful lot of money doing so. The $1 billion won´t cover that bill. 

    Steve Jobs´ Apple did bet on a legal monopoly and for a few weeks they could possibly have one in the US. Apple reckoned that if a judge would tell it, the consumers would sympathize with Apple; victim of ´slavishly copying it´s success; the real 2012 is very different. Lawyers are not cool; underdogs are so this will turn out to be a Pyrrhic victory.
  • 234 plusses - 111 comments - 106 shares | Read in G+
  • Max Huijgen2012-08-25 00:55:43
    Apple just got the most expensive court room win ever: Pyrrhic victory

     This case should never have reached a jury court, but the verdict is in. One billion dollar in damages although the jury was just sent back to recalculate it as judge Koh noticed some errors. 

    By all means this is a commercial conflict with a worldwide impact, but it ended up before nine ordinary citizens, laymen, two women and seven man who were asked to answer a very long list of detailed questions on very technical stuff. They were treated to endless streams of expert witnesses and the few journalist who reported from the court room often noticed ´jury looks blank while expert goes on an on´.

    Patents, an important part of this court case are extremely dull material. You need to read every sentence of dense technical and legal documents, look at that description and check if no prior art was found which again is not easy to do as the devil is again in the details. Patent experts are often unsure what should be the verdict; a jury of ordinary citizens has a hard time even following the argument. 

    So the jury didn´t. They ignored all that stuff when a document surfaced where Samsung itself said it had to study and copy Apple´s success. Do note that it didnt´t say ´copy Apple´s devices´ but it´s easy to pick up that message so they did and skipped all those boring details and just said yes to all accusations of patent violations by Samsung.

    That same jury was also asked if Samsung damaged the iPhone ´trade dress´. Now this is a lot easier for laymen. Did Samsung copy the look and feel of iPhones to create consumers with consumers? Suddenly the jurors woke up: this was their territory and no, they didn´t feel consumers would not be capable to see the differences. They skipped two questions and answered the other two with a mixture of yes on some models and no on others. Home turf.

    That´s jurors territory: look and feel and consumer perception, not the technical implementations of patents like ´381 which describes the bounce back at the end of list. That patent has been discussed by professional judges and is not even considered a safe Apple asset.

    The jury ignored all that boring stuff and fell asleep when Samsung countered with claims about the details of 3G and UMTS implementations. The witnesses were nerdy professors who were hard to follow so these claims were refused out of hand.

    What happened is that a huge commercial conflict ended up in a completely wrong setting. Judge Koh has done everything to keep this out of her court and get the parties to solve this at a boardroom table. Jurors can´t decide this conflict and this will certainly go to an appeal court with possibly different, but also inherently false outcomes.

    False because these same questions will also be addressed outside of the US where juries are rare and professional judges will decide completely different. They will study the prior art and take note of all the witness statements. Net result: it will take at least another half year before some o the worldwide dust settles and meanwhile models of both parties will be temporarily banned from sales in some regions.

     Meanwhile this and the other high profile cases outside of the US will damage Apple´s image enormously. Remember when an iPhone was cool? If an expert in 2010 would have testified about Apple´s brand image the taxation would have been in the tens, possibly hundreds of billions.  

    That same image in 2012 is tarnished. A company which doesn´t innovate (the 4s only brought the already forgotten SIRI) but tries to monopolize both the smart phone and the tablet sector by using lawyers is not cool at all.

    When Samsung has to withdraw its products, consumers will feel duped. They lost their choice and they will blame Apple as Samsung will surely drive that point home; is that worth $1.05 billion?

    The answer is in the market share: Samsung surpassed Apple a long time ago and even in the last stronghold, - the US -, are the high-end Samsungs outselling the iPhone.

    A brand which didn´t have to spend money on advertising will suddenly find the need to rebuild an image. Marketeers can tell you this is so hard that most companies never succeed. Those who did, spend an awful lot of money doing so. The $1 billion won´t cover that bill. 

    Steve Jobs´ Apple did bet on a legal monopoly and for a few weeks they could possibly have one in the US. Apple reckoned that if a judge would tell it, the consumers would sympathize with Apple; victim of ´slavishly copying it´s success; the real 2012 is very different. Lawyers are not cool; underdogs are so this will turn out to be a Pyrrhic victory.
  • 234 plusses - 111 comments - 106 shares | Read in G+
  • Max Huijgen2012-08-25 00:55:43
    Apple just got the most expensive court room win ever: Pyrrhic victory

     This case should never have reached a jury court, but the verdict is in. One billion dollar in damages although the jury was just sent back to recalculate it as judge Koh noticed some errors. 

    By all means this is a commercial conflict with a worldwide impact, but it ended up before nine ordinary citizens, laymen, two women and seven man who were asked to answer a very long list of detailed questions on very technical stuff. They were treated to endless streams of expert witnesses and the few journalist who reported from the court room often noticed ´jury looks blank while expert goes on an on´.

    Patents, an important part of this court case are extremely dull material. You need to read every sentence of dense technical and legal documents, look at that description and check if no prior art was found which again is not easy to do as the devil is again in the details. Patent experts are often unsure what should be the verdict; a jury of ordinary citizens has a hard time even following the argument. 

    So the jury didn´t. They ignored all that stuff when a document surfaced where Samsung itself said it had to study and copy Apple´s success. Do note that it didnt´t say ´copy Apple´s devices´ but it´s easy to pick up that message so they did and skipped all those boring details and just said yes to all accusations of patent violations by Samsung.

    That same jury was also asked if Samsung damaged the iPhone ´trade dress´. Now this is a lot easier for laymen. Did Samsung copy the look and feel of iPhones to create consumers with consumers? Suddenly the jurors woke up: this was their territory and no, they didn´t feel consumers would not be capable to see the differences. They skipped two questions and answered the other two with a mixture of yes on some models and no on others. Home turf.

    That´s jurors territory: look and feel and consumer perception, not the technical implementations of patents like ´381 which describes the bounce back at the end of list. That patent has been discussed by professional judges and is not even considered a safe Apple asset.

    The jury ignored all that boring stuff and fell asleep when Samsung countered with claims about the details of 3G and UMTS implementations. The witnesses were nerdy professors who were hard to follow so these claims were refused out of hand.

    What happened is that a huge commercial conflict ended up in a completely wrong setting. Judge Koh has done everything to keep this out of her court and get the parties to solve this at a boardroom table. Jurors can´t decide this conflict and this will certainly go to an appeal court with possibly different, but also inherently false outcomes.

    False because these same questions will also be addressed outside of the US where juries are rare and professional judges will decide completely different. They will study the prior art and take note of all the witness statements. Net result: it will take at least another half year before some o the worldwide dust settles and meanwhile models of both parties will be temporarily banned from sales in some regions.

     Meanwhile this and the other high profile cases outside of the US will damage Apple´s image enormously. Remember when an iPhone was cool? If an expert in 2010 would have testified about Apple´s brand image the taxation would have been in the tens, possibly hundreds of billions.  

    That same image in 2012 is tarnished. A company which doesn´t innovate (the 4s only brought the already forgotten SIRI) but tries to monopolize both the smart phone and the tablet sector by using lawyers is not cool at all.

    When Samsung has to withdraw its products, consumers will feel duped. They lost their choice and they will blame Apple as Samsung will surely drive that point home; is that worth $1.05 billion?

    The answer is in the market share: Samsung surpassed Apple a long time ago and even in the last stronghold, - the US -, are the high-end Samsungs outselling the iPhone.

    A brand which didn´t have to spend money on advertising will suddenly find the need to rebuild an image. Marketeers can tell you this is so hard that most companies never succeed. Those who did, spend an awful lot of money doing so. The $1 billion won´t cover that bill. 

    Steve Jobs´ Apple did bet on a legal monopoly and for a few weeks they could possibly have one in the US. Apple reckoned that if a judge would tell it, the consumers would sympathize with Apple; victim of ´slavishly copying it´s success; the real 2012 is very different. Lawyers are not cool; underdogs are so this will turn out to be a Pyrrhic victory.
  • 234 plusses - 111 comments - 106 shares | Read in G+
  • Max Huijgen2012-08-25 00:55:43
    Apple just got the most expensive court room win ever: Pyrrhic victory

     This case should never have reached a jury court, but the verdict is in. One billion dollar in damages although the jury was just sent back to recalculate it as judge Koh noticed some errors. 

    By all means this is a commercial conflict with a worldwide impact, but it ended up before nine ordinary citizens, laymen, two women and seven man who were asked to answer a very long list of detailed questions on very technical stuff. They were treated to endless streams of expert witnesses and the few journalist who reported from the court room often noticed ´jury looks blank while expert goes on an on´.

    Patents, an important part of this court case are extremely dull material. You need to read every sentence of dense technical and legal documents, look at that description and check if no prior art was found which again is not easy to do as the devil is again in the details. Patent experts are often unsure what should be the verdict; a jury of ordinary citizens has a hard time even following the argument. 

    So the jury didn´t. They ignored all that stuff when a document surfaced where Samsung itself said it had to study and copy Apple´s success. Do note that it didnt´t say ´copy Apple´s devices´ but it´s easy to pick up that message so they did and skipped all those boring details and just said yes to all accusations of patent violations by Samsung.

    That same jury was also asked if Samsung damaged the iPhone ´trade dress´. Now this is a lot easier for laymen. Did Samsung copy the look and feel of iPhones to create consumers with consumers? Suddenly the jurors woke up: this was their territory and no, they didn´t feel consumers would not be capable to see the differences. They skipped two questions and answered the other two with a mixture of yes on some models and no on others. Home turf.

    That´s jurors territory: look and feel and consumer perception, not the technical implementations of patents like ´381 which describes the bounce back at the end of list. That patent has been discussed by professional judges and is not even considered a safe Apple asset.

    The jury ignored all that boring stuff and fell asleep when Samsung countered with claims about the details of 3G and UMTS implementations. The witnesses were nerdy professors who were hard to follow so these claims were refused out of hand.

    What happened is that a huge commercial conflict ended up in a completely wrong setting. Judge Koh has done everything to keep this out of her court and get the parties to solve this at a boardroom table. Jurors can´t decide this conflict and this will certainly go to an appeal court with possibly different, but also inherently false outcomes.

    False because these same questions will also be addressed outside of the US where juries are rare and professional judges will decide completely different. They will study the prior art and take note of all the witness statements. Net result: it will take at least another half year before some o the worldwide dust settles and meanwhile models of both parties will be temporarily banned from sales in some regions.

     Meanwhile this and the other high profile cases outside of the US will damage Apple´s image enormously. Remember when an iPhone was cool? If an expert in 2010 would have testified about Apple´s brand image the taxation would have been in the tens, possibly hundreds of billions.  

    That same image in 2012 is tarnished. A company which doesn´t innovate (the 4s only brought the already forgotten SIRI) but tries to monopolize both the smart phone and the tablet sector by using lawyers is not cool at all.

    When Samsung has to withdraw its products, consumers will feel duped. They lost their choice and they will blame Apple as Samsung will surely drive that point home; is that worth $1.05 billion?

    The answer is in the market share: Samsung surpassed Apple a long time ago and even in the last stronghold, - the US -, are the high-end Samsungs outselling the iPhone.

    A brand which didn´t have to spend money on advertising will suddenly find the need to rebuild an image. Marketeers can tell you this is so hard that most companies never succeed. Those who did, spend an awful lot of money doing so. The $1 billion won´t cover that bill. 

    Steve Jobs´ Apple did bet on a legal monopoly and for a few weeks they could possibly have one in the US. Apple reckoned that if a judge would tell it, the consumers would sympathize with Apple; victim of ´slavishly copying it´s success; the real 2012 is very different. Lawyers are not cool; underdogs are so this will turn out to be a Pyrrhic victory.
  • 234 plusses - 111 comments - 106 shares | Read in G+
  • Max Huijgen2012-08-25 00:55:43
    Apple just got the most expensive court room win ever: Pyrrhic victory

     This case should never have reached a jury court, but the verdict is in. One billion dollar in damages although the jury was just sent back to recalculate it as judge Koh noticed some errors. 

    By all means this is a commercial conflict with a worldwide impact, but it ended up before nine ordinary citizens, laymen, two women and seven man who were asked to answer a very long list of detailed questions on very technical stuff. They were treated to endless streams of expert witnesses and the few journalist who reported from the court room often noticed ´jury looks blank while expert goes on an on´.

    Patents, an important part of this court case are extremely dull material. You need to read every sentence of dense technical and legal documents, look at that description and check if no prior art was found which again is not easy to do as the devil is again in the details. Patent experts are often unsure what should be the verdict; a jury of ordinary citizens has a hard time even following the argument. 

    So the jury didn´t. They ignored all that stuff when a document surfaced where Samsung itself said it had to study and copy Apple´s success. Do note that it didnt´t say ´copy Apple´s devices´ but it´s easy to pick up that message so they did and skipped all those boring details and just said yes to all accusations of patent violations by Samsung.

    That same jury was also asked if Samsung damaged the iPhone ´trade dress´. Now this is a lot easier for laymen. Did Samsung copy the look and feel of iPhones to create consumers with consumers? Suddenly the jurors woke up: this was their territory and no, they didn´t feel consumers would not be capable to see the differences. They skipped two questions and answered the other two with a mixture of yes on some models and no on others. Home turf.

    That´s jurors territory: look and feel and consumer perception, not the technical implementations of patents like ´381 which describes the bounce back at the end of list. That patent has been discussed by professional judges and is not even considered a safe Apple asset.

    The jury ignored all that boring stuff and fell asleep when Samsung countered with claims about the details of 3G and UMTS implementations. The witnesses were nerdy professors who were hard to follow so these claims were refused out of hand.

    What happened is that a huge commercial conflict ended up in a completely wrong setting. Judge Koh has done everything to keep this out of her court and get the parties to solve this at a boardroom table. Jurors can´t decide this conflict and this will certainly go to an appeal court with possibly different, but also inherently false outcomes.

    False because these same questions will also be addressed outside of the US where juries are rare and professional judges will decide completely different. They will study the prior art and take note of all the witness statements. Net result: it will take at least another half year before some o the worldwide dust settles and meanwhile models of both parties will be temporarily banned from sales in some regions.

     Meanwhile this and the other high profile cases outside of the US will damage Apple´s image enormously. Remember when an iPhone was cool? If an expert in 2010 would have testified about Apple´s brand image the taxation would have been in the tens, possibly hundreds of billions.  

    That same image in 2012 is tarnished. A company which doesn´t innovate (the 4s only brought the already forgotten SIRI) but tries to monopolize both the smart phone and the tablet sector by using lawyers is not cool at all.

    When Samsung has to withdraw its products, consumers will feel duped. They lost their choice and they will blame Apple as Samsung will surely drive that point home; is that worth $1.05 billion?

    The answer is in the market share: Samsung surpassed Apple a long time ago and even in the last stronghold, - the US -, are the high-end Samsungs outselling the iPhone.

    A brand which didn´t have to spend money on advertising will suddenly find the need to rebuild an image. Marketeers can tell you this is so hard that most companies never succeed. Those who did, spend an awful lot of money doing so. The $1 billion won´t cover that bill. 

    Steve Jobs´ Apple did bet on a legal monopoly and for a few weeks they could possibly have one in the US. Apple reckoned that if a judge would tell it, the consumers would sympathize with Apple; victim of ´slavishly copying it´s success; the real 2012 is very different. Lawyers are not cool; underdogs are so this will turn out to be a Pyrrhic victory.
  • 234 plusses - 111 comments - 106 shares | Read in G+
  • Max Huijgen2012-08-25 00:55:43
    Apple just got the most expensive court room win ever: Pyrrhic victory

     This case should never have reached a jury court, but the verdict is in. One billion dollar in damages although the jury was just sent back to recalculate it as judge Koh noticed some errors. 

    By all means this is a commercial conflict with a worldwide impact, but it ended up before nine ordinary citizens, laymen, two women and seven man who were asked to answer a very long list of detailed questions on very technical stuff. They were treated to endless streams of expert witnesses and the few journalist who reported from the court room often noticed ´jury looks blank while expert goes on an on´.

    Patents, an important part of this court case are extremely dull material. You need to read every sentence of dense technical and legal documents, look at that description and check if no prior art was found which again is not easy to do as the devil is again in the details. Patent experts are often unsure what should be the verdict; a jury of ordinary citizens has a hard time even following the argument. 

    So the jury didn´t. They ignored all that stuff when a document surfaced where Samsung itself said it had to study and copy Apple´s success. Do note that it didnt´t say ´copy Apple´s devices´ but it´s easy to pick up that message so they did and skipped all those boring details and just said yes to all accusations of patent violations by Samsung.

    That same jury was also asked if Samsung damaged the iPhone ´trade dress´. Now this is a lot easier for laymen. Did Samsung copy the look and feel of iPhones to create consumers with consumers? Suddenly the jurors woke up: this was their territory and no, they didn´t feel consumers would not be capable to see the differences. They skipped two questions and answered the other two with a mixture of yes on some models and no on others. Home turf.

    That´s jurors territory: look and feel and consumer perception, not the technical implementations of patents like ´381 which describes the bounce back at the end of list. That patent has been discussed by professional judges and is not even considered a safe Apple asset.

    The jury ignored all that boring stuff and fell asleep when Samsung countered with claims about the details of 3G and UMTS implementations. The witnesses were nerdy professors who were hard to follow so these claims were refused out of hand.

    What happened is that a huge commercial conflict ended up in a completely wrong setting. Judge Koh has done everything to keep this out of her court and get the parties to solve this at a boardroom table. Jurors can´t decide this conflict and this will certainly go to an appeal court with possibly different, but also inherently false outcomes.

    False because these same questions will also be addressed outside of the US where juries are rare and professional judges will decide completely different. They will study the prior art and take note of all the witness statements. Net result: it will take at least another half year before some o the worldwide dust settles and meanwhile models of both parties will be temporarily banned from sales in some regions.

     Meanwhile this and the other high profile cases outside of the US will damage Apple´s image enormously. Remember when an iPhone was cool? If an expert in 2010 would have testified about Apple´s brand image the taxation would have been in the tens, possibly hundreds of billions.  

    That same image in 2012 is tarnished. A company which doesn´t innovate (the 4s only brought the already forgotten SIRI) but tries to monopolize both the smart phone and the tablet sector by using lawyers is not cool at all.

    When Samsung has to withdraw its products, consumers will feel duped. They lost their choice and they will blame Apple as Samsung will surely drive that point home; is that worth $1.05 billion?

    The answer is in the market share: Samsung surpassed Apple a long time ago and even in the last stronghold, - the US -, are the high-end Samsungs outselling the iPhone.

    A brand which didn´t have to spend money on advertising will suddenly find the need to rebuild an image. Marketeers can tell you this is so hard that most companies never succeed. Those who did, spend an awful lot of money doing so. The $1 billion won´t cover that bill. 

    Steve Jobs´ Apple did bet on a legal monopoly and for a few weeks they could possibly have one in the US. Apple reckoned that if a judge would tell it, the consumers would sympathize with Apple; victim of ´slavishly copying it´s success; the real 2012 is very different. Lawyers are not cool; underdogs are so this will turn out to be a Pyrrhic victory.
  • 234 plusses - 111 comments - 106 shares | Read in G+
  • Max Huijgen2012-08-25 00:55:43
    Apple just got the most expensive court room win ever: Pyrrhic victory

     This case should never have reached a jury court, but the verdict is in. One billion dollar in damages although the jury was just sent back to recalculate it as judge Koh noticed some errors. 

    By all means this is a commercial conflict with a worldwide impact, but it ended up before nine ordinary citizens, laymen, two women and seven man who were asked to answer a very long list of detailed questions on very technical stuff. They were treated to endless streams of expert witnesses and the few journalist who reported from the court room often noticed ´jury looks blank while expert goes on an on´.

    Patents, an important part of this court case are extremely dull material. You need to read every sentence of dense technical and legal documents, look at that description and check if no prior art was found which again is not easy to do as the devil is again in the details. Patent experts are often unsure what should be the verdict; a jury of ordinary citizens has a hard time even following the argument. 

    So the jury didn´t. They ignored all that stuff when a document surfaced where Samsung itself said it had to study and copy Apple´s success. Do note that it didnt´t say ´copy Apple´s devices´ but it´s easy to pick up that message so they did and skipped all those boring details and just said yes to all accusations of patent violations by Samsung.

    That same jury was also asked if Samsung damaged the iPhone ´trade dress´. Now this is a lot easier for laymen. Did Samsung copy the look and feel of iPhones to create consumers with consumers? Suddenly the jurors woke up: this was their territory and no, they didn´t feel consumers would not be capable to see the differences. They skipped two questions and answered the other two with a mixture of yes on some models and no on others. Home turf.

    That´s jurors territory: look and feel and consumer perception, not the technical implementations of patents like ´381 which describes the bounce back at the end of list. That patent has been discussed by professional judges and is not even considered a safe Apple asset.

    The jury ignored all that boring stuff and fell asleep when Samsung countered with claims about the details of 3G and UMTS implementations. The witnesses were nerdy professors who were hard to follow so these claims were refused out of hand.

    What happened is that a huge commercial conflict ended up in a completely wrong setting. Judge Koh has done everything to keep this out of her court and get the parties to solve this at a boardroom table. Jurors can´t decide this conflict and this will certainly go to an appeal court with possibly different, but also inherently false outcomes.

    False because these same questions will also be addressed outside of the US where juries are rare and professional judges will decide completely different. They will study the prior art and take note of all the witness statements. Net result: it will take at least another half year before some o the worldwide dust settles and meanwhile models of both parties will be temporarily banned from sales in some regions.

     Meanwhile this and the other high profile cases outside of the US will damage Apple´s image enormously. Remember when an iPhone was cool? If an expert in 2010 would have testified about Apple´s brand image the taxation would have been in the tens, possibly hundreds of billions.  

    That same image in 2012 is tarnished. A company which doesn´t innovate (the 4s only brought the already forgotten SIRI) but tries to monopolize both the smart phone and the tablet sector by using lawyers is not cool at all.

    When Samsung has to withdraw its products, consumers will feel duped. They lost their choice and they will blame Apple as Samsung will surely drive that point home; is that worth $1.05 billion?

    The answer is in the market share: Samsung surpassed Apple a long time ago and even in the last stronghold, - the US -, are the high-end Samsungs outselling the iPhone.

    A brand which didn´t have to spend money on advertising will suddenly find the need to rebuild an image. Marketeers can tell you this is so hard that most companies never succeed. Those who did, spend an awful lot of money doing so. The $1 billion won´t cover that bill. 

    Steve Jobs´ Apple did bet on a legal monopoly and for a few weeks they could possibly have one in the US. Apple reckoned that if a judge would tell it, the consumers would sympathize with Apple; victim of ´slavishly copying it´s success; the real 2012 is very different. Lawyers are not cool; underdogs are so this will turn out to be a Pyrrhic victory.
  • 234 plusses - 111 comments - 106 shares | Read in G+
  • Max Huijgen2014-06-03 21:40:47
    My circles need more input: I want to circle YOU, but
    only if you post great content, find stuff nobody else does, have a refreshing view or are a misunderstood genius who can pass a Turing test and really should have an audience larger than your nurse.

    After a serious spring clean I have a lack of interesting people to follow. I need 300 people who really, really enhance my stream, who make it worthwhile to just read everything they post. (see note)

    Now I know some of you are shy so I take recommendations by people I already trust. If you're not shy: you need to show me why I should circle you with one compelling comment.

    Oh and I said 'read' but I enjoy really great images, but everything auto** is out of the picture. Oh, and they should be yours. Not machine generated, nor copied from the interwebz.

    Don't apply if you:
    * read Mashable and want to tell me about it
    * are a fake photographer sharing self-promoting circles
    * want to sell me or my readers something you just happen to offer
    * are on medication or should be (unless you're like me or worth it)
    * are into conspiracy unless Snowden proved you right (I can see the flaw here ;)

    I would love to hear from you if you can enrich my G+ streams; if you have a recommendation please share it in the comments

    Ah, you wonder what's in it for you? I will very occasionally share a post by you, plus it if it's interesting enough, but most importantly read your post which might trigger me in commenting. Now check my history if you're really sure that would enrich your life ;)

    I will circle more than 300 people if worthy, but can't follow more on a daily basis

    a recommendation is excellent, but I expect a follow up by the person mentioned. After all mentioning and reacting are part of a lively debate culture so non responders score lower
  • 34 plusses - 110 comments - 10 shares | Read in G+
  • Max Huijgen2014-06-03 21:40:47
    My circles need more input: I want to circle YOU, but
    only if you post great content, find stuff nobody else does, have a refreshing view or are a misunderstood genius who can pass a Turing test and really should have an audience larger than your nurse.

    After a serious spring clean I have a lack of interesting people to follow. I need 300 people who really, really enhance my stream, who make it worthwhile to just read everything they post. (see note)

    Now I know some of you are shy so I take recommendations by people I already trust. If you're not shy: you need to show me why I should circle you with one compelling comment.

    Oh and I said 'read' but I enjoy really great images, but everything auto** is out of the picture. Oh, and they should be yours. Not machine generated, nor copied from the interwebz.

    Don't apply if you:
    * read Mashable and want to tell me about it
    * are a fake photographer sharing self-promoting circles
    * want to sell me or my readers something you just happen to offer
    * are on medication or should be (unless you're like me or worth it)
    * are into conspiracy unless Snowden proved you right (I can see the flaw here ;)

    I would love to hear from you if you can enrich my G+ streams; if you have a recommendation please share it in the comments

    Ah, you wonder what's in it for you? I will very occasionally share a post by you, plus it if it's interesting enough, but most importantly read your post which might trigger me in commenting. Now check my history if you're really sure that would enrich your life ;)

    I will circle more than 300 people if worthy, but can't follow more on a daily basis

    a recommendation is excellent, but I expect a follow up by the person mentioned. After all mentioning and reacting are part of a lively debate culture so non responders score lower
  • 34 plusses - 110 comments - 10 shares | Read in G+
  • Max Huijgen2014-06-03 21:40:47
    My circles need more input: I want to circle YOU, but
    only if you post great content, find stuff nobody else does, have a refreshing view or are a misunderstood genius who can pass a Turing test and really should have an audience larger than your nurse.

    After a serious spring clean I have a lack of interesting people to follow. I need 300 people who really, really enhance my stream, who make it worthwhile to just read everything they post. (see note)

    Now I know some of you are shy so I take recommendations by people I already trust. If you're not shy: you need to show me why I should circle you with one compelling comment.

    Oh and I said 'read' but I enjoy really great images, but everything auto** is out of the picture. Oh, and they should be yours. Not machine generated, nor copied from the interwebz.

    Don't apply if you:
    * read Mashable and want to tell me about it
    * are a fake photographer sharing self-promoting circles
    * want to sell me or my readers something you just happen to offer
    * are on medication or should be (unless you're like me or worth it)
    * are into conspiracy unless Snowden proved you right (I can see the flaw here ;)

    I would love to hear from you if you can enrich my G+ streams; if you have a recommendation please share it in the comments

    Ah, you wonder what's in it for you? I will very occasionally share a post by you, plus it if it's interesting enough, but most importantly read your post which might trigger me in commenting. Now check my history if you're really sure that would enrich your life ;)

    I will circle more than 300 people if worthy, but can't follow more on a daily basis

    a recommendation is excellent, but I expect a follow up by the person mentioned. After all mentioning and reacting are part of a lively debate culture so non responders score lower
  • 34 plusses - 110 comments - 10 shares | Read in G+
  • Max Huijgen2014-06-03 21:40:47
    My circles need more input: I want to circle YOU, but
    only if you post great content, find stuff nobody else does, have a refreshing view or are a misunderstood genius who can pass a Turing test and really should have an audience larger than your nurse.

    After a serious spring clean I have a lack of interesting people to follow. I need 300 people who really, really enhance my stream, who make it worthwhile to just read everything they post. (see note)

    Now I know some of you are shy so I take recommendations by people I already trust. If you're not shy: you need to show me why I should circle you with one compelling comment.

    Oh and I said 'read' but I enjoy really great images, but everything auto** is out of the picture. Oh, and they should be yours. Not machine generated, nor copied from the interwebz.

    Don't apply if you:
    * read Mashable and want to tell me about it
    * are a fake photographer sharing self-promoting circles
    * want to sell me or my readers something you just happen to offer
    * are on medication or should be (unless you're like me or worth it)
    * are into conspiracy unless Snowden proved you right (I can see the flaw here ;)

    I would love to hear from you if you can enrich my G+ streams; if you have a recommendation please share it in the comments

    Ah, you wonder what's in it for you? I will very occasionally share a post by you, plus it if it's interesting enough, but most importantly read your post which might trigger me in commenting. Now check my history if you're really sure that would enrich your life ;)

    I will circle more than 300 people if worthy, but can't follow more on a daily basis

    a recommendation is excellent, but I expect a follow up by the person mentioned. After all mentioning and reacting are part of a lively debate culture so non responders score lower
  • 34 plusses - 110 comments - 10 shares | Read in G+
  • Max Huijgen2014-06-03 21:40:47
    My circles need more input: I want to circle YOU, but
    only if you post great content, find stuff nobody else does, have a refreshing view or are a misunderstood genius who can pass a Turing test and really should have an audience larger than your nurse.

    After a serious spring clean I have a lack of interesting people to follow. I need 300 people who really, really enhance my stream, who make it worthwhile to just read everything they post. (see note)

    Now I know some of you are shy so I take recommendations by people I already trust. If you're not shy: you need to show me why I should circle you with one compelling comment.

    Oh and I said 'read' but I enjoy really great images, but everything auto** is out of the picture. Oh, and they should be yours. Not machine generated, nor copied from the interwebz.

    Don't apply if you:
    * read Mashable and want to tell me about it
    * are a fake photographer sharing self-promoting circles
    * want to sell me or my readers something you just happen to offer
    * are on medication or should be (unless you're like me or worth it)
    * are into conspiracy unless Snowden proved you right (I can see the flaw here ;)

    I would love to hear from you if you can enrich my G+ streams; if you have a recommendation please share it in the comments

    Ah, you wonder what's in it for you? I will very occasionally share a post by you, plus it if it's interesting enough, but most importantly read your post which might trigger me in commenting. Now check my history if you're really sure that would enrich your life ;)

    I will circle more than 300 people if worthy, but can't follow more on a daily basis

    a recommendation is excellent, but I expect a follow up by the person mentioned. After all mentioning and reacting are part of a lively debate culture so non responders score lower
  • 34 plusses - 110 comments - 10 shares | Read in G+
  • Max Huijgen2014-06-03 21:40:47
    My circles need more input: I want to circle YOU, but
    only if you post great content, find stuff nobody else does, have a refreshing view or are a misunderstood genius who can pass a Turing test and really should have an audience larger than your nurse.

    After a serious spring clean I have a lack of interesting people to follow. I need 300 people who really, really enhance my stream, who make it worthwhile to just read everything they post. (see note)

    Now I know some of you are shy so I take recommendations by people I already trust. If you're not shy: you need to show me why I should circle you with one compelling comment.

    Oh and I said 'read' but I enjoy really great images, but everything auto** is out of the picture. Oh, and they should be yours. Not machine generated, nor copied from the interwebz.

    Don't apply if you:
    * read Mashable and want to tell me about it
    * are a fake photographer sharing self-promoting circles
    * want to sell me or my readers something you just happen to offer
    * are on medication or should be (unless you're like me or worth it)
    * are into conspiracy unless Snowden proved you right (I can see the flaw here ;)

    I would love to hear from you if you can enrich my G+ streams; if you have a recommendation please share it in the comments

    Ah, you wonder what's in it for you? I will very occasionally share a post by you, plus it if it's interesting enough, but most importantly read your post which might trigger me in commenting. Now check my history if you're really sure that would enrich your life ;)

    I will circle more than 300 people if worthy, but can't follow more on a daily basis

    a recommendation is excellent, but I expect a follow up by the person mentioned. After all mentioning and reacting are part of a lively debate culture so non responders score lower
  • 34 plusses - 110 comments - 10 shares | Read in G+
  • Max Huijgen2014-06-03 21:40:47
    My circles need more input: I want to circle YOU, but
    only if you post great content, find stuff nobody else does, have a refreshing view or are a misunderstood genius who can pass a Turing test and really should have an audience larger than your nurse.

    After a serious spring clean I have a lack of interesting people to follow. I need 300 people who really, really enhance my stream, who make it worthwhile to just read everything they post. (see note)

    Now I know some of you are shy so I take recommendations by people I already trust. If you're not shy: you need to show me why I should circle you with one compelling comment.

    Oh and I said 'read' but I enjoy really great images, but everything auto** is out of the picture. Oh, and they should be yours. Not machine generated, nor copied from the interwebz.

    Don't apply if you:
    * read Mashable and want to tell me about it
    * are a fake photographer sharing self-promoting circles
    * want to sell me or my readers something you just happen to offer
    * are on medication or should be (unless you're like me or worth it)
    * are into conspiracy unless Snowden proved you right (I can see the flaw here ;)

    I would love to hear from you if you can enrich my G+ streams; if you have a recommendation please share it in the comments

    Ah, you wonder what's in it for you? I will very occasionally share a post by you, plus it if it's interesting enough, but most importantly read your post which might trigger me in commenting. Now check my history if you're really sure that would enrich your life ;)

    I will circle more than 300 people if worthy, but can't follow more on a daily basis

    a recommendation is excellent, but I expect a follow up by the person mentioned. After all mentioning and reacting are part of a lively debate culture so non responders score lower
  • 34 plusses - 110 comments - 10 shares | Read in G+
  • Max Huijgen2014-06-03 21:40:47
    My circles need more input: I want to circle YOU, but
    only if you post great content, find stuff nobody else does, have a refreshing view or are a misunderstood genius who can pass a Turing test and really should have an audience larger than your nurse.

    After a serious spring clean I have a lack of interesting people to follow. I need 300 people who really, really enhance my stream, who make it worthwhile to just read everything they post. (see note)

    Now I know some of you are shy so I take recommendations by people I already trust. If you're not shy: you need to show me why I should circle you with one compelling comment.

    Oh and I said 'read' but I enjoy really great images, but everything auto** is out of the picture. Oh, and they should be yours. Not machine generated, nor copied from the interwebz.

    Don't apply if you:
    * read Mashable and want to tell me about it
    * are a fake photographer sharing self-promoting circles
    * want to sell me or my readers something you just happen to offer
    * are on medication or should be (unless you're like me or worth it)
    * are into conspiracy unless Snowden proved you right (I can see the flaw here ;)

    I would love to hear from you if you can enrich my G+ streams; if you have a recommendation please share it in the comments

    Ah, you wonder what's in it for you? I will very occasionally share a post by you, plus it if it's interesting enough, but most importantly read your post which might trigger me in commenting. Now check my history if you're really sure that would enrich your life ;)

    I will circle more than 300 people if worthy, but can't follow more on a daily basis

    a recommendation is excellent, but I expect a follow up by the person mentioned. After all mentioning and reacting are part of a lively debate culture so non responders score lower
  • 34 plusses - 110 comments - 10 shares | Read in G+
  • Max Huijgen2014-06-09 18:03:04
    Apple saves you from prying eyes with new iOS8 anonymizing trick
    Every smart phone is constantly broadcasting its identity through Wifi and it's extremely easy to track people that way. Main street shops for instance are already using it to identify customers even outside the shop. 

    The identifier is the 'unique' Mac-address which your phone broadcasts. Apple will now stop this by generating a random (spoof) Mac-address for each request by a non trusted wifi station.(1) 

    Result: no database, no identification, at least some privacy back when outdoors. Let's hope others (Google I'm looking at you!) will follow suit.

    kudos to +Frederic Jacobs https://twitter.com/FredericJacobs/status/475601665836744704?_ga=1.144086837.1052920292.1402327892

    (1) my assumption about the implementation.

    (2) Found an image that illustrates the concept very well. It also shows alternative ways of identification: Bluetooth is only one of the many ways unfortunately. All kinds of fingerprinting are possible. 
  • 54 plusses - 109 comments - 17 shares | Read in G+
  • Max Huijgen2014-06-09 18:03:04
    Apple saves you from prying eyes with new iOS8 anonymizing trick
    Every smart phone is constantly broadcasting its identity through Wifi and it's extremely easy to track people that way. Main street shops for instance are already using it to identify customers even outside the shop. 

    The identifier is the 'unique' Mac-address which your phone broadcasts. Apple will now stop this by generating a random (spoof) Mac-address for each request by a non trusted wifi station.(1) 

    Result: no database, no identification, at least some privacy back when outdoors. Let's hope others (Google I'm looking at you!) will follow suit.

    kudos to +Frederic Jacobs https://twitter.com/FredericJacobs/status/475601665836744704?_ga=1.144086837.1052920292.1402327892

    (1) my assumption about the implementation.

    (2) Found an image that illustrates the concept very well. It also shows alternative ways of identification: Bluetooth is only one of the many ways unfortunately. All kinds of fingerprinting are possible. 
  • 54 plusses - 109 comments - 17 shares | Read in G+
  • Max Huijgen2014-06-09 18:03:04
    Apple saves you from prying eyes with new iOS8 anonymizing trick
    Every smart phone is constantly broadcasting its identity through Wifi and it's extremely easy to track people that way. Main street shops for instance are already using it to identify customers even outside the shop. 

    The identifier is the 'unique' Mac-address which your phone broadcasts. Apple will now stop this by generating a random (spoof) Mac-address for each request by a non trusted wifi station.(1) 

    Result: no database, no identification, at least some privacy back when outdoors. Let's hope others (Google I'm looking at you!) will follow suit.

    kudos to +Frederic Jacobs https://twitter.com/FredericJacobs/status/475601665836744704?_ga=1.144086837.1052920292.1402327892

    (1) my assumption about the implementation.

    (2) Found an image that illustrates the concept very well. It also shows alternative ways of identification: Bluetooth is only one of the many ways unfortunately. All kinds of fingerprinting are possible. 
  • 54 plusses - 109 comments - 17 shares | Read in G+
  • Max Huijgen2014-06-09 18:03:04
    Apple saves you from prying eyes with new iOS8 anonymizing trick
    Every smart phone is constantly broadcasting its identity through Wifi and it's extremely easy to track people that way. Main street shops for instance are already using it to identify customers even outside the shop. 

    The identifier is the 'unique' Mac-address which your phone broadcasts. Apple will now stop this by generating a random (spoof) Mac-address for each request by a non trusted wifi station.(1) 

    Result: no database, no identification, at least some privacy back when outdoors. Let's hope others (Google I'm looking at you!) will follow suit.

    kudos to +Frederic Jacobs https://twitter.com/FredericJacobs/status/475601665836744704?_ga=1.144086837.1052920292.1402327892

    (1) my assumption about the implementation.

    (2) Found an image that illustrates the concept very well. It also shows alternative ways of identification: Bluetooth is only one of the many ways unfortunately. All kinds of fingerprinting are possible. 
  • 54 plusses - 109 comments - 17 shares | Read in G+
  • Max Huijgen2014-06-09 18:03:04
    Apple saves you from prying eyes with new iOS8 anonymizing trick
    Every smart phone is constantly broadcasting its identity through Wifi and it's extremely easy to track people that way. Main street shops for instance are already using it to identify customers even outside the shop. 

    The identifier is the 'unique' Mac-address which your phone broadcasts. Apple will now stop this by generating a random (spoof) Mac-address for each request by a non trusted wifi station.(1) 

    Result: no database, no identification, at least some privacy back when outdoors. Let's hope others (Google I'm looking at you!) will follow suit.

    kudos to +Frederic Jacobs https://twitter.com/FredericJacobs/status/475601665836744704?_ga=1.144086837.1052920292.1402327892

    (1) my assumption about the implementation.

    (2) Found an image that illustrates the concept very well. It also shows alternative ways of identification: Bluetooth is only one of the many ways unfortunately. All kinds of fingerprinting are possible. 
  • 54 plusses - 109 comments - 17 shares | Read in G+
  • Max Huijgen2014-06-09 18:03:04
    Apple saves you from prying eyes with new iOS8 anonymizing trick
    Every smart phone is constantly broadcasting its identity through Wifi and it's extremely easy to track people that way. Main street shops for instance are already using it to identify customers even outside the shop. 

    The identifier is the 'unique' Mac-address which your phone broadcasts. Apple will now stop this by generating a random (spoof) Mac-address for each request by a non trusted wifi station.(1) 

    Result: no database, no identification, at least some privacy back when outdoors. Let's hope others (Google I'm looking at you!) will follow suit.

    kudos to +Frederic Jacobs https://twitter.com/FredericJacobs/status/475601665836744704?_ga=1.144086837.1052920292.1402327892

    (1) my assumption about the implementation.

    (2) Found an image that illustrates the concept very well. It also shows alternative ways of identification: Bluetooth is only one of the many ways unfortunately. All kinds of fingerprinting are possible. 
  • 54 plusses - 109 comments - 17 shares | Read in G+
  • Max Huijgen2014-06-09 18:03:04
    Apple saves you from prying eyes with new iOS8 anonymizing trick
    Every smart phone is constantly broadcasting its identity through Wifi and it's extremely easy to track people that way. Main street shops for instance are already using it to identify customers even outside the shop. 

    The identifier is the 'unique' Mac-address which your phone broadcasts. Apple will now stop this by generating a random (spoof) Mac-address for each request by a non trusted wifi station.(1) 

    Result: no database, no identification, at least some privacy back when outdoors. Let's hope others (Google I'm looking at you!) will follow suit.

    kudos to +Frederic Jacobs https://twitter.com/FredericJacobs/status/475601665836744704?_ga=1.144086837.1052920292.1402327892

    (1) my assumption about the implementation.

    (2) Found an image that illustrates the concept very well. It also shows alternative ways of identification: Bluetooth is only one of the many ways unfortunately. All kinds of fingerprinting are possible. 
  • 54 plusses - 109 comments - 17 shares | Read in G+
  • Max Huijgen2014-06-09 18:03:04
    Apple saves you from prying eyes with new iOS8 anonymizing trick
    Every smart phone is constantly broadcasting its identity through Wifi and it's extremely easy to track people that way. Main street shops for instance are already using it to identify customers even outside the shop. 

    The identifier is the 'unique' Mac-address which your phone broadcasts. Apple will now stop this by generating a random (spoof) Mac-address for each request by a non trusted wifi station.(1) 

    Result: no database, no identification, at least some privacy back when outdoors. Let's hope others (Google I'm looking at you!) will follow suit.

    kudos to +Frederic Jacobs https://twitter.com/FredericJacobs/status/475601665836744704?_ga=1.144086837.1052920292.1402327892

    (1) my assumption about the implementation.

    (2) Found an image that illustrates the concept very well. It also shows alternative ways of identification: Bluetooth is only one of the many ways unfortunately. All kinds of fingerprinting are possible. 
  • 54 plusses - 109 comments - 17 shares | Read in G+
  • Max Huijgen2012-08-14 18:21:17
    Klout uses real world influence to calculate score: Obama finally outranks Bieber
     The clear signal that Klout didn´t really measure influence has always been that simple metric for the president of the USA. It was lower than Justin Bieber, the reigning champ of Klout. 

    The algorithm +Joe Fernandez and his colleagues used to determine +Klout scores leaned heavily on social media signals, distorting the real world effects. Starting today they use much more variables to make up the magic number and the critics scored two important wins:

    - real world impact will be part of the score. Happen to have your own Wikipedia article or are you the CEO of a large company: your score will be way higher than the kings and queens of twitter, facebook and G+ 

    - a bit more transparency: so called ´Moments´ will show you how your posts from the past 90 days have impacted your Klout Score.

     The final score will still be a magic number as nobody outside the company will know how the 400 indicators influence the score, but Klout has downgraded me by 15 points so maybe I´m no longer as influential as Sarah Palin ;)  

    can´t check Sarah Palin, whose real world influence can be doubted anyway, as the Klout database seems to be under stress updating

    Did your score drop as well and do you agree, or are you busy writing an angry posts about the disgrace....
  • 24 plusses - 108 comments - 3 shares | Read in G+
  • Max Huijgen2012-08-14 18:21:17
    Klout uses real world influence to calculate score: Obama finally outranks Bieber
     The clear signal that Klout didn´t really measure influence has always been that simple metric for the president of the USA. It was lower than Justin Bieber, the reigning champ of Klout. 

    The algorithm +Joe Fernandez and his colleagues used to determine +Klout scores leaned heavily on social media signals, distorting the real world effects. Starting today they use much more variables to make up the magic number and the critics scored two important wins:

    - real world impact will be part of the score. Happen to have your own Wikipedia article or are you the CEO of a large company: your score will be way higher than the kings and queens of twitter, facebook and G+ 

    - a bit more transparency: so called ´Moments´ will show you how your posts from the past 90 days have impacted your Klout Score.

     The final score will still be a magic number as nobody outside the company will know how the 400 indicators influence the score, but Klout has downgraded me by 15 points so maybe I´m no longer as influential as Sarah Palin ;)  

    can´t check Sarah Palin, whose real world influence can be doubted anyway, as the Klout database seems to be under stress updating

    Did your score drop as well and do you agree, or are you busy writing an angry posts about the disgrace....
  • 24 plusses - 108 comments - 3 shares | Read in G+
  • Max Huijgen2012-08-14 18:21:17
    Klout uses real world influence to calculate score: Obama finally outranks Bieber
     The clear signal that Klout didn´t really measure influence has always been that simple metric for the president of the USA. It was lower than Justin Bieber, the reigning champ of Klout. 

    The algorithm +Joe Fernandez and his colleagues used to determine +Klout scores leaned heavily on social media signals, distorting the real world effects. Starting today they use much more variables to make up the magic number and the critics scored two important wins:

    - real world impact will be part of the score. Happen to have your own Wikipedia article or are you the CEO of a large company: your score will be way higher than the kings and queens of twitter, facebook and G+ 

    - a bit more transparency: so called ´Moments´ will show you how your posts from the past 90 days have impacted your Klout Score.

     The final score will still be a magic number as nobody outside the company will know how the 400 indicators influence the score, but Klout has downgraded me by 15 points so maybe I´m no longer as influential as Sarah Palin ;)  

    can´t check Sarah Palin, whose real world influence can be doubted anyway, as the Klout database seems to be under stress updating

    Did your score drop as well and do you agree, or are you busy writing an angry posts about the disgrace....
  • 24 plusses - 108 comments - 3 shares | Read in G+
  • Max Huijgen2012-08-14 18:21:17
    Klout uses real world influence to calculate score: Obama finally outranks Bieber
     The clear signal that Klout didn´t really measure influence has always been that simple metric for the president of the USA. It was lower than Justin Bieber, the reigning champ of Klout. 

    The algorithm +Joe Fernandez and his colleagues used to determine +Klout scores leaned heavily on social media signals, distorting the real world effects. Starting today they use much more variables to make up the magic number and the critics scored two important wins:

    - real world impact will be part of the score. Happen to have your own Wikipedia article or are you the CEO of a large company: your score will be way higher than the kings and queens of twitter, facebook and G+ 

    - a bit more transparency: so called ´Moments´ will show you how your posts from the past 90 days have impacted your Klout Score.

     The final score will still be a magic number as nobody outside the company will know how the 400 indicators influence the score, but Klout has downgraded me by 15 points so maybe I´m no longer as influential as Sarah Palin ;)  

    can´t check Sarah Palin, whose real world influence can be doubted anyway, as the Klout database seems to be under stress updating

    Did your score drop as well and do you agree, or are you busy writing an angry posts about the disgrace....
  • 24 plusses - 108 comments - 3 shares | Read in G+
  • Max Huijgen2012-08-14 18:21:17
    Klout uses real world influence to calculate score: Obama finally outranks Bieber
     The clear signal that Klout didn´t really measure influence has always been that simple metric for the president of the USA. It was lower than Justin Bieber, the reigning champ of Klout. 

    The algorithm +Joe Fernandez and his colleagues used to determine +Klout scores leaned heavily on social media signals, distorting the real world effects. Starting today they use much more variables to make up the magic number and the critics scored two important wins:

    - real world impact will be part of the score. Happen to have your own Wikipedia article or are you the CEO of a large company: your score will be way higher than the kings and queens of twitter, facebook and G+ 

    - a bit more transparency: so called ´Moments´ will show you how your posts from the past 90 days have impacted your Klout Score.

     The final score will still be a magic number as nobody outside the company will know how the 400 indicators influence the score, but Klout has downgraded me by 15 points so maybe I´m no longer as influential as Sarah Palin ;)  

    can´t check Sarah Palin, whose real world influence can be doubted anyway, as the Klout database seems to be under stress updating

    Did your score drop as well and do you agree, or are you busy writing an angry posts about the disgrace....
  • 24 plusses - 108 comments - 3 shares | Read in G+
  • Max Huijgen2012-08-14 18:21:17
    Klout uses real world influence to calculate score: Obama finally outranks Bieber
     The clear signal that Klout didn´t really measure influence has always been that simple metric for the president of the USA. It was lower than Justin Bieber, the reigning champ of Klout. 

    The algorithm +Joe Fernandez and his colleagues used to determine +Klout scores leaned heavily on social media signals, distorting the real world effects. Starting today they use much more variables to make up the magic number and the critics scored two important wins:

    - real world impact will be part of the score. Happen to have your own Wikipedia article or are you the CEO of a large company: your score will be way higher than the kings and queens of twitter, facebook and G+ 

    - a bit more transparency: so called ´Moments´ will show you how your posts from the past 90 days have impacted your Klout Score.

     The final score will still be a magic number as nobody outside the company will know how the 400 indicators influence the score, but Klout has downgraded me by 15 points so maybe I´m no longer as influential as Sarah Palin ;)  

    can´t check Sarah Palin, whose real world influence can be doubted anyway, as the Klout database seems to be under stress updating

    Did your score drop as well and do you agree, or are you busy writing an angry posts about the disgrace....
  • 24 plusses - 108 comments - 3 shares | Read in G+
  • Max Huijgen2012-08-14 18:21:17
    Klout uses real world influence to calculate score: Obama finally outranks Bieber
     The clear signal that Klout didn´t really measure influence has always been that simple metric for the president of the USA. It was lower than Justin Bieber, the reigning champ of Klout. 

    The algorithm +Joe Fernandez and his colleagues used to determine +Klout scores leaned heavily on social media signals, distorting the real world effects. Starting today they use much more variables to make up the magic number and the critics scored two important wins:

    - real world impact will be part of the score. Happen to have your own Wikipedia article or are you the CEO of a large company: your score will be way higher than the kings and queens of twitter, facebook and G+ 

    - a bit more transparency: so called ´Moments´ will show you how your posts from the past 90 days have impacted your Klout Score.

     The final score will still be a magic number as nobody outside the company will know how the 400 indicators influence the score, but Klout has downgraded me by 15 points so maybe I´m no longer as influential as Sarah Palin ;)  

    can´t check Sarah Palin, whose real world influence can be doubted anyway, as the Klout database seems to be under stress updating

    Did your score drop as well and do you agree, or are you busy writing an angry posts about the disgrace....
  • 24 plusses - 108 comments - 3 shares | Read in G+
  • Max Huijgen2012-05-20 20:19:20
    Microsoft So.cl social search network just went public
    Still clueless so don´t expect an evaluation. It´s uh,...interesting!

    My profile there is http://www.so.cl/#/@Max-Huijgen and apparently I have one follower :) I tried to follow a few people but got none the wiser.

    As you can see you can riff posts, but what it does? People with more experience who can tell more about it?
  • 7 plusses - 107 comments - 1 shares | Read in G+
  • Max Huijgen2012-05-20 20:19:20
    Microsoft So.cl social search network just went public
    Still clueless so don´t expect an evaluation. It´s uh,...interesting!

    My profile there is http://www.so.cl/#/@Max-Huijgen and apparently I have one follower :) I tried to follow a few people but got none the wiser.

    As you can see you can riff posts, but what it does? People with more experience who can tell more about it?
  • 7 plusses - 107 comments - 1 shares | Read in G+
  • Max Huijgen2012-05-20 20:19:20
    Microsoft So.cl social search network just went public
    Still clueless so don´t expect an evaluation. It´s uh,...interesting!

    My profile there is http://www.so.cl/#/@Max-Huijgen and apparently I have one follower :) I tried to follow a few people but got none the wiser.

    As you can see you can riff posts, but what it does? People with more experience who can tell more about it?
  • 7 plusses - 107 comments - 1 shares | Read in G+
  • Max Huijgen2012-05-20 20:19:20
    Microsoft So.cl social search network just went public
    Still clueless so don´t expect an evaluation. It´s uh,...interesting!

    My profile there is http://www.so.cl/#/@Max-Huijgen and apparently I have one follower :) I tried to follow a few people but got none the wiser.

    As you can see you can riff posts, but what it does? People with more experience who can tell more about it?
  • 7 plusses - 107 comments - 1 shares | Read in G+
  • Max Huijgen2012-05-20 20:19:20
    Microsoft So.cl social search network just went public
    Still clueless so don´t expect an evaluation. It´s uh,...interesting!

    My profile there is http://www.so.cl/#/@Max-Huijgen and apparently I have one follower :) I tried to follow a few people but got none the wiser.

    As you can see you can riff posts, but what it does? People with more experience who can tell more about it?
  • 7 plusses - 107 comments - 1 shares | Read in G+
  • Max Huijgen2012-05-20 20:19:20
    Microsoft So.cl social search network just went public
    Still clueless so don´t expect an evaluation. It´s uh,...interesting!

    My profile there is http://www.so.cl/#/@Max-Huijgen and apparently I have one follower :) I tried to follow a few people but got none the wiser.

    As you can see you can riff posts, but what it does? People with more experience who can tell more about it?
  • 7 plusses - 107 comments - 1 shares | Read in G+
  • Max Huijgen2012-05-20 20:19:20
    Microsoft So.cl social search network just went public
    Still clueless so don´t expect an evaluation. It´s uh,...interesting!

    My profile there is http://www.so.cl/#/@Max-Huijgen and apparently I have one follower :) I tried to follow a few people but got none the wiser.

    As you can see you can riff posts, but what it does? People with more experience who can tell more about it?
  • 7 plusses - 107 comments - 1 shares | Read in G+
  • Max Huijgen2013-02-09 23:48:37
    Horse meat found in hamburgers upsets English speakers
    Hamburgers and other processed food are central in a scandal where up to 100% horse meat is used instead of the labeled beef. Brits and Irish consumers are shocked and their papers produce horror stories, while other parts of Europe consider it a fraudulent mislabeling and nothing more.

    At the root is a cultural taboo where English speakers not only fear diseases, but are most of all shocked by the very idea that their burgers and lasagna´s contains meat of the noble equines.  This while large parts of continental Europe consider it a perfect alternative to pork and beef. Horse meat can be found in the best French cuisine and is served in large quantities in countries like Italy.

    It´s interesting that this taboo developed so strongly in some countries while the original rejection grounds: cheap alternative to proper beef hence a working class image and a ban by a pope in the early middle ages to stop ´pagan practices´ should have an identical effect all over Europe. 

    Is eating horse - often described as a sweet and tender meat - an absolute no go in your country or is it just one of the meal variations
  • 28 plusses - 105 comments - 10 shares | Read in G+
  • Max Huijgen2012-03-24 14:57:17
    F1 fans united: who wants to be in a shared Formula One circle?
    I can´t help myself: I´m a F1 nut and follow every race with a laptop handy for the live timing and the occasional comment on my favorite forum.

    It would be great if G+ would become the place to be for F1 fans. I tried to get more people on the same page last year, but so far we are still fragmented over the different pages. Let´s try to get some traction this year and crowd source the ultimate F1 circle.

    I know I have many Europeans who follow my posts, so maybe I can help here by asking you to mention yourself if f you want to be part of a lively F1 circle.
    When you post check if you know some others who could be interested and mention them as well to give them a chance to tune in.

    Please share the post if you know you have some true motor sport fans in your circles, but ask people to leave a comment here. I will add the first 500 to respond and share the circle the moment it´s full.

    With 500 enthusiasts we can have a running commentary during races on G+ and make sure that the best of the F1 pages get circled by all fans. Let me know if you want to be part of this circle.

    Remember: I will circle the first 500 who confirm themselves that they want to be in. So spread the word and let´s make sure that we can all be on the same page this year
  • 16 plusses - 105 comments - 10 shares | Read in G+
  • Max Huijgen2013-02-09 23:48:37
    Horse meat found in hamburgers upsets English speakers
    Hamburgers and other processed food are central in a scandal where up to 100% horse meat is used instead of the labeled beef. Brits and Irish consumers are shocked and their papers produce horror stories, while other parts of Europe consider it a fraudulent mislabeling and nothing more.

    At the root is a cultural taboo where English speakers not only fear diseases, but are most of all shocked by the very idea that their burgers and lasagna´s contains meat of the noble equines.  This while large parts of continental Europe consider it a perfect alternative to pork and beef. Horse meat can be found in the best French cuisine and is served in large quantities in countries like Italy.

    It´s interesting that this taboo developed so strongly in some countries while the original rejection grounds: cheap alternative to proper beef hence a working class image and a ban by a pope in the early middle ages to stop ´pagan practices´ should have an identical effect all over Europe. 

    Is eating horse - often described as a sweet and tender meat - an absolute no go in your country or is it just one of the meal variations
  • 28 plusses - 105 comments - 10 shares | Read in G+
  • Max Huijgen2012-03-24 14:57:17
    F1 fans united: who wants to be in a shared Formula One circle?
    I can´t help myself: I´m a F1 nut and follow every race with a laptop handy for the live timing and the occasional comment on my favorite forum.

    It would be great if G+ would become the place to be for F1 fans. I tried to get more people on the same page last year, but so far we are still fragmented over the different pages. Let´s try to get some traction this year and crowd source the ultimate F1 circle.

    I know I have many Europeans who follow my posts, so maybe I can help here by asking you to mention yourself if f you want to be part of a lively F1 circle.
    When you post check if you know some others who could be interested and mention them as well to give them a chance to tune in.

    Please share the post if you know you have some true motor sport fans in your circles, but ask people to leave a comment here. I will add the first 500 to respond and share the circle the moment it´s full.

    With 500 enthusiasts we can have a running commentary during races on G+ and make sure that the best of the F1 pages get circled by all fans. Let me know if you want to be part of this circle.

    Remember: I will circle the first 500 who confirm themselves that they want to be in. So spread the word and let´s make sure that we can all be on the same page this year
  • 16 plusses - 105 comments - 10 shares | Read in G+
  • Max Huijgen2013-02-09 23:48:37
    Horse meat found in hamburgers upsets English speakers
    Hamburgers and other processed food are central in a scandal where up to 100% horse meat is used instead of the labeled beef. Brits and Irish consumers are shocked and their papers produce horror stories, while other parts of Europe consider it a fraudulent mislabeling and nothing more.

    At the root is a cultural taboo where English speakers not only fear diseases, but are most of all shocked by the very idea that their burgers and lasagna´s contains meat of the noble equines.  This while large parts of continental Europe consider it a perfect alternative to pork and beef. Horse meat can be found in the best French cuisine and is served in large quantities in countries like Italy.

    It´s interesting that this taboo developed so strongly in some countries while the original rejection grounds: cheap alternative to proper beef hence a working class image and a ban by a pope in the early middle ages to stop ´pagan practices´ should have an identical effect all over Europe. 

    Is eating horse - often described as a sweet and tender meat - an absolute no go in your country or is it just one of the meal variations
  • 28 plusses - 105 comments - 10 shares | Read in G+
  • Max Huijgen2012-03-24 14:57:17
    F1 fans united: who wants to be in a shared Formula One circle?
    I can´t help myself: I´m a F1 nut and follow every race with a laptop handy for the live timing and the occasional comment on my favorite forum.

    It would be great if G+ would become the place to be for F1 fans. I tried to get more people on the same page last year, but so far we are still fragmented over the different pages. Let´s try to get some traction this year and crowd source the ultimate F1 circle.

    I know I have many Europeans who follow my posts, so maybe I can help here by asking you to mention yourself if f you want to be part of a lively F1 circle.
    When you post check if you know some others who could be interested and mention them as well to give them a chance to tune in.

    Please share the post if you know you have some true motor sport fans in your circles, but ask people to leave a comment here. I will add the first 500 to respond and share the circle the moment it´s full.

    With 500 enthusiasts we can have a running commentary during races on G+ and make sure that the best of the F1 pages get circled by all fans. Let me know if you want to be part of this circle.

    Remember: I will circle the first 500 who confirm themselves that they want to be in. So spread the word and let´s make sure that we can all be on the same page this year
  • 16 plusses - 105 comments - 10 shares | Read in G+
  • Max Huijgen2013-02-09 23:48:37
    Horse meat found in hamburgers upsets English speakers
    Hamburgers and other processed food are central in a scandal where up to 100% horse meat is used instead of the labeled beef. Brits and Irish consumers are shocked and their papers produce horror stories, while other parts of Europe consider it a fraudulent mislabeling and nothing more.

    At the root is a cultural taboo where English speakers not only fear diseases, but are most of all shocked by the very idea that their burgers and lasagna´s contains meat of the noble equines.  This while large parts of continental Europe consider it a perfect alternative to pork and beef. Horse meat can be found in the best French cuisine and is served in large quantities in countries like Italy.

    It´s interesting that this taboo developed so strongly in some countries while the original rejection grounds: cheap alternative to proper beef hence a working class image and a ban by a pope in the early middle ages to stop ´pagan practices´ should have an identical effect all over Europe. 

    Is eating horse - often described as a sweet and tender meat - an absolute no go in your country or is it just one of the meal variations
  • 28 plusses - 105 comments - 10 shares | Read in G+
  • Max Huijgen2012-03-24 14:57:17
    F1 fans united: who wants to be in a shared Formula One circle?
    I can´t help myself: I´m a F1 nut and follow every race with a laptop handy for the live timing and the occasional comment on my favorite forum.

    It would be great if G+ would become the place to be for F1 fans. I tried to get more people on the same page last year, but so far we are still fragmented over the different pages. Let´s try to get some traction this year and crowd source the ultimate F1 circle.

    I know I have many Europeans who follow my posts, so maybe I can help here by asking you to mention yourself if f you want to be part of a lively F1 circle.
    When you post check if you know some others who could be interested and mention them as well to give them a chance to tune in.

    Please share the post if you know you have some true motor sport fans in your circles, but ask people to leave a comment here. I will add the first 500 to respond and share the circle the moment it´s full.

    With 500 enthusiasts we can have a running commentary during races on G+ and make sure that the best of the F1 pages get circled by all fans. Let me know if you want to be part of this circle.

    Remember: I will circle the first 500 who confirm themselves that they want to be in. So spread the word and let´s make sure that we can all be on the same page this year
  • 16 plusses - 105 comments - 10 shares | Read in G+
  • Max Huijgen2013-02-09 23:48:37
    Horse meat found in hamburgers upsets English speakers
    Hamburgers and other processed food are central in a scandal where up to 100% horse meat is used instead of the labeled beef. Brits and Irish consumers are shocked and their papers produce horror stories, while other parts of Europe consider it a fraudulent mislabeling and nothing more.

    At the root is a cultural taboo where English speakers not only fear diseases, but are most of all shocked by the very idea that their burgers and lasagna´s contains meat of the noble equines.  This while large parts of continental Europe consider it a perfect alternative to pork and beef. Horse meat can be found in the best French cuisine and is served in large quantities in countries like Italy.

    It´s interesting that this taboo developed so strongly in some countries while the original rejection grounds: cheap alternative to proper beef hence a working class image and a ban by a pope in the early middle ages to stop ´pagan practices´ should have an identical effect all over Europe. 

    Is eating horse - often described as a sweet and tender meat - an absolute no go in your country or is it just one of the meal variations
  • 28 plusses - 105 comments - 10 shares | Read in G+
  • Max Huijgen2012-03-24 14:57:17
    F1 fans united: who wants to be in a shared Formula One circle?
    I can´t help myself: I´m a F1 nut and follow every race with a laptop handy for the live timing and the occasional comment on my favorite forum.

    It would be great if G+ would become the place to be for F1 fans. I tried to get more people on the same page last year, but so far we are still fragmented over the different pages. Let´s try to get some traction this year and crowd source the ultimate F1 circle.

    I know I have many Europeans who follow my posts, so maybe I can help here by asking you to mention yourself if f you want to be part of a lively F1 circle.
    When you post check if you know some others who could be interested and mention them as well to give them a chance to tune in.

    Please share the post if you know you have some true motor sport fans in your circles, but ask people to leave a comment here. I will add the first 500 to respond and share the circle the moment it´s full.

    With 500 enthusiasts we can have a running commentary during races on G+ and make sure that the best of the F1 pages get circled by all fans. Let me know if you want to be part of this circle.

    Remember: I will circle the first 500 who confirm themselves that they want to be in. So spread the word and let´s make sure that we can all be on the same page this year
  • 16 plusses - 105 comments - 10 shares | Read in G+
  • Max Huijgen2013-02-09 23:48:37
    Horse meat found in hamburgers upsets English speakers
    Hamburgers and other processed food are central in a scandal where up to 100% horse meat is used instead of the labeled beef. Brits and Irish consumers are shocked and their papers produce horror stories, while other parts of Europe consider it a fraudulent mislabeling and nothing more.

    At the root is a cultural taboo where English speakers not only fear diseases, but are most of all shocked by the very idea that their burgers and lasagna´s contains meat of the noble equines.  This while large parts of continental Europe consider it a perfect alternative to pork and beef. Horse meat can be found in the best French cuisine and is served in large quantities in countries like Italy.

    It´s interesting that this taboo developed so strongly in some countries while the original rejection grounds: cheap alternative to proper beef hence a working class image and a ban by a pope in the early middle ages to stop ´pagan practices´ should have an identical effect all over Europe. 

    Is eating horse - often described as a sweet and tender meat - an absolute no go in your country or is it just one of the meal variations
  • 28 plusses - 105 comments - 10 shares | Read in G+
  • Max Huijgen2012-03-24 14:57:17
    F1 fans united: who wants to be in a shared Formula One circle?
    I can´t help myself: I´m a F1 nut and follow every race with a laptop handy for the live timing and the occasional comment on my favorite forum.

    It would be great if G+ would become the place to be for F1 fans. I tried to get more people on the same page last year, but so far we are still fragmented over the different pages. Let´s try to get some traction this year and crowd source the ultimate F1 circle.

    I know I have many Europeans who follow my posts, so maybe I can help here by asking you to mention yourself if f you want to be part of a lively F1 circle.
    When you post check if you know some others who could be interested and mention them as well to give them a chance to tune in.

    Please share the post if you know you have some true motor sport fans in your circles, but ask people to leave a comment here. I will add the first 500 to respond and share the circle the moment it´s full.

    With 500 enthusiasts we can have a running commentary during races on G+ and make sure that the best of the F1 pages get circled by all fans. Let me know if you want to be part of this circle.

    Remember: I will circle the first 500 who confirm themselves that they want to be in. So spread the word and let´s make sure that we can all be on the same page this year
  • 16 plusses - 105 comments - 10 shares | Read in G+
  • Max Huijgen2013-02-09 23:48:37
    Horse meat found in hamburgers upsets English speakers
    Hamburgers and other processed food are central in a scandal where up to 100% horse meat is used instead of the labeled beef. Brits and Irish consumers are shocked and their papers produce horror stories, while other parts of Europe consider it a fraudulent mislabeling and nothing more.

    At the root is a cultural taboo where English speakers not only fear diseases, but are most of all shocked by the very idea that their burgers and lasagna´s contains meat of the noble equines.  This while large parts of continental Europe consider it a perfect alternative to pork and beef. Horse meat can be found in the best French cuisine and is served in large quantities in countries like Italy.

    It´s interesting that this taboo developed so strongly in some countries while the original rejection grounds: cheap alternative to proper beef hence a working class image and a ban by a pope in the early middle ages to stop ´pagan practices´ should have an identical effect all over Europe. 

    Is eating horse - often described as a sweet and tender meat - an absolute no go in your country or is it just one of the meal variations
  • 28 plusses - 105 comments - 10 shares | Read in G+
  • Max Huijgen2012-03-24 14:57:17
    F1 fans united: who wants to be in a shared Formula One circle?
    I can´t help myself: I´m a F1 nut and follow every race with a laptop handy for the live timing and the occasional comment on my favorite forum.

    It would be great if G+ would become the place to be for F1 fans. I tried to get more people on the same page last year, but so far we are still fragmented over the different pages. Let´s try to get some traction this year and crowd source the ultimate F1 circle.

    I know I have many Europeans who follow my posts, so maybe I can help here by asking you to mention yourself if f you want to be part of a lively F1 circle.
    When you post check if you know some others who could be interested and mention them as well to give them a chance to tune in.

    Please share the post if you know you have some true motor sport fans in your circles, but ask people to leave a comment here. I will add the first 500 to respond and share the circle the moment it´s full.

    With 500 enthusiasts we can have a running commentary during races on G+ and make sure that the best of the F1 pages get circled by all fans. Let me know if you want to be part of this circle.

    Remember: I will circle the first 500 who confirm themselves that they want to be in. So spread the word and let´s make sure that we can all be on the same page this year
  • 16 plusses - 105 comments - 10 shares | Read in G+
  • Max Huijgen2013-02-09 23:48:37
    Horse meat found in hamburgers upsets English speakers
    Hamburgers and other processed food are central in a scandal where up to 100% horse meat is used instead of the labeled beef. Brits and Irish consumers are shocked and their papers produce horror stories, while other parts of Europe consider it a fraudulent mislabeling and nothing more.

    At the root is a cultural taboo where English speakers not only fear diseases, but are most of all shocked by the very idea that their burgers and lasagna´s contains meat of the noble equines.  This while large parts of continental Europe consider it a perfect alternative to pork and beef. Horse meat can be found in the best French cuisine and is served in large quantities in countries like Italy.

    It´s interesting that this taboo developed so strongly in some countries while the original rejection grounds: cheap alternative to proper beef hence a working class image and a ban by a pope in the early middle ages to stop ´pagan practices´ should have an identical effect all over Europe. 

    Is eating horse - often described as a sweet and tender meat - an absolute no go in your country or is it just one of the meal variations
  • 28 plusses - 105 comments - 10 shares | Read in G+
  • Max Huijgen2013-07-02 22:15:02
    From whistle to whimper: how Edward Snowden became his own worst enemy
     Unfortunately the young whistleblower is now severely damaging his own goals. Instead of the world focusing on the colossal privacy issues of tapping millions if not hundreds of millions of people and the post 9/11 ‘state hidden in secret laws’ , the actual news focuses on his attempts to find asylum.

     After the initial ‘shock and awe’ response by the US government on his unexpected appearance as a whistleblower in Hong Kong, the Whitehouse got hold of itself and went onto a smarter strategy. Instead of feeding the public outrage, Obama dismissed the importance of the NSA insider by saying he wouldn’t wheel and deal with other nations to get hold of Snowden and he  certainly ‘ wouldn’t scramble jets  to intercept a 29 year old’.  

    Meanwhile he put vice-president Biden on the job to exercise maximum pressure on all candidate asylum countries but behind the scenes. No loud accusations, no big words like traitor, but slow and by the look of it, effective pressure is doing the work.

    Even the US politicians who were first with the ‘hang him now, shoot him down’ style of megaphone communication fell silent; no doubt after some whispering by presidential advisers. 

    Hold your fire in public and put on maximum pressure on everyone we can get behind us is the unofficial line. We won’t know what Ecuador was promised, nor do we get any insight in what Putin managed to get from the US, but there can’t be any doubt that out of the spotlights the US is doing the exact wheeling and dealing Obama denied. 

    The tragedy though is that Edward Snowden has been planning this for months, if not years. He thought about everything. He copied all the information he could get his hands on after he obtained ‘top secret’ security clearance. He sought a job with defense contractor Booz Allen which didn’t pay as much as he made before, but which gave him access to the servers he needed.

    He setup his own security with heavily encrypted laptops, stored away copies of files which would go public if he disappeared and he gave extensive instructions on secure communications to the few journalists he approached. 

    He went to Hong Kong after contacting the Guardian and managed to give Glenn Greenwald all the material he would need to write the stories he wanted the world to read. Today Glenn confirmed that he had enough material to go on and that is was for the journalists to decide what and how it would be published. They are not dependent on further documents from Snowden. 

    So at home in Hawaii Edward Snowden meticulously planned the bigger picture but … He never gave any thought about his own role. He probably believed he would be safe from extradition in Hong Kong,  but the most damaging thing is that he never realized that the smaller picture, - the reality of a man on the run from a super power – would completely overshadow his revelations.

     He blew a whistle but all it did was draw the world’s attention to Edward Snowden as a person. The one thing he was so dismissive about in the interview the Guardian did with him on his hotel room. He believed he was not important: he was willing to say a few words about his offer in doing this, just to defuse the idea that he personally would gain from his actions.

    He went for justice, for the moral right that people should know that they didn’t have any privacy and most of all he wanted to tell the world that there was a secret state within the USA. A state no longer regulated by the people, not even by law as we know it, but by secret courts and an Orwellian bending of the whole concept of the US constitution and the role of the state.

    The net effect of being isolated in Hong Kong is that Edward Snowden became an ‘ object’, a part of a huge roller coaster in which he was just an instrument for all parties involved.  A chess piece in world relations as well as for personal egos.  

    His wannabe friend Julian Assange only made things worse by pressing the London embassy of Ecuador into giving him a diplomatic travel pass and then going public with the ‘ mighty role’ of WikiLeaks. Assange is not his friend; he has his own priorities and he never blows a whistle. He is more of a horn blower kind of guy… 

    When Assange and his diplomat friend at the embassy got a slap on the wrist by the Ecuadorian government who were not happy with these solo actions, poor Edward Snowden lost his prime legal advisor and former Spanish judge Garzon. Choices had to be made after the backlash and the two of them left Snowden’s problems to the lone Wikileaks staffer Sarah Harrison. 

    He is now holed up in a tiny cubicle on a Russian airport with basically nowhere to go and no one to support him except Sarah Harrison who showed real commitment by flying with him from Hong Kong to Moscow. She is all he really has and that’s not a lot. She is up against the whole world, the best of legal experts and a number of secret services and all she has is commitment and a decent knowledge of asylum procedures after standing by Julian Assange when he was in trouble.

    In the end our young idealist made the biggest error of his life and destroyed his meticulous planning by completely ignoring the human factor. He never planned his own role as a fugitive, a victim, a person completely alone against a looming super power. He could have known that there had to be a plan B after Hong Kong, but as an idealist and a nerd, he just expected the world to change after his revelations would go public. 

    The best thing Snowden could do to further his own goals is disappear from the news, but he can’t do that. Maybe he gets a speedy escort to Venezuela, but his options are limited.

    Returning to the US in exchange for a plea bargain will ensure he will be in the news, not the issues he brought to light. Settling for Russia means he can’t advocate his own course. He is basically a sitting duck to world powers and most of them are happy with the current situation. 

    Edward Snowden was too much of an idealistic nerd to understand that the public will always go for the smaller picture, never the broad view. And small his picture is by now.  He became his own worst enemy by forgetting himself. A tragedy as his whistle is turning into a whimper and he can’t do a thing about it….

    #NSA 
  • 77 plusses - 104 comments - 27 shares | Read in G+
  • Max Huijgen2012-07-25 23:37:06
    A mystery shrouded in an enigma: My Top 99 circle
     These are the 99 users who are on top of my relevance list and I considered myself quite relevant to myself so I overruled Google there :)

    Many of these folks are engaging with me through posts or comments, but it´s still a surprise circle. Some people have a magic link thanks to Google´s relevancy algorithm which is a mystery shrouded in an enigma. If anyone has a clue what determines relevancy I would like to know.

    It´s clear that it´s something like ´interaction * no. of followers as I rarely comment on +Robert Scoble and vice versa. Most of the others are completely understandable, but then again some names are missing..

    I have removed some people who I know mostly through work related email or don´t post in English and added instead the profiles next in line. 


    Want to create your own?
    ► Click circles on the tab on the right
    ► Make sure relevance is selected (default)
    ► Select the top 99 users. (Drag a box around them)
    ► Drag the whole group to "drop here to create new circle"
    ► The new circle will open up. Make sure its 99 and adjust it if needed
    ► Share it and use the hashtag #top99  and #sharedcircles  

    #top99   #sharedcircles   #sharedpubliccircles  +Shared Circles on G+  +Nothing but Circles  +Public Circles  +Full Circle  +CircleCount  

    If you got notified you are one of the 99.
  • 44 plusses - 104 comments - 6 shares | Read in G+
  • Max Huijgen2013-07-02 22:15:02
    From whistle to whimper: how Edward Snowden became his own worst enemy
     Unfortunately the young whistleblower is now severely damaging his own goals. Instead of the world focusing on the colossal privacy issues of tapping millions if not hundreds of millions of people and the post 9/11 ‘state hidden in secret laws’ , the actual news focuses on his attempts to find asylum.

     After the initial ‘shock and awe’ response by the US government on his unexpected appearance as a whistleblower in Hong Kong, the Whitehouse got hold of itself and went onto a smarter strategy. Instead of feeding the public outrage, Obama dismissed the importance of the NSA insider by saying he wouldn’t wheel and deal with other nations to get hold of Snowden and he  certainly ‘ wouldn’t scramble jets  to intercept a 29 year old’.  

    Meanwhile he put vice-president Biden on the job to exercise maximum pressure on all candidate asylum countries but behind the scenes. No loud accusations, no big words like traitor, but slow and by the look of it, effective pressure is doing the work.

    Even the US politicians who were first with the ‘hang him now, shoot him down’ style of megaphone communication fell silent; no doubt after some whispering by presidential advisers. 

    Hold your fire in public and put on maximum pressure on everyone we can get behind us is the unofficial line. We won’t know what Ecuador was promised, nor do we get any insight in what Putin managed to get from the US, but there can’t be any doubt that out of the spotlights the US is doing the exact wheeling and dealing Obama denied. 

    The tragedy though is that Edward Snowden has been planning this for months, if not years. He thought about everything. He copied all the information he could get his hands on after he obtained ‘top secret’ security clearance. He sought a job with defense contractor Booz Allen which didn’t pay as much as he made before, but which gave him access to the servers he needed.

    He setup his own security with heavily encrypted laptops, stored away copies of files which would go public if he disappeared and he gave extensive instructions on secure communications to the few journalists he approached. 

    He went to Hong Kong after contacting the Guardian and managed to give Glenn Greenwald all the material he would need to write the stories he wanted the world to read. Today Glenn confirmed that he had enough material to go on and that is was for the journalists to decide what and how it would be published. They are not dependent on further documents from Snowden. 

    So at home in Hawaii Edward Snowden meticulously planned the bigger picture but … He never gave any thought about his own role. He probably believed he would be safe from extradition in Hong Kong,  but the most damaging thing is that he never realized that the smaller picture, - the reality of a man on the run from a super power – would completely overshadow his revelations.

     He blew a whistle but all it did was draw the world’s attention to Edward Snowden as a person. The one thing he was so dismissive about in the interview the Guardian did with him on his hotel room. He believed he was not important: he was willing to say a few words about his offer in doing this, just to defuse the idea that he personally would gain from his actions.

    He went for justice, for the moral right that people should know that they didn’t have any privacy and most of all he wanted to tell the world that there was a secret state within the USA. A state no longer regulated by the people, not even by law as we know it, but by secret courts and an Orwellian bending of the whole concept of the US constitution and the role of the state.

    The net effect of being isolated in Hong Kong is that Edward Snowden became an ‘ object’, a part of a huge roller coaster in which he was just an instrument for all parties involved.  A chess piece in world relations as well as for personal egos.  

    His wannabe friend Julian Assange only made things worse by pressing the London embassy of Ecuador into giving him a diplomatic travel pass and then going public with the ‘ mighty role’ of WikiLeaks. Assange is not his friend; he has his own priorities and he never blows a whistle. He is more of a horn blower kind of guy… 

    When Assange and his diplomat friend at the embassy got a slap on the wrist by the Ecuadorian government who were not happy with these solo actions, poor Edward Snowden lost his prime legal advisor and former Spanish judge Garzon. Choices had to be made after the backlash and the two of them left Snowden’s problems to the lone Wikileaks staffer Sarah Harrison. 

    He is now holed up in a tiny cubicle on a Russian airport with basically nowhere to go and no one to support him except Sarah Harrison who showed real commitment by flying with him from Hong Kong to Moscow. She is all he really has and that’s not a lot. She is up against the whole world, the best of legal experts and a number of secret services and all she has is commitment and a decent knowledge of asylum procedures after standing by Julian Assange when he was in trouble.

    In the end our young idealist made the biggest error of his life and destroyed his meticulous planning by completely ignoring the human factor. He never planned his own role as a fugitive, a victim, a person completely alone against a looming super power. He could have known that there had to be a plan B after Hong Kong, but as an idealist and a nerd, he just expected the world to change after his revelations would go public. 

    The best thing Snowden could do to further his own goals is disappear from the news, but he can’t do that. Maybe he gets a speedy escort to Venezuela, but his options are limited.

    Returning to the US in exchange for a plea bargain will ensure he will be in the news, not the issues he brought to light. Settling for Russia means he can’t advocate his own course. He is basically a sitting duck to world powers and most of them are happy with the current situation. 

    Edward Snowden was too much of an idealistic nerd to understand that the public will always go for the smaller picture, never the broad view. And small his picture is by now.  He became his own worst enemy by forgetting himself. A tragedy as his whistle is turning into a whimper and he can’t do a thing about it….

    #NSA 
  • 77 plusses - 104 comments - 27 shares | Read in G+
  • Max Huijgen2012-07-25 23:37:06
    A mystery shrouded in an enigma: My Top 99 circle
     These are the 99 users who are on top of my relevance list and I considered myself quite relevant to myself so I overruled Google there :)

    Many of these folks are engaging with me through posts or comments, but it´s still a surprise circle. Some people have a magic link thanks to Google´s relevancy algorithm which is a mystery shrouded in an enigma. If anyone has a clue what determines relevancy I would like to know.

    It´s clear that it´s something like ´interaction * no. of followers as I rarely comment on +Robert Scoble and vice versa. Most of the others are completely understandable, but then again some names are missing..

    I have removed some people who I know mostly through work related email or don´t post in English and added instead the profiles next in line. 


    Want to create your own?
    ► Click circles on the tab on the right
    ► Make sure relevance is selected (default)
    ► Select the top 99 users. (Drag a box around them)
    ► Drag the whole group to "drop here to create new circle"
    ► The new circle will open up. Make sure its 99 and adjust it if needed
    ► Share it and use the hashtag #top99  and #sharedcircles  

    #top99   #sharedcircles   #sharedpubliccircles  +Shared Circles on G+  +Nothing but Circles  +Public Circles  +Full Circle  +CircleCount  

    If you got notified you are one of the 99.
  • 44 plusses - 104 comments - 6 shares | Read in G+
  • Max Huijgen2013-07-02 22:15:02
    From whistle to whimper: how Edward Snowden became his own worst enemy
     Unfortunately the young whistleblower is now severely damaging his own goals. Instead of the world focusing on the colossal privacy issues of tapping millions if not hundreds of millions of people and the post 9/11 ‘state hidden in secret laws’ , the actual news focuses on his attempts to find asylum.

     After the initial ‘shock and awe’ response by the US government on his unexpected appearance as a whistleblower in Hong Kong, the Whitehouse got hold of itself and went onto a smarter strategy. Instead of feeding the public outrage, Obama dismissed the importance of the NSA insider by saying he wouldn’t wheel and deal with other nations to get hold of Snowden and he  certainly ‘ wouldn’t scramble jets  to intercept a 29 year old’.  

    Meanwhile he put vice-president Biden on the job to exercise maximum pressure on all candidate asylum countries but behind the scenes. No loud accusations, no big words like traitor, but slow and by the look of it, effective pressure is doing the work.

    Even the US politicians who were first with the ‘hang him now, shoot him down’ style of megaphone communication fell silent; no doubt after some whispering by presidential advisers. 

    Hold your fire in public and put on maximum pressure on everyone we can get behind us is the unofficial line. We won’t know what Ecuador was promised, nor do we get any insight in what Putin managed to get from the US, but there can’t be any doubt that out of the spotlights the US is doing the exact wheeling and dealing Obama denied. 

    The tragedy though is that Edward Snowden has been planning this for months, if not years. He thought about everything. He copied all the information he could get his hands on after he obtained ‘top secret’ security clearance. He sought a job with defense contractor Booz Allen which didn’t pay as much as he made before, but which gave him access to the servers he needed.

    He setup his own security with heavily encrypted laptops, stored away copies of files which would go public if he disappeared and he gave extensive instructions on secure communications to the few journalists he approached. 

    He went to Hong Kong after contacting the Guardian and managed to give Glenn Greenwald all the material he would need to write the stories he wanted the world to read. Today Glenn confirmed that he had enough material to go on and that is was for the journalists to decide what and how it would be published. They are not dependent on further documents from Snowden. 

    So at home in Hawaii Edward Snowden meticulously planned the bigger picture but … He never gave any thought about his own role. He probably believed he would be safe from extradition in Hong Kong,  but the most damaging thing is that he never realized that the smaller picture, - the reality of a man on the run from a super power – would completely overshadow his revelations.

     He blew a whistle but all it did was draw the world’s attention to Edward Snowden as a person. The one thing he was so dismissive about in the interview the Guardian did with him on his hotel room. He believed he was not important: he was willing to say a few words about his offer in doing this, just to defuse the idea that he personally would gain from his actions.

    He went for justice, for the moral right that people should know that they didn’t have any privacy and most of all he wanted to tell the world that there was a secret state within the USA. A state no longer regulated by the people, not even by law as we know it, but by secret courts and an Orwellian bending of the whole concept of the US constitution and the role of the state.

    The net effect of being isolated in Hong Kong is that Edward Snowden became an ‘ object’, a part of a huge roller coaster in which he was just an instrument for all parties involved.  A chess piece in world relations as well as for personal egos.  

    His wannabe friend Julian Assange only made things worse by pressing the London embassy of Ecuador into giving him a diplomatic travel pass and then going public with the ‘ mighty role’ of WikiLeaks. Assange is not his friend; he has his own priorities and he never blows a whistle. He is more of a horn blower kind of guy… 

    When Assange and his diplomat friend at the embassy got a slap on the wrist by the Ecuadorian government who were not happy with these solo actions, poor Edward Snowden lost his prime legal advisor and former Spanish judge Garzon. Choices had to be made after the backlash and the two of them left Snowden’s problems to the lone Wikileaks staffer Sarah Harrison. 

    He is now holed up in a tiny cubicle on a Russian airport with basically nowhere to go and no one to support him except Sarah Harrison who showed real commitment by flying with him from Hong Kong to Moscow. She is all he really has and that’s not a lot. She is up against the whole world, the best of legal experts and a number of secret services and all she has is commitment and a decent knowledge of asylum procedures after standing by Julian Assange when he was in trouble.

    In the end our young idealist made the biggest error of his life and destroyed his meticulous planning by completely ignoring the human factor. He never planned his own role as a fugitive, a victim, a person completely alone against a looming super power. He could have known that there had to be a plan B after Hong Kong, but as an idealist and a nerd, he just expected the world to change after his revelations would go public. 

    The best thing Snowden could do to further his own goals is disappear from the news, but he can’t do that. Maybe he gets a speedy escort to Venezuela, but his options are limited.

    Returning to the US in exchange for a plea bargain will ensure he will be in the news, not the issues he brought to light. Settling for Russia means he can’t advocate his own course. He is basically a sitting duck to world powers and most of them are happy with the current situation. 

    Edward Snowden was too much of an idealistic nerd to understand that the public will always go for the smaller picture, never the broad view. And small his picture is by now.  He became his own worst enemy by forgetting himself. A tragedy as his whistle is turning into a whimper and he can’t do a thing about it….

    #NSA 
  • 77 plusses - 104 comments - 27 shares | Read in G+
  • Max Huijgen2012-07-25 23:37:06
    A mystery shrouded in an enigma: My Top 99 circle
     These are the 99 users who are on top of my relevance list and I considered myself quite relevant to myself so I overruled Google there :)

    Many of these folks are engaging with me through posts or comments, but it´s still a surprise circle. Some people have a magic link thanks to Google´s relevancy algorithm which is a mystery shrouded in an enigma. If anyone has a clue what determines relevancy I would like to know.

    It´s clear that it´s something like ´interaction * no. of followers as I rarely comment on +Robert Scoble and vice versa. Most of the others are completely understandable, but then again some names are missing..

    I have removed some people who I know mostly through work related email or don´t post in English and added instead the profiles next in line. 


    Want to create your own?
    ► Click circles on the tab on the right
    ► Make sure relevance is selected (default)
    ► Select the top 99 users. (Drag a box around them)
    ► Drag the whole group to "drop here to create new circle"
    ► The new circle will open up. Make sure its 99 and adjust it if needed
    ► Share it and use the hashtag #top99  and #sharedcircles  

    #top99   #sharedcircles   #sharedpubliccircles  +Shared Circles on G+  +Nothing but Circles  +Public Circles  +Full Circle  +CircleCount  

    If you got notified you are one of the 99.
  • 44 plusses - 104 comments - 6 shares | Read in G+
  • Max Huijgen2013-07-02 22:15:02
    From whistle to whimper: how Edward Snowden became his own worst enemy
     Unfortunately the young whistleblower is now severely damaging his own goals. Instead of the world focusing on the colossal privacy issues of tapping millions if not hundreds of millions of people and the post 9/11 ‘state hidden in secret laws’ , the actual news focuses on his attempts to find asylum.

     After the initial ‘shock and awe’ response by the US government on his unexpected appearance as a whistleblower in Hong Kong, the Whitehouse got hold of itself and went onto a smarter strategy. Instead of feeding the public outrage, Obama dismissed the importance of the NSA insider by saying he wouldn’t wheel and deal with other nations to get hold of Snowden and he  certainly ‘ wouldn’t scramble jets  to intercept a 29 year old’.  

    Meanwhile he put vice-president Biden on the job to exercise maximum pressure on all candidate asylum countries but behind the scenes. No loud accusations, no big words like traitor, but slow and by the look of it, effective pressure is doing the work.

    Even the US politicians who were first with the ‘hang him now, shoot him down’ style of megaphone communication fell silent; no doubt after some whispering by presidential advisers. 

    Hold your fire in public and put on maximum pressure on everyone we can get behind us is the unofficial line. We won’t know what Ecuador was promised, nor do we get any insight in what Putin managed to get from the US, but there can’t be any doubt that out of the spotlights the US is doing the exact wheeling and dealing Obama denied. 

    The tragedy though is that Edward Snowden has been planning this for months, if not years. He thought about everything. He copied all the information he could get his hands on after he obtained ‘top secret’ security clearance. He sought a job with defense contractor Booz Allen which didn’t pay as much as he made before, but which gave him access to the servers he needed.

    He setup his own security with heavily encrypted laptops, stored away copies of files which would go public if he disappeared and he gave extensive instructions on secure communications to the few journalists he approached. 

    He went to Hong Kong after contacting the Guardian and managed to give Glenn Greenwald all the material he would need to write the stories he wanted the world to read. Today Glenn confirmed that he had enough material to go on and that is was for the journalists to decide what and how it would be published. They are not dependent on further documents from Snowden. 

    So at home in Hawaii Edward Snowden meticulously planned the bigger picture but … He never gave any thought about his own role. He probably believed he would be safe from extradition in Hong Kong,  but the most damaging thing is that he never realized that the smaller picture, - the reality of a man on the run from a super power – would completely overshadow his revelations.

     He blew a whistle but all it did was draw the world’s attention to Edward Snowden as a person. The one thing he was so dismissive about in the interview the Guardian did with him on his hotel room. He believed he was not important: he was willing to say a few words about his offer in doing this, just to defuse the idea that he personally would gain from his actions.

    He went for justice, for the moral right that people should know that they didn’t have any privacy and most of all he wanted to tell the world that there was a secret state within the USA. A state no longer regulated by the people, not even by law as we know it, but by secret courts and an Orwellian bending of the whole concept of the US constitution and the role of the state.

    The net effect of being isolated in Hong Kong is that Edward Snowden became an ‘ object’, a part of a huge roller coaster in which he was just an instrument for all parties involved.  A chess piece in world relations as well as for personal egos.  

    His wannabe friend Julian Assange only made things worse by pressing the London embassy of Ecuador into giving him a diplomatic travel pass and then going public with the ‘ mighty role’ of WikiLeaks. Assange is not his friend; he has his own priorities and he never blows a whistle. He is more of a horn blower kind of guy… 

    When Assange and his diplomat friend at the embassy got a slap on the wrist by the Ecuadorian government who were not happy with these solo actions, poor Edward Snowden lost his prime legal advisor and former Spanish judge Garzon. Choices had to be made after the backlash and the two of them left Snowden’s problems to the lone Wikileaks staffer Sarah Harrison. 

    He is now holed up in a tiny cubicle on a Russian airport with basically nowhere to go and no one to support him except Sarah Harrison who showed real commitment by flying with him from Hong Kong to Moscow. She is all he really has and that’s not a lot. She is up against the whole world, the best of legal experts and a number of secret services and all she has is commitment and a decent knowledge of asylum procedures after standing by Julian Assange when he was in trouble.

    In the end our young idealist made the biggest error of his life and destroyed his meticulous planning by completely ignoring the human factor. He never planned his own role as a fugitive, a victim, a person completely alone against a looming super power. He could have known that there had to be a plan B after Hong Kong, but as an idealist and a nerd, he just expected the world to change after his revelations would go public. 

    The best thing Snowden could do to further his own goals is disappear from the news, but he can’t do that. Maybe he gets a speedy escort to Venezuela, but his options are limited.

    Returning to the US in exchange for a plea bargain will ensure he will be in the news, not the issues he brought to light. Settling for Russia means he can’t advocate his own course. He is basically a sitting duck to world powers and most of them are happy with the current situation. 

    Edward Snowden was too much of an idealistic nerd to understand that the public will always go for the smaller picture, never the broad view. And small his picture is by now.  He became his own worst enemy by forgetting himself. A tragedy as his whistle is turning into a whimper and he can’t do a thing about it….

    #NSA 
  • 77 plusses - 104 comments - 27 shares | Read in G+
  • Max Huijgen2012-07-25 23:37:06
    A mystery shrouded in an enigma: My Top 99 circle
     These are the 99 users who are on top of my relevance list and I considered myself quite relevant to myself so I overruled Google there :)

    Many of these folks are engaging with me through posts or comments, but it´s still a surprise circle. Some people have a magic link thanks to Google´s relevancy algorithm which is a mystery shrouded in an enigma. If anyone has a clue what determines relevancy I would like to know.

    It´s clear that it´s something like ´interaction * no. of followers as I rarely comment on +Robert Scoble and vice versa. Most of the others are completely understandable, but then again some names are missing..

    I have removed some people who I know mostly through work related email or don´t post in English and added instead the profiles next in line. 


    Want to create your own?
    ► Click circles on the tab on the right
    ► Make sure relevance is selected (default)
    ► Select the top 99 users. (Drag a box around them)
    ► Drag the whole group to "drop here to create new circle"
    ► The new circle will open up. Make sure its 99 and adjust it if needed
    ► Share it and use the hashtag #top99  and #sharedcircles  

    #top99   #sharedcircles   #sharedpubliccircles  +Shared Circles on G+  +Nothing but Circles  +Public Circles  +Full Circle  +CircleCount  

    If you got notified you are one of the 99.
  • 44 plusses - 104 comments - 6 shares | Read in G+
  • Max Huijgen2013-07-02 22:15:02
    From whistle to whimper: how Edward Snowden became his own worst enemy
     Unfortunately the young whistleblower is now severely damaging his own goals. Instead of the world focusing on the colossal privacy issues of tapping millions if not hundreds of millions of people and the post 9/11 ‘state hidden in secret laws’ , the actual news focuses on his attempts to find asylum.

     After the initial ‘shock and awe’ response by the US government on his unexpected appearance as a whistleblower in Hong Kong, the Whitehouse got hold of itself and went onto a smarter strategy. Instead of feeding the public outrage, Obama dismissed the importance of the NSA insider by saying he wouldn’t wheel and deal with other nations to get hold of Snowden and he  certainly ‘ wouldn’t scramble jets  to intercept a 29 year old’.  

    Meanwhile he put vice-president Biden on the job to exercise maximum pressure on all candidate asylum countries but behind the scenes. No loud accusations, no big words like traitor, but slow and by the look of it, effective pressure is doing the work.

    Even the US politicians who were first with the ‘hang him now, shoot him down’ style of megaphone communication fell silent; no doubt after some whispering by presidential advisers. 

    Hold your fire in public and put on maximum pressure on everyone we can get behind us is the unofficial line. We won’t know what Ecuador was promised, nor do we get any insight in what Putin managed to get from the US, but there can’t be any doubt that out of the spotlights the US is doing the exact wheeling and dealing Obama denied. 

    The tragedy though is that Edward Snowden has been planning this for months, if not years. He thought about everything. He copied all the information he could get his hands on after he obtained ‘top secret’ security clearance. He sought a job with defense contractor Booz Allen which didn’t pay as much as he made before, but which gave him access to the servers he needed.

    He setup his own security with heavily encrypted laptops, stored away copies of files which would go public if he disappeared and he gave extensive instructions on secure communications to the few journalists he approached. 

    He went to Hong Kong after contacting the Guardian and managed to give Glenn Greenwald all the material he would need to write the stories he wanted the world to read. Today Glenn confirmed that he had enough material to go on and that is was for the journalists to decide what and how it would be published. They are not dependent on further documents from Snowden. 

    So at home in Hawaii Edward Snowden meticulously planned the bigger picture but … He never gave any thought about his own role. He probably believed he would be safe from extradition in Hong Kong,  but the most damaging thing is that he never realized that the smaller picture, - the reality of a man on the run from a super power – would completely overshadow his revelations.

     He blew a whistle but all it did was draw the world’s attention to Edward Snowden as a person. The one thing he was so dismissive about in the interview the Guardian did with him on his hotel room. He believed he was not important: he was willing to say a few words about his offer in doing this, just to defuse the idea that he personally would gain from his actions.

    He went for justice, for the moral right that people should know that they didn’t have any privacy and most of all he wanted to tell the world that there was a secret state within the USA. A state no longer regulated by the people, not even by law as we know it, but by secret courts and an Orwellian bending of the whole concept of the US constitution and the role of the state.

    The net effect of being isolated in Hong Kong is that Edward Snowden became an ‘ object’, a part of a huge roller coaster in which he was just an instrument for all parties involved.  A chess piece in world relations as well as for personal egos.  

    His wannabe friend Julian Assange only made things worse by pressing the London embassy of Ecuador into giving him a diplomatic travel pass and then going public with the ‘ mighty role’ of WikiLeaks. Assange is not his friend; he has his own priorities and he never blows a whistle. He is more of a horn blower kind of guy… 

    When Assange and his diplomat friend at the embassy got a slap on the wrist by the Ecuadorian government who were not happy with these solo actions, poor Edward Snowden lost his prime legal advisor and former Spanish judge Garzon. Choices had to be made after the backlash and the two of them left Snowden’s problems to the lone Wikileaks staffer Sarah Harrison. 

    He is now holed up in a tiny cubicle on a Russian airport with basically nowhere to go and no one to support him except Sarah Harrison who showed real commitment by flying with him from Hong Kong to Moscow. She is all he really has and that’s not a lot. She is up against the whole world, the best of legal experts and a number of secret services and all she has is commitment and a decent knowledge of asylum procedures after standing by Julian Assange when he was in trouble.

    In the end our young idealist made the biggest error of his life and destroyed his meticulous planning by completely ignoring the human factor. He never planned his own role as a fugitive, a victim, a person completely alone against a looming super power. He could have known that there had to be a plan B after Hong Kong, but as an idealist and a nerd, he just expected the world to change after his revelations would go public. 

    The best thing Snowden could do to further his own goals is disappear from the news, but he can’t do that. Maybe he gets a speedy escort to Venezuela, but his options are limited.

    Returning to the US in exchange for a plea bargain will ensure he will be in the news, not the issues he brought to light. Settling for Russia means he can’t advocate his own course. He is basically a sitting duck to world powers and most of them are happy with the current situation. 

    Edward Snowden was too much of an idealistic nerd to understand that the public will always go for the smaller picture, never the broad view. And small his picture is by now.  He became his own worst enemy by forgetting himself. A tragedy as his whistle is turning into a whimper and he can’t do a thing about it….

    #NSA 
  • 77 plusses - 104 comments - 27 shares | Read in G+
  • Max Huijgen2012-07-25 23:37:06
    A mystery shrouded in an enigma: My Top 99 circle
     These are the 99 users who are on top of my relevance list and I considered myself quite relevant to myself so I overruled Google there :)

    Many of these folks are engaging with me through posts or comments, but it´s still a surprise circle. Some people have a magic link thanks to Google´s relevancy algorithm which is a mystery shrouded in an enigma. If anyone has a clue what determines relevancy I would like to know.

    It´s clear that it´s something like ´interaction * no. of followers as I rarely comment on +Robert Scoble and vice versa. Most of the others are completely understandable, but then again some names are missing..

    I have removed some people who I know mostly through work related email or don´t post in English and added instead the profiles next in line. 


    Want to create your own?
    ► Click circles on the tab on the right
    ► Make sure relevance is selected (default)
    ► Select the top 99 users. (Drag a box around them)
    ► Drag the whole group to "drop here to create new circle"
    ► The new circle will open up. Make sure its 99 and adjust it if needed
    ► Share it and use the hashtag #top99  and #sharedcircles  

    #top99   #sharedcircles   #sharedpubliccircles  +Shared Circles on G+  +Nothing but Circles  +Public Circles  +Full Circle  +CircleCount  

    If you got notified you are one of the 99.
  • 44 plusses - 104 comments - 6 shares | Read in G+
  • Max Huijgen2013-07-02 22:15:02
    From whistle to whimper: how Edward Snowden became his own worst enemy
     Unfortunately the young whistleblower is now severely damaging his own goals. Instead of the world focusing on the colossal privacy issues of tapping millions if not hundreds of millions of people and the post 9/11 ‘state hidden in secret laws’ , the actual news focuses on his attempts to find asylum.

     After the initial ‘shock and awe’ response by the US government on his unexpected appearance as a whistleblower in Hong Kong, the Whitehouse got hold of itself and went onto a smarter strategy. Instead of feeding the public outrage, Obama dismissed the importance of the NSA insider by saying he wouldn’t wheel and deal with other nations to get hold of Snowden and he  certainly ‘ wouldn’t scramble jets  to intercept a 29 year old’.  

    Meanwhile he put vice-president Biden on the job to exercise maximum pressure on all candidate asylum countries but behind the scenes. No loud accusations, no big words like traitor, but slow and by the look of it, effective pressure is doing the work.

    Even the US politicians who were first with the ‘hang him now, shoot him down’ style of megaphone communication fell silent; no doubt after some whispering by presidential advisers. 

    Hold your fire in public and put on maximum pressure on everyone we can get behind us is the unofficial line. We won’t know what Ecuador was promised, nor do we get any insight in what Putin managed to get from the US, but there can’t be any doubt that out of the spotlights the US is doing the exact wheeling and dealing Obama denied. 

    The tragedy though is that Edward Snowden has been planning this for months, if not years. He thought about everything. He copied all the information he could get his hands on after he obtained ‘top secret’ security clearance. He sought a job with defense contractor Booz Allen which didn’t pay as much as he made before, but which gave him access to the servers he needed.

    He setup his own security with heavily encrypted laptops, stored away copies of files which would go public if he disappeared and he gave extensive instructions on secure communications to the few journalists he approached. 

    He went to Hong Kong after contacting the Guardian and managed to give Glenn Greenwald all the material he would need to write the stories he wanted the world to read. Today Glenn confirmed that he had enough material to go on and that is was for the journalists to decide what and how it would be published. They are not dependent on further documents from Snowden. 

    So at home in Hawaii Edward Snowden meticulously planned the bigger picture but … He never gave any thought about his own role. He probably believed he would be safe from extradition in Hong Kong,  but the most damaging thing is that he never realized that the smaller picture, - the reality of a man on the run from a super power – would completely overshadow his revelations.

     He blew a whistle but all it did was draw the world’s attention to Edward Snowden as a person. The one thing he was so dismissive about in the interview the Guardian did with him on his hotel room. He believed he was not important: he was willing to say a few words about his offer in doing this, just to defuse the idea that he personally would gain from his actions.

    He went for justice, for the moral right that people should know that they didn’t have any privacy and most of all he wanted to tell the world that there was a secret state within the USA. A state no longer regulated by the people, not even by law as we know it, but by secret courts and an Orwellian bending of the whole concept of the US constitution and the role of the state.

    The net effect of being isolated in Hong Kong is that Edward Snowden became an ‘ object’, a part of a huge roller coaster in which he was just an instrument for all parties involved.  A chess piece in world relations as well as for personal egos.  

    His wannabe friend Julian Assange only made things worse by pressing the London embassy of Ecuador into giving him a diplomatic travel pass and then going public with the ‘ mighty role’ of WikiLeaks. Assange is not his friend; he has his own priorities and he never blows a whistle. He is more of a horn blower kind of guy… 

    When Assange and his diplomat friend at the embassy got a slap on the wrist by the Ecuadorian government who were not happy with these solo actions, poor Edward Snowden lost his prime legal advisor and former Spanish judge Garzon. Choices had to be made after the backlash and the two of them left Snowden’s problems to the lone Wikileaks staffer Sarah Harrison. 

    He is now holed up in a tiny cubicle on a Russian airport with basically nowhere to go and no one to support him except Sarah Harrison who showed real commitment by flying with him from Hong Kong to Moscow. She is all he really has and that’s not a lot. She is up against the whole world, the best of legal experts and a number of secret services and all she has is commitment and a decent knowledge of asylum procedures after standing by Julian Assange when he was in trouble.

    In the end our young idealist made the biggest error of his life and destroyed his meticulous planning by completely ignoring the human factor. He never planned his own role as a fugitive, a victim, a person completely alone against a looming super power. He could have known that there had to be a plan B after Hong Kong, but as an idealist and a nerd, he just expected the world to change after his revelations would go public. 

    The best thing Snowden could do to further his own goals is disappear from the news, but he can’t do that. Maybe he gets a speedy escort to Venezuela, but his options are limited.

    Returning to the US in exchange for a plea bargain will ensure he will be in the news, not the issues he brought to light. Settling for Russia means he can’t advocate his own course. He is basically a sitting duck to world powers and most of them are happy with the current situation. 

    Edward Snowden was too much of an idealistic nerd to understand that the public will always go for the smaller picture, never the broad view. And small his picture is by now.  He became his own worst enemy by forgetting himself. A tragedy as his whistle is turning into a whimper and he can’t do a thing about it….

    #NSA 
  • 77 plusses - 104 comments - 27 shares | Read in G+
  • Max Huijgen2012-07-25 23:37:06
    A mystery shrouded in an enigma: My Top 99 circle
     These are the 99 users who are on top of my relevance list and I considered myself quite relevant to myself so I overruled Google there :)

    Many of these folks are engaging with me through posts or comments, but it´s still a surprise circle. Some people have a magic link thanks to Google´s relevancy algorithm which is a mystery shrouded in an enigma. If anyone has a clue what determines relevancy I would like to know.

    It´s clear that it´s something like ´interaction * no. of followers as I rarely comment on +Robert Scoble and vice versa. Most of the others are completely understandable, but then again some names are missing..

    I have removed some people who I know mostly through work related email or don´t post in English and added instead the profiles next in line. 


    Want to create your own?
    ► Click circles on the tab on the right
    ► Make sure relevance is selected (default)
    ► Select the top 99 users. (Drag a box around them)
    ► Drag the whole group to "drop here to create new circle"
    ► The new circle will open up. Make sure its 99 and adjust it if needed
    ► Share it and use the hashtag #top99  and #sharedcircles  

    #top99   #sharedcircles   #sharedpubliccircles  +Shared Circles on G+  +Nothing but Circles  +Public Circles  +Full Circle  +CircleCount  

    If you got notified you are one of the 99.
  • 44 plusses - 104 comments - 6 shares | Read in G+
  • Max Huijgen2013-07-02 22:15:02
    From whistle to whimper: how Edward Snowden became his own worst enemy
     Unfortunately the young whistleblower is now severely damaging his own goals. Instead of the world focusing on the colossal privacy issues of tapping millions if not hundreds of millions of people and the post 9/11 ‘state hidden in secret laws’ , the actual news focuses on his attempts to find asylum.

     After the initial ‘shock and awe’ response by the US government on his unexpected appearance as a whistleblower in Hong Kong, the Whitehouse got hold of itself and went onto a smarter strategy. Instead of feeding the public outrage, Obama dismissed the importance of the NSA insider by saying he wouldn’t wheel and deal with other nations to get hold of Snowden and he  certainly ‘ wouldn’t scramble jets  to intercept a 29 year old’.  

    Meanwhile he put vice-president Biden on the job to exercise maximum pressure on all candidate asylum countries but behind the scenes. No loud accusations, no big words like traitor, but slow and by the look of it, effective pressure is doing the work.

    Even the US politicians who were first with the ‘hang him now, shoot him down’ style of megaphone communication fell silent; no doubt after some whispering by presidential advisers. 

    Hold your fire in public and put on maximum pressure on everyone we can get behind us is the unofficial line. We won’t know what Ecuador was promised, nor do we get any insight in what Putin managed to get from the US, but there can’t be any doubt that out of the spotlights the US is doing the exact wheeling and dealing Obama denied. 

    The tragedy though is that Edward Snowden has been planning this for months, if not years. He thought about everything. He copied all the information he could get his hands on after he obtained ‘top secret’ security clearance. He sought a job with defense contractor Booz Allen which didn’t pay as much as he made before, but which gave him access to the servers he needed.

    He setup his own security with heavily encrypted laptops, stored away copies of files which would go public if he disappeared and he gave extensive instructions on secure communications to the few journalists he approached. 

    He went to Hong Kong after contacting the Guardian and managed to give Glenn Greenwald all the material he would need to write the stories he wanted the world to read. Today Glenn confirmed that he had enough material to go on and that is was for the journalists to decide what and how it would be published. They are not dependent on further documents from Snowden. 

    So at home in Hawaii Edward Snowden meticulously planned the bigger picture but … He never gave any thought about his own role. He probably believed he would be safe from extradition in Hong Kong,  but the most damaging thing is that he never realized that the smaller picture, - the reality of a man on the run from a super power – would completely overshadow his revelations.

     He blew a whistle but all it did was draw the world’s attention to Edward Snowden as a person. The one thing he was so dismissive about in the interview the Guardian did with him on his hotel room. He believed he was not important: he was willing to say a few words about his offer in doing this, just to defuse the idea that he personally would gain from his actions.

    He went for justice, for the moral right that people should know that they didn’t have any privacy and most of all he wanted to tell the world that there was a secret state within the USA. A state no longer regulated by the people, not even by law as we know it, but by secret courts and an Orwellian bending of the whole concept of the US constitution and the role of the state.

    The net effect of being isolated in Hong Kong is that Edward Snowden became an ‘ object’, a part of a huge roller coaster in which he was just an instrument for all parties involved.  A chess piece in world relations as well as for personal egos.  

    His wannabe friend Julian Assange only made things worse by pressing the London embassy of Ecuador into giving him a diplomatic travel pass and then going public with the ‘ mighty role’ of WikiLeaks. Assange is not his friend; he has his own priorities and he never blows a whistle. He is more of a horn blower kind of guy… 

    When Assange and his diplomat friend at the embassy got a slap on the wrist by the Ecuadorian government who were not happy with these solo actions, poor Edward Snowden lost his prime legal advisor and former Spanish judge Garzon. Choices had to be made after the backlash and the two of them left Snowden’s problems to the lone Wikileaks staffer Sarah Harrison. 

    He is now holed up in a tiny cubicle on a Russian airport with basically nowhere to go and no one to support him except Sarah Harrison who showed real commitment by flying with him from Hong Kong to Moscow. She is all he really has and that’s not a lot. She is up against the whole world, the best of legal experts and a number of secret services and all she has is commitment and a decent knowledge of asylum procedures after standing by Julian Assange when he was in trouble.

    In the end our young idealist made the biggest error of his life and destroyed his meticulous planning by completely ignoring the human factor. He never planned his own role as a fugitive, a victim, a person completely alone against a looming super power. He could have known that there had to be a plan B after Hong Kong, but as an idealist and a nerd, he just expected the world to change after his revelations would go public. 

    The best thing Snowden could do to further his own goals is disappear from the news, but he can’t do that. Maybe he gets a speedy escort to Venezuela, but his options are limited.

    Returning to the US in exchange for a plea bargain will ensure he will be in the news, not the issues he brought to light. Settling for Russia means he can’t advocate his own course. He is basically a sitting duck to world powers and most of them are happy with the current situation. 

    Edward Snowden was too much of an idealistic nerd to understand that the public will always go for the smaller picture, never the broad view. And small his picture is by now.  He became his own worst enemy by forgetting himself. A tragedy as his whistle is turning into a whimper and he can’t do a thing about it….

    #NSA 
  • 77 plusses - 104 comments - 27 shares | Read in G+
  • Max Huijgen2012-07-25 23:37:06
    A mystery shrouded in an enigma: My Top 99 circle
     These are the 99 users who are on top of my relevance list and I considered myself quite relevant to myself so I overruled Google there :)

    Many of these folks are engaging with me through posts or comments, but it´s still a surprise circle. Some people have a magic link thanks to Google´s relevancy algorithm which is a mystery shrouded in an enigma. If anyone has a clue what determines relevancy I would like to know.

    It´s clear that it´s something like ´interaction * no. of followers as I rarely comment on +Robert Scoble and vice versa. Most of the others are completely understandable, but then again some names are missing..

    I have removed some people who I know mostly through work related email or don´t post in English and added instead the profiles next in line. 


    Want to create your own?
    ► Click circles on the tab on the right
    ► Make sure relevance is selected (default)
    ► Select the top 99 users. (Drag a box around them)
    ► Drag the whole group to "drop here to create new circle"
    ► The new circle will open up. Make sure its 99 and adjust it if needed
    ► Share it and use the hashtag #top99  and #sharedcircles  

    #top99   #sharedcircles   #sharedpubliccircles  +Shared Circles on G+  +Nothing but Circles  +Public Circles  +Full Circle  +CircleCount  

    If you got notified you are one of the 99.
  • 44 plusses - 104 comments - 6 shares | Read in G+
  • Max Huijgen2013-07-02 22:15:02
    From whistle to whimper: how Edward Snowden became his own worst enemy
     Unfortunately the young whistleblower is now severely damaging his own goals. Instead of the world focusing on the colossal privacy issues of tapping millions if not hundreds of millions of people and the post 9/11 ‘state hidden in secret laws’ , the actual news focuses on his attempts to find asylum.

     After the initial ‘shock and awe’ response by the US government on his unexpected appearance as a whistleblower in Hong Kong, the Whitehouse got hold of itself and went onto a smarter strategy. Instead of feeding the public outrage, Obama dismissed the importance of the NSA insider by saying he wouldn’t wheel and deal with other nations to get hold of Snowden and he  certainly ‘ wouldn’t scramble jets  to intercept a 29 year old’.  

    Meanwhile he put vice-president Biden on the job to exercise maximum pressure on all candidate asylum countries but behind the scenes. No loud accusations, no big words like traitor, but slow and by the look of it, effective pressure is doing the work.

    Even the US politicians who were first with the ‘hang him now, shoot him down’ style of megaphone communication fell silent; no doubt after some whispering by presidential advisers. 

    Hold your fire in public and put on maximum pressure on everyone we can get behind us is the unofficial line. We won’t know what Ecuador was promised, nor do we get any insight in what Putin managed to get from the US, but there can’t be any doubt that out of the spotlights the US is doing the exact wheeling and dealing Obama denied. 

    The tragedy though is that Edward Snowden has been planning this for months, if not years. He thought about everything. He copied all the information he could get his hands on after he obtained ‘top secret’ security clearance. He sought a job with defense contractor Booz Allen which didn’t pay as much as he made before, but which gave him access to the servers he needed.

    He setup his own security with heavily encrypted laptops, stored away copies of files which would go public if he disappeared and he gave extensive instructions on secure communications to the few journalists he approached. 

    He went to Hong Kong after contacting the Guardian and managed to give Glenn Greenwald all the material he would need to write the stories he wanted the world to read. Today Glenn confirmed that he had enough material to go on and that is was for the journalists to decide what and how it would be published. They are not dependent on further documents from Snowden. 

    So at home in Hawaii Edward Snowden meticulously planned the bigger picture but … He never gave any thought about his own role. He probably believed he would be safe from extradition in Hong Kong,  but the most damaging thing is that he never realized that the smaller picture, - the reality of a man on the run from a super power – would completely overshadow his revelations.

     He blew a whistle but all it did was draw the world’s attention to Edward Snowden as a person. The one thing he was so dismissive about in the interview the Guardian did with him on his hotel room. He believed he was not important: he was willing to say a few words about his offer in doing this, just to defuse the idea that he personally would gain from his actions.

    He went for justice, for the moral right that people should know that they didn’t have any privacy and most of all he wanted to tell the world that there was a secret state within the USA. A state no longer regulated by the people, not even by law as we know it, but by secret courts and an Orwellian bending of the whole concept of the US constitution and the role of the state.

    The net effect of being isolated in Hong Kong is that Edward Snowden became an ‘ object’, a part of a huge roller coaster in which he was just an instrument for all parties involved.  A chess piece in world relations as well as for personal egos.  

    His wannabe friend Julian Assange only made things worse by pressing the London embassy of Ecuador into giving him a diplomatic travel pass and then going public with the ‘ mighty role’ of WikiLeaks. Assange is not his friend; he has his own priorities and he never blows a whistle. He is more of a horn blower kind of guy… 

    When Assange and his diplomat friend at the embassy got a slap on the wrist by the Ecuadorian government who were not happy with these solo actions, poor Edward Snowden lost his prime legal advisor and former Spanish judge Garzon. Choices had to be made after the backlash and the two of them left Snowden’s problems to the lone Wikileaks staffer Sarah Harrison. 

    He is now holed up in a tiny cubicle on a Russian airport with basically nowhere to go and no one to support him except Sarah Harrison who showed real commitment by flying with him from Hong Kong to Moscow. She is all he really has and that’s not a lot. She is up against the whole world, the best of legal experts and a number of secret services and all she has is commitment and a decent knowledge of asylum procedures after standing by Julian Assange when he was in trouble.

    In the end our young idealist made the biggest error of his life and destroyed his meticulous planning by completely ignoring the human factor. He never planned his own role as a fugitive, a victim, a person completely alone against a looming super power. He could have known that there had to be a plan B after Hong Kong, but as an idealist and a nerd, he just expected the world to change after his revelations would go public. 

    The best thing Snowden could do to further his own goals is disappear from the news, but he can’t do that. Maybe he gets a speedy escort to Venezuela, but his options are limited.

    Returning to the US in exchange for a plea bargain will ensure he will be in the news, not the issues he brought to light. Settling for Russia means he can’t advocate his own course. He is basically a sitting duck to world powers and most of them are happy with the current situation. 

    Edward Snowden was too much of an idealistic nerd to understand that the public will always go for the smaller picture, never the broad view. And small his picture is by now.  He became his own worst enemy by forgetting himself. A tragedy as his whistle is turning into a whimper and he can’t do a thing about it….

    #NSA 
  • 77 plusses - 104 comments - 27 shares | Read in G+
  • Max Huijgen2013-03-16 15:55:36
    If You Wear Google’s New Glasses You Are An Asshole
     says +Adrian Chen from Gawker looking for some page views. What stuck however was this Wearing Google Glass automatically means that all social interaction you have must be not just on yours, but Google's terms. 

    The author makes a comparison with the introduction of the first mobiles when early users were often considered extremely rude by speaking loud in public. The only reason we stopped frowning upon it, is because we collectively embraced the technology so we are now all guilty. 

    By donning Google Glass, you, the Google Glass user, are volunteering to be a foot soldier in Google's asshole army. (In fact you're paying for the privilege.) You are saying that anyone who comes into your line of sight must agree to be possibly filmed, photographed, or otherwise data-mined, not just for your own convenience but to further Google's quest for total world domination. Wearing Google Glass automatically means that all social interaction you have must be not just on yours, but Google's terms.

    Google countered the ´it´s not cool to wear glass´ early on with a very effective campaign involving fashion shoots and Google glasses, but how to beat the ´luddites´ this time?
  • 29 plusses - 103 comments - 7 shares | Read in G+
  • Max Huijgen2013-03-16 15:55:36
    If You Wear Google’s New Glasses You Are An Asshole
     says +Adrian Chen from Gawker looking for some page views. What stuck however was this Wearing Google Glass automatically means that all social interaction you have must be not just on yours, but Google's terms. 

    The author makes a comparison with the introduction of the first mobiles when early users were often considered extremely rude by speaking loud in public. The only reason we stopped frowning upon it, is because we collectively embraced the technology so we are now all guilty. 

    By donning Google Glass, you, the Google Glass user, are volunteering to be a foot soldier in Google's asshole army. (In fact you're paying for the privilege.) You are saying that anyone who comes into your line of sight must agree to be possibly filmed, photographed, or otherwise data-mined, not just for your own convenience but to further Google's quest for total world domination. Wearing Google Glass automatically means that all social interaction you have must be not just on yours, but Google's terms.

    Google countered the ´it´s not cool to wear glass´ early on with a very effective campaign involving fashion shoots and Google glasses, but how to beat the ´luddites´ this time?
  • 29 plusses - 103 comments - 7 shares | Read in G+
  • Max Huijgen2013-03-16 15:55:36
    If You Wear Google’s New Glasses You Are An Asshole
     says +Adrian Chen from Gawker looking for some page views. What stuck however was this Wearing Google Glass automatically means that all social interaction you have must be not just on yours, but Google's terms. 

    The author makes a comparison with the introduction of the first mobiles when early users were often considered extremely rude by speaking loud in public. The only reason we stopped frowning upon it, is because we collectively embraced the technology so we are now all guilty. 

    By donning Google Glass, you, the Google Glass user, are volunteering to be a foot soldier in Google's asshole army. (In fact you're paying for the privilege.) You are saying that anyone who comes into your line of sight must agree to be possibly filmed, photographed, or otherwise data-mined, not just for your own convenience but to further Google's quest for total world domination. Wearing Google Glass automatically means that all social interaction you have must be not just on yours, but Google's terms.

    Google countered the ´it´s not cool to wear glass´ early on with a very effective campaign involving fashion shoots and Google glasses, but how to beat the ´luddites´ this time?
  • 29 plusses - 103 comments - 7 shares | Read in G+
  • Max Huijgen2013-03-16 15:55:36
    If You Wear Google’s New Glasses You Are An Asshole
     says +Adrian Chen from Gawker looking for some page views. What stuck however was this Wearing Google Glass automatically means that all social interaction you have must be not just on yours, but Google's terms. 

    The author makes a comparison with the introduction of the first mobiles when early users were often considered extremely rude by speaking loud in public. The only reason we stopped frowning upon it, is because we collectively embraced the technology so we are now all guilty. 

    By donning Google Glass, you, the Google Glass user, are volunteering to be a foot soldier in Google's asshole army. (In fact you're paying for the privilege.) You are saying that anyone who comes into your line of sight must agree to be possibly filmed, photographed, or otherwise data-mined, not just for your own convenience but to further Google's quest for total world domination. Wearing Google Glass automatically means that all social interaction you have must be not just on yours, but Google's terms.

    Google countered the ´it´s not cool to wear glass´ early on with a very effective campaign involving fashion shoots and Google glasses, but how to beat the ´luddites´ this time?
  • 29 plusses - 103 comments - 7 shares | Read in G+
  • Max Huijgen2013-03-16 15:55:36
    If You Wear Google’s New Glasses You Are An Asshole
     says +Adrian Chen from Gawker looking for some page views. What stuck however was this Wearing Google Glass automatically means that all social interaction you have must be not just on yours, but Google's terms. 

    The author makes a comparison with the introduction of the first mobiles when early users were often considered extremely rude by speaking loud in public. The only reason we stopped frowning upon it, is because we collectively embraced the technology so we are now all guilty. 

    By donning Google Glass, you, the Google Glass user, are volunteering to be a foot soldier in Google's asshole army. (In fact you're paying for the privilege.) You are saying that anyone who comes into your line of sight must agree to be possibly filmed, photographed, or otherwise data-mined, not just for your own convenience but to further Google's quest for total world domination. Wearing Google Glass automatically means that all social interaction you have must be not just on yours, but Google's terms.

    Google countered the ´it´s not cool to wear glass´ early on with a very effective campaign involving fashion shoots and Google glasses, but how to beat the ´luddites´ this time?
  • 29 plusses - 103 comments - 7 shares | Read in G+
  • Max Huijgen2013-03-16 15:55:36
    If You Wear Google’s New Glasses You Are An Asshole
     says +Adrian Chen from Gawker looking for some page views. What stuck however was this Wearing Google Glass automatically means that all social interaction you have must be not just on yours, but Google's terms. 

    The author makes a comparison with the introduction of the first mobiles when early users were often considered extremely rude by speaking loud in public. The only reason we stopped frowning upon it, is because we collectively embraced the technology so we are now all guilty. 

    By donning Google Glass, you, the Google Glass user, are volunteering to be a foot soldier in Google's asshole army. (In fact you're paying for the privilege.) You are saying that anyone who comes into your line of sight must agree to be possibly filmed, photographed, or otherwise data-mined, not just for your own convenience but to further Google's quest for total world domination. Wearing Google Glass automatically means that all social interaction you have must be not just on yours, but Google's terms.

    Google countered the ´it´s not cool to wear glass´ early on with a very effective campaign involving fashion shoots and Google glasses, but how to beat the ´luddites´ this time?
  • 29 plusses - 103 comments - 7 shares | Read in G+
  • Max Huijgen2013-03-16 15:55:36
    If You Wear Google’s New Glasses You Are An Asshole
     says +Adrian Chen from Gawker looking for some page views. What stuck however was this Wearing Google Glass automatically means that all social interaction you have must be not just on yours, but Google's terms. 

    The author makes a comparison with the introduction of the first mobiles when early users were often considered extremely rude by speaking loud in public. The only reason we stopped frowning upon it, is because we collectively embraced the technology so we are now all guilty. 

    By donning Google Glass, you, the Google Glass user, are volunteering to be a foot soldier in Google's asshole army. (In fact you're paying for the privilege.) You are saying that anyone who comes into your line of sight must agree to be possibly filmed, photographed, or otherwise data-mined, not just for your own convenience but to further Google's quest for total world domination. Wearing Google Glass automatically means that all social interaction you have must be not just on yours, but Google's terms.

    Google countered the ´it´s not cool to wear glass´ early on with a very effective campaign involving fashion shoots and Google glasses, but how to beat the ´luddites´ this time?
  • 29 plusses - 103 comments - 7 shares | Read in G+
  • Max Huijgen2013-03-16 15:55:36
    If You Wear Google’s New Glasses You Are An Asshole
     says +Adrian Chen from Gawker looking for some page views. What stuck however was this Wearing Google Glass automatically means that all social interaction you have must be not just on yours, but Google's terms. 

    The author makes a comparison with the introduction of the first mobiles when early users were often considered extremely rude by speaking loud in public. The only reason we stopped frowning upon it, is because we collectively embraced the technology so we are now all guilty. 

    By donning Google Glass, you, the Google Glass user, are volunteering to be a foot soldier in Google's asshole army. (In fact you're paying for the privilege.) You are saying that anyone who comes into your line of sight must agree to be possibly filmed, photographed, or otherwise data-mined, not just for your own convenience but to further Google's quest for total world domination. Wearing Google Glass automatically means that all social interaction you have must be not just on yours, but Google's terms.

    Google countered the ´it´s not cool to wear glass´ early on with a very effective campaign involving fashion shoots and Google glasses, but how to beat the ´luddites´ this time?
  • 29 plusses - 103 comments - 7 shares | Read in G+
  • Max Huijgen2014-05-13 14:49:52
    European Right to be Forgotten Established:  Google has to remove private info

    In an unexpected move Europe’s highest court has ruled that Google has to remove privacy related information if a duped individual asks for it.  

    In this specific case a Spanish citizen whose house was sold because of debts. The auction list was published in a newspaper and got archived by Google so his name was forever linked to these debts.  Google will now have to remove that link between his name and the auction list.

    Unexpected and unprecedented as the new European data directive establishing that ‘right to be forgotten’ is not even ratified in Europe. The European Court of Justice based its decision on older data protection laws and by doing so lays an extremely strong fundament for the right of private citizens to protect their good name.

    Unexpected also because Google always rejected any responsibility for their data collection.  They always argued that they were merely ‘collecting’ and not ‘processing’ personal data so they had no legal obligations under existing laws.  

    No, says the court. Google does much more: they record, organize, store and publish this information.  Doesn’t matter if it has been published before (like in this case in a newspaper), Google makes it available and has similar responsibilities as others to comply with data protection laws.

    Furthermore the court looked at Google’s argument that they don’t do anything with the data within Europe. It’s Google Inc, the American company who is responsible. A repeating argument in many cases by Google:  nothing to do with European laws, we are American.

    Nope says the Court, the core of your business is selling ads. You have local daughter companies like Google Spain to contribute to your profits and you collect that information to make better deals within Spain (in this case).  So get real and accept that your data-processing is part of the local business and comply with the European laws.

    There is more to this case, but holding Google (and other search engines!) responsible for their data collection, the publishing and their local responsibilities is a turning point. Thanks to this decision the right to be forgotten has been firmly established and private citizens don’t have to suffer eternally from an unfortunate moment in their lives or a silly decision in their youth.

    P.S. Yes, good that you ask. What about the freedom of information? Don't we, the searchers, the public, have the right to know everything even if the private individual doesn't like it? 

    Sure says the court, but let's find a balance. A private person rights to protect his data should normally outweigh the interests of the public unless these data are important for a public issue.

    http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2014-05/cp140070en.pdf
    http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=152065&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=19158
  • 63 plusses - 102 comments - 19 shares | Read in G+
  • Max Huijgen2013-05-17 13:56:18
    Want to actually read something on the new G+ layout? A fix!
     Is the new layout with the endless more in posts but especially in comment-rich interactions,  driving you nuts?

    Are you tediously working your way through scroll bars and clicks on 'more' while losing all track of the actual conversation? 

    Just click on the date/time stamp of a post while holding control and you get a new tab with the whole conversation expanded

    More tips to make readers happy? Let them know in the comments.

    You can try it out on the post from which this animated gif stems The end of G+ text by WordSmiths as we know it: pinterest won
    https://plus.google.com/112352920206354603958/posts/Lob324nF2de

    Although the trick helps, it''s of course a protest as well. Please give me a preference setting to set the number of lines where ''more''  kicks in.

     #AnimatedWords  #WordsInMotion #WordSmiths  
  • 38 plusses - 102 comments - 20 shares | Read in G+
  • Max Huijgen2014-05-13 14:49:52
    European Right to be Forgotten Established:  Google has to remove private info

    In an unexpected move Europe’s highest court has ruled that Google has to remove privacy related information if a duped individual asks for it.  

    In this specific case a Spanish citizen whose house was sold because of debts. The auction list was published in a newspaper and got archived by Google so his name was forever linked to these debts.  Google will now have to remove that link between his name and the auction list.

    Unexpected and unprecedented as the new European data directive establishing that ‘right to be forgotten’ is not even ratified in Europe. The European Court of Justice based its decision on older data protection laws and by doing so lays an extremely strong fundament for the right of private citizens to protect their good name.

    Unexpected also because Google always rejected any responsibility for their data collection.  They always argued that they were merely ‘collecting’ and not ‘processing’ personal data so they had no legal obligations under existing laws.  

    No, says the court. Google does much more: they record, organize, store and publish this information.  Doesn’t matter if it has been published before (like in this case in a newspaper), Google makes it available and has similar responsibilities as others to comply with data protection laws.

    Furthermore the court looked at Google’s argument that they don’t do anything with the data within Europe. It’s Google Inc, the American company who is responsible. A repeating argument in many cases by Google:  nothing to do with European laws, we are American.

    Nope says the Court, the core of your business is selling ads. You have local daughter companies like Google Spain to contribute to your profits and you collect that information to make better deals within Spain (in this case).  So get real and accept that your data-processing is part of the local business and comply with the European laws.

    There is more to this case, but holding Google (and other search engines!) responsible for their data collection, the publishing and their local responsibilities is a turning point. Thanks to this decision the right to be forgotten has been firmly established and private citizens don’t have to suffer eternally from an unfortunate moment in their lives or a silly decision in their youth.

    P.S. Yes, good that you ask. What about the freedom of information? Don't we, the searchers, the public, have the right to know everything even if the private individual doesn't like it? 

    Sure says the court, but let's find a balance. A private person rights to protect his data should normally outweigh the interests of the public unless these data are important for a public issue.

    http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2014-05/cp140070en.pdf
    http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=152065&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=19158
  • 63 plusses - 102 comments - 19 shares | Read in G+
  • Max Huijgen2013-05-17 13:56:18
    Want to actually read something on the new G+ layout? A fix!
     Is the new layout with the endless more in posts but especially in comment-rich interactions,  driving you nuts?

    Are you tediously working your way through scroll bars and clicks on 'more' while losing all track of the actual conversation? 

    Just click on the date/time stamp of a post while holding control and you get a new tab with the whole conversation expanded

    More tips to make readers happy? Let them know in the comments.

    You can try it out on the post from which this animated gif stems The end of G+ text by WordSmiths as we know it: pinterest won
    https://plus.google.com/112352920206354603958/posts/Lob324nF2de

    Although the trick helps, it''s of course a protest as well. Please give me a preference setting to set the number of lines where ''more''  kicks in.

     #AnimatedWords  #WordsInMotion #WordSmiths  
  • 38 plusses - 102 comments - 20 shares | Read in G+
  • Max Huijgen2014-05-13 14:49:52
    European Right to be Forgotten Established:  Google has to remove private info

    In an unexpected move Europe’s highest court has ruled that Google has to remove privacy related information if a duped individual asks for it.  

    In this specific case a Spanish citizen whose house was sold because of debts. The auction list was published in a newspaper and got archived by Google so his name was forever linked to these debts.  Google will now have to remove that link between his name and the auction list.

    Unexpected and unprecedented as the new European data directive establishing that ‘right to be forgotten’ is not even ratified in Europe. The European Court of Justice based its decision on older data protection laws and by doing so lays an extremely strong fundament for the right of private citizens to protect their good name.

    Unexpected also because Google always rejected any responsibility for their data collection.  They always argued that they were merely ‘collecting’ and not ‘processing’ personal data so they had no legal obligations under existing laws.  

    No, says the court. Google does much more: they record, organize, store and publish this information.  Doesn’t matter if it has been published before (like in this case in a newspaper), Google makes it available and has similar responsibilities as others to comply with data protection laws.

    Furthermore the court looked at Google’s argument that they don’t do anything with the data within Europe. It’s Google Inc, the American company who is responsible. A repeating argument in many cases by Google:  nothing to do with European laws, we are American.

    Nope says the Court, the core of your business is selling ads. You have local daughter companies like Google Spain to contribute to your profits and you collect that information to make better deals within Spain (in this case).  So get real and accept that your data-processing is part of the local business and comply with the European laws.

    There is more to this case, but holding Google (and other search engines!) responsible for their data collection, the publishing and their local responsibilities is a turning point. Thanks to this decision the right to be forgotten has been firmly established and private citizens don’t have to suffer eternally from an unfortunate moment in their lives or a silly decision in their youth.

    P.S. Yes, good that you ask. What about the freedom of information? Don't we, the searchers, the public, have the right to know everything even if the private individual doesn't like it? 

    Sure says the court, but let's find a balance. A private person rights to protect his data should normally outweigh the interests of the public unless these data are important for a public issue.

    http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2014-05/cp140070en.pdf
    http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=152065&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=19158
  • 63 plusses - 102 comments - 19 shares | Read in G+
  • Max Huijgen2013-05-17 13:56:18
    Want to actually read something on the new G+ layout? A fix!
     Is the new layout with the endless more in posts but especially in comment-rich interactions,  driving you nuts?

    Are you tediously working your way through scroll bars and clicks on 'more' while losing all track of the actual conversation? 

    Just click on the date/time stamp of a post while holding control and you get a new tab with the whole conversation expanded

    More tips to make readers happy? Let them know in the comments.

    You can try it out on the post from which this animated gif stems The end of G+ text by WordSmiths as we know it: pinterest won
    https://plus.google.com/112352920206354603958/posts/Lob324nF2de

    Although the trick helps, it''s of course a protest as well. Please give me a preference setting to set the number of lines where ''more''  kicks in.

     #AnimatedWords  #WordsInMotion #WordSmiths  
  • 38 plusses - 102 comments - 20 shares | Read in G+
  • Max Huijgen2014-05-13 14:49:52
    European Right to be Forgotten Established:  Google has to remove private info

    In an unexpected move Europe’s highest court has ruled that Google has to remove privacy related information if a duped individual asks for it.  

    In this specific case a Spanish citizen whose house was sold because of debts. The auction list was published in a newspaper and got archived by Google so his name was forever linked to these debts.  Google will now have to remove that link between his name and the auction list.

    Unexpected and unprecedented as the new European data directive establishing that ‘right to be forgotten’ is not even ratified in Europe. The European Court of Justice based its decision on older data protection laws and by doing so lays an extremely strong fundament for the right of private citizens to protect their good name.

    Unexpected also because Google always rejected any responsibility for their data collection.  They always argued that they were merely ‘collecting’ and not ‘processing’ personal data so they had no legal obligations under existing laws.  

    No, says the court. Google does much more: they record, organize, store and publish this information.  Doesn’t matter if it has been published before (like in this case in a newspaper), Google makes it available and has similar responsibilities as others to comply with data protection laws.

    Furthermore the court looked at Google’s argument that they don’t do anything with the data within Europe. It’s Google Inc, the American company who is responsible. A repeating argument in many cases by Google:  nothing to do with European laws, we are American.

    Nope says the Court, the core of your business is selling ads. You have local daughter companies like Google Spain to contribute to your profits and you collect that information to make better deals within Spain (in this case).  So get real and accept that your data-processing is part of the local business and comply with the European laws.

    There is more to this case, but holding Google (and other search engines!) responsible for their data collection, the publishing and their local responsibilities is a turning point. Thanks to this decision the right to be forgotten has been firmly established and private citizens don’t have to suffer eternally from an unfortunate moment in their lives or a silly decision in their youth.

    P.S. Yes, good that you ask. What about the freedom of information? Don't we, the searchers, the public, have the right to know everything even if the private individual doesn't like it? 

    Sure says the court, but let's find a balance. A private person rights to protect his data should normally outweigh the interests of the public unless these data are important for a public issue.

    http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2014-05/cp140070en.pdf
    http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=152065&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=19158
  • 63 plusses - 102 comments - 19 shares | Read in G+
  • Max Huijgen2013-05-17 13:56:18
    Want to actually read something on the new G+ layout? A fix!
     Is the new layout with the endless more in posts but especially in comment-rich interactions,  driving you nuts?

    Are you tediously working your way through scroll bars and clicks on 'more' while losing all track of the actual conversation? 

    Just click on the date/time stamp of a post while holding control and you get a new tab with the whole conversation expanded

    More tips to make readers happy? Let them know in the comments.

    You can try it out on the post from which this animated gif stems The end of G+ text by WordSmiths as we know it: pinterest won
    https://plus.google.com/112352920206354603958/posts/Lob324nF2de

    Although the trick helps, it''s of course a protest as well. Please give me a preference setting to set the number of lines where ''more''  kicks in.

     #AnimatedWords  #WordsInMotion #WordSmiths  
  • 38 plusses - 102 comments - 20 shares | Read in G+
  • Max Huijgen2014-05-13 14:49:52
    European Right to be Forgotten Established:  Google has to remove private info

    In an unexpected move Europe’s highest court has ruled that Google has to remove privacy related information if a duped individual asks for it.  

    In this specific case a Spanish citizen whose house was sold because of debts. The auction list was published in a newspaper and got archived by Google so his name was forever linked to these debts.  Google will now have to remove that link between his name and the auction list.

    Unexpected and unprecedented as the new European data directive establishing that ‘right to be forgotten’ is not even ratified in Europe. The European Court of Justice based its decision on older data protection laws and by doing so lays an extremely strong fundament for the right of private citizens to protect their good name.

    Unexpected also because Google always rejected any responsibility for their data collection.  They always argued that they were merely ‘collecting’ and not ‘processing’ personal data so they had no legal obligations under existing laws.  

    No, says the court. Google does much more: they record, organize, store and publish this information.  Doesn’t matter if it has been published before (like in this case in a newspaper), Google makes it available and has similar responsibilities as others to comply with data protection laws.

    Furthermore the court looked at Google’s argument that they don’t do anything with the data within Europe. It’s Google Inc, the American company who is responsible. A repeating argument in many cases by Google:  nothing to do with European laws, we are American.

    Nope says the Court, the core of your business is selling ads. You have local daughter companies like Google Spain to contribute to your profits and you collect that information to make better deals within Spain (in this case).  So get real and accept that your data-processing is part of the local business and comply with the European laws.

    There is more to this case, but holding Google (and other search engines!) responsible for their data collection, the publishing and their local responsibilities is a turning point. Thanks to this decision the right to be forgotten has been firmly established and private citizens don’t have to suffer eternally from an unfortunate moment in their lives or a silly decision in their youth.

    P.S. Yes, good that you ask. What about the freedom of information? Don't we, the searchers, the public, have the right to know everything even if the private individual doesn't like it? 

    Sure says the court, but let's find a balance. A private person rights to protect his data should normally outweigh the interests of the public unless these data are important for a public issue.

    http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2014-05/cp140070en.pdf
    http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=152065&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=19158
  • 63 plusses - 102 comments - 19 shares | Read in G+