Google Archive

0

Eyes on the Prize

Oh technology, is there any way you can’t make us look stupid? First you tricked us into believing that rolling over a relatively smooth surface was more efficient than upright bipedalism (wheels! amirite???). Then, a few years later, crazy folks lost their monopoly on talking to themselves in public when some Smurf-obsessed nerd invented the bluetooth and it began to proliferate among business-types and young people — two truly dismal demographics which, to this day, can be seen having extensive, passionate conversations about the stock market and/or their latest STDs with interested dust motes and subway posters.

Now, entering into this startlingly fractured technoscape for the first time is none other than that erstwhile manufacturer of Happy Days-themed car fresheners and body-shaping undergarments for older women, The Google.

From Reuters yesterday:

Google Inc is getting into the eyewear business with a pair of thin wraparound shades that puts the company’s Web services in your face.

The experimental “augmented reality” glasses – from the same team that is developing self-driven cars – can snap photos, initiate videochats and display directions at the sound of a user’s voice.

The prototype digital glasses, unveiled on the company’s Google+ social network on Wednesday, are still being tweaked and tested, and are not available in stores yet.

Here’s a (presumably After Effects’d) videographic demonstrating what Google Goggles could one day do for you:

I’d be lying if I didn’t admit that this actually seems pretty cool — assuming, of course, you don’t fall through an open manhole while you’re wearing them. And of course, in this day of instant high-production-value witticism, one tech-savvy wag who I wish was me has already created a commendably tongue-in-cheek riposte:

On second thought, maybe I’ll save my money for Google Contacts.

0

Opt Out (As Best You Can) of Google’s New Privacy Policy

Via Ed, the Electronic Frontier Foundation has some simple instructions to prevent your various Google activities from being amalgamated into one giant salable portrait of you.

I just did it and it’s simple.

Sign in, go to google.com/history, and choose “Remove All Web History”. This also revokes your consent to have your search history recorded going forward.

Needless to say, protecting your privacy should be the default among web-based corporations and organizations, and you shouldn’t have to opt out of anything at all. But even for the great “Don’t Be Evils” out there, the pressure from shareholders to turn you into a product is strong, and your concerns about keeping your shit to yourself are pretty much immaterial unless they affect the bottom line. So opt out, stick it to the man, fuck the police, etc.

3

Google thinks I am 35-44 years old, is wrong.

Find out how old Google thinks you are here!

(via)

1

Because why wouldn’t he?

How many times have you gone to Google something, only to say to yourself afterward, “Man, I wish I’d gotten more results that were only tangentially related to the subject I was searching for!” About a googolplex, right? Yeah, me too! And that’s exactly what MC Hammer — no, not that MC Hammer; the one who sang “Pumps and a Bump,” idiot — is banking on while creating his new search engine, WireDoo.

Seriously.

The article’s short, so you might as well read it, since the only thing I’m going to quote here is the working company logo:

Sharp, right?

Da nana nuh, na nuh. Can’t search this!

(Props to Linda W. for this gem.)

0

Google Brews Beer

For some good news on an otherwise depressing day in your march to mediocrity, feeble-mindedness, and eventual doom, check this shit out: Google is brewing its own beer now. And they’re doing it with Dogfish Head, which means I’ll probably never get a chance to try it. But maybe you will. And maybe this will make your life slightly more meaningful.

0

Google isn’t helping

I shouldn’t be surprised. We’ve written about Google’s role in self-reinforcing Internet solipsism before. But that didn’t alleviate the sinking feeling I had after navigating over to Google News today and seeing their new (to me, anyway) personalization options:

The subject sliders make sense. After all, if I don’t give a shit about sports (I do, for the record, but this is what you’d call a hypothetical), why should articles about it clutter my already-full news feed? Yes, eliminating the information I used to gain by inadvertently glimpsing sports-related headlines on my way to other stories I actually cared about will undoubtedly reduce my overall level of well-roundedness by an iota or two, but mathematically speaking, the loss is negligible. However, to have the ability to control the sources that actually deliver the news to you in the first place? That’s just downright scary.

A few years ago, a Pew poll studying public knowledge of current affairs as it correlated to one’s primary news source found that:

the news-hungry public tends to visit many outlets. The audiences for sources such as major TV news websites, the comedy shows, or the O’Reilly Factor tend to be fairly omnivorous in their media consumption – an average of more than seven separate sources for the regular audiences of each of these, compared with the overall average of 4.6 sources. Well-informed people do gravitate to particular places, but they also make use of a much wider range of news sources than do the less informed.

Shorter Pew: more news sources = more (and more accurate) knowledge.

However, if we can program our news feeds — Google or otherwise — to display only stories from MSNBC and the NYT (shudder) or only from Fox News and the WSJ (triple shudder), it can’t help but affect our interpretative hard wiring to the extent that we will inevitably begin to process all new information with the same conscious and unconscious slants present in even the most seemingly non-ideological stories.

It’s like when [warning: rich white boy anecdote ahead] you’ve been skiing for awhile with your goggles on and after a few runs have forgotten that the world doesn’t actually have a vaguely orange tint to it, such that when you finally pull the things off again before trudging into the lodge for an overpriced, over limp hamburger, you’re astonished to remember just how white the snow truly is.

And just as it doesn’t take your eyes long to normalize a previously alien discoloration, or your nose long to accustomize itself to your rank-ass dorm room — which smells perfectly fine to you but which drives out all comely coeds within seconds of their arrival — so, too, would a single homogeneous news source eventually taint all of your perceptions about the world around you in ways you wouldn’t even realize. Call it a modern application of the old boiling frog chestnut, if you’d like.

Anyway, I guess what I’m saying is, go ahead and toggle the shit out of those sliders. What do I care, right?

1

Google+ and Gender Privacy

Randall Munroe, creator of the web comic xkcd, on Google’s decision to make gender the only part of your Google+ profile, aside from your name, that you can’t make private:

Many women grow up with a sense of physical vulnerability that’s hard for men to appreciate. Our culture’s relentless treatment of women as objects teaches them that they are defined by the one thing that men around them want from them—men who are usually bigger, stronger, and (like any human) occasionally crazy. This feeling—often confirmed by actual experiences of harassment and assault—can lead, understandably, to a lifetime of low-level wariness and sense of vulnerability that men have trouble appreciating. A male designer building an interface should try to keep in mind that there are reasons a female user might feel uncomfortable being told she has to broadcast her gender. Sure, someone’s gender is usually obvious from their name, but there’s no need to force people to draw extra attention to it—introducing myself with “Hi, I’m Randall.” sends a different message from “Hi, I’m Randall, and I’m a MAN.”

I don’t think making this option mandatory is a significant cause of the major Google+ early-adopter gender split, but if you’re worried about how few female users your project has, marginalizing their potential worries on your introductory screen doesn’t seem very bright.

Google got with the program:

It would appear that Google+ is trying not to be evil. Now, if people would just start using the damn thing. (We all have plenty of invites left. Feel free to email us if you want one.)

(h/t to Tyler Cowen, I think, but I can’t remember)

0

Saying “Google and Gaga” Makes You Sound Silly

I know there’s a lot of Gaga hate out there, and I’m not saying it’s not founded, or that her music is particularly interesting, but there’s a lot more interesting content to what she’s doing as a public persona than there has been from any major pop diva in a while.

Here’s an interview she gave @Google to a kindof adorably flustered Google employee a couple weeks ago (starts with a pretty cool video):

Okay Google. We posted something about Lady Gaga. Search hits please!

2

This Will Revolutionize Office Ergonomics!

To get Google Motion, click here.