Dawkins' Stupid People - <AUTHOR> http://blog.jgc.org/2011/09/dawkins-stupid-people.html <comment><USER2> You're setting up a strawman there jgrahamc. Dawkins does not equate religious to stupid. Anyone that has listened to him much at all is fully aware that what he was getting at here is those people that continue to indoctrinate children with rubbish like Intelligent Design/Creationism when they have been presented, repeatedly, with hard evidence for the reality of evolution and the fact that it does not require a guiding force.

That willful ignorance is what he is appalled at, and quite frankly I don't know what else you can call someone that is willfully ignorant, if not stupid.

<comment><USER3> It may be that I haven't kept up, but doesn't evolution require a guiding force of some kind? Speaking purely scientifically, of course.

<comment><USER4> Evolution is guided by the environment. For example, if customers always choose the best-looking pumpkins to take home and eat, and the ugliest ones end up being used for seed, the genes of ugly pumpkins will have more successors in each generation, and pretty soon your crops will consist of ugly pumpkins only. That's the complete mechanism of evolution right there. Would you say the customers unwittingly acted as a guiding force in evolving your population of pumpkins toward ugliness?

<comment><USER5> I think your example is unfortunate because it involves intelligent decision makers, which could indeed be interpreted as a guiding force.

There are of course forces in nature, namely the laws of physics.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I think Dawkins was hoping for a different world during his lifetime and is losing patience with those that oppose the change.

He's an extremely smart man, compared to him most of us really are stupid but that's not a reason to be judgmental about it, if anything that will just make things worse, for everybody.

For people to lose their religion is a very difficult mental process it ties in with the ego at a very basic level (it has to, that's exactly how it has been set up).

I know some pretty smart people that are deeply religious too and I've always found enough common ground in the 'smart' bits to to overlook the bits in the religion department.

I'm pretty sure they think the same way of me (well, maybe except for the smarts ;) )...

<comment><USER7> Yes, Professor Alister McGrath (Oxford) has come to similar conclusions. Dawkins et al had an expectation that religion would be swept away within their lifetime, and as this has not been achieved he has moved on to be much more direct and blunt as if to try to force it to happen.

McGrath writes about this in his book 'Why God Won't Go Away: Is the New Atheism Running on Empty?' <http://www.amazon.com/Why-God-Wont-Go- Away/dp/084994645X>

Here is a review of the book to give you a flavour of what conclusions he reaches [http://mcdanell99reviews.blogspot.com/2011/08/why-god- wont-g...](http://mcdanell99reviews.blogspot.com/2011/08/why-god-wont-go-away- by-alister-mcgrath.html)

<comment><USER6> That review completely weirds me out. Atheism does not have it's roots in the 9/11 attacks, nor is it 'new' by any definition. Sure, Dawkins wrote 'The God Delusion' chronologically after 9/11. But that doesn't mean his views were much different before then, he's been an outspoken atheist pretty much all his life.

As for the blatant attempt to tie all atheists to Nazism that's a first-order Godwinning right there.

<http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11332515>

Ahteists are no more violent than religious people, I think they're people just like all the others, you can expect something of everything.

I hope the book is better than that that review lets on.

<comment><USER7> I don't see any claim that _atheism_ has it's roots in the 9/11 attacks. The reviewer states "[The rise of the New Atheists] to fame, McGrath suggests, begins with the attacks on 9/11 where radical Muslims turned commercial airplanes into missiles and managed to kill almost 3,000 people." He is referring to the 'rise to fame' of New Atheism. New Atheism and atheism are not synonyms of one another, the former is a member of the set of the latter.

McGrath doesn't tie all atheists to Nazism (as the review might himself be implying), but deals with how the basic arguments of the form "Religion is bad, look at all these religious leaders who have killed people" doesn't work very well for quite a lot of reasons including how it could easily be turned around.

In any case - I McGrath is a well respected intellectual in the UK (Oxford, along with Cambridge is our most prestigious university), and his writing is well worth considering.

<comment><USER6> Regarding 'new atheism' as a movement, this is a pretty good read:

[http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&...](http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=flynn_30_3)

I think that reviewer used the book to push his own viewpoints at the expense of the author, and does him a dis-service.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I share most of Dawkin's beliefs on religion but abhor the way he chooses to communicate them.

I'm not sure if it's hit the US but in the UK we have a thing called the Alpha Course. It's a Christian run 10 week course that discussed the "meaning of life" with a slightly (but only very slightly) covert agenda of converting the attendees to Christianity.

My experience (anecdotal) of Alpha is that it does a good job of bringing lapsed Christian's back into the fold - that is people who basically accepted it but weren't practising. For anyone else - those of other faiths, atheists and so on, it doesn't seem to do much. There will be exceptions but that seems to be the general pattern.

I see Dawkins as generally the same for atheists. I doubt very much he has any sort of major influence on Christians (other than to annoy them), he just gives atheists and agnostics a cheer leader and helps them confirm what they're thinking.

Nothing wrong with that of course but he's not engaging in any way that's going to bring about the death of religion which is what he'd seem to like.

<comment><USER9> This is absolutely right. For any movement, there are those that take an uncompromising extreme view. This is not to appeal to the other side, but to move the goal posts as far in their direction as possible. Think Stallman, Nader, Ron Paul.

They serve a purpose to the movement -- providing arguments that can be crafted by those that seek to convert and making others seem less extreme by comparison. One attribute that they must have to perform this effectively is to never compromise, and instead to keep pushing the envelope.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> This may be a bit of a tangent, but personally, I can't understand Dawkins' crusading attitude about religion.

If I believed, as he does, that there is no God, that all wonder and amazement and desire and love are merely chemical reactions, and that all consciousness will die with the universe, I wouldn't bother trying to convince others of it.

"You should believe this because it eliminates all meaning and purpose in life." Hey, great sell! I think I'd just eat, drink, and be merry before I died. Who cares what others believe?

If you're a Christian (as I am), you believe you've got good news to tell others. If you're an atheist, what's good about your news, and what difference does it make to tell anyone?

<comment><USER11> Atheism doesn't necessarily remove all meaning and purpose in life. It just removes any divine purpose(s) in the process of removing God.

That said, I've never been impressed by reductionism. It seems presumptuous to assume you can use one form of intelligence (logic) to understand absolutely everything else about the world. You can describe the aesthetic sense via chemical reactions that take place in the brain, but that doesn't take you any closer in understanding it. In other words, we don't expect experts in processor microcode to tell us anything novel about functional programming, do we? Of course not: FP's concepts are implemented via the microcode, enabling FP to concern itself with much higher-level abstractions. And the things that FP 'thinks' about are quite different than that of a processor.

The other thing that bugs me is often the new atheists are so angry on the Internet. Angry about how everyone won't change. Angry about how much religion has done. And it is justified anger, sometimes. But if we use their line of thinking, there's only one life to live -- why waste it in anger? Why try to convince everyone? You've already admitted they're all stupid, right? It seems like there's this reluctance to just let go of that which cannot be changed.

I've been angry for a good deal of my life, and I'm just writing this as a cautionary note. Be very careful. Humans don't seem to tolerate anger for very long without side effects.

<comment><USER12> Re: "It just removes any divine purpose(s) in the process of removing God."

And it removes any right on the part of the divine to reveal itself.

<comment><USER11> Good insight.

I've run afoul of this myself, and the only thing I have to blame is my own pride.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Dawkins' treatment of religion seems to me to a bit shallow. He seems to argue far too much about how true religious dogma is or isn't, but that can only give a superficial treatment of religion.

It might seem, especially to a scientist, that a religion is based on its core beliefs. But it is easy, especially for trained theologians, to get to whatever conclusion they want from some dogmatic starting point. Religion is not mathematics, where starting from an axiom will inevitably lead to a particular conclusion. So arguing about the untruth of the religious axioms is missing the point.

<comment><USER14> His treatment is indeed shallow, and he knows it. This is demonstrated by his unreasonable reasons for not debating William Lane Craig on this very issue:

William Lane Craig, Richard Dawkins and the Empty Chair: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1ldYmg0lpE>

Edit: Digestible summary of the issue: [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/8511931/Richard- Daw...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/8511931/Richard-Dawkins- accused-of-cowardice-for-refusing-to-debate-existence-of-God.html)

<comment><USER14> I'm being downvoted but Dawkin's fellow atheists have also criticised him on this matter:

QUOTE "Some of Prof Dawkins's contemporaries are not impressed. Dr Daniel Came, a philosophy lecturer and fellow atheist, from Worcester College, Oxford, wrote to him urging him to reconsider his refusal to debate the existence of God with Prof Craig.

In a letter to Prof Dawkins, Dr Came said: 'The absence of a debate with the foremost apologist for Christian theism is a glaring omission on your CV and is of course apt to be interpreted as cowardice on your part.

I notice that, by contrast, you are happy to discuss theological matters with television and radio presenters and other intellectual heavyweights like Pastor Ted Haggard of the National Association of Evangelicals and Pastor Keenan Roberts of the Colorado Hell House'" /QUOTE

[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/8511931/Richard- Daw...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/8511931/Richard-Dawkins- accused-of-cowardice-for-refusing-to-debate-existence-of-God.html)

<comment><USER5> Why not believe his statement that he has no desire to support Mr Craigs self promotion?

It just goes to show that the issue won't be resolved by logic (arguing logically about religion, which is the epitome of irrationality, seems doomed from the start anyway).

My main gripe with Dawkins has actually always been that he spends too much time arguing with senseless counterarguments. I wish the evolutionary biologists would rather invest more energy into developing more insights, rather than arguing the same old tired arguments of their enemies again and again.

Edit: for what it's worth, I would actually be interested in what arguments Mr Craig would like to present. I checked his web site, but an article about "The God Delusion" that I found was behind a paywall (or at least "become a member wall").

<comment><USER14> 1\. It's ironic that you are asking us to invoke belief in a statement that is merely asserted and not demonstrated.

2\. I agree that the issue won't be resolved by logic alone. However, based on Craig's previous debates, he will clearly define his terms and premises, and name the principles of logic used to reach a conclusion. To assert that such debate is "the epitome of irrationality" is itself irrational. You may disagree with his premises and definitions, but that is not the same as irrationality.

3\. Dawkins has been asked again and again to debate Craig, and has refused again and again. As I've said before, other prominent atheists have criticised Dawkins on this matter.

4\. You can download a number of Craig's debates here: <http://rfforum.websitetoolbox.com/post?id=2703927>

<comment><USER5> 1.) The whole thing is rather stupid, because it shouldn't be about belief. You can get Dawkins book and make up your own mind. Likewise (allegedly) for Craig's writing.

In that sense, what is a public celebrity match supposed to achieve? Will people decide according to the merit of the arguments (then why not just read), or according to the better haircut?

As for 4), I tried to follow a link to one of the transcripts, but it only lead to the "restricted to members" page again. Can't be bothered with Audio or Video.

So if 2.) is true, at least Craig should present an easily digestable resource with his arguments.

As for 3) as I said, I think Dawkings is wasting too much time with futile discussions already. I don't think refusing to discuss with anybody is an indicator for the merit of his arguments.

Edit: also, since I suppose Craig has published books, name one good reason why I should expect any interesting points in them?

<comment><USER14> I'll let you have the last word, but regarding the expectation of interesting points, I would ask that you peruse Craig's publications. Not all of the journals would impress you, but some will:

[http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/PageServer?pagename=publ...](http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/PageServer?pagename=publications_main)

Craig is a serious philosopher with credible philosophical publications to his name. That is why he is worth reading (perhaps more his journal articles than his "popular" books, indicated by "P" in the above list). That is also the reason why Dawkins should take him on in debate.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> In this quote I don't see anything about religion. He was just asked if he's bothered by stupid people and he stated that he's bothered by how stupid people influence children.

And even if the religion was implied by the original context then sure, Michael Faraday maybe was not stupid but his father might have been to some point and due this stupidity wasting his sons time.

<comment><USER6> I've got a problem with that viewpoint. I'm not sure if I'm able to articulate it properly but consider that without Michael Faraday's fathers religion his son might not have been born at all, and if he was he might have followed a different path in life, becoming a carpenter or some other mundane profession.

You don't get to play the same universe twice over with different pieces with a claim to knowing how that universe would unfold. All this stuff is inter- related and if you change one thing you may change more than you think you do.

Science and religion are to some extent in competition, both strive to explain things, the one through the supernatural, the other through reasoning and rigorous experiments.

I know which side my bread is buttered on but I'd never stake a claim on editing the past and saying that 'x or y not being religious' would have been good for science or the opposite. That's something that would be very hard to prove.

<comment><USER15> I have not stated that if Faradays father was not religious it would improve science, only that it could.

His father could be killed or ostracized for being atheist and that would definitely harm science.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I still find it intriguing that Francis Collins, who in 1993 replaced James D. Watson as head of the National Center for Human Genome Research at the National Institutes of Health, is a religious person [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Collins_(geneticist)#Re...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Collins_\(geneticist\)#Religious_views)]

I'm not judging anyone here, I'm just saying I find it striking, and slightly unimaginable.

<comment><USER10> Collins has written a book called "The Language of God" (referring to DNA) in which he explains how he reconciles his beliefs with his scientific understanding.

In it, he tells his own story and explains why he thinks Christians should accept evolution and why scientists should not be hostile to faith.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> what else would you call them? them : "who doesn't see presented/available evidence and just think that no matter what, their beliefs are true."

edit: Forgot to mention that, sometime these are the people who govern us, make law, treat us and in process of doing these things they try to enforce their belief OR have strong opposition towards anything which contradicts their belief.

<comment><USER18> How about unscientific?

You're still going to run into problems applying and adjective to people, since they can think scientifically in one area and unscientifically in another.

For example, Dawkins, presumably thinks scientifically in genetics. However, when it comes to religion being a _cause_ of wars and other violence versus a _pretense for_ wars and violence, Dawkins hangs onto the "cause" hypothesis despite data pointing to the "pretense" hypothesis.

The difference is important. If you get rid of a cause, you solve the problem. If you get rid of a pretense, people find another pretense. Robert Pape's data is consistent with the pretense hypothesis. Nonetheless, Dawkins devotes himself wholeheartedly to propagating the cause hypothesis. If he took a scientific approach, he would devote himself wholeheartedly to testing his hypothesis instead.

It's Dawkins "who doesn't see presented/available evidence and just think that no matter what, their beliefs are true."

<comment><USER5> So you think religion does no harm at all?

<comment><USER9> Religions are complex systems that can be used for good or evil -- it's the people that choose which. You can find justification for nearly every action in the bible -- but, to do that, I think, is a gross perversion of the overall spirit of Christianity.

<comment><USER5> Sure, the fundamental issue then maybe is, should humans be made to function according to some system? I seem to have some fundamental aversion against that, which makes me reject religion as much as communism.

I mean at least if said humans don't reflect on what they are doing. If they have come rationally to the conclusion that some action is the best, sure, go for it. But religion puts some authorities in charge of programming other people.

For instance, why not just drug everyone and make them docile slaves? I am sure such a society would function very well, so why not do it?

Nature of course doesn't care - a society running on religion is just another ant colony (mindless agents acting out a system). Maybe the system prevails, maybe it doesn't.

The harm I see is that religion prevents adaption and evaluation of new strategies, which might lead to peril in a lot of circumstances.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Even being really good at [insert profession], doesn't make you non-stupid in areas outside of your expertise. It's not mutually exclusive. E.g., one can be a brilliant orthopedist, but can still be considered really stupid when it comes to forming a coherent general world-view.

</comment><comment><USER20> I'd add Knuth to the list of "very smart, and yet religious" people.

<comment><USER14> Add also Larry Wall.

"Perl [is] a biblical reference to the "pearl of great price" (Matthew 13:46)."

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Wall#Accomplishments>

<comment><USER12> And also Thomas Bayes.

"an English mathematician and Presbyterian minister, known for having formulated a specific case of the theorem that bears his name: Bayes' theorem."

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Bayes>

<comment><USER8> Bayes lived in the 18th Century - pretty much everyone believed back then and it wasn't such an irrational view as the likes of DNA, cosmology, geology weren't as advanced.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Weither the people in question truly are stupid or misguided wasn't the point of the question. I like how he answers about why he cares instead of mincing words.

</comment><comment><USER22> What do you call someone who continues to believe a falsehood in the face of all evidence, reason and logic? "Stupid" seems pretty spot on to me.

<comment><USER23> Willfully ignorant.

I understand both points here: JGC is correct that stupid is the wrong word for what Dawkins is talking about. Dawkins believes that there are a class of people who have shown themselves to be incorrigibly ignorant.

Someone who is _stupid_ would be _incapable_ of learning the facts involved. They should not be treated with disdain; it's not their fault.

Someone who is _ignorant_ , doesn't _know_ the facts involved. They should also not be treated with disdain; they don't know any better.

Someone who, despite repeated exposure to factual, repeatable knowledge chooses to remain ignorant… that's who Dawkins is disdainful of, and I don't blame him. And while I happen to agree with his view on the willful ignorance of Creationists, it is important to note that those selfsame folks would consider him willfully ignorant of the glorious truth of their god.

Ideally, Dawkins would leave out the name-calling altogether, but it's an awfully convenient shorthand to say that someone who is willfully and incorrigibly ignorant is, in fact, _stupid_. It just happens to be unnecessarily inflammatory and _too_ much of a shortcut.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Meta comment: This post must be getting flagged a lot.

      114. Dawkins' Stupid People (jgc.org)
           34 points by jgrahamc 3 hours ago | flag | 76 comments

I also note that the comments are full of civil and intelligent discussion. I wonder to what extent the flagging helped it stay that way by keeping it off the front page.

</comment><comment><USER24> Ignoring Dawkins for a moment, I think those here naming Christian scientists as examples of how science and religion are compatible are missing the point. Science isn't about the people who practice it and it's not about beliefs. It's about the scientific method - theory tested by and derived from repeatable experimentation. And there are no Christian scientists who apply the scientific method to their own religious beliefs, for obvious reasons.

<comment><USER7> True, but surely the reason is not that there are no religious believers who have applied rational processes to the question of whether there is a God (or gods) and have concluded that there is - but rather that the scientific method is a method that is only suitable in certain domains.

It's easy to equate 'the scientific method' with any sort of 'rational' evidence based approach, but the term has a specific meaning.

We don't apply the scientific method to solve murder investigations for instance, or to solve math equations. Similarly historians don't use the scientific method to determine what happened in history.

It's not that the choices are the scientific method or ignorance -- it's that the scientific method is not applicable in many of the domains that intellectual religious people have mined to conclude that theism is more likely than atheism. Many Christians point to the historical evidence for Jesus for instance, see (former Prof) Richard Bauchman's 'Jesus and the eyewitnesses' [http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Eyewitnesses-Gospels- Eyewitness-...](http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Eyewitnesses-Gospels-Eyewitness- Testimony/dp/0802831621) or Prof Licona's [http://www.amazon.com/Resurrection- Jesus-New-Historiographic...](http://www.amazon.com/Resurrection-Jesus-New- Historiographical-Approach/dp/0830827196) 'The resurrection of Jesus - a new historiographical approach' or they have considered philosophical arguments (see what Alvin Plantinga has written for example).

This is not to argue that science and religion are Non-Overlapping MagesteriA (NOMA) as Gould argued, clearly there are overlaps (whether the first humans came in to existence along with the universe 6,000 years ago is a pretty clear example of overlap), but many of the arguments intellectual theists give for thinking theism is more likely are rational, just not scientific.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> There's something rational about looking at historical events and asking if it's unlikely, likely, or strongly likely that they happened at all.

For example, I have heard of a handful of Germans today who for one reason or another say the Holocaust never happened. In light of the thousands of eye witness accounts, is it sensible to say that?

Another example, there are atheists today who for one reason or another say the Resurrection never happened, and not necessarily because they have ever looked into the historical primary and secondary sources.

In light of the hundreds of people who died at Roman hands in the 1st century, refusing to recant that they had seen the risen Lord, is it sensible to label their testimony a delusion, or inherited from their parents, without any thorough investigation at all?

As for those who had seen Christ themselves:

"I passed on to you what was most important and what had also been passed on to me. Christ died for our sins, just as the Scriptures said. He was buried, and he was raised from the dead on the third day, just as the Scriptures said. He was seen by Peter and then by the Twelve. After that, he was seen by more than 500 of his followers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died. Then he was seen by James and later by all the apostles. Last of all, as though I had been born at the wrong time, I also saw him. For I am the least of all the apostles. In fact, I'm not even worthy to be called an apostle after the way I persecuted God's church."

"And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead."

"But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the first-fruits of those who have fallen asleep."

Are the New Testament sources primary, accurate, unbiased, trustworthy? When were they written? Have they been corrupted or do we read them as they wrote them? How many sources are there inside and outside of the New Testament? Are they independent? Are they coherent?

Here are some people who have tried to address these questions:

Paul Barnett, "Is the New Testament history?" ([http://www.amazon.com/New- Testament-History-Paul-Barnett/dp/...](http://www.amazon.com/New-Testament- History-Paul-Barnett/dp/0892833815))

FF Bruce, "New Testament Documents" ([http://www.amazon.com/New-Testament- Documents-They-Reliable/...](http://www.amazon.com/New-Testament-Documents- They-Reliable/dp/0802822193/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1316091359&sr=1-1))

<comment><USER25> "In light of the thousands of eye witness accounts, is it sensible to say that?"

Well, this is funny, because here's the issue on which Dawkins fails completely to apply the principles he advocates we all should.

Incidentally, so do you. You claim thousands of eye witness accounts. Well, how many of those have been independently verified? Furthermore, even the highly know and regarded ones are ridden with inconsistencies and outright lies (I'm thinking Elie Wiesel here).

And even if they were there remains the point that no hard proof whatsoever has been produced to support the claim that the Holocaust as is told today ever happened. No documents exist that don't require a double interpretation to support such claim. No gas chambers that differ any bit from standard delousing chambers used at the time, even in the US, have ever been uncovered. This could go on.

I'm not trying to advocate for one version or the other. That's not the point. The point is, that this issue is NEVER applied the same principles that are applied to a rational inquiry or scientific endeavour or even a case being judged in a court of law. If you don't believe me, well, go and check by yourself. But don't just limit yourself to the Yad Vashem because that's the same as reading the Bible and saying it proves itself (although there are plenty of inconsistencies in the Yad Vashem data curiously).

I admire Dawkins and his work, but the truth is, in the issue of the Holocaust he's as stupid as the people he accuses of being stupid. Even worse, I bet he would viciously defend his stupidity against anyone who would challenge him otherwise.

<comment><USER12> I'm sure you are more painfully familiar with the matter than I am.

I have an adopted Jewish aunt. Her mother and father put her on one of the last trains to leave Germany for England. At the last second her mother pushed her baby sister through the window to her. She never saw her parents again.

I have a Jewish friend who's grandfather was one of the last survivors of a concentration camp, and who walked to Israel and started repairing shoes on the streets of Tel Aviv.

I live across the road from the South African Jewish Museum, and I have seen the photographs. I am not a historian and I do not claim to be one, but I think it's sensible to say that something happened, and that hundreds of thousands of people died and were affected. Furthermore, anyone who would suggest these things never happened would have some "explaining away" to do.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I'd argue that religious people chose to not think things through but simply rely on other authorities, and that is stupid behavior.

Also, does stupid mean "genetically hardwired to low intelligence", or can stupid people be made more intelligent somehow?

</comment><comment><USER26> The part this article is criticising him for is a little out of context;

I care that people are being misled by those stupid people, because I think children deserve to know what is true and wonderful about the world into which they have been born, and it really is a shame that they are denied that; by ignorant and stupid adults, as you've described them.

The last part does hedge a little on if he would originally have actually chosen that definition. And still, it is certainly not an indefensible position to say that religious beliefs are quite stupid.

</comment><comment><USER27> There is a huge preponderance of "religious" people that have made great scientific discoveries. Dawkins' argument is the same as everyone else who doesn't believe in "God". So what? Dawkins is free to believe in what he wants as is everyone else.

</comment><comment><USER28> Having never questioned an indoctrination, religious or otherwise, is naive at best - stupid is a perfectly reasonable description, IMHO.

</comment><comment><USER29> This is just further proof that any know it all can set up a blog, throw out logic, state a poorly formed opinion, and someone will jump on their band wagon.</comment>


Firefox search app silently logs Firefox address bar searches - <AUTHOR> https://www.sccs.swarthmore.edu/org/SwatDigitalFreedom/google-search.html

<comment><USER2> This is not the Google Search app but rather a search app bundled with Firefox. You can tell: it uses Firefox design language and iconography and is called "Firefox Search"; the Google Search app looks nothing like this. Because of the open intent-based nature of Android, apps can hook into the swipe up gesture. If you also have the Google Search app installed, you should've gotten a dialog to select between the two, at least the first time you activated the swipe up.

If you want to blame someone for this, blame Mozilla, but honestly, it's probably just an innocent mistake. This search app seems rather new (I just noticed it the other day, too) and probably doesn't get much usage, which I suspect is why it's not hooked into all the main app preferences yet. Jumping the gun to criticize Google here is... unfortunate.

For comparison, here's what the Google Search app looks like: [https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.google.and...](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.google.android.googlequicksearchbox&hl=en)

<comment><AUTHOR> I now understand that this app is branded as Firefox Search. However, I find it very suspicious that, at least for me, it only allows Google, even though my default search engine is DuckDuckGo. It also ignores Firefox's data clearing, as you acknowledged.

I think it was automatically enabled on my phone because I explicitly disabled the Google app (my only other search app) in my App Settings.

I updated the page to refer to it as "Firefox's Google Search app". A fair name, considering its search engine options.

<comment><USER3> It uses whatever search engine you have configured in Firefox. When I tried it a minute ago on my Nexus, this defaulted to Yahoo.

This is unequivocally Mozilla code you're observing. Here's what adb logcat shows when that activity starts:

        I/ActivityManager(29188): START u0 {act=android.intent.action.ASSIST flg=0x13000000 cmp=org.mozilla.firefox/org.mozilla.search.SearchActivity (has extras)}

<comment><AUTHOR> Not for me. Mine only allows Google. Maybe because I'm using a custom default search engine? If so, it should just use my custom one, and should obviously give me a choice regardless.

<comment><USER3> This may also be a bug in the Firefox app: I've just observed that when I change my default search engine in Firefox, that setting isn't necessarily reflected in the search intent handler until after I force stop Firefox.

Either way, to reiterate, it's definitely Firefox you're seeing here. If you don't like the way it behaves, I recommend following the other suggestions on this thread to file a bug report with Mozilla.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> That is not the Google Search app. It is the search interface you get when you use the Firefox Search homescreen widget.

(This is on Android, BTW.)

<comment><AUTHOR> I addressed this below, but I should probably repost it here. Here's my take on it:

When choosing search apps, it's listed as "Firefox Search". However:

* it was automatically installed on my phone because it was the only present search app

* it replaced the nearly identical Google Search app, which I explicitly disabled

* At least on my phone, it only allows Google

* it doesn't conform to the Firefox data clearing

* it doesn't conform to the Firefox search engine preference

As far as I can tell, "Firefox Search" means "Google Search hooked into Firefox".

To be fair, I noticed that app name difference only after posting.

<comment><USER5> > _AFAIK, it only allows Google_

Mine defaults to Yahoo, which is exactly what you'd expect from the Firefox Search app. It's just a launcher intent that was registered when you installed Firefox.

Here's the help article: [https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/search-firefox- instantl...](https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/search-firefox-instantly- android-home-screen)

According to the bottom box on that page, your search history should have been cleared from the steps you took. Sounds like a bug.

edit: you can prove this to yourself by going to Settings -> Apps -> Firefox, scrolling down to the "Launch By Default" section and clicking the "Clear Defaults" button. The next time you drag up from the bottom, your phone will ask you what you want to launch by default (assuming you still have other launchers, e.g. the Google App installed).

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm on a Verizon HTC M8 running Android 4.4.4. Mine only allows Google.

<comment><USER6> Oneplus One 4.4.4, only Google.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Looks like some confusion around the Firefox for Android search activity. I've filed a bug at [https://bugzil.la/1143585](https://bugzil.la/1143585) to track this.

Edit: For the time being, you can click the gear in the lower right of the search activity and choose "clear history" to remove those entries.

</comment><comment><USER8> Hi, Mozilla Support volunteer here.

Thanks for spotting this! It is a known bug and has been fixed and rushed into beta testing (in Mozilla speak, this is called uplift). The fix is currently in Firefox beta and is scheduled to be released at the end of the month.

There's a bug logged here: [https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1124884](https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1124884)

And a support article on how you can clear your search history here: [https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/clear-your-search- histo...](https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/clear-your-search-history- firefox-search)

Hope this clears things up a little!

Jayelbe

</comment><comment><USER9> Oh. After reading comments, now I wish I had an unvote button to take my upvote back. I don't need a downvote button, just an unvote.

</comment><comment><USER10> Some deeper explanation would be nice here - how did the data end up there? Is the app hooking in to Firefox to pick this information up? Or are you just signed in to your Google account on both (Google search itself in Firefox, and Google Search via your Google sign-in on the Android?)

</comment><comment><USER11> You should file a bug here[0], just to be sure it isn't a bug on Fennec.

[0] [https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/enter_bug.cgi#h=dupes|Firefox+f...](https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/enter_bug.cgi#h=dupes|Firefox+for+Android)

</comment><comment><USER12> Does anybody know what app this is? It appears to have a Firefox icon on it. My stock Nexus phone does not seem to have this app - swiping up from the home icon gives you Now.

<comment><AUTHOR> When choosing search apps, it's listed as "Firefox Search". However:

* it was automatically installed on my phone because it was the only present search app

* it replaced the nearly identical Google Search app, which I explicitly disabled

* At least on my phone, it only allows Google

* it doesn't conform to the Firefox data clearing

* it doesn't conform to the Firefox search engine preference

As far as I can tell, "Firefox Search" means "Google search hooked into Firefox".

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Does it work the other way around?

If I type something in any browser on android, will the history be available to other browsers ? (i.e. some kind of history API)

<comment><USER3> No it does not, in fact it doesn't even work the way the author claimed. He or she mistook an activity bundled with the Firefox app for the Google Search app.

In reality that search history was never persisted outside the Firefox app.

<comment><AUTHOR> It only allows Google, despite my using another default search engine.

The data is certainly persisting somewhere outside of Firefox proper, as the search app is siphoning data that can only be cleared from within.

<comment><USER3> > The data is certainly persisting somewhere outside of Firefox proper, as the > search app is siphoning data that can only be cleared from within.

That does not follow. They are the same application.

For example, attempt to reproduce this after pressing the Clear Data and Clear Cache buttons on Firefox's Android app info screen.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Shouldn't be of any surprise to anyone who's willingly using the whole damn _operating system_ from a company rooted in tracking of everyone in sight.

Edit -- The notability of the post hinges on whether the OP is running one of the stock Android versions or a custom build. Because if it's former, there could really be no expectations of privacy.

<comment><USER6> AOSP is clean of any Google-ish surveillance programs. Best example is Cyanogen.

Of course, Google Apps are not.

<comment><USER14> Is OP running Cyanogen?

 _That_ would've indeed been something.

<comment><AUTHOR> I will be within the next 24 hours, if Sunshine 3.0 gets released as promised. :-)</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Google Reveals Its Stealth Social Project, Google+ - <AUTHOR> http://mashable.com/2011/06/28/google-plus/ <comment><USER2> This is exciting and all -- and much as I would love to see a serious competitor to Facebook, I still don't know how I would convince any of my non- techie friends that they should switch to this.

Circles? Actually I think that many people _like_ the idea of their posts are being read by as many people as possible and not just the ones with similar interests. Although it _looks_ like a big discussion group, the news feed is really a giant personality-defining display for vain people. I saw a programmer friend post annoyance over some Android API today and I suspect that this was more than just a spontaneous exclamation -- he was communicating that he is smart (to non-techies) and that he is "cutting edge" (to fellow programmers).

Privacy? I have the feeling that most really don't care very much. But ironically, I think the privacy-thing could actually work in facebook's favor. Here is why: I use fb a lot even though I don't like their privacy policies. I trust google more than facebook. Still, it bothers me when it says "logged in" in the google bar at the top because google watches my searches. When I am on facebook I behave like I am in public. I don't hope for the best and write secret stuff anywhere. But with all the google searches I make through a day, I am giving google _a lot_ of very personal information that I would not like anyone to see. I would hate to see something that I was searching for somehow show up in a stream for my friends to see because I accidentally clicked a +1 button or similar.

Finally, there is the fact that even if I can export my graph from fb to g+, it's worthless until my friends do the same. And I just don't see that happening before they come up with some truly ground breaking feature that will allow me to get laid with any friend I choose by clicking on their picture :-)

<comment><USER3> _"Circles? Actually I think that many people like the idea of their posts are being read by as many people as possible and not just the ones with similar interests."_

I totally disagree with that. Facebook _sorely_ lacks such a feature, and the lack of it has led to "spammy" messages from so called "friends" you barely even know, or care about in your list.

Google+ seems to solve a lot of issues with Facebook. And I think even non- techies can be relatively easy convinced to use it once they see how it works. Basically, Google+ looks like a huge leap over Facebook because of all those neat products tied together. People will switch from _anything_ as long as there is a big leap in benefits, and I think Google+ offers that.

<comment><USER4> I think Facebook's biggest failure is that they've never educated people on how to use Facebook well, and honestly, they have likely inadvertently encouraged bad practices with their emphasis on growth.

For example, why do you have friends on FB you barely know in reality? You should only have your genuine friends on Facebook. This simple rule solves the "annoying status update from someone I don't care about" problem, which is the most frequent complaint I hear about Facebook. I actively delete people a few times a year who I don't expect to see again.

<comment><USER5> They used to strongly discourage adding non-friends.

I remember when adding people you had to enter something for "How did you meet this person?" and if you checked "I don't know them", it would close the box and say "Well why are you adding them?"

<comment><USER6> That sort of thing goes out when advertising and paying for games and such via the system come in. People having many connections means that if someone lets you app in or "likes" the page directed to by your ad then you get a change to advertise to all those people on that one person's list of contacts. This is attractive to the advertisers, and makes paying money to facebook a better value proposition.

Facebook _want_ you to be connected to as many people as possible because this network of connections is essentially what they sell. Just like Google, with facebook _you_ are the product that is sold to the advertisers (the difference being that currently with facebook your friends are the product too, though that difference is set to vanish if Google can get the social thing right enough to attract a critical mass of users).

<comment><USER7> "Facebook want you to be connected to as many people as possible because this network of connections is essentially what they sell."

I agree, but I also think that eventually, this devalues Facebook.

It's like you had this party with all your friends, and then all your coworkers and former classmates and people you met at conferences and people who share your interest in banjo music all showed up too.

And eventually, it wasn't a party anymore; it was just a random collection of people. And you started thinking, "wouldn't it be nice if I had a place for just me and my friends?"

<comment><USER6> > And eventually, it wasn't a party anymore; it was just a random collection > of people. And you started thinking, "wouldn't it be nice if I had a place > for just me and my friends?"

Aye, I think that is what Google is going for. They might be early to the game though: have enough people got to that stage that FB will see a large number trying Google's offering just for that reason?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> From plus.google.com:

> Google+ is in limited Field Trial Right now, we're testing with a small > number of people, but it won't be long before the Google+ project is ready > for everyone. Leave us your email address and we'll make sure you're the > first to know when we're ready to invite more people.

WHY?! WHY are they doing this again? They did this with Wave. Google, you _cannot_ launch a social network while explicitly disallowing social networking! This is so frustrating.

<comment><USER9> > Oops... you need a Google Profile to use this feature. Google Profiles is > not available for your organisation.

Come on, Google!

<comment><USER10> According to Chris Chabot (Developer Advocate at Google), "We're only just starting down the road of the Google+ project, but we love our Google Apps users so please stay tuned"

[from comments on <http://techcrunch.com/2011/06/28/google-plus/>]

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> (cross posted from <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2706219>)

I'm very excited to try this out. Context (AKA "Circles") is the biggest feature Facebook still hasn't gotten right. By mirroring the way we think about our social graph in real life, Google is making a huge step toward converging Online and Offline identity. It will be very interesting to see how Facebook responds to this... they might finally have a competitor.

<comment><USER12> The problem I see with user-defined groups implementation is conversations. If I share an item with my "work friends" group, and someone replies to it, who can see the reply? Is it only my work friends, or can the replier choose others to expose her reply to? What about people in my work friends list that she doesn't know or follow or is followed by?

This already sort of happens in Google Reader. Sometimes I comment on something a friend shares, and some random person I don't know will reply to my comment. It's not terrible, but it is unclear and kind of destroys the sense of a private place/conversation.

I think the solution is have discrete "places" instead of multiple lists that interact in increasingly complex and unclear ways.

<comment><USER13> I'm in the Field Trial. My understanding is that anything in a post can only be seen by the people who can see the post. Thus, if you share with a circle, people who do not know each other can see each others replies. It is all about who you chose to share to in the first place, they are the people you are trusting the information to.

I would need to test this more fully, but that is my understanding of it.

<comment><USER12> That's basically how Google Reader does it, too. The problem is, as you said, if I comment on something someone shared, I have no idea who can see that comment. I was definitely a bit weirded out the first time someone I'd never met replied to a comment of mine on someone else's shared item.

<comment><USER14> In Google+, the list of people with whom an item is shared is visible.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I'm playing around with the trial. Some thoughts:

1) Extremely slick interface. Facebook beat MySpace in part because it was relatively clean; Google+ wins here by a mile. That reason alone makes me root for it.

2) It's Google's umpteenth foray into the social arena, so naturally most people are comparing it to Facebook. But its use cases strike me as being more comparable to Twitter than FB.

3) People can be categorized into contexts and multiple contexts. This is the killer feature. I find myself wanting to just eliminate the "Friends" circle wholesale and just have a different circle for each cluster in my social network.

4) I might be misunderstanding how sharing/the feed works. But, if someone is in any circle and you are viewing that circle's stream, I think you see whatever they share. I'd like something finer-grained than that. I have one friend who I both bike with and play board games with. If we get into a conversation about a ride on a weekend, doesn't the model inherently mean what I see in the board game stream gets polluted with the bike conversation?

<comment><USER16> > I have one friend who I both bike with and play board games with.

I think that's your problem. If you keep your social circles separate you don't have to worry about this, online or off.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> I think this has huge potential. The problem with Facebook, at least for me, is that I have a ton of friends that post pointless shit. < 10% Is stuff and people I actually care about.

Now with features like Circles I can put my REAL friends in one circle, family in another, and all the noise and acquaintances(networking etc.) in a spam filter circle.

This is going to be awesome.

<comment><USER2> You can create friend lists on Facebook. I don't use them (I just hide people who spam) but they seem to do what you want..

<comment><USER18> Friends list on facebook are painful things to use, edit and apply to various posts. Each action tends to be multi screen bonanza and are never ever on by default, and things can still slip through. If facebook would clean up their groups functionality (which I doubt since it goes against their goals) then it would be a better competitor to google +

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Seems like they're trying to avoid the "NYT problem" - the minute they open a new product, the NYT and other pubs write it up, everyone floods it and sees if they like it... gives them no ability to tweak / improve the service iteratively with real life users (which is so important for social services, where alternative agendas are a huge issue) before the world rushes in. So I think a limited-access launch is totally understandable, if a bit frustrating for those of us who expect we should be able to see everything on day one.

</comment><comment><USER20> This thing is pretty neat though: <http://www.google.com/intl/en/+/demo/>

<comment><USER21> That's a nice demo, beats a video that I have to sit through.

Also, I'm liking the features; it also adds a few points in the 'pro' column for Android phones when I decide on a replacement. (I currently have an iPhone, and while the web version of this stuff might still work, I'm guessing it'll be even neater on Android.)

<comment><USER22> Google advertises on their site a native iPhone (OS4) App as "very soon". But no native App for Blackberry, WebOS and Windows Phone. For that devices they list a web client.

If Google+ (plus.google? How to spell it?) is a success I am uneasy how much control Google is getting over the whole IT industry.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> """ Oops... you need a Google profile to use this feature. Google Profiles is not available for your organization. """

Grr. Google /really/ need to fix their authentication scheme.

<comment><USER24> It's frustrating that they don't let you switch for different services. I have my own domain under Google Apps I use for "work stuff" as well as a Gmail account I use for stuff I don't care about.

If I visit YouTube after using my work account I get that crappy error page. There is no reason my YouTube session should be tied to what email account I'm looking at. I don't see why at the very least it can't say: "Hey, you're logged into two accounts, would you like to switch?"

<comment><USER25> There may be some glitches, but I'm actually grateful for the ability to log into multiple accounts at the same time. I still remember, one year ago, the headaches of logging out / logging in all the time (or using an Incognito tab)...

Google only added multiple sign-in last year ( [http://googlesystem.blogspot.com/2010/08/google-multiple- sig...](http://googlesystem.blogspot.com/2010/08/google-multiple-sign-in-now- available.html) ), and, when you use it, there is a big yellow alert message that explains the limitations:

 _"Not all Google products support multiple sign-in. When switching between Google products, the account you're currently using may change.

Google products not listed above will default to the first account that you signed in to using your current web browser session."_

So, yeah... It's frustrating, but I understand how integrating multiple sign- in in all their apps might take some time.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> The hangouts feature seems like a big win to me. Group video chats in the browser from someone like Google can really change things.

<comment><USER27> I disagree. Social networking, unlike skype or email, requires low cognitive load--you come to hang out on your own terms. While group video chat is a convenient feature when you need it, it's not going to fundamentally change the game.

<comment><USER28> I disagree. You go to a hang out when you feel about socializing.

You never get bored in a group chat, and the youtube integration just makes it much better. Just look at turntable.fm

I miss this kind of chatting from facebook so much. (ok there is something like this with groups. I read somewhere that is the second popular on the site, right after photo sharing.)

<comment><USER27> I suppose we're both going on anecdotal evidence, and the actual usage of social networks is probably diverse enough to accommodate both our views.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Perhaps this will make facebook better. Competition can often improve product quality. For google this might, however, turn out the same way that Microsoft's grab for web applications is going. First to market is hard to break.

<comment><USER30> > First to market is hard to break.

Tell that to friendster. Er, myspace.

<comment><USER29> Does that really count as competition?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Circles is very interesting, its could solve a work/life/parents social battle I fight, however the demo only allows you to add a person to one circle, I hope this is just a demo limitation, as my sister is also my 'friend'.

<comment><USER32> I'm also wondering if your friends will be aware of what group(s) you've put them into. Like, will Fred be able to see that he's in my "Work" group, but be jealous because he can see that Peggy is in both "Work" and "Drinking Buddies"?

<comment><USER33> No. One of the videos makes this clear.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Can't even click +1. Gives me the error "Oops... you need a Google profile to use this feature. Google Profiles is not available for your organization." since I am logged into a Google Apps account. Google itself force-merged my personal account into the Apps account, so there's an indication of how well they get 'social' in people's lives. And yes I worked there for many years.

<comment><USER35> How did it force-merge? I have both a personal and (free) Google Apps accounts and it never complained. I just use different browsers for each account.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> This is a solid move on Google's part. Not half-baked like Wave was. Its more evolutionary than revolutionary but it makes the 'package' of Google services a bit more valuable as well.

It will be interested to see if this impacts the IPO plans of Facebook. This does seem to be a direct assault on their home turf.

<comment><USER37> Your "evolutionary vs revolutionary" insight is key. Google's most successful products are all evolutionary: search, mail and maps. If Google+ substantially improves the social networking experience then Facebook might have some serious competition. Just like Hotmail had some serious competition from Gmail. Or Yahoo Maps had serious competition from maps.google.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> _The HTML5 system allows users to drag-and-drop their friends into different social circles for friends, family, classmates, co-workers and other custom groups._

That "HTML5" there is simply for buzz effect. Seriously, come _on_ already...

<comment><USER31> The demo wasn't that smooth for me, my mouse would slow up considerably on a friend which I assume wasn't intentional. Like hitting some grass on your bike!

(running chrome on an i5)

<comment><USER24> The demo is using Flash.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> There are different kinds of media coverage in SV. There's the excited, this is cool buzz, and then there's the look what big player X is doing sort of coverage. This feels like the latter. People are talking about this, but I don't get the sense that anyone is pumped up about it.

</comment><comment><USER40> The Url below the keep me posted link on plus.google.com is: <https://services.google.com/fb/forms/googleplus/>

services.google.com/FB

I really would love to know what the FB stands for.

<comment><USER41> Form builder?

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> As usual, Google Apps users, are left behind once again. I really don't understand why Google will not once and for all unify google accounts and google apps accounts.

Supposedly they already did that, and yes I did the "merge the accounts dance", and still, no Profiles for me, and therefore, no +1 and no Google+.

Google, I'm paying for my google apps. I don't want to have another free account just to play with your new features (and I really hope this is not going Buzz way... which I also never saw in my gmail...)

</comment><comment><USER43> I am quite impressed, but one thing that is severely broken is the number of duplicate names in the list. Basically if a person has two email addresses, then they show up twice. This would not be a big deal, but the email addresses are hidden, and it is impossible to tell which is an old/work email address rather than a personal one. I hope this is fixed soon.

<comment><USER44> > _... the email addresses are hidden, and it is impossible to tell which is > an old/work email address rather than a personal one. I hope this is fixed > soon._

Skype 5 has been broken in this way, showing a half dozen indistinguishable items naming the same person when you try to add someone to an existing call.

It still is broken, months later.

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> What I'd like to know is if I can use Facebook Connect to port my graph over (doubt Facebook would allow this) -- or if this means starting from scratch yet again.

<comment><USER35> Well, Facebook does allow you to download your profile[1], so Google could just write an importer for that.

[1]: [http://tech.slashdot.org/story/10/10/07/1250242/Facebook- Imp...](http://tech.slashdot.org/story/10/10/07/1250242/Facebook-Implements- Download-Your-Profile-Option)

<comment><USER46> Last time I checked, you could only see the names of your friends in Facebook's profile export archive -- there were no metadata whatsoever (e.g. IDs or profile links). I don't think names themselves are enough to port your social graph.

<comment><USER35> Well, for Gmail users, it shouldn't be hard to match names with specific people, if they have them in their contacts.

I don't know exactly what's the file format from FB backup, but it might be possible to identify linked users based on similar content (as long as both users have already uploaded their profile to Google+).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> I think Google's unending efforts to enter social networking space might become successful this time. Big hurrah to circles and hangouts!

</comment><comment><USER48> The most urgent thing I needed on Facebook - "Circles makes it easy to put your friends from Saturday night in one circle, your parents in another, and your boss in a circle by himself - just like real life"

Might just call it a better version.

</comment><comment><USER49> heh.. somewhat ironically, minutes prior seeing this post I noticed the "+1" next to every search result. after exploring it told me that my "+1" will be used all over the web including ads. (am assuming this is part of Google+)

I immediately searched for a way to turn it off.

<comment><USER50> <https://profiles.google.com/+1/personalization/>

you can disable +1 to prevent the ad personalization.

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> Android app is on the market. Note it eats 8MB of phone memory and can't be moved to SD.

<comment><USER8> Are you really concerned about 8MB? Are there even Android phones on the market today that ship with less than 8GB of space?

<comment><USER52> By default, Android phones store apps on an onboard storage location that is separate from the SD card. On some older phones there is not a whole lot of space here. For example it didn't take a whole lot at all for me to fill up my Nexus One's app partition.

It wasn't until 2.2 that the option to move apps to a encrypted location on the SD card was added, and even then it's an option that has to be enabled by the developer who released the app.

Newer phones these days have more onboard space and this shouldn't be nearly as big an issue. I upgraded to an HTC Thunderbolt on Saturday and it has roughly 2GB available for onboard apps.

<comment><USER53> Wow, why do they make the user manage this at all? The distinction sounds like an enormous misfeature to me.

<comment><USER21> It's one of the things that dissuaded me from getting an HTC Android phone two years ago (got an iPhone with 32GB instead). I'm glad they're moving towards fixing it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> I feel like Facebook was a trial, and we all learnt a lot about social networking, we've all made mistakes and it would be nice to re-create your network with hinessight from scratch. This is perfect timing by Google, with Facebook on the edge of an IPO and people largely disillusioned by their service. As long as they 100% lock down the privacy options, get that wrong and it's a waste of time.

</comment><comment><USER55> Circles would make great sense if we can push some circles into other circles. Close friends into friends and friends into general connections.

<comment><USER56> Well yea. Sounds good in the UI. But I wonder if that is even implementable in their current data model.

</comment></comment><comment><USER57> It seems everything is based off the grouping "Circles" aspect. Which if they get it right it will be a home run for the rest of the projects they build off of it. I personally find the Huddle feature the most valuable. This is something I've wanted for a long time, but no one has built...except for GroupMe. Which I'm not a huge fan of.

</comment><comment><USER58> Group video chat seems really cool. Now I just need to convince enough friends to use this too...

</comment><comment><USER59> Have been waiting for the day when I can share information that is relevant to the portion of my friends that know or actually care what Im talking about... How has facebook not integrated this before (other than going into privacy settings each and every time)?

</comment><comment><USER60> I like the idea of Google Takeout allowing you to download all of your data easily from:

Picasa Web albums and photos Your Google profile Google Buzz Google Contacts Stream

That alone would make me switch to circles.

</comment><comment><USER61> too complex to use may affect usage negatively. too many features is not always good. trying to mimic real live brings the complexities of real life to the web.

check this:

"With Hangouts, the unplanned meet-up comes to the web for the first time. Let specific buddies (or entire circles) know you're hanging out and then see who drops by for a face-to-face-to-face chat. Until teleportation arrives, it's the next best thing."

imagine a jerk that noone loves intruding all the hangouts. but everybody too polite/dependant to unfriend

<comment><USER62> I'm sure they'll allow private video chats. Hangouts is for when you are specifically "browsing". It'll be just as if you lived right down the street from your mother, siblings, aunts, coworkers, friends...

It currently is this way in the text world though. That annoying guy who argues with everything you post on Facebook or Twitter. And the worst part is you can't un-friend him because he's your weird uncle.

<comment><USER63> In Facebook's privacy settings you can specify that your updates are visible to "Everyone; except person X". The annoying guy doesn't see your posts and stays calm, works brilliant.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER64> "Your Browser is no longer supported." (from plus.google.com)

Well, okay. I'll live without you, Google+. (Running Seamonkey 2.0.14, which advertises Gecko/20110430. Out of date since.. 3 weeks.)

</comment><comment><USER65> Found a signup link that works: <http://www.google.com/intl/en_uk/+/learnmore/forum/>

<comment><USER20> The one on the front-page has been fixed now.

</comment></comment><comment><USER66> For those of you with an Android device, there's an app called "Google+" on the Market right now. I can't say if there's an app for iOS, WP7, etc.

You can install the app without an invite, but cannot use it.

EDIT: The "Learn More" button in the app cycles you back to the "You need an invitation" message box. So the app itself is completely pointless if you haven't received an invitation.

<comment><USER67> Nothing on iOS

</comment></comment><comment><USER68> Their group chat is called Huddle. I think this will have a negative impact on project management startup huddle (www.huddle.com).

</comment><comment><USER31> Do people trust Google more than Facebook? and could that be a factor in adoption? My gut says probably not to both questions.

<comment><USER69> I personally trust Google way more than Facebook (and most of my friends do as well).

</comment></comment><comment><USER70> Nice to see this, it feels like they got it

</comment><comment><USER71> The mobile app I saw a couple of months ago was pretty slick. I hope they've made good progress on that too.

</comment><comment><USER72> I dislike Facebook like anybody, but this will not take off any more than Buzz or Wave I'm afraid. This will be that side thing that people may or may not notice when they search. This isn't the site people will flock to when they wake up to see what their friends have been doing.

</comment><comment><USER25> PROTIP to invite your friends:

Post something in your "feed", and "target" them, entering their email address. They will receive an email telling them about your post. When clicking the link to view the post, they will be prompted to register.

This worked flawlessly for all my friends.

</comment><comment><USER60> After reading an article or two on Google+ I searched out the support pages and found them much more informative so I thought I would share.

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2706918>

</comment><comment><USER73> Did anybody notice that you can workaround needing an invite by clicking "Take the Tour" and then "Join the Project" on their demo website?

<http://www.google.com/intl/en/+/demo/>

<comment><USER74> I think you're already in. That just asks me to sign up for the waiting list.

<comment><USER73> Thanks, guess it was a false alarm.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER75> _One of the nice things about the product is its whimsical nature — a puff of smoke and a -1 animation appears when you remove a friend, and when you remove a social circle, it rolls away off the screen._

Where do I sign up???

<comment><USER76> You can meet the rest of us that what to sign up by the Bike Racks.

BIKE GEEEEKS!!!! Mount up.

</comment></comment><comment><USER77> Are they going to support open protocols for DiSo? Salmon, OAuth, Activity Streams, FOAF and such? They support XMPP with Google Talk and gave Jabber a big push by doing so.

-jsl

</comment><comment><USER78> The problem with Facebook is that your network is too small and constricted, people want to expand and reach many many people, not stay limited within their circle. Think about it, you already talk to most of the people who are your closest friends in real life via phone and chat. You don't need yet another way to contact them. They should have taken the opportunity to bring down the barriers of the closed social graph.

Instead Google makes another Facebook with a different UI. It looks like a cleaner Myspace that will be embraced by a small set of techy users. No way will this ever be cool.

<comment><USER78> Damn but I really like their new designs though, very clean! They've got a lot of good people there doing big things and Hangouts looks cool. +1

</comment></comment><comment><USER79> Wave looked pretty cool when it was revealed too.

</comment><comment><USER80> Group video chat alone will suck me in.

</comment><comment><USER81> This is going to kick off a new era in social networking, which we all will be a part of :)

</comment><comment><USER82> YAWN - Yet Another Way to do Nothing

BTW, thanks for giving up on Google Health. This is way better.

</comment><comment><USER83> works or fails, the UI definitely looks good.

</comment><comment><USER84> Might be the end for Rapportive?

</comment><comment><USER85> I would love to see a live cam feed inside Facebook today.

That would be interesting.

</comment><comment><USER86> Doesn't Google already know enough about us and our habits already?

<comment><USER87> I'll take Google over Facebook on that point any day.

</comment></comment><comment><USER88> So...iPhone app?

</comment><comment><USER89> what a terrible name. "plus" what does this mean for ordinary people.

</comment><comment><USER90> David Winer's sentiments hit home for me. Google is too big to organically build a social network.

<http://scripting.com/stories/2011/06/28/googleYawn.html>

However, this poll would suggest people think otherwise: [http://www.wepolls.com/p/884244/Will-Googles-new-social- vent...](http://www.wepolls.com/p/884244/Will-Googles-new-social-venture- Google+-be-epic-fail-like-Wave-&-Buzz)

</comment><comment><USER91> I can not see intersection of circles!! i.e. one person in multiple circles. :O how can they miss that ?

</comment><comment><USER92> Anybody knows about 3rd party apps? Sure uncle Google has considered us developers ...

<comment><USER93> They didn't say anything yet. But yes, I'm sure they'll have some exciting API for us to toy with.

AppEngine + Social Circles + Spark interest graph = _drools_

<comment><USER92> Looking at this: <http://www.google.com/intl/en/+/policy/> it seems the data will be available through an api (i presume oauth )

<comment><USER93> That's very interesting and informative, thanks for sharing :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER94> Who's Melissa?

</comment><comment><USER95> Noone will care, and noone will use it. If it won't help you get laid, or boost your ego, it'll be useless. We human beings are not rational.</comment>


Scott Adams' Model of Personal Interaction - <AUTHOR> http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/adams_model_of_personal_interaction/

<comment><AUTHOR> I draw some connections between Adams' model - we're either a Bully, Pushover, or Negotiator - and a framework I've seen that separates most people into either Persecutor, Victim, or Rescuer.

Using that connection, I see two important observations. First, while we may have a tendency towards one over the others, we can play multiple roles - someone might be a Bully / Persecutor at work, and a Pushover / Victim at home with their spouse.

Second, you don't have to play these roles, and in fact playing any of these roles will ultimately make you _unhappy_ because they are each place you in a situation where your feelings are at the effect of other people. The Bully needs other people to persecute; the Pushover takes their power by playing the victim, again requiring other people; and the Negotiator is the most arrogant of the three because they see themselves as having the solution to any dispute, and value themselves by rescuing others.

Much better to focus on yourself and being in control of your own happiness, than to play any role that depends on other people.</comment>


The Hipsters are a Billion Dollar Industry - <AUTHOR> http://simply.io/blog/2012/03/the-hipsters-are-a-billion-dollar-industry/

<comment><USER2> I don't think it's just passing value judgement on these companies to point out that they don't create any value or content of note. I see more and more of these startups every day that are basically dedicated to emphemera. There's a billion different retro photo apps and no one is ever going to produce anything worth saving.

Yes, Instagram has some value, but it's in the users and the eye of that particular person that you enjoy. The photographs themselves are rarely anything of note.

I do think it's unfair to lump these companies. Hipstamatic is just selling an app. Even if the community turns into nothing, they sold quite a few apps at $2. Most of these companies though have nothing to sell and little value to provide. They are just hoping for some angel to bail them out until the inevitable Google buyout.

And stop reading TechCrunch already.

</comment><comment><USER3> I suppose if this were the 70's he'd be dissing the folks who bought pet rocks. But seriously, why pass judgement on what other people think is worth buying? I've long since given up trying to figure out fashion trends or the people who report on them.

<comment><USER4> As Reddit is apt to say: Stop liking things I don't like.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> You know, is it just me, or does it seem like working as an engineer for one of the internet gambling/porn sites would be both more fulfilling and challenging than 90%+ of these hipster-social-twitterscape-search- blogomisation things?

EDIT: why choose? cant i combine my love for vintage polaroid burlesque with modern erotic search engine optimization?

<comment><USER6> instagram / socialcam strictly dedicated to uploading your own porn?

Someone must be working on it

<comment><USER2> They do have that, it's called Tumblr.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I think it's a little odd how he chose to pile all those startups together.

For example, I think path is a much different animal than the others, and while I agree with his overall point (there are some ridiculous valuations going around), it's more of an angry rant than a critique of the apps themselves.

<comment><AUTHOR> You're right, it's more of a rant than I like. But I see it as more of a critique of the startup industry than specific apps.

<comment><USER8> @DavidZhangToGo - out of curiousity, what exactly does Simply.io do? [EDIT]: This isn't meant to read as a snarky comment - I am truly curious.

<comment><AUTHOR> We're just a bunch of college kids hacking away and trying to explore different projects, and hopefully turn it into a successful startup.

<comment><USER9> Correction: __definitely turn it into a successful startup.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> > What do Path, Hipstamatic, Highlight, Hipster (yes, that's an app), and > Color have in common? They create absolutely nothing of value.

The post begins with and relies upon this faulty premise. This is not explained, and I would argue that Hipstamatic and Path _do_ create value for the users. The latter allows me to socialize with people in a more private manner, while the former takes photos, values in of themselves.

Furthermore, why must the users of these apps necessarily be "hipsters"? Is this a requirement for the use of these apps? (Clearly not, as Hipstamatic was one of the biggest apps on the store last year, and not all of those users can be generalized as hipsters).

<comment><USER7> > What do Path, Hipstamatic, Highlight, Hipster (yes, that's an app), and > Color have in common? They create absolutely nothing of value.

This is like complaining Jersey Shore adds nothing of value to people's lives. Sure, it doesn't, but it's not supposed to. It's entertainment. Just because people are easily entertained and advertisers will pay for those eyeballs, doesn't mean it's not a financially viable business.

Some apps solve problems and are useful. Some apps entertain (solving a different problem - boredom). Confusing the two purposes leads to posts like these.

(For the record, I completely agree that there are a lot of useless apps out there, but how is that different from there being a ton of useless TV shows, movies and video games out there? If you don't want to contribute to that because you think it's a poor use of time, then don't, but it doesn't mean that there's not a market for it and that there isn't money to be made there).

<comment><AUTHOR> Definitely agree. I really love Path's design and I use Instagram. But I do think those apps + a lot of tech blogs give people a narrow view of what most startups are actually doing - which is solving real problems that people have.

<comment><USER7> I thought your point was that most startups aren't solving problem and "create nothing of value" as you put it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> >This is why 90% of the companies posted on TechCrunch fail!

How does this figure fair in comparison to other startup, small business failure rates. Isn't the default for most startups death? (pg article for reference - <http://www.paulgraham.com/hubs.html>)

</comment><comment><USER11> How do you define value? I'm asking this question because i really don't know a wholesome answer. Not a philosophical statement.

<comment><USER12> Not by how much money you make.

Former Fed Chairman Paul Volcker in 2009 said, "I wish someone would give me one shred of neutral evidence that financial innovation has led to economic growth - one shred of evidence… [U.S. Financial services increased its share of value-added from 2 percent to 6.5 percent] Is that a reflection of your financial innovation, or just a reflection of what you're paid?" The only financial innovation over the past 20 years that impressed Volcker was the automated teller machine.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Well the website is definitely not built for this.

F __* it, we'll do it live! We're going to live edit now...

</comment><comment><USER13> They buy the people not the company. Google and facebook need developers. Not the college graduate developers that have only done school project in C/C++ and never manage anything that people want in their life. They need people like the ones who made path because they know the people who made path understand mobile, understand design, and understand how to gain hype. It wasn't luck these guys were on tech crunch they understood their market. That is what is worth 100 million. Some people are academics, but only real test for a great app developer is can you make something people want.</comment>


Find a Computer Job in Vancouver, Washington: Direct Links to Employer Job Pages - <AUTHOR> http://www.warplife.com/jobs/computer/united-states/washington/clark/vancouver/

<comment><AUTHOR> I take requests.

If you're looking for work, and you'd like some help, let me know where you want to work, or whether you're looking for remote work and I'll rustle up some employers and clients for you.

(I have metric boatloads of incomplete information for hundreds of cities in dozens of countries. If you name any specific city, then I'll spend some time on completing that specific city's as-yet incomplete links.)

My Vancouver, Washington index lists just 17 companies so far, but expect that I'll be able to dig up many more. Trying to find anything having to do with Vancouver, Washington online often gets lost in the noise from the much-larger Vancouver, British Columbia.

(Vancouver, Washington came first: it was an Army fort, whereas Vancouver, British Columbia was a saloon!)

I am just for now focussing on jobs that I myself know how to find, even if it's not the kind of work I actually do - the US Pacific Northwest, because that's where I live now, Canada soon, as I once lived there. There are lots of software and hardware companies in places like Ukraine and India; while I do have a few links so far, I haven't actually posted any because I haven't yet figured out the best ways to find them.</comment>


Google's HTTP Archive merges with Internet Archive  - <AUTHOR> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/06/15/http_archive_teams_with_new_relic/

<comment><USER2> I haven't looked into it, but I wonder when/if/how the library of congress and/or Smithsonian should have some part of this archive as well. I know one of the two did some things with twitter.</comment>


IOS Apps Demonstrated Running on BlackBerry PlayBook - <AUTHOR> http://crackberry.com/developer-gets-ios-apps-running-blackberry-real

<comment><USER2> Due to the complexity and breadth of the iOS APIs, I have my doubts that this is a reimplementation, especially one completed by one developer.

If that's not the case, this would be technically feasible, but of dubious legality.

<comment><USER3> But as with all things, you don't need anything like 100% coverage to get an app to work. Just handle the obvious stuff, and patch as needed until your target works. Then repeat. This is how WINE worked in the early days: you don't start with a copy of the win32 API, you start with a program you want to run and see where it fails.

Most apps, for obvious reasons, use only a tiny fraction of the platform. And those bits they do use aren't always critical. Facebook, for example, wants location information but would be happy if you just lied to it and gave it a hard coded value.

<comment><USER4> And -- as with WINE! -- games probably use much fewer of the overall APIs than a "desktop" application (like Facebook) would. There's no need for any of the complicated UI widgets, for instance.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> How much longer until he gets a cease and desist from apple? (Or is emulation legal?)

<comment><USER3> Emulation is absolutely legal. There is a long history of emulators of all sorts in the market. And of course there was an important decision just last week that held without ambiguity that the mere interface to a program is not covered by copyright.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I'm buying myself a Playbook. They're on clearance everywhere (more so than they already were) now that they're being discontinued.</comment>


Why genetic IQ differences between 'races' are unlikely - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2018/may/02/why-genetic-iq-differences-between-races-are-unlikely <comment><USER2> This article doesn't seem to offer any evidence of anything. It seems to concede there are population level IQ differences between races. Just argues that this is unlikely to be due to genetics. Though concedes genetics causes IQ variation within any population. Thus she thinks within a population it can be genetic. Between populations it's environmental. I'm not sure this makes sense to be but in any case we should work out why and what we can do about it.

IMO low IQ is a disability. Being born with the gift of a good brain capable of developing a high IQ is very under appreciated, surprisingly by many in this community. It should be understood better and we should have more sympathy for it. If you're below 90 you'll likely have a really rough go of life.

<comment><USER3> >If you're below 90 you'll likely have a rough life.

Not according to the author...

"IQ scores are a measure of a person's intellectual ability, not the limit of their intellectual potential."

If the author is right, a mentally disabled person with a IQ of 80 can be a Nobel prize winning physicist, if they only applied themselves.

Which is why I think this author is wrong on all counts.

As you said, he seems to want it both ways...first to say there is no IQ difference, they saying all differences stem from environmental variables which we know to affect races disproportionately.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> OP in your mind what is the difference between two people of different races? Do you imagine the only differences are the ones we see?

</comment><comment><USER5> The author states that intelligence is an unqualified benefit--more is always better--and uses that assertion to argue against populations evolving in differing areas having different IQ distributions. That's far from obvious. Rather, those who are far outliers on this measure often seem to have other issues, quite possibly as a concomitant result.</comment>


Ask HN: Project ideas for master's programme in Computer science - <AUTHOR> Hello friends, I am about to finish my master's in computer application, I want project ideas in machine learning, or software product or any other cool ideas,
So that later that can help me in fetching good job after the degree completion.. <comment><AUTHOR> Need to submit it for my degrees completion</comment>


Deep Style: using deep learning for artistic style transfer - <AUTHOR> http://demos.algorithmia.com/deep-style/ <comment><AUTHOR> Submitted as a "Show HN": [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13273248](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13273248)

My image set: [https://twitter.com/vmorgulys/status/814239787116793860](https://twitter.com/vmorgulys/status/814239787116793860)</comment>


Ask HN: Review My Startup - KickoffLabs.com - <AUTHOR>

http://www.kickofflabs.com
We are building KickoffLabs to help business owners (or would be business owners) get an idea launched. The basic premise is that starting is hard and most people either over think the start or ignore it all together.
We recently released the first version of the product and would like to solicit some feedback from the community.
Thanks, Scott <comment><USER2> In my opinion, the entry-level pricing plan is too expensive. $10 for just one site? I guess it depends on how much functionality you provide. Also, once someone has a potential customer list, will you make it easy to integrate with services like Mailchimp?

But on a higher level, has anyone shown that lean-startup launch pages like this and Launchrock actually work? To me, the whole practice seems a little anti-consumer - saying you're going to launch something before actually putting any real effort into launching it. If one person does it, yeah it's clever, but if _everyone_ does it, we're going to have this environment where people won't know if they can trust sign-up pages because half of the time they'll be for non-existent products.

And can putting up a launch page without a product to back it up really produce a significant volume of data? Getting people interested enough to sign up _with_ a product seems like a difficult enough task.

To me, if you have an idea, you should have more conviction to put at least some effort into it. If you're just indifferent and throwing ideas out there to see what sticks, are you really going to be passionate about the idea that gets interest?

<comment><AUTHOR> > Integrate with Mailchimp?

We are certainly going to make it easy to export and import your data.

One of the things we have tried to do is minimize the need to use third party services. You are certainly welcome to use something like Mailchimp (we do today), but hopefully we can provide simple alternatives to get you going at the beginning.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Once someone gets their site set up, what is the plan for actually getting eyeballs on it? If you can figure that out then you are on to something.

I see that you are using social networking with Twitter/FB, etc, but that is a chicken/egg problem. To use social networking to advertise your site, you need to actually have an audience to begin with. In which case, you probably wouldn't be interested in this type of product.

What would be really valuable, I think, is a way to get people you have no social networking connection with on the site, ie, via AdWords. Using AdWords is some kind of alchemy - find a way to simplify and integrate with that, and that is a fine product.

<comment><AUTHOR> Agreed there is a huge opportunity in solving the "eye ball" problem. Unfortunately the days of 1 to 5 cent clicks on Adwords is a thing of the past.

I still think there is more we can do to help the organic stuff, but getting started today still requires rolling up your sleeves and doing real work.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> <http://www.kickofflabs.com>

</comment><comment><USER5> I've got to agree that the pricing is too high. The free plan is useless to me, because 50 signups is basically planning for failure, to me.

</comment><comment><USER4> I will definitely be using this. Great job. My only advice would be to add features slowly. It's great right now because it is simple.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks. If you have suggestions, please drop us a note at firstname.lastname@example.com.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Nice job thinking of the little guy!

</comment><comment><USER7> Yep, this is great. We signed up!</comment>


Why do people on airplanes often have tomato juice as a drink? - <AUTHOR> http://travel.stackexchange.com/q/19808/101

<comment><USER2> Because it's good?

There is no glibness here, just innocence. I like tomato juice, at least compared to other juices, tasty, not too sweet, not too bitter, but I'm generally not a juice fan.

I'd much rather drink coffee, water, beer, or wine. Now beer and wine will cost me on a plane (mostly), and I may want to avoid the depressant effects (air travel being harsh enough on the system), especially if I am driving soon after, or if I've gone more than a few hours east.

That leaves water or coffee. I've learned to manage my caffeine levels pretty well, so beyond a certain point/time, coffee is verbotten (unless they have decaf, ha ha ha); cf comments on alcohol consumption above, stimulants are avoided for similar reasons.

That leaves water.

The first few glasses are fine. The next few are boring beyond belief.

As for other juices, well, orange burns my stomach and irritates my lips, I might have one glass every year or two. Apple is insipid; maybe a glass or two a year. Other fruit juices are generally too sweet.

Soft drinks are too sweet. Period. Not a fan, haven't been since all night D&D sessions in high school.

That leaves tomato juice and sparkling water.

EDIT: Do people really order more tomato juice, or are you under the effect of the availability heuristic?

</comment><comment><USER3> I always order it, just because I like tomato juice. I didn't realize it was that common to order it on airplanes...

That having been said, it does a really good job of coating and soothing your throat if it's dry/scratchy/starting-to-get-sore. Given how often that happens while flying, I'd wager that plays a role in tomato juice's popularity on planes.

</comment><comment><USER4> I tried this the last time I traveled. The stewardess gave me a big smile when I ordered it, but when I got the drink, I didn't notice any taste difference. I also regretted ordering it since I'm not a fan of tomato juice in general.</comment>