Hiển thị các bài đăng có nhãn Google. Hiển thị tất cả bài đăng
Hiển thị các bài đăng có nhãn Google. Hiển thị tất cả bài đăng

Thứ Tư, 15 tháng 5, 2013

The craziest thing Google announced on Wednesday

by Jason Gilbert | Yahoo Tech

At its huge Google I/O keynote on Wednesday, Google announced some pretty bewildering, crazy products: massive changes to Maps; some incredible photography tricks; and an ambitious music service that meshes elements of iTunes, Pandora and Spotify.

But the craziest thing that Google introduced just might be a product that no one onstage in the three-hour keynote ever mentioned, or even hinted at. The announcement? It turns out that  you can now attach money to your email using Gmail.

Yes, that's right: Real, live money, straight from your bank account, can now be attached to your Gmail, just like a vacation photo or a spreadsheet for work. If you owe a friend, there's no need to mail a check, or even get their bank account information -- just get their Gmail address, and a working Internet connection, and you can hit them back.

The curious addition to Gmail was announced, with little fanfare, on the Google Commerce blog, while Larry Page was taking questions at Google I/O. For the feature, both parties, payer and recipient, will need Google Wallet accounts; the service is free if your Google Wallet is linked to a bank account, or Google will charge a fee if it is attached to a credit or debit card.

Google put together a short video to explain this potentially transformative concept of how money changes hands; you just click the icon that looks like a dollar sign, right in between the Google Drive and photo icons, enter an amount, and -- poof -- money gets transferred to the person you are emailing:


Google Wallet is little used at this point, having struggled to take off on Android smartphones despite the increased presence of a technology called NFC, which enables the touch-to-pay commerce you may have seen in commercials. Google had been rumored to be rethinking its Wallet strategy around this time last year and it appears that the tech giant may just blanket your favorite devices and services with Google Wallet, in the hopes that it will increase usage.

So, what do you think? Will you be emailing your rent, or your share of the tab, any time soon? Or are you sticking to good old-fashioned bitcoin cash?


View the original article here

Thứ Ba, 14 tháng 5, 2013

Join Yahoo and ABC News reporters and editors for a live chat about Google

May 13 (Reuters) - Leading money winners on the 2013 PGATour on Monday (U.S. unless stated): 1. Tiger Woods $5,849,600 2. Brandt Snedeker $3,388,064 3. Kevin Streelman $2,572,989 4. Billy Horschel $2,567,891 5. Matt Kuchar $2,493,387 6. Phil Mickelson $2,220,280 7. Adam Scott (Australia) $2,207,683 8. D.A. Points $2,019,702 9. Steve Stricker $1,977,140 10. Graeme McDowell $1,910,654 11. Jason Day $1,802,797 12. Webb Simpson $1,759,015 13. Dustin Johnson $1,748,907 14. Hunter Mahan $1,682,939 15. Charles Howell III $1,561,988 16. Russell Henley $1,546,638 17. Martin Laird $1,531,950 18. ...


View the original article here

Thứ Sáu, 3 tháng 5, 2013

Not White Men Wearing Google Glass

by Jason Gilbert

The hot new tweetable Tumblr of the moment is "White Men Wearing Google Glass," which consists of, as its name implies, photos of white men wearing Google Glass.

Like any fashionable Tumblr, White Men Wearing Google Glass has been widely shared on social media; has been celebrated by technology celebrities and written up on all of the major news websites; and has spawned a dozen thoughtpieces about what its popularity "means" for Google (correct answer: nothing), with a few writers suggesting that the Tumblr will negatively shape public opinion on the stylishness of Glass and render it a dud at release.

Ignoring for a moment these doomsday predictions, there is a lingering strangeness about the success of White Men Wearing Google Glass. The site functions on two broad implications, one of which is dependent upon the second: The first implication is that only white men are wearing the early editions of Google Glass; the second is that this white male exclusivity makes the technology somehow different from or inconsistent with the other technologies. Both are wrong.

The first part is provably false, though it hardly feels worth proving. Below, I've collected a slideshow of photographs that could be called Not White Men Wearing Google Glass. It took me about 15 minutes of Google searching to compile. Whoever runs White Men Wearing Google Glass -- an as-yet unidentified author -- is more of an opinion columnist than an objective documentarian in the strict sense, intent on making Google Glass look as geeky as possible (though to my former Huffington Post colleague Mike Sacks -- looking good, my man).

ABC News technology editor Joanna Stern wearing Google Glass

Now, to be sure, that you can find unflattering photos of people using certain pieces of technology does not correlate with that product's success. Some people snap photos with their iPads and look like total chumps; some people (perhaps all people) appear ridiculous holding the Galaxy Note up to their tiny faces. Both devices have proven huge triumphs for their respective companies.

Mocking Tumblrs are fair, and often hilarious, game. Truth is, though, you could make this identical Tumblr for any new, highly-anticipated-by-the-technorati device in the world if you really wanted to. For example, any journalist who has ever covered a Launch Day event at an Apple store or -- God forbid -- surveyed the eager beavers who camp outside of Apple stores knows that the demographic heavily skews white and male. The next time Apple releases a product, you could make White Men Who Got The iPhone 6 Super Early just by executing a Getty Image query, I guarantee it.

So, no, it's not just White Men wearing Google Glass, nor is Google Glass the only product whose early purchasers are mostly white men. If anyone is indemnified here, rather, it is a familiar, more insidious target: the white male hegemony that largely dominates technology culture in America. The models of Google Glass you see everyone taking selfies in were made available only to those techies and journalists who attended Google I/O, the company's annual developers conference; this year it was held in California, which probably didn't help Google reach very many non-white non-males (that's a statistic: you can look at the under-representation of women in STEM jobs, or glance at any technology website's masthead for confirmation.)

If the makeup of Google I/O's attendance was similar to any other tech conference in the world in the last seven years or so, then it was mostly white and male, and thus it was mostly -- but not all -- white men who received early shipments of Glass. White men dominate technology in America; white men land on Tumblrs with the swag they received for attending conferences.

"Ha ha," we laugh, when we look at this Tumblr, "isn't it funny that a majority of the people who have early access to a potentially transformative technology are white men?"

And that's the way it would have been at any other tech conference, whether thrown by Apple or Google, by Netflix or TechCrunch, for a wearable face computer or a pocketable smartphone. You may still think that Google Glass looks stupid, but there is much more (and much deeper, more problematic) stupidity defining the device's early adopters.

*

You can follow @YahooTech on Twitter.


View the original article here

Thứ Ba, 26 tháng 3, 2013

Goodbye, Boston Phoenix. Unlike Google Reader, you're irreplaceable

By Virginia Heffernan

Out with the old—and out with the new. Witness the abrupt folding of the hallowed Boston Phoenix, born 1965, on the same day that Google Reader, born 2005, noisily closed up shop. The yeoman print alt-weekly, founded for Beantown collegians, opted for a supremely discreet exit: On Twitter, just after the staff had been told doors were closing, @bostonphoenix tweeted, “Thank you Boston. Goodbye and good luck.

But while Google-watchers geekily weighed the financial and technological pros and cons of shuttering Reader, there were sounds not heard in their analyses: Tears. Wails. Rending of garments.

That was saved for the announced end of the Phoenix. I have to admit, I’m also grieving as I write this. But before I tell you my own misty tale, it should be noted that almost everyone of a certain age in East Coast journalism has a story about the Boston Phoenix. There are, of course, the superstar journalists who cut their teeth on that paper’s trademark scholarly-groovy style, which was never as bullying as the voice of the Village Voice: Peter Keough, Janet Maslin, Susan Orlean, David Denby, Michael Sragow, David Edelstein, Scott Rosenberg, Ella Taylor, Stephen Schiff, Owen Gleiberman, Henry Sheehan and David Chute.  

Then there are those (everyone else?) who either went to college in Boston or visited friends there. We turned to the listings in the Phoenix to figure out where and when Galaxie 500 and the Pixies and Throwing Muses were playing. We came for the listings and personals, stayed—at Au Bon Pain or South Station—to read the criticism, the essays, the wonderfully overreported investigations and…the Caroline Knapp.

I bring up Knapp, who died of lung cancer in 2002, because she to me was the Boston Phoenix. From 1988 to 1995, Knapp wrote the profound “Out There” column. Writing, sometimes, about a figure called “Alice K (not her real initial),” Knapp wryly chronicled the introverted misadventures of a brilliant, hypersensitive and complex urbanite—herself. It was a nonsolipsistic self, practically Jamesian, who looked both inward and outward, and took in—warily, hungrily, gratefully, always thoughtfully—the world around her.

In 1991, Knapp published a column that described being with her dying father:

My father stared out across the room, a pained expression on his face.
"I guess what I want to hear from you," he said, his eyes not meeting mine, "is that you think I'm a decent person."
I wanted to cry. My father, who I've idolized all my life, is terminally ill. His condition, which developed quite aggressively and with little warning, was diagnosed in early May, and I have spent the better part of the months since then watching him confront the end of his life, and doing what I can to help him.
"You are far more than a decent person," I answered. "You are my father."


In New York City, around the same period, Candace Bushnell was launching the formidable “Sex and the City” column in the Observer, the one that would go on to be a TV series and two movies. But while Bushnell wrote caustically about sexual mores, seemingly with an eye on a franchise, Knapp spoke entirely for herself. “Out There” had a soul-searching moral integrity not associated with the exhibitionist or tattle-telling or voice-of-a-generation single-woman columns that cropped up around the country in the 1990s.

Knapp’s “Out There” very clearly took place in Boston, too, where Knapp’s family lived and died, and where, fighting addiction, she eventually became part of an earnest and principled recovery community. Glamour in Boston was little more than glasses of wine at the Ritz, with no one scheming to sleep with rich men or otherwise hack a social system in the manner of the Bushnell girls. Rather, Knapp and her friends, in the column, were usually talking about sanity and souls. When she published her best-selling masterpiece in 1996, “Drinking: A Love Story,” it became clear that Knapp felt inspired and not inhibited by the intellectual and can-do spirit of Boston, among the athletes and academics. In finance-and-high-life New York City, she was bored and nervous.

That she took seriously both the city of Boston and the obligation to write fearlessly about her experience in this wondrous format of the weekly first-person alt-weekly column shows up in the work: “Out There” holds up—has even improved—as few weekly columns do. “Alice K's Guide to Life: One Woman's Quest for Survival, Sanity, and the Perfect New Shoes,” Knapp’s first book, is a collection of the columns, all of which first appeared in the Phoenix.

I wrote for the Boston Phoenix a handful of times—a review of “Nathanael West: Novels and Other Writings," a cover story on international club kids in Boston, a roundup of books to buy for the holidays. My friend Tom de Kay, whom I’d known in New York, was the canny literary editor at the time, and he and his colleagues, including Ellen Barry (who later won a Pulitzer at The New York Times) deftly helped me through growing pains as a writer.

Editors at the Phoenix took their jobs seriously, too. The Nathanael West collection had been edited by Sacvan Bercovitch, a monster-wig in the Harvard English Department. The fact that he worked nearby, knew his American literature and sat on fathomless intellectual capital meant there was pressure on me to get the review right. In New York, a reviewer might feel similar pressure when reviewing a book that received a big advance, say, or had a TV star as its author.

But the Phoenix piece I remember writing best was the first article I ever wrote for any real paper. De Kay called me up. It seemed Knapp—whom I never met but occasionally admired at in frank wonder—was on vacation and they needed someone to fill in. Would I attempt to write an “Out There”? I swallowed hard, and agreed.

I went personal, because I had nothing else yet to say: I wrote about the time my mother read my diary when I was a teenager, and therein discovered I’d been doing coke—and other sketchy stuff. I was briefly tempted to make the article salacious and play up the sex and drugs, rather than the moment of understanding I came to with my mom. I even, no kidding, thought of working in something like TV dialogue in vain hopes of “selling the option” to a television producer (ugh).

Fortunately, I had Knapp’s gorgeously measured voice in my head. She wrote with honesty and deliberateness. I read dozens of her columns in preparation. If I followed Knapp’s model—the whole Phoenix model, really—I decided I could write youthfully but also with dignity, with humor and integrity both. I don’t know if I pulled it off in the rookie piece that ended up being headlined, gulp, “Coke Diary,” but it was a wicked privilege to be given the chance. Thank you, Boston Phoenix. We’ll miss you.


View the original article here

Thứ Hai, 25 tháng 3, 2013

Goodbye, Boston Phoenix. Unlike Google Reader, you're irreplaceable

By Virginia Heffernan

Out with the old—and out with the new. Witness the abrupt folding of the hallowed Boston Phoenix, born 1965, on the same day that Google Reader, born 2005, noisily closed up shop. The yeoman print alt-weekly, founded for Beantown collegians, opted for a supremely discreet exit: On Twitter, just after the staff had been told doors were closing, @bostonphoenix tweeted, “Thank you Boston. Goodbye and good luck.

But while Google-watchers geekily weighed the financial and technological pros and cons of shuttering Reader, there were sounds not heard in their analyses: Tears. Wails. Rending of garments.

That was saved for the announced end of the Phoenix. I have to admit, I’m also grieving as I write this. But before I tell you my own misty tale, it should be noted that almost everyone of a certain age in East Coast journalism has a story about the Boston Phoenix. There are, of course, the superstar journalists who cut their teeth on that paper’s trademark scholarly-groovy style, which was never as bullying as the voice of the Village Voice: Peter Keough, Janet Maslin, Susan Orlean, David Denby, Michael Sragow, David Edelstein, Scott Rosenberg, Ella Taylor, Stephen Schiff, Owen Gleiberman, Henry Sheehan and David Chute.  

Then there are those (everyone else?) who either went to college in Boston or visited friends there. We turned to the listings in the Phoenix to figure out where and when Galaxie 500 and the Pixies and Throwing Muses were playing. We came for the listings and personals, stayed—at Au Bon Pain or South Station—to read the criticism, the essays, the wonderfully overreported investigations and…the Caroline Knapp.

I bring up Knapp, who died of lung cancer in 2002, because she to me was the Boston Phoenix. From 1988 to 1995, Knapp wrote the profound “Out There” column. Writing, sometimes, about a figure called “Alice K (not her real initial),” Knapp wryly chronicled the introverted misadventures of a brilliant, hypersensitive and complex urbanite—herself. It was a nonsolipsistic self, practically Jamesian, who looked both inward and outward, and took in—warily, hungrily, gratefully, always thoughtfully—the world around her.

In 1991, Knapp published a column that described being with her dying father:

My father stared out across the room, a pained expression on his face.
"I guess what I want to hear from you," he said, his eyes not meeting mine, "is that you think I'm a decent person."
I wanted to cry. My father, who I've idolized all my life, is terminally ill. His condition, which developed quite aggressively and with little warning, was diagnosed in early May, and I have spent the better part of the months since then watching him confront the end of his life, and doing what I can to help him.
"You are far more than a decent person," I answered. "You are my father."


In New York City, around the same period, Candace Bushnell was launching the formidable “Sex and the City” column in the Observer, the one that would go on to be a TV series and two movies. But while Bushnell wrote caustically about sexual mores, seemingly with an eye on a franchise, Knapp spoke entirely for herself. “Out There” had a soul-searching moral integrity not associated with the exhibitionist or tattle-telling or voice-of-a-generation single-woman columns that cropped up around the country in the 1990s.

Knapp’s “Out There” very clearly took place in Boston, too, where Knapp’s family lived and died, and where, fighting addiction, she eventually became part of an earnest and principled recovery community. Glamour in Boston was little more than glasses of wine at the Ritz, with no one scheming to sleep with rich men or otherwise hack a social system in the manner of the Bushnell girls. Rather, Knapp and her friends, in the column, were usually talking about sanity and souls. When she published her best-selling masterpiece in 1996, “Drinking: A Love Story,” it became clear that Knapp felt inspired and not inhibited by the intellectual and can-do spirit of Boston, among the athletes and academics. In finance-and-high-life New York City, she was bored and nervous.

That she took seriously both the city of Boston and the obligation to write fearlessly about her experience in this wondrous format of the weekly first-person alt-weekly column shows up in the work: “Out There” holds up—has even improved—as few weekly columns do. “Alice K's Guide to Life: One Woman's Quest for Survival, Sanity, and the Perfect New Shoes,” Knapp’s first book, is a collection of the columns, all of which first appeared in the Phoenix.

I wrote for the Boston Phoenix a handful of times—a review of “Nathanael West: Novels and Other Writings," a cover story on international club kids in Boston, a roundup of books to buy for the holidays. My friend Tom de Kay, whom I’d known in New York, was the canny literary editor at the time, and he and his colleagues, including Ellen Barry (who later won a Pulitzer at The New York Times) deftly helped me through growing pains as a writer.

Editors at the Phoenix took their jobs seriously, too. The Nathanael West collection had been edited by Sacvan Bercovitch, a monster-wig in the Harvard English Department. The fact that he worked nearby, knew his American literature and sat on fathomless intellectual capital meant there was pressure on me to get the review right. In New York, a reviewer might feel similar pressure when reviewing a book that received a big advance, say, or had a TV star as its author.

But the Phoenix piece I remember writing best was the first article I ever wrote for any real paper. De Kay called me up. It seemed Knapp—whom I never met but occasionally admired at in frank wonder—was on vacation and they needed someone to fill in. Would I attempt to write an “Out There”? I swallowed hard, and agreed.

I went personal, because I had nothing else yet to say: I wrote about the time my mother read my diary when I was a teenager, and therein discovered I’d been doing coke—and other sketchy stuff. I was briefly tempted to make the article salacious and play up the sex and drugs, rather than the moment of understanding I came to with my mom. I even, no kidding, thought of working in something like TV dialogue in vain hopes of “selling the option” to a television producer (ugh).

Fortunately, I had Knapp’s gorgeously measured voice in my head. She wrote with honesty and deliberateness. I read dozens of her columns in preparation. If I followed Knapp’s model—the whole Phoenix model, really—I decided I could write youthfully but also with dignity, with humor and integrity both. I don’t know if I pulled it off in the rookie piece that ended up being headlined, gulp, “Coke Diary,” but it was a wicked privilege to be given the chance. Thank you, Boston Phoenix. We’ll miss you.


View the original article here