I'm not going to hit on you, get a reality check. I only want to be friends and meet all your other friends (male AND female). I mentioned networking, NOT hitting on all your immediate girl contacts and making them leaf nodes.

Why study engineering?

1) Hardest course loads through college (excepting perhaps hard sciences and premeds).

2) No girls in classes (5-14%, falls as engineering major gets harder (ie electrical))

3) No girls in companies you will end up working at

4) Facebook friends list is 80% men, most of friends are men. Great if you are networking, crappy if you are trying to network to find the perfect gf/wife. Other majors make balanced set of friends naturally through classes. Their networking, as a result, is exponentially easier.

5) You end up working at a multinational company that pays you less (much less) than finance, law, BUSINESS. Argh. Note that business, finance, and law types went through the OPPOSITE of #1-#4, meaning they end up knowing way more girls, earning more, and having had a better life.

6) Yet, you feel as if you contribute way more to society than money movers, patent leeching lawyers, and smoothtalking male/female bimbos/bimbettes.

You tell ME how f*** up engineering is.

You ask why I do it? Because I love analysis, creating, designing, and doing.

Let's not forget that the primary demographic in which any new trend starts is the college-age to twenties crowd.

Facebook smartly captured this specific demographic and their attention (away from Friendster and MySpace), because of two main reasons, whichi Google+ does not have:
1) social acceptance (ie friend confirmation button)
and
2) being the "first" network in which people could feel unstalkerish by stalking people they barely know but would possibly like to know better (flirtation, becoming friends, etc)

1) it started off being an "in-network-only" - what does that mean? It means, the college students which were its first users, mostly wanted to check out those hot girl/guys in their classes. It also had a "confirm friend", so you gained some sort of "acceptance" that it was consensual "stalking".

Google+, however, misses that boat: anyone can add you, without your consent (you can only block, not force them to unfriend). That means there is no "confirmed acceptance", missing out on a key social-emotional facet.

2) Furthermore, Facebook has most momentum *not* because it has "all your friend", but because it has "all the cool/hot girl/guys you'd like to be better friends with but-only-met-once-at-a-party-and-do-not-want-to-overtly-add-on-another-network-again". If google+ finds a way to migrate this set over to G+, I'd wager the G+ snowball would start rolling, and rolling pretty fast.

As an example, I was one of the first on facebook. So was my circle. But guess which same circle is on my G+ ? That's right! The geeky circle I have that was first on these due to being in "ivies" and having "friends who work at google". However, which group is missing from my G+ and everyone else? Those acquaintances you met once and never met again? Some you unfriend, but some you still want to see as a contact.


tl,dr:
1) Facebook's confirm friend button works far better to make users feel safe
2) Facebook has snowball effect due to people having already added, surprisingly, not their EXISTING friends but rather the *acquantainces* they'd *like-to-get-to-know-better* but would rather not admit to "stalking" by adding them on another network again.

Gotcha. Point taken, thanks for clarifying.

But can you have it both ways? Google was oh-so-great when it was the underdog and was able to wreak havoc on M$ (kind of). Now that they are big enough to do product tie-ins here and there, people are to complain of their unfair practices (ie monopolistic advantages)?

Can the argument be made that using Youtube monopoly is akin to M$ using Win monopoly to unseat Netscape with IE ? You are in no way forced to use Youtube. An entire ecosystem of (web) apps does not revolve around Youtube - embedded videos can be replaced easily enough and any smart website designer would have made the website malleable enough to do so with some simple scripts / db changes.

Yes, point taken, so s/Youtube/other google products . Do they really have a monopoly on web services? You are always free to go to other web services.

Are you kidding? Youtube is a drain on money, and is unlikely to replace real entertainment anytime soon (although we can see where they are trying to head).

Google depends and dies on search. They gave Mozilla $300 million just to be not replaced by Bing, although they'd rather everyone use Chrome. And Mozilla just partnered with Twitter and FB on that stupid lame whine video about search results.

I'm not biased towards any one company, although I would like to see the evil that is FB be replaced.

Alright, well who cares? If Google shoots itself in the butt by destroying / tying in social with its search, a new search contender will most likely step up and fill the 2nd place void. Maybe it'll be Bing.

Just let the market correct itself.

He probably saw minecraft's influence.. as much as he helped totally change gaming by evolving Mario, Link from 2d ORIGINALS with *true* gameplay that has lasted the test of time (SMB1,2,3 & Link to the Past), and then moving Mario, Link into 3D very successfully.. he probably saw that one dev DOES has the power to affect gaming and gameplay (please, not talking about angry birds and crap like that).


Mr. Miyamoto, please make some cool original stuff like Minecraft did. Blaze the trail !

A newb, but I have toyed a tiny bit with Django and it seems that the Django model layer is also the ORM (if you want it to be). You could of course add in the ORM layer-wrapper-class yourself, but newb-basic Django seems to have the model layer BE the ORM (as opposed to Zend, which recommends you to make a ORM and then a seperate model class).