My impression is that G+ didn't want to replace facebook. I don't use facebook because of its offendingly evil (and annoying) business-strategies... As a new user I do like (without the button) G+ for its simplicity: you've got a few categories to sort feeds and privacy-levels, get updates by poeple you want to actively follow, and are able to post what's on your mind. Google's own way of being "evil" is carefully hidden under the simple surface... Wake me up when Diaspora gets public.

I'd like to look at that. I have seen many unique Sketchbooks. Given that all humans who are able to write, sooner or later scribble into their calendars, etc., I would estimate roughly: there are as many written pages as there were produced sheets of paper (minus the amount of drawings, test-pages, and official documents). Go get your ISBN, your first grade book may be the missing puzzle-piece in the evolution of mankind ;)

"Do not play computer games. That's a complete waste of time. Make computer games: then the guys around you are occupied, and you can work quietly." - Volker Claus http://www.fmi.uni-stuttgart.de/fk/menschen/claus/

Yes, that is one possible interpretation of that choice. Personally I thought something like "would you test the DNA of your own children?" - I think I would, as one diagnostic measure to find unhealthy genetic preconditions. I don't have any cildren yet, so I don't know whether I would change my mind... For legal purposes, DNA is imho as insecure as are fingerprints. A sample could be retrieved secretly and used to contaminate other samples. In Germany we had a case where the police hunted a murderer with a very special DNA. They could not definitely tell whether the suspect was a woman or a man, or "both". It turned out, that the first sample was accidentally contaminated.