On the professional side I'm still waiting to see how the functionality is for promoting stuff. Say, a certain movie :)

Ofcourse any and all images go feral when put on the internet. They go everywhere and dance with every one. :D

For myself, the TOS doesn't fit with my choice of CC license, so I won't be using it as an image host.

-Ability to share with all circles, but with an “except” option

There is no "wrong." There is simply "what works for me." G+ doesn't work for me so well.

This is a Google Chrome browser extension that enhances the Google+ web app to unlock the potential of its real-time updates and make it much easier to process a large stream of incoming posts and comments.

I’ve had INS agents refer to my (ex) wife as Twel-Vez, like a Mexican Elvis impersonator (BTW, El Vez is AWESOME!).

We’re starting to roll out verification badges on profiles so you can be sure the person you’re adding to a circle is who they claim to be.

...

For now, we’re focused on verifying public figures, celebrities, and people who have been added to a large number of Circles, but we’re working on expanding this to more folks.

The only people I can see having a problem at this point are people like Emperor... and I assume you've made a decision on all of this by this point?

I think a rule of thumb seems to be if it is the name on your Wikipedia entry you are OK ;)

Robert Scoble has been one of the more outspoken supporters of this outside Google+ (although to be honest I know plenty of people inside G+ who aren't enthusiastic about it or at least would support pseudonymous use, at least one of them has been subsequently gagged), but even he has mellowed on this, although he says he does prefer the aesthetics of the place without all those weird names cluttering it up.

It seems to me that the most obvious answer then is for us to try to make you a page on Wikipedia.

I'm just waiting for my account to get flagged, if it does.

I'm at the Edinburgh Intl TV Festival and just got to ask a question to Google CEO Eric Schmidt regarding real names on G+. I asked him how Google justifies the policy given that real identities could put people at risk.

He replied by saying that G+ was build primarily as an identity service, so fundamentally, it depends on people using their real names if they're going to build future products that leverage that information.

Regarding people who are concerned about their safety, he said G+ is completely optional. No one is forcing you to use it. It's obvious for people at risk if they use their real names, they shouldn't use G+. Regarding countries like Iran and Syria, people there have no expectation of privacy anyway due to their government's own policies, which implies (to me, at least) that Schmidt thinks there's no point of even trying to have a service that allows pseudonyms. Unfortunately, the way the Q&A was conducted, I wasn't in a position to ask him a followup on this particular point.

He also said the internet would be better if we knew you were a real person rather than a dog or a fake person. Some people are just evil and we should be able to ID them and rank them downward.

These aren't exact quotes, but I did my best to paraphrase the gist of what he was saying.

We feel that Google deserves some credit for finally taking steps to accommodate pseudonyms. Yonatan Zunger, Chief Architect of Google+, explains that the change of heart was the result of looking at data and realizing that Google’s initial assumptions were wrong:

“We thought…that people would behave very differently when they were and weren't going by their real names. After watching the system for a while, we realized that this was not, in fact, the case. (And in particular, bastards are still bastards under their own names.)”

Google’s observations are bolstered by a recent analysis of Disqus comments which suggested that the pseudonymous comments on its service are some of the most useful.