It's not just a question of where they store it - contracts of adhesion have severe limitations, and Google is exceeding them and hoping nobody notices and complains.
As for myself, I had started to use my (really old) gmail account when Google+ came out, but earlier today I changed my profile back to using an email from one of my domains, partially in support of all those who could be endangered by having their identities revealed, and partially because I really don't like that something that was marketed one way (google+ as a social tool) being bat-and-switched to an "identity service."
It's funny - Microsoft wouldn'd DARE pull this sort of crap because they've been burned so many times before, but Google does it and everyone just rolls over? No thanks! I'm more than a "product" - I'm a person. What google has to offer in exchange for what they're taking in trade really isn't worth it.
Free email with 7 gigs of storage? Big deal - I can create 100 emails on my server tomorrow under a dozen different domains and give myself half a terabyte of storage on any one of them, and not worry that Google is building a profile to sell. YAASN ("Yet Another Anti-Social Network")? G+ is better than Facebook, but that's the epitome of "damning with faint praise." I mean really - it's been a while they've promised basic stuff like threading, and it's nowhere in sight. What a bunch of over-hyped crap.
if Google doesn't like CDN's rules they can leave.
Facebook was "invited" to leave if they didn't change their rules. They changed their rules. It was shortly after Canada refused to back down that the EU decided to do the same thing.
I'd be very surprised if there wasn't a caveat in the law allowing voluntarily providing the information.
You might want to look at "contracts of adhesion", aka "standard contracts" , "boilerplate" or "take-it-or-leave-it" contracts. The law is different (and this also applies in the US) - ALL clauses in such contracts are always to be interpreted in the other party's favor, and the party cannot give up their statutory rights.
Google is wrong with their policy, plain and simple, and that's why there is so much push-back.
The export of Canadian personal information outside the country is governed by PIPEDA. Google simply doesn't have the right to demand any personal info be sent to their servers outside the country's borders. This is effectively the same legislation that Germany later copied.
Also, government-issued ID is not to be used as "identification." The social insurance card numbers are ONLY to be given to employers and government agencies, and, at your option, to your bank (unless you have an interest-bearing account) - and it doesn't have a photo. The universal medicare card, which has a photo, is also not to be used anywhere except when dealing with medical services such as hospitals and pharmacies.
That leaves your drivers license - IF you have a drivers license. And even that is classified as "personal identifying information".
And btw, writers don't get to be good writers by the mechanical process of sitting down at a keyboard and writing. They get to be good writers by learning how to tell a story. The mechanical process of putting it into a file does not "make them good writers".
Answering the "who, what, where, when, why, how" in a way that is interesting to the target audience is the fundamental art of storytelling - develop that, and you'll be a naturally good writer before you ever sit down at a keyboard. It's completely separate from the process of "writing it up." This applies whether it's a user manual or a murder mystery, a sermon or a news article.
thats where software engineering education would completely fall down without access to real computers, with real compilers and real build systems.
Totally false, I spent several years studying manuals (eg: 1BM 340), languages (fortran, cobol), and designing, flow-charting and actually writing programs before getting my hands on a computer.
I also spent a semester doing the "teaching computers" thing - and the first thing I did was to say that the computers in the class were not going to be used during the class. They learned a lot more than they would have otherwise, AND had more fun.
And everything else in your reply is a non sequitur. It has absolutely nothing to do with whether someone can understand the "why a version control system is a good idea" or "what a version control system does" of a version control system, as opposed to the "how a version control system works".
If you're too stupid to be able to understand a plain textual explanation, then you're too stupid to be allowed to program in a production environment.
Not at all. If you're a programmer, before you ever set sight on a formal version control system, you developed your own methods, same as if you were a writer, or any other task that involves the "create-edit-save" workflow.
The simplest, of course, is to just rename the file, such as "my_school_paper_version_1.txt", "my_school_paper_version_2.txt", etc. Most users then go on to do things like creating new directories that host different versions when there are multiple files, or by including the date as part of the filename.
So for them, telling them that a version control system formalizes the process, and allows it to be used by multiple people, is a concept that they should immediately understand the "why", even if they don't understand the "how".
It's not like we don't do this in real life. Go to the grocery store, and watch how how we use the best-before dates on the little plastic tags as a "version control" to get the freshest milk, bread, etc. Or production lot numbers for product recalls. Or the date on the newspaper or magazine, or the edition number of a book.
Now tell the person that version control provides a formal mechanism that does the same thing, "tagging" their source so that they can identify not just the most recent version if they need to find it again, but also revert to a previous known-good version, just in case they messed up.
If a programmer can't understand such a simple concept after a 1-minute explanation (we're not talking about individual implementations here, remember - just the concept of version control), then you have a bigger problem.
you cannot understand how a team works together with a source-code control system without being on a team, working on a project, with a source code control system.
The Bloc Quebecois lost official party status at the Federal level when they were pretty much wiped out by the National Democratic Party (NDP); their leader quit, and you never hear anything about them any more.
You left out the Green Party. With Jack Layton gone, and the talk (even if nothing comes of it) of a merger between the Grits (Liberals) and the Dippers (NDP) diluting the lines, a good chunk of the left-of-center vote (and some of the centrist vote) is going to say "a pox on both your houses" and shift to the Greens next election. While they may not get many seats, they will affect outcomes.
except that a LOT of those exports, the US cannot threaten without hurting itself.
Petroleum products - Canada still is the #1 supplier to the US. What's the US going to do - ban Canadian oil? That's the equivalent of a permanent Hurricane Katrina shortfall, and there's nobody to take up the slack. $300/bbl oil if the US does that.
Auto parts - sure, if you want to shut down all US auto manufacturing.
And don't forget, the US then not only cripples itself, but also it's biggest export market. Canadian trade officials blinked when they didn't have to,
I think I know what I'm talking about here. As a teen I read the famous dragon book on compiler design and wrote a C compiler (in C, perversely enough!) as a personal project. I used K&R as the language spec.
No, you don't. If you had bothered to follow the link, you'd have found that Compiler Design in C tells you, among other things, how to write a C compiler in C, so if that was your basis for liking the dragon book, there's no reason to act like a jerk and snub it.
It's not just C and Java. Just look at all the web frameworks that make simple things easy and difficult things impossible because you spend more time trying to shoehorn them into their model than it would take to start over from scratch, but nobody wants to acknowledge the sunk costs are just that - sunk.
If you're writing code which is easier to debug because it's explicit then your bugs are mostly buffer overflows and bad pointers....which C++ eliminated.
The gp was arguing that email volumes were declining, which simply isn't the case. Also, even if we toss out those 78%, email still beats texting. And if we consider that there's no 140-character limit in email, in terms of the volume of actual content, email will always be #1.
Solar power is already profitable - but not "hi-tech photo-op shiny" solar power.
Solar water heaters have always been profitable without any subsidy.
Ditto for passive solar heating during winter months.
PV is the wrong way to go - just from the pollution caused at both ends of the lifecycle (manufacturing and disposal). Thermal farms using concentrated solar power make more sense. Lower-tech means less to go wrong. Using molten salt as the medium, you can store enough energy to get through nights and cloudy days.
So much for "don't use words, and especially not words in your field of interest".
And not taking the server down a few hours later as promised, but depending on others believing it was taken down so you could re-use it, is just "insecurity through obscurity."
Slashdot Mirror
It's not just a question of where they store it - contracts of adhesion have severe limitations, and Google is exceeding them and hoping nobody notices and complains.
As for myself, I had started to use my (really old) gmail account when Google+ came out, but earlier today I changed my profile back to using an email from one of my domains, partially in support of all those who could be endangered by having their identities revealed, and partially because I really don't like that something that was marketed one way (google+ as a social tool) being bat-and-switched to an "identity service."
It's funny - Microsoft wouldn'd DARE pull this sort of crap because they've been burned so many times before, but Google does it and everyone just rolls over? No thanks! I'm more than a "product" - I'm a person. What google has to offer in exchange for what they're taking in trade really isn't worth it.
Free email with 7 gigs of storage? Big deal - I can create 100 emails on my server tomorrow under a dozen different domains and give myself half a terabyte of storage on any one of them, and not worry that Google is building a profile to sell. YAASN ("Yet Another Anti-Social Network")? G+ is better than Facebook, but that's the epitome of "damning with faint praise." I mean really - it's been a while they've promised basic stuff like threading, and it's nowhere in sight. What a bunch of over-hyped crap.
Facebook was "invited" to leave if they didn't change their rules. They changed their rules. It was shortly after Canada refused to back down that the EU decided to do the same thing.
You might want to look at "contracts of adhesion", aka "standard contracts" , "boilerplate" or "take-it-or-leave-it" contracts. The law is different (and this also applies in the US) - ALL clauses in such contracts are always to be interpreted in the other party's favor, and the party cannot give up their statutory rights.
Google is wrong with their policy, plain and simple, and that's why there is so much push-back.
The export of Canadian personal information outside the country is governed by PIPEDA. Google simply doesn't have the right to demand any personal info be sent to their servers outside the country's borders. This is effectively the same legislation that Germany later copied.
Also, government-issued ID is not to be used as "identification." The social insurance card numbers are ONLY to be given to employers and government agencies, and, at your option, to your bank (unless you have an interest-bearing account) - and it doesn't have a photo. The universal medicare card, which has a photo, is also not to be used anywhere except when dealing with medical services such as hospitals and pharmacies.
That leaves your drivers license - IF you have a drivers license. And even that is classified as "personal identifying information".
And btw, writers don't get to be good writers by the mechanical process of sitting down at a keyboard and writing. They get to be good writers by learning how to tell a story. The mechanical process of putting it into a file does not "make them good writers".
Answering the "who, what, where, when, why, how" in a way that is interesting to the target audience is the fundamental art of storytelling - develop that, and you'll be a naturally good writer before you ever sit down at a keyboard. It's completely separate from the process of "writing it up." This applies whether it's a user manual or a murder mystery, a sermon or a news article.
Totally false, I spent several years studying manuals (eg: 1BM 340), languages (fortran, cobol), and designing, flow-charting and actually writing programs before getting my hands on a computer.
I also spent a semester doing the "teaching computers" thing - and the first thing I did was to say that the computers in the class were not going to be used during the class. They learned a lot more than they would have otherwise, AND had more fun.
And everything else in your reply is a non sequitur. It has absolutely nothing to do with whether someone can understand the "why a version control system is a good idea" or "what a version control system does" of a version control system, as opposed to the "how a version control system works".
If you're too stupid to be able to understand a plain textual explanation, then you're too stupid to be allowed to program in a production environment.
Not at all. If you're a programmer, before you ever set sight on a formal version control system, you developed your own methods, same as if you were a writer, or any other task that involves the "create-edit-save" workflow.
The simplest, of course, is to just rename the file, such as "my_school_paper_version_1.txt", "my_school_paper_version_2.txt", etc. Most users then go on to do things like creating new directories that host different versions when there are multiple files, or by including the date as part of the filename.
So for them, telling them that a version control system formalizes the process, and allows it to be used by multiple people, is a concept that they should immediately understand the "why", even if they don't understand the "how".
It's not like we don't do this in real life. Go to the grocery store, and watch how how we use the best-before dates on the little plastic tags as a "version control" to get the freshest milk, bread, etc. Or production lot numbers for product recalls. Or the date on the newspaper or magazine, or the edition number of a book.
Now tell the person that version control provides a formal mechanism that does the same thing, "tagging" their source so that they can identify not just the most recent version if they need to find it again, but also revert to a previous known-good version, just in case they messed up.
If a programmer can't understand such a simple concept after a 1-minute explanation (we're not talking about individual implementations here, remember - just the concept of version control), then you have a bigger problem.
Sure you can.
I just want to see it translate "politician" into something better than "engrish".
I use languages that support STRONG TYPING, you insensitive clod!
No - try reading the first letter of each line of the GP post - It's a Schwarzenegger Letter.
A few points:
The Bloc Quebecois lost official party status at the Federal level when they were pretty much wiped out by the National Democratic Party (NDP); their leader quit, and you never hear anything about them any more.
You left out the Green Party. With Jack Layton gone, and the talk (even if nothing comes of it) of a merger between the Grits (Liberals) and the Dippers (NDP) diluting the lines, a good chunk of the left-of-center vote (and some of the centrist vote) is going to say "a pox on both your houses" and shift to the Greens next election. While they may not get many seats, they will affect outcomes.
Petroleum products - Canada still is the #1 supplier to the US. What's the US going to do - ban Canadian oil? That's the equivalent of a permanent Hurricane Katrina shortfall, and there's nobody to take up the slack. $300/bbl oil if the US does that.
Auto parts - sure, if you want to shut down all US auto manufacturing.
And don't forget, the US then not only cripples itself, but also it's biggest export market. Canadian trade officials blinked when they didn't have to,
This is the same Maxime Bernier who left his then-girlfriend (a , among others) secret documents.. He was forced to resign
No, you don't. If you had bothered to follow the link, you'd have found that Compiler Design in C tells you, among other things, how to write a C compiler in C, so if that was your basis for liking the dragon book, there's no reason to act like a jerk and snub it.
It's not just C and Java. Just look at all the web frameworks that make simple things easy and difficult things impossible because you spend more time trying to shoehorn them into their model than it would take to start over from scratch, but nobody wants to acknowledge the sunk costs are just that - sunk.
Try "Compiler Design in C". - 924 pages, hardcover, high-quality paper that you just don't see any more, and definitely NOT shovelware.
And no, it's not just useful for writing C compilers.
You know we're in an education bubble, right?
Simple rule: Either do it for what it's worth, or do it for free because you want to.
Anything in between is slow suicide.
And avoid anything that's even partly "crowdsourced". Cheap and stupid is as cheap and stupid does.
Really?
That's right - they got older and their text messaging dropped.
The gp was arguing that email volumes were declining, which simply isn't the case. Also, even if we toss out those 78%, email still beats texting. And if we consider that there's no 140-character limit in email, in terms of the volume of actual content, email will always be #1.
Email is currently running around 90 TRILLION messages a year, and continuing to rise.
Text messaging has a ways to go before getting even close.
Solar power is already profitable - but not "hi-tech photo-op shiny" solar power.
Solar water heaters have always been profitable without any subsidy.
Ditto for passive solar heating during winter months.
PV is the wrong way to go - just from the pollution caused at both ends of the lifecycle (manufacturing and disposal). Thermal farms using concentrated solar power make more sense. Lower-tech means less to go wrong. Using molten salt as the medium, you can store enough energy to get through nights and cloudy days.
Welcome to the future. Motorolas Atrix - a smartphone that turns into a laptop.
So much for "don't use words, and especially not words in your field of interest".
And not taking the server down a few hours later as promised, but depending on others believing it was taken down so you could re-use it, is just "insecurity through obscurity."