Well, with a maximum altitude under 5000 feet, this guy's not going for performance, he's just putting a scale model up in the air high enough to say it flew. High performance means high propellant mass fractions (where up to 90% of the launch weight is propellant) and almost certainly multiple stages. This rocket has an 18% propellant fraction and is single stage. It will look very cool coming off the launchpad and that's all it needs to do.
The government gets interested when you start heading for 50,000 feet, 100,000 feet, or higher. The other thing the government gets interested about is guidance systems on rockets. If it's a self-stabilizing rocket that goes up and down with no guidance system, just follow the FAA rules to make sure there are no aircraft in your flight envelope and the government doesn't really care.
No, the gyroscope effect of the wheels on motorcycles and bicycles is minimal. The dynamic stability of two-wheeled vehicles occurs because the point of contact on the front tire is behind the axis of rotation of the steering head. So as the bike moves forward, the front tire is being "pulled straight" and can be easily maintained on a track by the rider.
If the gyroscope effect was significant enough to keep a motorcycle upright, it would prevent leaning the vehicle over during turns, which doesn't happen.
Nobody expects a recent graduate to write a kernel or a banking app!
Even more precisely, nobody expects a recent graduate to really know how to write good enough code. That's something a new graduate should expect to learn in their first three to six months on the job.
The expectation is that you already know how to learn languages. The issue with only learning C, C++, and Java is that they all use a related syntax and they are all statically typed. This is not enough variety. I would suggest that before you hit the real world you learn at least one language that isn't the same. Python, Ruby are excellent choices at this time. Lisp, Haskell, Erlang are also possibilities if you'd like to explore functional programming.
Something else a good developer is usually expected to do is adapt to the coding conventions in the current project. I have found, however, that many if not most developers are completely and unable to adapt to team conventions. They have their "best way" and can't write code any other way.
If I can provide one piece of advice to help you with your success in programming: remember that conventions are not for you. They're for the people who come after you. Having consistent and readable code is more important than whether or not you like indentation with tabs or spaces.
Technically, firearm ammunition doesn't explode, either. But they regulate that.
Not really. Like other deflagrating substances (including dry ice and coarse crystals of ammonium perchlorate), you have to ship ammunition via ground transportation with an ORM-D designation, but there are no federal regulations on the transport of ammunition that are more restrictive. There are a lot of state and local regulations regarding the purchase of ammunition that imply additional restrictions on shipment (seller must have copy of photo id), but that's not the same as regulating shipment.
Notably, most of the state and local regulations that put additional processes around the shipment of ammunition do not further restrict the purchase of smokeless powder (the actual deflagrating substance) or primers (containing an actual explosive) in the same way. So if I lived in LA, it would be very difficult for me to purchase ammo off the internet, but not to purchase separate brass, powder, bullets, and primers.
It's pretty common knowledge. Google "ammonium perchlorate synthesis" and you'll get all sorts of recipes, including the specific details of how to remove the sodium chlorate (which is necessary to avoid blowing your head off when you throw in the ammonium chloride).
It's relatively easy to synthesize ammonium perchlorate from sodium chloride (table salt) and ammonium chloride (many uses from snowmaking to candy making to cattle feed supplement to expectorant). Build a glass reactor vessel, buy some anodes off eBay, use a car charger and several days to force the sodium chloride table salt to sodium perchlorate in solution, destroy any residual sodium chlorate using one of a number of reactions, dump in ammonium chloride, collect ammonium perchlorate as the precipitate. The even more exciting potassium perchlorate is equally easy to make and you can make ten pounds for less than $10 in supplies from Home Depot (electricity costs will vary by location in the US). One bag of potassium chloride and your reactor can make as much potassium perchlorate as you have electricity to put in and time to pull out of it.
It's much more difficult to try to extract the ammonium perchlorate or potassium perchlorate from mixed and cured rocket motor grains. In the rocket motor grain, the APC or PPC has been mixed up with aluminum powder, an accelerant or inhibitor, one or more stabilizers and the composite resin, which is chemically similar to epoxy. You might as well try to get the glass fiber back from a finished sailboat hull.
I think you misunderstood my posting. I don't blame Bush II for the economic disaster. He bears some of the responsibility for it, sure, but there's blame to go around for a disaster this big. Many other people contributed to the problem over the last 15-20 years to try to "solve" several necessary down cycles and thereby create a world-wide economic collapse, and Bush II only had eight years of watching the snowball grow into the avalanche that can be laid at his feet. Just about the only person who can't be blamed for the disaster is Obama. So far. We'll see if his cautious manipulations of the banks can stabilize things. If not, his name will be added to the list and he'll lose in 2012.
My posting was simply to state two things: that the CRA had absolutely nothing to do with bad loans and most certainly had nothing to do with what's going on now and that your mental contortions to avoid putting any responsibility on Bush II were nonsense.
The CRA didn't tell banks to loan to people without incomes. It said to loan to people in bad neighborhoods using the same loan criteria about the individual as you do in good neighborhoods. The idea that there might be money made from high-interest loans to bad risks did not come from the CRA either. Also, the idea that it wasn't necessary to check for income or assets only appeared once the housing market was rising fast enough that all loans were always above water. Again, nothing to do with the CRA. Finally, the idea that mortgages could be bought and sold in bundles that supposedly reduced the risk of individual defaults was a regulatory failure and had nothing to do with the CRA.
Basically, anyone telling you that the CRA had the smallest thing to do with our current economic problems is completely and utterly full of shit. They're wanting to put blame on Democrats for something, and the CRA 1) looks like sub-prime mortgages and 2) was pushed by Democrats. Look deeper at the CRA and it's simply forcing good business practices onto elitist snobs (most of whom were Democrats) who didn't want to loan money to the lower-classes.
Yes, Bush II will go down in history as the worst president ever. No, he's not the only person to blame for the disaster. He is a very visible person to blame, however, and deserves pretty much all of the barbs thrown his way. IMHO, anyway:)
The loans covered by CRA tended to have the same risk profile as other bank loans. "liar loans", "no income, no assets loans", etc. almost entirely came from institutions not covered by CRA.
The rest of your list is not any better.
You completely missed Christopher Cox's incompetent regulation of financial institutions at the SEC, Alan Greenspan's ill-advised attempt to keep spending up by keeping interest rates near zero for most of a decade, Bush begging Americans to "keep spending" after 9/11, and the real original seed of the current disaster, which was a series of moves to deregulate banks that occurred during Bush I and Clinton leading to the creation of credit default swaps, the securitization of debt, and all sorts of other really bad ideas.
But it was nice of you to try to make Bush look a little less incompetent. The worst president in history still needs a kind word every once in a while.
That's the result of a settlement with the class. As soon as the judge certifies the settlement, it applies to both parties, including the class, and can bind members of the class from subsequent litigation.
The judge's certification is supposed to verify that the various obligations of the settlement are in the fiduciary interest of the class and the plaintiff, to prevent the class lawyers from writing a settlement which only benefits themselves, for instance.
So the question here is: is the settlement in the fiduciary interest of the class members or did the judge make an error in certifying the settlement?
Yup. Google is putting up works that are in copyright and covered by the settlement (which is an enormous corpus of in-copyright works).
So far, when I've ended up on a Google books search result, the book has usually been in stock at Amazon and bn.com (with helpful links to those pages on the right side of the page). Now, these in-copyright search results are compromised, in that Google pulls random pages from the viewer so that you can't just read the whole thing. Normally there's at least one page on either side of the page they sent you to, then some skips, then more pages, etc.
I'd actually like to see if Google books puts full text up for non-copyrighted works. Would be interesting to see if that reader widget can be useful for reading a book...
In "at will employment" states (most US states), he's eligible for unemployment since shortening his notice period can't be used to claim "termination for cause", but his boss is almost certainly allowed to fire him.
Most companies go to rather extraordinary measures to avoid employees taking unemployment since it increases their unemployment insurance rates. The normal method is to document poor performance over a minimum of six months and then terminate for cause.
So he might have collected unemployment, except he can't because the delay between application for unemployment and the arrival of the first check would have put it after the start date of his new job.
So he got an unpaid vacation between jobs. As long as money isn't painfully tight, I wouldn't mind too much.
Google will sometimes buy a startup to recruit the engineers capable of writing that system. If a $10M bonus (much of it in stock and tied to a vesting schedule) can recruit some of the best thinkers in a field, it may be well worth it.
Ah, but natural selection doesn't care about people being smarter or knowing the truth more, it cares about propagation. For example, if you don't believe in God, then you must believe that religion evolved as well, and was a smashing success in spite of being completely wrong.
Well, I believe that being able to write fanciful and comforting explanations for phenomena beyond our control has historically been an adaptive behavior, and valuable enough that humans as a group are very likely to prefer those stories to scientific explanations that may be less comforting.
So, sure, as a meme and as an adaptive behavior group, religion is an extremely resiliant concept that is remarkably likely to be a part of a culture, even as it is completely wrong.
Individual search data deletion and a shorter global policy: the argument is this is a balance between user utility and user comfort. Yeah, I don't buy it either. There's no reason the data can't be anonymized and still be useful. We're working on it. A bunch of Googlers want this too.
Domain squatters: IMHO domain squatters are annoying, not bad. Taking money from domain squatters == ?
Photos of your property: request that your address be omitted from live view and if there are images of your property request their removal.
Photos of your neighborhood: convince your neighbors to all request that their property be omitted.
China: yeah, sucky situation, though it was Yahoo that handed dissidents over to China, not Google. In many other ways, I also wish that Google cooperated less with the Chinese government. Keep complaining, and convince your friends to complain.
As for the comparisons to 1984, exaggerate much? Google has the potential to be big brother. Google is not big brother. Almost every Googler is just as afraid of Google going bad as you are.
The assumption of liability would cover bankruptcy very quickly. Also, the fallout wouldn't "keep me from working in the industry" but it would put a damper on getting work via most of my current professional network.
I'm concerned enough about user privacy that I don't need scary contracts to do the right thing. Even so, when I read that contract, it looks like they tried really hard to make it clear that they're really serious about putting the user first and adding some incentives for Google employees to do the same thing.
Call it what you will, but I am surprised at how literally you're interpreting remarks that are clearly chosen to add a little levity and humor to a posting. Mention of a "blood oath" should invoke feudal imagery and a remark that I've drunk too much of the kool-aid, not a literal interpretation that I actually cut my finger for a contract.
For all of these reasons and more, the simple truth is that if you have something private that you really don't want others to know about then you don't store it on google's servers. That should be patently obvious to anybody qualified enough to work at google.
I did not say that Google is a secure data vault. That's simply retarded. If the content of your files is that important, encrypt it or keep it to yourself or both.
I objected to the statement that Google as an organization rolls over for the government and has already done so several times. It does not and has not. Google will require a warrant or a subpoena before they hand over your data to the government. They will provide data in response to a lawfully presented warrant or subpoena, but they'll require the legal document.
I (and many others) don't see such an action as a violation of privacy, since IMHO, privacy ends where crime begins, and as long as the investigation of that crime is occurring with all due process...
And yeah, grant me a little hyperbole on the "blood oath" comment. The supplemental agreement that I have to sign before I get access to live user data is fairly scary. No blood, but scary enough even so. Google is serious about user privacy.
https has been vulnerable to MITM attack, and is vulnerable to bogus keys (that look valid), but is currently pretty safe from attack when using a sane browser. Lots of people (inside and outside the company) keep very close watch on google.com's SSL keys, so without someone poisoning your DNS (and close to just your DNS)...
If you're enabling SSL on your connection to google, your data is as safe as we can make it. The government possibly has access to the raw bits on the wire between our datacenters, but still doesn't have access to your data (inferring the argument behind this assertion is left as an exercise to the reader).
The easiest way for the government to get to your data without you knowing it is to rootkit your machine. The lowest-cost weakness isn't on the google end of things.
Astroturfers don't clearly identify sources of possible bias. I'm biased cause I work at Google and I like working at Google. I'll tell you that because I'm honest about my biases.
I'm also well-informed, and though I can't tell you very much of what I know, I will tell you that Google tries* to do the right thing, including act as an advocate for user privacy.
btw, anyone using google can be tapped by the US (or any local) gov. google replicates data all over the world and so any local DC can be 'tapped' by the gov in that region and google will be happy to roll over.
giving data to google is not something you do when you need privacy, we should know THAT much by now. google has already tipped their hand more times than needed to see the true 'rollover to the gov' colors they have.
I work for Google. In a project closely related to "GDrive". And I know for an absolute fact that you, sir, are full of shit.
Google is the one company that has stood up to our government's "requests for information" and said, "Show me the subpoena." Hell, that's one of the big reasons I work at Google.
As for your privacy, the only entities that can see the actual content of your files are 1) you, 2) the ads analysis program, 2) Google developers/system maintenance staff who sign a blood oath that they will not violate user trust, and 3) government agencies that provide a lawful warrant or subpoena for the data.
The moment that list fails to be complete, a significant fraction of all Google employees will leave in disgust.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, with a maximum altitude under 5000 feet, this guy's not going for performance, he's just putting a scale model up in the air high enough to say it flew. High performance means high propellant mass fractions (where up to 90% of the launch weight is propellant) and almost certainly multiple stages. This rocket has an 18% propellant fraction and is single stage. It will look very cool coming off the launchpad and that's all it needs to do.
The government gets interested when you start heading for 50,000 feet, 100,000 feet, or higher. The other thing the government gets interested about is guidance systems on rockets. If it's a self-stabilizing rocket that goes up and down with no guidance system, just follow the FAA rules to make sure there are no aircraft in your flight envelope and the government doesn't really care.
No, the gyroscope effect of the wheels on motorcycles and bicycles is minimal. The dynamic stability of two-wheeled vehicles occurs because the point of contact on the front tire is behind the axis of rotation of the steering head. So as the bike moves forward, the front tire is being "pulled straight" and can be easily maintained on a track by the rider.
If the gyroscope effect was significant enough to keep a motorcycle upright, it would prevent leaning the vehicle over during turns, which doesn't happen.
Even more precisely, nobody expects a recent graduate to really know how to write good enough code. That's something a new graduate should expect to learn in their first three to six months on the job.
The expectation is that you already know how to learn languages. The issue with only learning C, C++, and Java is that they all use a related syntax and they are all statically typed. This is not enough variety. I would suggest that before you hit the real world you learn at least one language that isn't the same. Python, Ruby are excellent choices at this time. Lisp, Haskell, Erlang are also possibilities if you'd like to explore functional programming.
Something else a good developer is usually expected to do is adapt to the coding conventions in the current project. I have found, however, that many if not most developers are completely and unable to adapt to team conventions. They have their "best way" and can't write code any other way.
If I can provide one piece of advice to help you with your success in programming: remember that conventions are not for you. They're for the people who come after you. Having consistent and readable code is more important than whether or not you like indentation with tabs or spaces.
Ew. What kind of tips do you have to get skeletal drug-addicted skanks off your clothes? Will Oxy-clean do it?
Not really. Like other deflagrating substances (including dry ice and coarse crystals of ammonium perchlorate), you have to ship ammunition via ground transportation with an ORM-D designation, but there are no federal regulations on the transport of ammunition that are more restrictive. There are a lot of state and local regulations regarding the purchase of ammunition that imply additional restrictions on shipment (seller must have copy of photo id), but that's not the same as regulating shipment.
Notably, most of the state and local regulations that put additional processes around the shipment of ammunition do not further restrict the purchase of smokeless powder (the actual deflagrating substance) or primers (containing an actual explosive) in the same way. So if I lived in LA, it would be very difficult for me to purchase ammo off the internet, but not to purchase separate brass, powder, bullets, and primers.
It's pretty common knowledge. Google "ammonium perchlorate synthesis" and you'll get all sorts of recipes, including the specific details of how to remove the sodium chlorate (which is necessary to avoid blowing your head off when you throw in the ammonium chloride).
It's relatively easy to synthesize ammonium perchlorate from sodium chloride (table salt) and ammonium chloride (many uses from snowmaking to candy making to cattle feed supplement to expectorant). Build a glass reactor vessel, buy some anodes off eBay, use a car charger and several days to force the sodium chloride table salt to sodium perchlorate in solution, destroy any residual sodium chlorate using one of a number of reactions, dump in ammonium chloride, collect ammonium perchlorate as the precipitate. The even more exciting potassium perchlorate is equally easy to make and you can make ten pounds for less than $10 in supplies from Home Depot (electricity costs will vary by location in the US). One bag of potassium chloride and your reactor can make as much potassium perchlorate as you have electricity to put in and time to pull out of it.
It's much more difficult to try to extract the ammonium perchlorate or potassium perchlorate from mixed and cured rocket motor grains. In the rocket motor grain, the APC or PPC has been mixed up with aluminum powder, an accelerant or inhibitor, one or more stabilizers and the composite resin, which is chemically similar to epoxy. You might as well try to get the glass fiber back from a finished sailboat hull.
I think you misunderstood my posting. I don't blame Bush II for the economic disaster. He bears some of the responsibility for it, sure, but there's blame to go around for a disaster this big. Many other people contributed to the problem over the last 15-20 years to try to "solve" several necessary down cycles and thereby create a world-wide economic collapse, and Bush II only had eight years of watching the snowball grow into the avalanche that can be laid at his feet. Just about the only person who can't be blamed for the disaster is Obama. So far. We'll see if his cautious manipulations of the banks can stabilize things. If not, his name will be added to the list and he'll lose in 2012.
My posting was simply to state two things: that the CRA had absolutely nothing to do with bad loans and most certainly had nothing to do with what's going on now and that your mental contortions to avoid putting any responsibility on Bush II were nonsense.
The CRA didn't tell banks to loan to people without incomes. It said to loan to people in bad neighborhoods using the same loan criteria about the individual as you do in good neighborhoods. The idea that there might be money made from high-interest loans to bad risks did not come from the CRA either. Also, the idea that it wasn't necessary to check for income or assets only appeared once the housing market was rising fast enough that all loans were always above water. Again, nothing to do with the CRA. Finally, the idea that mortgages could be bought and sold in bundles that supposedly reduced the risk of individual defaults was a regulatory failure and had nothing to do with the CRA.
Basically, anyone telling you that the CRA had the smallest thing to do with our current economic problems is completely and utterly full of shit. They're wanting to put blame on Democrats for something, and the CRA 1) looks like sub-prime mortgages and 2) was pushed by Democrats. Look deeper at the CRA and it's simply forcing good business practices onto elitist snobs (most of whom were Democrats) who didn't want to loan money to the lower-classes.
Yes, Bush II will go down in history as the worst president ever. No, he's not the only person to blame for the disaster. He is a very visible person to blame, however, and deserves pretty much all of the barbs thrown his way. IMHO, anyway :)
Um, the CRA is a red herring.
The loans covered by CRA tended to have the same risk profile as other bank loans.
"liar loans", "no income, no assets loans", etc. almost entirely came from institutions not covered by CRA.
The rest of your list is not any better.
You completely missed Christopher Cox's incompetent regulation of financial institutions at the SEC, Alan Greenspan's ill-advised attempt to keep spending up by keeping interest rates near zero for most of a decade, Bush begging Americans to "keep spending" after 9/11, and the real original seed of the current disaster, which was a series of moves to deregulate banks that occurred during Bush I and Clinton leading to the creation of credit default swaps, the securitization of debt, and all sorts of other really bad ideas.
But it was nice of you to try to make Bush look a little less incompetent. The worst president in history still needs a kind word every once in a while.
That's the result of a settlement with the class. As soon as the judge certifies the settlement, it applies to both parties, including the class, and can bind members of the class from subsequent litigation.
The judge's certification is supposed to verify that the various obligations of the settlement are in the fiduciary interest of the class and the plaintiff, to prevent the class lawyers from writing a settlement which only benefits themselves, for instance.
So the question here is: is the settlement in the fiduciary interest of the class members or did the judge make an error in certifying the settlement?
There's a 1900 edition of Sherlock Holmes that seems to allow reading from beginning to end. Hmmm...
Yup. Google is putting up works that are in copyright and covered by the settlement (which is an enormous corpus of in-copyright works).
So far, when I've ended up on a Google books search result, the book has usually been in stock at Amazon and bn.com (with helpful links to those pages on the right side of the page). Now, these in-copyright search results are compromised, in that Google pulls random pages from the viewer so that you can't just read the whole thing. Normally there's at least one page on either side of the page they sent you to, then some skips, then more pages, etc.
I'd actually like to see if Google books puts full text up for non-copyrighted works. Would be interesting to see if that reader widget can be useful for reading a book...
In "at will employment" states (most US states), he's eligible for unemployment since shortening his notice period can't be used to claim "termination for cause", but his boss is almost certainly allowed to fire him.
Most companies go to rather extraordinary measures to avoid employees taking unemployment since it increases their unemployment insurance rates. The normal method is to document poor performance over a minimum of six months and then terminate for cause.
So he might have collected unemployment, except he can't because the delay between application for unemployment and the arrival of the first check would have put it after the start date of his new job.
So he got an unpaid vacation between jobs. As long as money isn't painfully tight, I wouldn't mind too much.
False. The laws vary wildly from state to state. Where I live in California, all parties being recorded must be aware of the recording.
Google will sometimes buy a startup to recruit the engineers capable of writing that system. If a $10M bonus (much of it in stock and tied to a vesting schedule) can recruit some of the best thinkers in a field, it may be well worth it.
Well, I believe that being able to write fanciful and comforting explanations for phenomena beyond our control has historically been an adaptive behavior, and valuable enough that humans as a group are very likely to prefer those stories to scientific explanations that may be less comforting.
So, sure, as a meme and as an adaptive behavior group, religion is an extremely resiliant concept that is remarkably likely to be a part of a culture, even as it is completely wrong.
Meme's can be very strange things.
As for the comparisons to 1984, exaggerate much? Google has the potential to be big brother. Google is not big brother. Almost every Googler is just as afraid of Google going bad as you are.
The assumption of liability would cover bankruptcy very quickly. Also, the fallout wouldn't "keep me from working in the industry" but it would put a damper on getting work via most of my current professional network.
I'm concerned enough about user privacy that I don't need scary contracts to do the right thing. Even so, when I read that contract, it looks like they tried really hard to make it clear that they're really serious about putting the user first and adding some incentives for Google employees to do the same thing.
Call it what you will, but I am surprised at how literally you're interpreting remarks that are clearly chosen to add a little levity and humor to a posting. Mention of a "blood oath" should invoke feudal imagery and a remark that I've drunk too much of the kool-aid, not a literal interpretation that I actually cut my finger for a contract.
Typing fast, changing how I construct a list, slashdot's auto-list-numbering tool built into the editor seems to be broken...
Cut me a break. I'm an actual human being who develops software for a company, not the PR department.
Oh, and the mistake was at (3), not (4), but who's counting?
I did not say that Google is a secure data vault. That's simply retarded. If the content of your files is that important, encrypt it or keep it to yourself or both.
I objected to the statement that Google as an organization rolls over for the government and has already done so several times. It does not and has not. Google will require a warrant or a subpoena before they hand over your data to the government. They will provide data in response to a lawfully presented warrant or subpoena, but they'll require the legal document.
I (and many others) don't see such an action as a violation of privacy, since IMHO, privacy ends where crime begins, and as long as the investigation of that crime is occurring with all due process...
And yeah, grant me a little hyperbole on the "blood oath" comment. The supplemental agreement that I have to sign before I get access to live user data is fairly scary. No blood, but scary enough even so. Google is serious about user privacy.
Those agreements would still require the cooperation of people I know and trust to get to your data. And it wouldn't be given without a fight.
Legal subpoena's notwithstanding.
https has been vulnerable to MITM attack, and is vulnerable to bogus keys (that look valid), but is currently pretty safe from attack when using a sane browser. Lots of people (inside and outside the company) keep very close watch on google.com's SSL keys, so without someone poisoning your DNS (and close to just your DNS)...
If you're enabling SSL on your connection to google, your data is as safe as we can make it. The government possibly has access to the raw bits on the wire between our datacenters, but still doesn't have access to your data (inferring the argument behind this assertion is left as an exercise to the reader).
The easiest way for the government to get to your data without you knowing it is to rootkit your machine. The lowest-cost weakness isn't on the google end of things.
Astroturfers don't clearly identify sources of possible bias. I'm biased cause I work at Google and I like working at Google. I'll tell you that because I'm honest about my biases.
I'm also well-informed, and though I can't tell you very much of what I know, I will tell you that Google tries* to do the right thing, including act as an advocate for user privacy.
* "tries" is a very carefully chosen word here.
Hey dude, it was a mistake. Too bad I can't get some slack on it. The list is right though.
I work for Google. In a project closely related to "GDrive". And I know for an absolute fact that you, sir, are full of shit. Google is the one company that has stood up to our government's "requests for information" and said, "Show me the subpoena." Hell, that's one of the big reasons I work at Google. As for your privacy, the only entities that can see the actual content of your files are 1) you, 2) the ads analysis program, 2) Google developers/system maintenance staff who sign a blood oath that they will not violate user trust, and 3) government agencies that provide a lawful warrant or subpoena for the data. The moment that list fails to be complete, a significant fraction of all Google employees will leave in disgust.