What if I comment with something in that circle (whatever that is), and someone in that circle replies with something he wants to be public? Does the outside world just see half of a conversation?
All replies stay within the same restricted space. If someone wants to add a public comment, they can comment on the video rather than replying to your restricted post. If they want to make sure you see their comment, they can mention you by name, or they can add a reply to your comment which links to their public comment.
I am too. I noticed recently youtube has a picture it scraped up from a google+ account I never consented to be made, never told it to use, and really it's a mystery where it came from or who it is. But it's now me, and I cant get rid of it. Might just delete my youtube account as a result.
It's not a photo of you? And you can't delete it? How can you not get rid of it? That sounds like a bug. If you want to send me details, I'll look into it a bit and file a bug report.
It would also be a good idea if you used the "send feedback" link on one of the relevant pages. You won't get any response, generally, but those feedback submissions do get a lot of attention.
They automatically keep you logged in so they can keep track of anything you search for
Only if you want them to. Use the keep-my-opt-outs plugins they provide, or turn on the do-not-track setting in your browser and they won't track you.
Personally, I go the other direction. I have web history turned on so Google keeps a complete history of all of my web activity. When I want to find that URL I was looking at last night (at home, from a different computer), I can just search my history and there it is. That's just one example, but I find having my web history "in the cloud" to be really useful.
But YMMV, and Google makes it easy for you to opt out of tracking if that's what you want.
then return links that are redirected through them so they know exactly what you clicked on
So do all other search engines... and they did long before Google even existed. Why? Because if you're running a search engine the hardest part is figuring out what, of all the possibly-matching content on the web, the user is actually trying to find, and one of the most useful signals you can use to help figure out which pages are worthwhile are which ones real people actually click on when their snippets show up in the search results.
I suspect you can get even more information by looking at what result they clicked last, on the theory that if they stopped searching that last link is very likely what they needed to find. Not always, obviously, but often enough that over millions of clicks the really good stuff rises to the top.
They got rid of the ability to disable "SafeSearch" completely for images.
No, they didn't. Now you just have to include some search terms that indicate you're looking for non-"safe" content. Searching for "natalie portman" gets you the safe stuff, but "natalie portman naked" gets you the rest.
If you own an Android phone, they know everywhere you go.
Again, only if you enable location services and sharing of the data with Google. Again, I get all kinds of value out of it and really like it, but YMMV, and the choice is up to you.
Their push for NFC technology is mainly motivated by the fact that they want to know everything you're buying, too.
I know too much about that area, so I really shouldn't comment. I will only say that, again, it'll be under your control. And, again, I will probably not mind it because then hopefully I'll stop seeing ads for stuff I already bought.
Honestly, the NSA doesn't have to do shit. Google has basically handed them everything they could ever want, on a silver platter.
Google doesn't give the NSA anything, except in response to narrow and well-justified legal orders (which in 2012 affected between 1000 and 1999 user accounts out of Google's > 1 billion users; see the transparency report). It appears maybe the NSA tapped Google fiber links between data centers, but Google has now encrypted all of those links (see the recent announcement). It's possible the NSA has suborned employees to gain illicit access, but Google locks everything down pretty tightly internally as well, so it's dubious that the could get a lot that way, and if any employee got caught doing anything like that they'd be fired. I can be fired for looking up even my own personal data, much less anyone else's.
(Disclaimer: I'm a Google software engineer. None of the above is based on any non-public information, however. Heck most of it is on Google's product help pages. I did speculate on user control of Google's use of NFC transaction data, but I'm just extrapolating from Google's approach to everything else.)
Because I want to at least *feel* like I have SOME sort of control over what I do online and where my personal effects end up?
Then you should like the G+/YouTube integration because now you can make YouTube comments that are not public. Pick the people/circles you want to share your comment with and only those people will be able to see your comment on the video. Yes, for this to work they have to have Google+ accounts, too, or they will be part of "the public" and be unable to see what you wrote.
I'm not sure if the video owner can see comments that are shared privately. I suspect not.
Anyway, if it's control you're looking for, this change gives you control that you didn't previously have.
(Disclaimer: I'm a Google engineer, but I don't work on YouTube or Google+. My only real knowledge of them is as a (satisfied) user.)
They'd just take their chances and order a book that they aren't sure is good.
I'm hoping that eventually authors and publishers will wise up and allow booksellers to distribute free previews, at least for fiction books. I love Baen's model, which allows me to read the first few chapters for free. I know that what I buy seems to be good (it could still fall apart later, but with a few notable exceptions -- Neal Stephenson -- most authors who can write a few compelling chapters can hold my interest for a whole book), and I actually end up buying more because I start reading for free (no barrier to entry), then get hooked, then buy the book... and then the next four.
The Baen Free Library takes this concept to another level, with perhaps even greater success at sucking money from my wallet and making me quite happy about it.
Yours doesn't appear to very blissful. It seems to generate quite a lot of anger. If you'd like to actually remedy your ignorance, feel free to ask questions about how Google operates and what it does (as opposed to how ranters on/. portray it) and I'll do my best to answer them, within my obvious constraints.
Otherwise, you're certainly free to simply not use Google's products, and Google provides ways for you to opt out of all ad and analytics tracking, either via Google-provided plugins, or through the Do Not Track setting in your browser. Google really doesn't want to track you if you don't want to be tracked. You probably don't believe that, but I can tell you I know some of the people on Google's privacy teams and they're very serious about fully and completely honoring do-not-track requests, and Google's execs all the way to the top take it seriously.
Actually, Google has to take privacy problems seriously, or be in violation of the FTC consent decree. But I have ample reason to believe we'd behave precisely the same even without that, because Googlers, like most geeky engineers, are highly sensitive to privacy concerns.
Of course, you'll just call me liar, since you already believe I lack ethics and morals. But that's on you. I'm going to get back to work, making sure that Google users' data is tightly protected.
But what if THOSE have trojans too?! (point being, you can't please or shut these people up)
The method is extensible. You apply DDC to all compilers. In order for any of them to be trojaned, they all have to be trojaned... and they all have to include trojans specifically written for each of the others, which include the trojan all pairwise combinations.
So if you have three compilers, with source code, you can apply DDC three times (A/B, A/C, B/C). If you detect no trojans, then either none exist, or each compiler must contain all three trojans (one for each compiler) and each trojan must contain code to detect each compiler.
As the number of compilers goes up, the attacker's job gets harder. It's O(n^2) in the number of compilers, but it's actually tougher than that because at some point all of this compiler-detection and modification code gets big enough that it becomes easy to find in the binary. And the detection and modification code can't be too obvious, either.
Note that while the attackers job gets harder as O(n^2), the detecter's job is O(n). It's not necessary to do DDC pairwise; you can order the compilers in a ring and compile around the ring... compile compiler i with compiler i + 1, then when i = n, use that last compiler to compile the first. Unless each compiler in the ring had code to detect the next and trojan it, inserting trojans for every other compiler in the ring, the modifications will be detected.
If you need more compilers, you can get multiple versions of each compiler to throw into the mix. It's particularly good to go back to very old versions which could not possibly have known enough about the structure and code of new versions -- or entirely new compilers -- in order to be able to detect and modify them.
The fact that clang is a very new compiler is quite useful this way. Pick old versions of GCC and the BSD compiler which predate the existence of clang by several years and apply DDC. If you don't detect a modification, they're all good -- unless whoever is trojaning everything is going back to software archives and quietly modifying old copies of the source code. So to be really sure you want to get your old copy from a trustworthy, or at least unmodifiable, source. For example I have some old CDs of the Red Hat distro from 1997.
As a final proof, you can always just write your own C compiler from scratch. C is a simple language and if you don't care about producing optimal code or making it fast you can build a compiler from scratch in a few weeks of focused work.
reflected the chauvinism of the nationalist, technocratic exceptionalism of the '50s -better living through chemistry
In Starship Troopers the previous government was technocratic, ruled by the exceptional intelligentsia... and it failed, leaving a bunch of army veterans to pick up the pieces and build a simple, minimalist system that worked. It was pretty much the opposite of what you described.
If you had to completely obliterate all competition before you could be prosecuted for anticompetitive action, it would completely defeat the purpose of the legislation.
Possession of a monopoly position is a pre-requisite to being able to engage in anti-competitive action, as least per my non-lawyerly understanding. Up until you possess a monopoly position anything you do that isn't otherwise illegal is just competition. Antitrust legislation comes into play when a competitor that has achieved monopoly power in one market abuses that position to maintain that position or -- even worse -- leverage an advantage in other markets.
Keep in mind that it is not illegal to become a monopoly, or to stay a monopoly. Monopolies happen from time to time in competitive marketplaces, because one competitor is just that much better than the others. And as long as the monopoly position isn't abused to keep competition out, that's fine, because the monopolist holds the position through simple excellence at meeting consumer needs most effectively and efficiently (at the lowest price). When another player steps up an betters the monopolists' operations, then consumers will move, the monopoly will end, and nothing bad will have happened.
So, the GP's point that Google doesn't actually have a monopoly in anything is a really valid one, IMO. The EU regulators don't seem to care, but I think that's mostly because Google is an American company.
(Disclaimer: I'm a Google employee, but the above is purely my own understanding and opinions, and haven't changed since going to work for Google.)
Good Idea... Until you start to realize that pretty wel everything you do is sent directly to the Chocolate Factory 'to improve their advertising outlet' i.e. your device.
That's a different set of regulations and even mostly a different regulatory body, and the banks don't lie, they just make the truth so complicated no one can understand it.
As far as we know, they could be handing user information over to the government the second it hits Apple's servers; no request necessary.
Except that they've previously denied doing that.
Well, good thing that corporations never lie or misrepresent information they present to the public, then. </sarc>
Do you have any evidence that they do make factual misrepresentations to the public? If the fact in question is one that could affect the value of the company, then making such statements is a crime that could land the executives in prison.
I think the history of the NSA revelations is interesting. We have numerous examples of government employees outright lying, but as far as I've been able to find, not a single one of a corporation executive lying. The telcos withheld the fact that they were providing metadata, but once they were asked about it directly they admitted that they were, for example.
Except... that the phone companies never denied sharing data with the NSA. They knew they were doing it, it wasn't compartmentalized. They didn't volunteer it, but as soon as they were asked directly, they admitted it. In contrast, the tech companies have flatly denied any sharing beyond that mandated by law that must go through the front door and is accounted for in these transparency reports.
There is no evidentiary basis, not even by analogy with the phone companies, to support your supposition. And there's good reason for companies not to allow such things to happen. For one, making public statements like those the companies have made that later turn out to be false could land the executives who made the statements in prison. And "but I didn't know" isn't a valid excuse if there's any evidence of deliberate compartmentalization which the execs knew or should have known about.
Of course, it's always possible (even likely) that the NSA has planted or suborned moles in the various companies, to provide illicit access that the companies don't know about and aren't responsible for. It's certain that the NSA has tapped into internal communications channels, where they're not encrypted. But those are separate and distinct concerns from what you're alleging.
You seem to have missed my point. Apple is allowed to provide exact numbers for everything except NSLs... and actually they provided an exact number for that: "none". So there was no legal reason for them not to be precise.
It depends how you count. One NSL/~court document/letter could cover an entire group, brand, faith or generation of people.
Not a legally valid NSL, per my understanding (which comes from Google's legal counsel -- I'm not sure how much detail I can provide, so I won't give any). And the ranges provided by most of the companies -- including Google -- cover not just number of requests but number of accounts impacts. For example, the most recent report from Google says that in 2012 Google received 0-999 requests which affected 1000-1999 user accounts.
That's NSL's only. For other requests (subpoenas, warrants, etc.), in 2012 Google received 16,407 requests affecting 31,072 accounts, and produced at least some data in response to 89% of them.
This is US only, but the data for other countries is like the non-NSL data from the US; very precise, and with specification of numbers of accounts affected. So your theory about this approach to masking broad access doesn't hold water, unless you assume that the numbers are either fabrications or not complete.
Slashdot Mirror
I have gotten great value out of it. YMMV.
What if I comment with something in that circle (whatever that is), and someone in that circle replies with something he wants to be public? Does the outside world just see half of a conversation?
All replies stay within the same restricted space. If someone wants to add a public comment, they can comment on the video rather than replying to your restricted post. If they want to make sure you see their comment, they can mention you by name, or they can add a reply to your comment which links to their public comment.
Well, luckily for you, you can post publicly as well. But you are not the entire world.
The alternative is giving everything to the most powerful internet based company outside of your isp?
Did you not realize YouTube was part of Google? The Google+ integration didn't change that.
I am too. I noticed recently youtube has a picture it scraped up from a google+ account I never consented to be made, never told it to use, and really it's a mystery where it came from or who it is. But it's now me, and I cant get rid of it. Might just delete my youtube account as a result.
It's not a photo of you? And you can't delete it? How can you not get rid of it? That sounds like a bug. If you want to send me details, I'll look into it a bit and file a bug report.
It would also be a good idea if you used the "send feedback" link on one of the relevant pages. You won't get any response, generally, but those feedback submissions do get a lot of attention.
Google has slowly turned really fucking evil.
Your definition of "evil" is... interesting.
They automatically keep you logged in so they can keep track of anything you search for
Only if you want them to. Use the keep-my-opt-outs plugins they provide, or turn on the do-not-track setting in your browser and they won't track you.
Personally, I go the other direction. I have web history turned on so Google keeps a complete history of all of my web activity. When I want to find that URL I was looking at last night (at home, from a different computer), I can just search my history and there it is. That's just one example, but I find having my web history "in the cloud" to be really useful.
But YMMV, and Google makes it easy for you to opt out of tracking if that's what you want.
then return links that are redirected through them so they know exactly what you clicked on
So do all other search engines... and they did long before Google even existed. Why? Because if you're running a search engine the hardest part is figuring out what, of all the possibly-matching content on the web, the user is actually trying to find, and one of the most useful signals you can use to help figure out which pages are worthwhile are which ones real people actually click on when their snippets show up in the search results.
I suspect you can get even more information by looking at what result they clicked last, on the theory that if they stopped searching that last link is very likely what they needed to find. Not always, obviously, but often enough that over millions of clicks the really good stuff rises to the top.
They got rid of the ability to disable "SafeSearch" completely for images.
No, they didn't. Now you just have to include some search terms that indicate you're looking for non-"safe" content. Searching for "natalie portman" gets you the safe stuff, but "natalie portman naked" gets you the rest.
If you own an Android phone, they know everywhere you go.
Again, only if you enable location services and sharing of the data with Google. Again, I get all kinds of value out of it and really like it, but YMMV, and the choice is up to you.
Their push for NFC technology is mainly motivated by the fact that they want to know everything you're buying, too.
I know too much about that area, so I really shouldn't comment. I will only say that, again, it'll be under your control. And, again, I will probably not mind it because then hopefully I'll stop seeing ads for stuff I already bought.
Honestly, the NSA doesn't have to do shit. Google has basically handed them everything they could ever want, on a silver platter.
Google doesn't give the NSA anything, except in response to narrow and well-justified legal orders (which in 2012 affected between 1000 and 1999 user accounts out of Google's > 1 billion users; see the transparency report). It appears maybe the NSA tapped Google fiber links between data centers, but Google has now encrypted all of those links (see the recent announcement). It's possible the NSA has suborned employees to gain illicit access, but Google locks everything down pretty tightly internally as well, so it's dubious that the could get a lot that way, and if any employee got caught doing anything like that they'd be fired. I can be fired for looking up even my own personal data, much less anyone else's.
(Disclaimer: I'm a Google software engineer. None of the above is based on any non-public information, however. Heck most of it is on Google's product help pages. I did speculate on user control of Google's use of NFC transaction data, but I'm just extrapolating from Google's approach to everything else.)
Because I want to at least *feel* like I have SOME sort of control over what I do online and where my personal effects end up?
Then you should like the G+/YouTube integration because now you can make YouTube comments that are not public. Pick the people/circles you want to share your comment with and only those people will be able to see your comment on the video. Yes, for this to work they have to have Google+ accounts, too, or they will be part of "the public" and be unable to see what you wrote.
I'm not sure if the video owner can see comments that are shared privately. I suspect not.
Anyway, if it's control you're looking for, this change gives you control that you didn't previously have.
(Disclaimer: I'm a Google engineer, but I don't work on YouTube or Google+. My only real knowledge of them is as a (satisfied) user.)
We are what we do. The NSA is doing evil, regardless of what their intentions are.
Does changing what we do change what we are, or is it a one-way road -- once we do something evil are we irretrievably lost?
They'd just take their chances and order a book that they aren't sure is good.
I'm hoping that eventually authors and publishers will wise up and allow booksellers to distribute free previews, at least for fiction books. I love Baen's model, which allows me to read the first few chapters for free. I know that what I buy seems to be good (it could still fall apart later, but with a few notable exceptions -- Neal Stephenson -- most authors who can write a few compelling chapters can hold my interest for a whole book), and I actually end up buying more because I start reading for free (no barrier to entry), then get hooked, then buy the book... and then the next four.
The Baen Free Library takes this concept to another level, with perhaps even greater success at sucking money from my wallet and making me quite happy about it.
Ok, ignorance is bliss.
Yours doesn't appear to very blissful. It seems to generate quite a lot of anger. If you'd like to actually remedy your ignorance, feel free to ask questions about how Google operates and what it does (as opposed to how ranters on /. portray it) and I'll do my best to answer them, within my obvious constraints.
Otherwise, you're certainly free to simply not use Google's products, and Google provides ways for you to opt out of all ad and analytics tracking, either via Google-provided plugins, or through the Do Not Track setting in your browser. Google really doesn't want to track you if you don't want to be tracked. You probably don't believe that, but I can tell you I know some of the people on Google's privacy teams and they're very serious about fully and completely honoring do-not-track requests, and Google's execs all the way to the top take it seriously.
Actually, Google has to take privacy problems seriously, or be in violation of the FTC consent decree. But I have ample reason to believe we'd behave precisely the same even without that, because Googlers, like most geeky engineers, are highly sensitive to privacy concerns.
Of course, you'll just call me liar, since you already believe I lack ethics and morals. But that's on you. I'm going to get back to work, making sure that Google users' data is tightly protected.
But what if THOSE have trojans too?! (point being, you can't please or shut these people up)
The method is extensible. You apply DDC to all compilers. In order for any of them to be trojaned, they all have to be trojaned... and they all have to include trojans specifically written for each of the others, which include the trojan all pairwise combinations.
So if you have three compilers, with source code, you can apply DDC three times (A/B, A/C, B/C). If you detect no trojans, then either none exist, or each compiler must contain all three trojans (one for each compiler) and each trojan must contain code to detect each compiler.
As the number of compilers goes up, the attacker's job gets harder. It's O(n^2) in the number of compilers, but it's actually tougher than that because at some point all of this compiler-detection and modification code gets big enough that it becomes easy to find in the binary. And the detection and modification code can't be too obvious, either.
Note that while the attackers job gets harder as O(n^2), the detecter's job is O(n). It's not necessary to do DDC pairwise; you can order the compilers in a ring and compile around the ring... compile compiler i with compiler i + 1, then when i = n, use that last compiler to compile the first. Unless each compiler in the ring had code to detect the next and trojan it, inserting trojans for every other compiler in the ring, the modifications will be detected.
If you need more compilers, you can get multiple versions of each compiler to throw into the mix. It's particularly good to go back to very old versions which could not possibly have known enough about the structure and code of new versions -- or entirely new compilers -- in order to be able to detect and modify them.
The fact that clang is a very new compiler is quite useful this way. Pick old versions of GCC and the BSD compiler which predate the existence of clang by several years and apply DDC. If you don't detect a modification, they're all good -- unless whoever is trojaning everything is going back to software archives and quietly modifying old copies of the source code. So to be really sure you want to get your old copy from a trustworthy, or at least unmodifiable, source. For example I have some old CDs of the Red Hat distro from 1997.
As a final proof, you can always just write your own C compiler from scratch. C is a simple language and if you don't care about producing optimal code or making it fast you can build a compiler from scratch in a few weeks of focused work.
This problem is easily solvable.
reflected the chauvinism of the nationalist, technocratic exceptionalism of the '50s -better living through chemistry
In Starship Troopers the previous government was technocratic, ruled by the exceptional intelligentsia... and it failed, leaving a bunch of army veterans to pick up the pieces and build a simple, minimalist system that worked. It was pretty much the opposite of what you described.
Unless one is planted into GCC.
Easy to eliminate. There are plenty of other open source compilers.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1004.5548.pdf
The code is still vulnerable to a Ken Thompson style attack.
Is it possible to build the Windows version of TrueCrypt with GCC, or the Intel compiler? If so, then the Thompson attack can be worked around.
So... whether or not there is a monopoly is irrelevant to an antitrust investigation?
How does it feel to work at such an unethical company?
You might as well work for the NSA.
Mu.
Your question contains numerous assumptions with which I deeply disagree.
If you had to completely obliterate all competition before you could be prosecuted for anticompetitive action, it would completely defeat the purpose of the legislation.
Possession of a monopoly position is a pre-requisite to being able to engage in anti-competitive action, as least per my non-lawyerly understanding. Up until you possess a monopoly position anything you do that isn't otherwise illegal is just competition. Antitrust legislation comes into play when a competitor that has achieved monopoly power in one market abuses that position to maintain that position or -- even worse -- leverage an advantage in other markets.
Keep in mind that it is not illegal to become a monopoly, or to stay a monopoly. Monopolies happen from time to time in competitive marketplaces, because one competitor is just that much better than the others. And as long as the monopoly position isn't abused to keep competition out, that's fine, because the monopolist holds the position through simple excellence at meeting consumer needs most effectively and efficiently (at the lowest price). When another player steps up an betters the monopolists' operations, then consumers will move, the monopoly will end, and nothing bad will have happened.
So, the GP's point that Google doesn't actually have a monopoly in anything is a really valid one, IMO. The EU regulators don't seem to care, but I think that's mostly because Google is an American company.
(Disclaimer: I'm a Google employee, but the above is purely my own understanding and opinions, and haven't changed since going to work for Google.)
Good Idea... Until you start to realize that pretty wel everything you do is sent directly to the Chocolate Factory 'to improve their advertising outlet' i.e. your device.
Cite?
That's a different set of regulations and even mostly a different regulatory body, and the banks don't lie, they just make the truth so complicated no one can understand it.
Try again.
As far as we know, they could be handing user information over to the government the second it hits Apple's servers; no request necessary.
Except that they've previously denied doing that.
Well, good thing that corporations never lie or misrepresent information they present to the public, then. </sarc>
Do you have any evidence that they do make factual misrepresentations to the public? If the fact in question is one that could affect the value of the company, then making such statements is a crime that could land the executives in prison.
I think the history of the NSA revelations is interesting. We have numerous examples of government employees outright lying, but as far as I've been able to find, not a single one of a corporation executive lying. The telcos withheld the fact that they were providing metadata, but once they were asked about it directly they admitted that they were, for example.
As far as we know, they could be handing user information over to the government the second it hits Apple's servers; no request necessary.
Except that they've previously denied doing that.
Except... that the phone companies never denied sharing data with the NSA. They knew they were doing it, it wasn't compartmentalized. They didn't volunteer it, but as soon as they were asked directly, they admitted it. In contrast, the tech companies have flatly denied any sharing beyond that mandated by law that must go through the front door and is accounted for in these transparency reports.
There is no evidentiary basis, not even by analogy with the phone companies, to support your supposition. And there's good reason for companies not to allow such things to happen. For one, making public statements like those the companies have made that later turn out to be false could land the executives who made the statements in prison. And "but I didn't know" isn't a valid excuse if there's any evidence of deliberate compartmentalization which the execs knew or should have known about.
Of course, it's always possible (even likely) that the NSA has planted or suborned moles in the various companies, to provide illicit access that the companies don't know about and aren't responsible for. It's certain that the NSA has tapped into internal communications channels, where they're not encrypted. But those are separate and distinct concerns from what you're alleging.
You seem to have missed my point. Apple is allowed to provide exact numbers for everything except NSLs... and actually they provided an exact number for that: "none". So there was no legal reason for them not to be precise.
Ah, so you're going with incomplete. You have a rather verbose way of saying it.
It depends how you count. One NSL/~court document/letter could cover an entire group, brand, faith or generation of people.
Not a legally valid NSL, per my understanding (which comes from Google's legal counsel -- I'm not sure how much detail I can provide, so I won't give any). And the ranges provided by most of the companies -- including Google -- cover not just number of requests but number of accounts impacts. For example, the most recent report from Google says that in 2012 Google received 0-999 requests which affected 1000-1999 user accounts.
That's NSL's only. For other requests (subpoenas, warrants, etc.), in 2012 Google received 16,407 requests affecting 31,072 accounts, and produced at least some data in response to 89% of them.
This is US only, but the data for other countries is like the non-NSL data from the US; very precise, and with specification of numbers of accounts affected. So your theory about this approach to masking broad access doesn't hold water, unless you assume that the numbers are either fabrications or not complete.