What really kills me is that Google has acknowledged that their name is a play on the word "googol" since they first appeared. I guess the interested parties never did a google search for Googol (which actually brings up a link for http://www.googol.com...not suing *them*, are they?), or looked at the company's history page.
Chairman Mao led a fascist and totalitarian state. That is true and I do not argue with it. However, contrary to most American beliefs, Chairman Mao is no longer in charge of China. It is now a republic. They have elections. The people have the power to vote on who runs their government.
Your first argument may be that they are technically a republic, but the people only have a choice between two evils in each election - not a true choice. I feel the same way about our electorial process, so am I to believe that the United States is a fascist totalitarian state?
Again with the baiting. Sure, if you agree with the obviously false statement that in the USA, you are only allowed to vote for one of two candidates for president (let alone any of the other myriad offices and issues that appear on the ballots you may vote on), then you may state that the USA is a fascist, totalitarian state.
You'd be wrong to say so, though, since you can vote for the individual of your choice, regardless of whether their name appears on the ballot. If you want to equate the governments of the USA, and China, then go right ahead, but I reserve the right to vehemently diagree about the degree of control these governments excercise on their citizens.
Since you believe that the comment about China being totalitarian and fascist is untrue, lets take a trip to the dictionary, shall we?
fas·cism n. 1. often Fascism a. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism. b. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government. 2. Oppressive, dictatorial control.
I will stipulate that under the first definition, the "dictator" prerequisite is not strictly met, but if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...
Return trip to the dictionary:
totalitarian adj. Of, relating to, being, or imposing a form of government in which the political authority exercises absolute and centralized control over all aspects of life, the individual is subordinated to the state, and opposing political and cultural expression is suppressed: “A totalitarian regime crushes all autonomous institutions in its drive to seize the human soul” (Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.).
You could attempt to argue that China's government ecourages political and cultural expression of all viewpoints, but I doubt you'd make a lot of headway. To be fair, things there are changing slowly, and I admire the fact that they are, but right now, the two labels mentioned in the original post appear applicable. Since I disagree with your view that the labels are untrue (perhaps not completely, but they are true enough that attempting to point out that they are not strictly true seem trivial), I disagree with your conclusion that any statement of opinion that reflects this view is necessarily born of hate.
Second, I equate the statement that China is fascist and totalitarian to hatred because both terms are highly negative and untrue. I stand by my opinion that the original post was hateful. It could have been: "Let's get to Mars before China so we will have more to be proud of in our great country." instead of "I, for one do not want to see this fascist, totalitarian state score a propoganda win by landing humans on Mars first."
Or, it could have been "I for one don't want to see those damn chinese do something that WE should be doing first!"...had the sentiment been along those lines, I would be inclined to agree with your analysis. If the people had been referred to rather than the state, I'd say there was probably a problem with emotion related to something other than political ideology.
Be careful of analyzing a statement that makes you angry, and bear
Dammit...you just made me waste the mod points I spent on this topic. Ah, well...
Two things. First, who cares if it doesn't sit well with you (aside from you, that is)? Second, the parent post never mentioned anything about hate, although you did.
It's interesting how some people will go out of their way to make a comment about political systems something seemingly personal. You don't need to 'consider' China to be fascist and totalitarian, you can look up the definitions of those words in the dictionary and say "oh...China is a fascist totalitarian state...interesting".
Pride, to a certain extent, IS just another way of saying hate, just not in every instance. I think it would be fair to say that the author of the parent post may actually hate totalitarian fascists.
It is equally true that people will think very differently about the statements "I'm black and I'm proud", and "I'm white and I'm proud".
Does the first one mean "I hate whites"?
Does the second one mean "I hate blacks"?
I don't think you honestly say that using the first example without the second isn't just baiting, plain and simple.
Finally, a government and the people of a given country are not the same thing. You assume the parent's author has no Chinese friends and has no desire to work with them, rather than taking his comment at face value, and assuming he took issue with the Chinese government.
If you're going to criticize someone on their point of view, at least come back with something more substantial than "I bet you HATE them, don't you?"...it just comes off childish.
You can blame it on Sod or on Finagle (the ficticious god that Larry Niven created...as in "The dread god Finagle and his mad prophet, Murphy"). It was Sod's law before Larry Niven gave it another name.
By the way... here, is a better starting point (yeah, yeah, geocities, I know...still, it's the best place to go first) than the link you posted above.
If you want to get *really* confused, get into the dirty details about how Murphy's Law might not have been uttered by Murphy.
And you're probably thinking of Finagle's Law [of Dynamic Negatives]..."Anything that can go wrong, will go wrong" (sometimes stated with the addition "and as soon as possible").
Murphy's Law is "If there are two or more ways to do something, and one of those ways can result in a catastrophe, then someone will do it."
Sorry for the extra info, but look at my tagling, for cryin out loud:)
Forget asking whether it is a crime. Ask, "If a child does something, does Justice demand that a parent be punished?"
Herein lies the problem. It is not Just to punish someone for something they can not avoid. You say,
I think the main reason people are afraid of this is that many don't spend enough time or energy to be reasonably sure their kids won't get them put in jail someday.
And I say, nobody can spend that much time.
And I disagree. While it takes a great deal of effort to raise a child and to be able to trust them to make good decisions (to be *reasonably* sure, I said), it's not only very possible, it's done every day by many parents.
I had loving parents, etc. I'm about as straigh-laced as they come... but in the end, that was my choice. There was many a thing that I did without my parent's knowlege. I could have easily made some serious crimes, like running drugs, one of them. I had the brains. I had the opportunity. And there's not a damn thing they could have done about it if I so chose.
...and yet, you didn't. Your loving parents took enough time with you to teach you what you needed to make good decisions. You had the brains and the opportunity to do something that you knew was a crime. That's exactly the outcome I would expect and it directly contradicts your statement that "nobody can spend that much time", although I know it doesn't always work that way. So would a jury judging your parents, if you had made a different decision, and they were held accountable.
You can make a case for negligence being actionable, because that is a direct action the parent takes. Negligence should be actionable independently of whether the kid ever does anything. But while a child is not a truly free actor yet, neither are they robotic automatons responding directly and solely to their parent's actions. You can not hold parents legally responsible for their children's most heinous crimes... all you can use it as is as just cause for investigating their parent's behavior, and since nobody can define "good parenting" very well anyhow...
Hmm...here I partially agree with you. True, older kids are not completely under their parents' control, but that doesn't mean that the kid with the crack business, or with the guns in his room is the only person responsible. It's a scary thought for parents, and that's part of the reason we want no part of it. How do we control our kids who are so much more edgy/dangerous/advanced than we were at their age? How do we keep them from doing terrible things?
To have that thought probably means that you aren't devoting as much time to your kids as you should. Not definitely, but probably. Of course, NOT having that thought doesn't mean that you're doing great, and needn't worry about it. You cannot hold parents SOLELY responsible for their childrens' most heinous crimes, but except in cases of mental instability in the kid, the parent definitely shares some of the blame, and even then, sometimes the parent is the *reason* for the mental instability. I'd define good parenting as an overall result, not a set of particular skills...some kids need more guidance than others, and some parents may need to put in overtime with their kids.
In the end, one must be careful not to make the action of having children something that gives parents pause because of the significant possibility of totally random jail time based on the (in the final analysis) uncontrollable actions of their children.
Except that it wouldn't be random. Juries are made up of fathers and mothers and sons and daughters, and they're going to understand that Mr. Smith spent weekends out camping with Johnny, and played catch with him, and kissed him goodnight, and told him that he shouldn't break people's lefs, but Johhny did it any way. In the end, one must be careful, I agree, and any law along these lines would have to be carefully crafted to avoid unwarranted sent
Should we start holding parents criminally responsible for the actions of their children?
No; people should be responsible for their own actions.
Yes, and it's generally accepted that once a person reaches adulthood, he or she *is* responsible for his or her actions. If a parent is held responsible when little Johhny breaks the windshield of the neighbors' car, why should they *not* be responsible when little Johhny breaks the legs of the neighbors' kid? As long as a child is a child, and you are his parent or guardian, you are responsible for what that child does.
I think the main reason people are afraid of this is that many don't spend enough time or energy to be reasonably sure their kids won't get them put in jail someday. Adults should be responsible for their own actions, and parents should be responsible for their children.
Why don't we see more of this already?
Because it's a terrible, terrible idea. People already think that McDonalds are to blame for their obesity.
Not the same thing, and a very disingenuous (or stupid) argument. Why is it a terrible idea? Because it would keep children out of prison who should be locked up, or because it would force parents to get a lot more involved in their childrens' lives or risk jail when they do soething horribly bad?
People think McDonalds is to blame for their obesity for the same reason that they think video games, TV, and movies are to blame for their kids' bad behavior...they refuse to accept personal responsibility for negative outcomes. I'm not sure why you're trying to stand that on its ear, but it was a valiant attempt. Eat at McDonalds 5 days a week: get fat. Let the media raise your kids: they em grow up with no sense of right and wrong. Be negligent enough in raising your child that he/she maliciously kills/maims/hurts someone: face the music.
First of all (coward) he's obviously a geek, not a nerd. Engineers from MIT are usually geeks, anyway. Sure, maybe he's not hand-soldering transistors together to build an mpeg decoder, but I'd bet that he hand-assembled a bunch of relatively general-purpose components to build his own HDTV, just as he said he did. The regular folks SHOULD be wowed...it's not a simple task. Hell, a lot of those folks still have no idea *why* they should be wowed by it.
"In either case, the original point was: there's no real point in backup DNS unless the services you reach via DNS also have suitable backups."
There may be no point to *you* in that situation, but for every other server or client that needs to connect to a resource on your domain, each and every single lookup that has to go to the zone's authoritative nameservers will cost the requestor to wait for a timeout. From the point of view of "well, they can't get to my stuff anyway, 'cause it's all down", sure, it's not any more of a problem for you, but you are only half of the equation.
How about "yes, it would be terrible if your poorly-architected DNS setup meant that all authoritative nameservers for your domain(s) were down and every query made to them for web browsing and smtp connections throughtout the internet had to endure a wait until the request timed out."
I made the same statement that you did once, before I was enlightened by an old-timer on the BIND-users mailing list.
I'll give you a handy example of the ambiguity. Take the Win32 API, which is probably the primary source of Hungarian notation. There's a whole slew of handle data types, most of which are imcompatable. For example, the HWND (handle to a window) and the HDC(handle to a device context). These are often used in the same places, but are created and released using different functions, and mixing them is Bad(tm). Nevertheless, they both (always!) have the same prefix(h), and exactly what handle you're using is referred to using the variable name (generally hWnd and hDC). The h is totally redundant and provides _no_ information here.
Uhh...maybe you like not knowing which window handle is which in your code, but generally, hWnd and hDC would *be* the prefixes I would use..."hWndToolbar" is an example of such a name. I know that it's a handle to a window that has something to do with toolbars...how is that ambiguous? If you ever have to write code in vi or notepad, you'll be less irritated about well-named variables and hungarian notation.
Redundant? Well, if you are the only person who will ever see your code, and you know what you meant when you named that same handle "tBar", great...I just have the feeling that I'd have to do some serious investigation to be familiar with what's what in your code if I were looking at it (me not being assured of having the benefit of the automated tools you mention).
What exactly are you bitching about, or are you just voicing the underdog side of the argument?
[nitpick]A black hole is not a "0-dimensional point" a black hole is a densely packed mass of matter that has a definite size.[/nitpick]
You're thinking of a singularity, I believe, which is a theoretical construct.
Re:AMD Athlon Processor Build & Installation G
on
AMD Back in the Black
·
· Score: 1
Note that power supply manufacturers sell power supplies that have 100 Watts more rated power for sometimes close to twice the price. That's to take advantage of the "more is better" people.
Or, maybe they make them for those people that have more than 4 hard drives/CD-ROM's/DVD-RW's in their system...try running a decent (say 5 SCSI drives) RAID-5 setup on that 350W P/S, and see how fast you run out of juice, nevermind molex connectors.
Where is the documented review process for closed-source software? Are the reviewers in THAT process qualified? Who decides that they are? How even is the quality in closed-source software, and how would you prove it one way or another?
Who's accountable? Well, ultimately (just as with most closed-source software), the user of the software is solely responsible for whatever the software does. If you're talking about "accountability" in terms of "who do I sue?", then I would assume that you would sue the company that packages your particular piece of software. I'm pretty sure most of those companies that are reputable enough to have lawsuits filed against them in the event of some unspecified situation with code will have phone numbers and addresses. If you're a business using software that's not available through some easily identifiable source, then you're operating in the "stupid zone".
I understand the point that you're trying to make, but the argument just doesn't have any teeth. There are too many differences with the way things are in reality for the theory to make any sense.
Without a trusted source, and tracability, it's all over. And for the most part, a pressed closed-source CD from a commercial outfit has a lot more of the 'opening' for corruption closed than a source repository on the public internet and/or a binary update website at Red Hat.
Surely you're joking...you *do* realize that submissions for code that becomes part of (most) open-source projects goes through serious peer review and public scrutiny before it becomes part of a product tree, right? Show me how I can get that kind of accountability with a closed-source product.
Slashdot Mirror
what about when you're using the "english" that means adding spin to a billiard ball?
Hell, Friday night is the only night that there aren't two other shows on at the same time that my wife wants to watch. Woohoo Friday!
What really kills me is that Google has acknowledged that their name is a play on the word "googol" since they first appeared. I guess the interested parties never did a google search for Googol (which actually brings up a link for http://www.googol.com...not suing *them*, are they?), or looked at the company's history page.
Your first argument may be that they are technically a republic, but the people only have a choice between two evils in each election - not a true choice. I feel the same way about our electorial process, so am I to believe that the United States is a fascist totalitarian state?
Again with the baiting. Sure, if you agree with the obviously false statement that in the USA, you are only allowed to vote for one of two candidates for president (let alone any of the other myriad offices and issues that appear on the ballots you may vote on), then you may state that the USA is a fascist, totalitarian state.
You'd be wrong to say so, though, since you can vote for the individual of your choice, regardless of whether their name appears on the ballot. If you want to equate the governments of the USA, and China, then go right ahead, but I reserve the right to vehemently diagree about the degree of control these governments excercise on their citizens.
Since you believe that the comment about China being totalitarian and fascist is untrue, lets take a trip to the dictionary, shall we?
I will stipulate that under the first definition, the "dictator" prerequisite is not strictly met, but if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...
Return trip to the dictionary:
You could attempt to argue that China's government ecourages political and cultural expression of all viewpoints, but I doubt you'd make a lot of headway. To be fair, things there are changing slowly, and I admire the fact that they are, but right now, the two labels mentioned in the original post appear applicable. Since I disagree with your view that the labels are untrue (perhaps not completely, but they are true enough that attempting to point out that they are not strictly true seem trivial), I disagree with your conclusion that any statement of opinion that reflects this view is necessarily born of hate.
Second, I equate the statement that China is fascist and totalitarian to hatred because both terms are highly negative and untrue. I stand by my opinion that the original post was hateful. It could have been: "Let's get to Mars before China so we will have more to be proud of in our great country." instead of "I, for one do not want to see this fascist, totalitarian state score a propoganda win by landing humans on Mars first."
Or, it could have been "I for one don't want to see those damn chinese do something that WE should be doing first!"...had the sentiment been along those lines, I would be inclined to agree with your analysis. If the people had been referred to rather than the state, I'd say there was probably a problem with emotion related to something other than political ideology.
Be careful of analyzing a statement that makes you angry, and bear
Two things. First, who cares if it doesn't sit well with you (aside from you, that is)? Second, the parent post never mentioned anything about hate, although you did.
It's interesting how some people will go out of their way to make a comment about political systems something seemingly personal. You don't need to 'consider' China to be fascist and totalitarian, you can look up the definitions of those words in the dictionary and say "oh...China is a fascist totalitarian state...interesting".
Pride, to a certain extent, IS just another way of saying hate, just not in every instance. I think it would be fair to say that the author of the parent post may actually hate totalitarian fascists.
It is equally true that people will think very differently about the statements "I'm black and I'm proud", and "I'm white and I'm proud".
Does the first one mean "I hate whites"?
Does the second one mean "I hate blacks"?
I don't think you honestly say that using the first example without the second isn't just baiting, plain and simple.
Finally, a government and the people of a given country are not the same thing. You assume the parent's author has no Chinese friends and has no desire to work with them, rather than taking his comment at face value, and assuming he took issue with the Chinese government.
If you're going to criticize someone on their point of view, at least come back with something more substantial than "I bet you HATE them, don't you?"...it just comes off childish.
Where are my mod points when I need them...you're almost certainly right. They *did* do some good stuff with Lion King 1-1/2, though.
By the way... here, is a better starting point (yeah, yeah, geocities, I know...still, it's the best place to go first) than the link you posted above.
If you want to get *really* confused, get into the dirty details about how Murphy's Law might not have been uttered by Murphy.
And you're probably thinking of Finagle's Law [of Dynamic Negatives]..."Anything that can go wrong, will go wrong" (sometimes stated with the addition "and as soon as possible").
Murphy's Law is "If there are two or more ways to do something, and one of those ways can result in a catastrophe, then someone will do it."
Sorry for the extra info, but look at my tagling, for cryin out loud :)
better yet...Google News
Forget asking whether it is a crime. Ask, "If a child does something, does Justice demand that a parent be punished?"
Herein lies the problem. It is not Just to punish someone for something they can not avoid. You say,
I think the main reason people are afraid of this is that many don't spend enough time or energy to be reasonably sure their kids won't get them put in jail someday.
And I say, nobody can spend that much time.
And I disagree. While it takes a great deal of effort to raise a child and to be able to trust them to make good decisions (to be *reasonably* sure, I said), it's not only very possible, it's done every day by many parents.
I had loving parents, etc. I'm about as straigh-laced as they come... but in the end, that was my choice. There was many a thing that I did without my parent's knowlege. I could have easily made some serious crimes, like running drugs, one of them. I had the brains. I had the opportunity. And there's not a damn thing they could have done about it if I so chose.
You can make a case for negligence being actionable, because that is a direct action the parent takes. Negligence should be actionable independently of whether the kid ever does anything. But while a child is not a truly free actor yet, neither are they robotic automatons responding directly and solely to their parent's actions. You can not hold parents legally responsible for their children's most heinous crimes... all you can use it as is as just cause for investigating their parent's behavior, and since nobody can define "good parenting" very well anyhow...
Hmm...here I partially agree with you. True, older kids are not completely under their parents' control, but that doesn't mean that the kid with the crack business, or with the guns in his room is the only person responsible. It's a scary thought for parents, and that's part of the reason we want no part of it. How do we control our kids who are so much more edgy/dangerous/advanced than we were at their age? How do we keep them from doing terrible things?
To have that thought probably means that you aren't devoting as much time to your kids as you should. Not definitely, but probably. Of course, NOT having that thought doesn't mean that you're doing great, and needn't worry about it. You cannot hold parents SOLELY responsible for their childrens' most heinous crimes, but except in cases of mental instability in the kid, the parent definitely shares some of the blame, and even then, sometimes the parent is the *reason* for the mental instability. I'd define good parenting as an overall result, not a set of particular skills...some kids need more guidance than others, and some parents may need to put in overtime with their kids.
In the end, one must be careful not to make the action of having children something that gives parents pause because of the significant possibility of totally random jail time based on the (in the final analysis) uncontrollable actions of their children.
Except that it wouldn't be random. Juries are made up of fathers and mothers and sons and daughters, and they're going to understand that Mr. Smith spent weekends out camping with Johnny, and played catch with him, and kissed him goodnight, and told him that he shouldn't break people's lefs, but Johhny did it any way. In the end, one must be careful, I agree, and any law along these lines would have to be carefully crafted to avoid unwarranted sent
Should we start holding parents criminally responsible for the actions of their children?
No; people should be responsible for their own actions.
Yes, and it's generally accepted that once a person reaches adulthood, he or she *is* responsible for his or her actions. If a parent is held responsible when little Johhny breaks the windshield of the neighbors' car, why should they *not* be responsible when little Johhny breaks the legs of the neighbors' kid? As long as a child is a child, and you are his parent or guardian, you are responsible for what that child does.
I think the main reason people are afraid of this is that many don't spend enough time or energy to be reasonably sure their kids won't get them put in jail someday. Adults should be responsible for their own actions, and parents should be responsible for their children.
Why don't we see more of this already?
Because it's a terrible, terrible idea. People already think that McDonalds are to blame for their obesity.
Not the same thing, and a very disingenuous (or stupid) argument. Why is it a terrible idea? Because it would keep children out of prison who should be locked up, or because it would force parents to get a lot more involved in their childrens' lives or risk jail when they do soething horribly bad?
People think McDonalds is to blame for their obesity for the same reason that they think video games, TV, and movies are to blame for their kids' bad behavior...they refuse to accept personal responsibility for negative outcomes. I'm not sure why you're trying to stand that on its ear, but it was a valiant attempt. Eat at McDonalds 5 days a week: get fat. Let the media raise your kids: they em grow up with no sense of right and wrong. Be negligent enough in raising your child that he/she maliciously kills/maims/hurts someone: face the music.
Did anybody else immediately think "now why did they name it something so close to 'anus'?"...
First of all (coward) he's obviously a geek, not a nerd. Engineers from MIT are usually geeks, anyway. Sure, maybe he's not hand-soldering transistors together to build an mpeg decoder, but I'd bet that he hand-assembled a bunch of relatively general-purpose components to build his own HDTV, just as he said he did. The regular folks SHOULD be wowed...it's not a simple task. Hell, a lot of those folks still have no idea *why* they should be wowed by it.
...and you don't need to see our identification...
uhh...no, they don't.
There may be no point to *you* in that situation, but for every other server or client that needs to connect to a resource on your domain, each and every single lookup that has to go to the zone's authoritative nameservers will cost the requestor to wait for a timeout. From the point of view of "well, they can't get to my stuff anyway, 'cause it's all down", sure, it's not any more of a problem for you, but you are only half of the equation.
I made the same statement that you did once, before I was enlightened by an old-timer on the BIND-users mailing list.
or no-ip.com...
I'll give you a handy example of the ambiguity. Take the Win32 API, which is probably the primary source of Hungarian notation. There's a whole slew of handle data types, most of which are imcompatable. For example, the HWND (handle to a window) and the HDC(handle to a device context). These are often used in the same places, but are created and released using different functions, and mixing them is Bad(tm). Nevertheless, they both (always!) have the same prefix(h), and exactly what handle you're using is referred to using the variable name (generally hWnd and hDC). The h is totally redundant and provides _no_ information here. Uhh...maybe you like not knowing which window handle is which in your code, but generally, hWnd and hDC would *be* the prefixes I would use..."hWndToolbar" is an example of such a name. I know that it's a handle to a window that has something to do with toolbars...how is that ambiguous? If you ever have to write code in vi or notepad, you'll be less irritated about well-named variables and hungarian notation. Redundant? Well, if you are the only person who will ever see your code, and you know what you meant when you named that same handle "tBar", great...I just have the feeling that I'd have to do some serious investigation to be familiar with what's what in your code if I were looking at it (me not being assured of having the benefit of the automated tools you mention). What exactly are you bitching about, or are you just voicing the underdog side of the argument?
You've misread that, I think...I think you should adjust your parser so that reads
"How does anyone know that only LIFEFORMS on earth can create that type of magnetite? Couldn't it occur naturally?"
To which, the answer is "No."
Somebody get me a geek-point extractor!
You're thinking of a singularity, I believe, which is a theoretical construct.
Or, maybe they make them for those people that have more than 4 hard drives/CD-ROM's/DVD-RW's in their system...try running a decent (say 5 SCSI drives) RAID-5 setup on that 350W P/S, and see how fast you run out of juice, nevermind molex connectors.
Where is the documented review process for closed-source software? Are the reviewers in THAT process qualified? Who decides that they are? How even is the quality in closed-source software, and how would you prove it one way or another?
Who's accountable? Well, ultimately (just as with most closed-source software), the user of the software is solely responsible for whatever the software does. If you're talking about "accountability" in terms of "who do I sue?", then I would assume that you would sue the company that packages your particular piece of software. I'm pretty sure most of those companies that are reputable enough to have lawsuits filed against them in the event of some unspecified situation with code will have phone numbers and addresses. If you're a business using software that's not available through some easily identifiable source, then you're operating in the "stupid zone".
I understand the point that you're trying to make, but the argument just doesn't have any teeth. There are too many differences with the way things are in reality for the theory to make any sense.
Surely you're joking...you *do* realize that submissions for code that becomes part of (most) open-source projects goes through serious peer review and public scrutiny before it becomes part of a product tree, right? Show me how I can get that kind of accountability with a closed-source product.