Yea, your problem is with the word "tenure". For example, a professor can get tenure... it does not mean they cannot be fired. It also depends on "good behavior".
Yes. Let's look at the definition of "tenure". From Dictionary.com:
tenÂure [ten-yer]
noun
1. the holding or possessing of anything: the tenure of an office.
2. the holding of property, especially real property, of a superior in return for services to be rendered.
3. the period or term of holding something.
4. status granted to an employee, usually after a probationary period, indicating that the position or employment is permanent.
Note that according to ANY of these definitions (as opposed to informal definitions offered by people regarding teachers), the phrase "lifetime tenure" definitely means "permanently, for life".
But according to the Constitution, this is not the case. So Obama's statement that Federal judges enjoy "lifetime tenure" is simply not correct.
"I still don't understand why people assume monitoring breathing, heart rate, and skin conductivity is a 'crackpot' solution. There is a scientific basis behind it, unlike most actual 'crackpot' areas. It doesn't ALWAYS work, and it's (clearly) beatable, but it's still a science."
No, it isn't. This is why:
The THEORY behind polygraphs is rational. But theories (by definition) are testable!
The REALITY behind polygraphs is that they have been tested. And tested. And tested again. And again. And again. And not one responsibly performed "blind" study has EVER shown polygraphs to work worth a damn.
So: the idea behind polygraphs IS "science" in a sense. But only in the sense that the actual science shows they don't work.
"Except what you bolded does not invalidate what he said. "Tenure" is not irrevocable and does not imply any such thing. Tenure simply means you can't have your position revoked without just cause. So, yes, they do have lifetime tenure as long as they are not impeached (aka the "just cause" for being dismissed)."
As far as I am concerned, it's all semantic games. Good behavior is good behavior. Anything referring to "lifetime" anything in relation to Federal judges is just an attempt to distort the simple truth.
"Arguable to whom? We have Sens. Wyden, Udall, Paul, Lee, Sanders, Merkley..."
Not really. You actually have more than that. Those are just the most outspoken ones. And others are starting to get pretty damned uncomfortable.
But more to the point: if PEOPLE put pressure on their Legislators, something will get done. This is the kind of thing that people DO remember, come election day.
I mean, thanks for confirming my point... not that Wikipedia is the supreme arbiter of such things. The words in the Constitution were not garbled, and their meaning is clear even today... no outdated phrasing to be seen. Good behavior is good behavior. If they don't behave, Congress can remove them. By impeachment, or even (as the last part implies) by other means.
"Similarly, if someone goes on a disgusting, misogynistic rant about a genius and a war hero who happened to be gay, calling him a misogynistic homophobe isn't hateful. It's just a fact."
No, it isn't. It's opinion.
You say this person's "disgusting, misogynistic rant" was merely opinion on his part... and incorrect opinion, at that. Then you say calling HIM "disgusting" and "misogynistic" isn't opinion at all... it's a fact. It must be, right? After all, it's YOU saying it.
Uh-huh. Right. (/sarcasm>) HIS opinion is just opinion, but YOUR opinion is "fact". Sure. And you see no hypocrisy in this. Uh-huh.
You persist in giving me the impression that you have a great big goddamned hole in your head. Maybe you need a mirror?
I don't know why I bother. I keep saying I'm done here, you just keep saying the same idiotic things, over and over and over. I guess I just have faith that given enough effort, hypocrites may be curable. But you haven't encouraged that feeling very much.
If Obama knew his Constitution, he would know that Federal judges do NOT have "lifetime tenure".
"The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office." -- U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 1. [emphasis added]
I think it is very much arguable that the FISA court judges, having "rubber stamped" nearly all surveillance requests, can be said to have violated "good behaviour".
"But apparently your criticisms had nothing to do with the homophobe, despite the fact that you were clearly talking about him and defending him against 'mislabeling'."
What the fuck is wrong with you? Why can't you get it through your head that my comments were not about him, they were about THE PERSON TO WHOM I WAS RESPONDING.
You keep saying the same shit, over and over again. Are you expecting a different response from me?
I know I said I wasn't going to respond again but you genuinely appear to have a blind spot that nothing is penetrating. So let me try one last time, by asking you a question:
Do you honestly think it's NOT hypocritical, to assign a hateful label to someone because he was assigning a hateful label to somebody else?
Maybe you don't think that's hypocritical, but I DO.
My hat is off to OP, who managed to cite a conspiracy theory in his little diatribe about conspiracy theory.
News: while I agree that vinegar-sprayers may belong to the tinfoil hat clan, there are no more of them, in proportion to total number of people, in Ron Paul supporters than there are in any other group.
And that is precisely where you are WRONG. I can criticize someone else for what they say, no matter how their statement relates to YOU. It has nothing to do with you, at all.
Your OPINION was that the label was accurate. You missed the entire point I was making there: a person might have reason for saying what they do (no matter how offensive YOU think it is) and still not be a "homophobe".
And I will repeat what I stated there: I am sick and tired of anybody who expresses an opinion on the matter -- no matter the REASON for that opinion -- getting labeled "homophobe". It simply isn't true and yes, it is an example of "political correctness" which is at least as disgusting as the opinion you are criticizing.
That isn't "defense" of a homophobe. It's a criticism of YOU. Get it the fuck straight.
But I don't think an employee should care much about their "eligibility for rehire" with a company they've left. If you look at a simple tree of possibilities, it generally goes like this:
[A] The employee left while on good terms with the company.
[B] The employee left while having disagreements with the company. (Bad terms?)
[C] The employee was fired.
Now, obviously, in the case of [C] the employee is not going to have "rehire eligibility", so we can stop our analysis there.
For [A], there are two possibilities: [A1], the company likes the employee and wants him/her back. This is good for the employee. [A2], the company is pissed off that the employee left, so there will be no "rehire eligibility".
For [B], there is probably only one possibility: no "rehire eligibility".
So all other things being equal, there is only a 1 in 4 chance of the employee being "rehire eligible", even if they did a good job.
None of those probabilities are weighted of course, but without knowing the individual circumstances it isn't really possible to weight them. The main point I was getting at is that there is close to a 50-50 chance that even if the employee did a good job, the company still would say they aren't "rehire eligible".
I did nothing of the sort, and the record you quoted proves it. It's not my fault your reading comprehension sucks, or that you can't apply elementary logic to what you do read.
You are wasting my time. FUCK OFF. Do you understand that?
"You know, I have grown really weary of this knee-jerk, inaccurate labeling of people. It's just "political correctness" all over again, for which I have absolutely no respect. You are being as much of a jerk as he was, if not more."
That's STILL not "defending" a homophobe! That's CRITICIZING SOMEONE ELSE. Learn the difference.
And I repeat: it's time to knock off the bullshit and go away. Bye.
Expert graphics analysts have proven beyond any doubt that Obama's "birth certificate" is phony. The official explanations given for the demonstrated anomalies in the file have been proven false. Not only that... EVERY OTHER piece of documentation that Obama has produced to support his citizenship (like his selective service registration) have overt signs of "forgery" written all over them. And in fact everything about his birth certificate smells to high heaven. Including the fact that its serial number is out of order.
That is statement of fact, not an ideology. I don't claim that he's not a citizen. I have claimed that all the evidence we have strongly suggests that his documents are forgeries. I did not make up this evidence. And there is NO counter-evidence. I'll go with the actual evidence, thank you very much. And I won't apologize for it, even if that gets me labeled a "birther" by people wearing blinders.
"... and a 9/11 Truther"
Again: a great deal of very strong EVIDENCE, much of it in the official reports, says we weren't told the truth about 9/11. But I have not sat here and tried to tell everybody my own truth instead... I don't know what that is. I've only said that we were being lied to. Again, a statement of fact, based on evidence. Not an ideology. Do you know how offensive it is to be called names simply because you lean toward the preponderance of evidence? But again, that's a typical propaganda technique.
"You've defended a homophobe..."
Really? Who was this "homophobe" I defended, and what did I defend him or her against? I won't claim I did not, I just don't remember off-hand what circumstances you are referring to. More on that in a moment.
"... called for Obama to be impeached, etc."
Most certainly. And why should I not? He's broken far more laws than Nixon did. In fact, just the other day (Wednesday? Tuesday?) a Federal judge said Obama broke the law with his executive order to shut down Yucca Mountain. Please note: A JUDGE said Obama was flagrantly violating Federal law by crafting executive orders in defiance of legitimate laws passed by Congress. You get it yet?
"Even if you really don't think these views are right wing, you should at least be aware that many other people do."
Did you COMPLETELY miss the point I made? Let me try it one more time. Quote: "The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend." Of course I realize that many people consider these things to be right-wing. It's not my fault that they are wrong. They aren't right-wing at all; they're simply against many things supported by the Left. And those are not the same at all.
And by the way, mr. or mrs. AC: you DO know that people on Slashdot consider sock-puppetry to be unacceptable behavior, yes? Funny, but it appears that you may remember some of my own old posts better than I do. So it's a bit funny that someone who has been around here that long is posting as Anonymous Coward, yes?
"Don't want to burn bridges if you don't have to."
This is true. And I try to give notice unless it's completely impossible (rare but it happens). BUT... over the last 25 years, when bridges were burned (and they have been a few times), it was them doing the burning, not me.
" In a bad work environment at a large employer you'll probably be asked to leave as soon as you give any notice."
And then companies wonder why employees seldom have any loyalty these days.
"I gave my 2 week notice last week because I have no complaints from this place and thought I should be considerate and tie up all the loose ends before I left."
I give notice when I reasonably can, and *IF* I am on good terms with the company when I leave. Both of those need explaining, though.
First, as long as I am on good terms with my employer, I try to give notice. But it has not always been possible. A couple of times in my life I have had emergencies that required me to be elsewhere, and giving notice simply wasn't possible. I know on at least one occasion my employer was angry that I didn't give notice. I explained: "Hey... I have no idea where I'll be three days from now, and I have no control over that. It's better that I quit now and tell you about it than to just disappear with no discussion at all." He was angry anyway. Well, hell. I did what I could.
As for the second thing: if it's just plain a shitty place to work and you can't count on a reference anyway, just walk. I have walked out on a couple of jobs. One was a part-time job I had while in school. My supervisor was a complete jerk. One day he kept telling me how to do something in a way that made no sense (and there is no question that I am definitely smarter than him). I suspect that he was just trying to mess with me, but I didn't care. I'd had enough. He said "It's gotta be done THIS way..." and I handed him my tools and said, "Then you're going to have to do it yourself." Then turned around and walked out.
I needed the job. And the manager (not the supervisor) was a decent guy. I went to him later and told him that I really didn't want to leave but I'd just had enough of the supervisor's shit. I told him the same thing I told other people before they hired me: I'll work hard and put up with a lot of crap, if you pay me well enough. I'll work hard for less, if I don't have to take a lot of crap. But you aren't going to get all three.
Another time, I left for the simple reason that I found out the company had been stealing money from my paycheck and benefits. I gave them a week's notice that they really didn't deserve. They were damned lucky I did not press criminal charges. By the time I quit I'd already spoken to the state and the feds about it. But I ended up getting most of my money out of them, so I let it go.
When there was a big push to include content filters in our local library system, the Board said, "Okay. But it's going to be strictly optional for anyone over the age of 12."
"The flaw can be fixed at the application level by manually initializing the PRNG with entropy from/dev/random or/dev/urandom (the built-in tool wasn't doing that properly unless explicitly told to, hence the vulnerability)."
Exactly. This doesn't look like an OS flaw at all... people were just using the random number generator improperly.
There are 2 ways to use most PRNGs in software: with a "seed" value and without. In most cases, if you don't initialize with a properly random seed, you're doing it wrong. Un-seeded use might be fine for some games but little else.
Having said that, it could be that the default initialization seed is insecure, and the "patches" change how that behaves. Fine, in that case it's an OS problem, but a pretty damned minor one.
Slashdot Mirror
Yea, your problem is with the word "tenure". For example, a professor can get tenure... it does not mean they cannot be fired. It also depends on "good behavior".
Yes. Let's look at the definition of "tenure". From Dictionary.com:
tenÂure [ten-yer]
noun
1. the holding or possessing of anything: the tenure of an office.
2. the holding of property, especially real property, of a superior in return for services to be rendered.
3. the period or term of holding something.
4. status granted to an employee, usually after a probationary period, indicating that the position or employment is permanent.
Note that according to ANY of these definitions (as opposed to informal definitions offered by people regarding teachers), the phrase "lifetime tenure" definitely means "permanently, for life".
But according to the Constitution, this is not the case. So Obama's statement that Federal judges enjoy "lifetime tenure" is simply not correct.
"I still don't understand why people assume monitoring breathing, heart rate, and skin conductivity is a 'crackpot' solution. There is a scientific basis behind it, unlike most actual 'crackpot' areas. It doesn't ALWAYS work, and it's (clearly) beatable, but it's still a science."
No, it isn't. This is why:
The THEORY behind polygraphs is rational. But theories (by definition) are testable!
The REALITY behind polygraphs is that they have been tested. And tested. And tested again. And again. And again. And not one responsibly performed "blind" study has EVER shown polygraphs to work worth a damn.
So: the idea behind polygraphs IS "science" in a sense. But only in the sense that the actual science shows they don't work.
Okay? Understand the difference?
"Except what you bolded does not invalidate what he said. "Tenure" is not irrevocable and does not imply any such thing. Tenure simply means you can't have your position revoked without just cause. So, yes, they do have lifetime tenure as long as they are not impeached (aka the "just cause" for being dismissed)."
As far as I am concerned, it's all semantic games. Good behavior is good behavior. Anything referring to "lifetime" anything in relation to Federal judges is just an attempt to distort the simple truth.
"Arguable to whom? We have Sens. Wyden, Udall, Paul, Lee, Sanders, Merkley..."
Not really. You actually have more than that. Those are just the most outspoken ones. And others are starting to get pretty damned uncomfortable.
But more to the point: if PEOPLE put pressure on their Legislators, something will get done. This is the kind of thing that people DO remember, come election day.
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_judge#Tenure_and_salary"
And your point is?
I mean, thanks for confirming my point... not that Wikipedia is the supreme arbiter of such things. The words in the Constitution were not garbled, and their meaning is clear even today... no outdated phrasing to be seen. Good behavior is good behavior. If they don't behave, Congress can remove them. By impeachment, or even (as the last part implies) by other means.
Pretty much what I said.
"Similarly, if someone goes on a disgusting, misogynistic rant about a genius and a war hero who happened to be gay, calling him a misogynistic homophobe isn't hateful. It's just a fact."
No, it isn't. It's opinion.
You say this person's "disgusting, misogynistic rant" was merely opinion on his part... and incorrect opinion, at that. Then you say calling HIM "disgusting" and "misogynistic" isn't opinion at all... it's a fact. It must be, right? After all, it's YOU saying it.
Uh-huh. Right. (/sarcasm>) HIS opinion is just opinion, but YOUR opinion is "fact". Sure. And you see no hypocrisy in this. Uh-huh.
You persist in giving me the impression that you have a great big goddamned hole in your head. Maybe you need a mirror?
I don't know why I bother. I keep saying I'm done here, you just keep saying the same idiotic things, over and over and over. I guess I just have faith that given enough effort, hypocrites may be curable. But you haven't encouraged that feeling very much.
"The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office." -- U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 1. [emphasis added]
I think it is very much arguable that the FISA court judges, having "rubber stamped" nearly all surveillance requests, can be said to have violated "good behaviour".
"But apparently your criticisms had nothing to do with the homophobe, despite the fact that you were clearly talking about him and defending him against 'mislabeling'."
What the fuck is wrong with you? Why can't you get it through your head that my comments were not about him, they were about THE PERSON TO WHOM I WAS RESPONDING.
You keep saying the same shit, over and over again. Are you expecting a different response from me?
I know I said I wasn't going to respond again but you genuinely appear to have a blind spot that nothing is penetrating. So let me try one last time, by asking you a question:
Do you honestly think it's NOT hypocritical, to assign a hateful label to someone because he was assigning a hateful label to somebody else?
Maybe you don't think that's hypocritical, but I DO.
And that, truly, is the end of this discussion.
Correction:
I meant "managed to SUPPORT a conspiracy theory himself, in his little diatribe about conspiracy theory."
There. Fixed that for me.
My hat is off to OP, who managed to cite a conspiracy theory in his little diatribe about conspiracy theory.
News: while I agree that vinegar-sprayers may belong to the tinfoil hat clan, there are no more of them, in proportion to total number of people, in Ron Paul supporters than there are in any other group.
And that is precisely where you are WRONG. I can criticize someone else for what they say, no matter how their statement relates to YOU. It has nothing to do with you, at all.
Bye, now. I shall not reply further.
I will clarify what I just stated:
Your OPINION was that the label was accurate. You missed the entire point I was making there: a person might have reason for saying what they do (no matter how offensive YOU think it is) and still not be a "homophobe".
And I will repeat what I stated there: I am sick and tired of anybody who expresses an opinion on the matter -- no matter the REASON for that opinion -- getting labeled "homophobe". It simply isn't true and yes, it is an example of "political correctness" which is at least as disgusting as the opinion you are criticizing.
That isn't "defense" of a homophobe. It's a criticism of YOU. Get it the fuck straight.
Yeah, I got it now.
But I don't think an employee should care much about their "eligibility for rehire" with a company they've left. If you look at a simple tree of possibilities, it generally goes like this:
[A] The employee left while on good terms with the company.
[B] The employee left while having disagreements with the company. (Bad terms?)
[C] The employee was fired.
Now, obviously, in the case of [C] the employee is not going to have "rehire eligibility", so we can stop our analysis there.
For [A], there are two possibilities: [A1], the company likes the employee and wants him/her back. This is good for the employee. [A2], the company is pissed off that the employee left, so there will be no "rehire eligibility".
For [B], there is probably only one possibility: no "rehire eligibility".
So all other things being equal, there is only a 1 in 4 chance of the employee being "rehire eligible", even if they did a good job.
None of those probabilities are weighted of course, but without knowing the individual circumstances it isn't really possible to weight them. The main point I was getting at is that there is close to a 50-50 chance that even if the employee did a good job, the company still would say they aren't "rehire eligible".
I did nothing of the sort, and the record you quoted proves it. It's not my fault your reading comprehension sucks, or that you can't apply elementary logic to what you do read.
You are wasting my time. FUCK OFF. Do you understand that?
"You know, I have grown really weary of this knee-jerk, inaccurate labeling of people. It's just "political correctness" all over again, for which I have absolutely no respect. You are being as much of a jerk as he was, if not more."
That's STILL not "defending" a homophobe! That's CRITICIZING SOMEONE ELSE. Learn the difference.
And I repeat: it's time to knock off the bullshit and go away. Bye.
"It is strictly internal to the original company."
Thanks. I should have figured that out.
That's quite enough of that. Take your sock puppet and go jerk off with it or something, and leave me alone.
"Jane defends a homophobe."
Hahahahahahahahahaha!
You call that "defending a homophobe"???
I was telling somebody that their argument didn't make sense. I wasn't "defending" ANYBODY.
That's just frigging hilarious. It's no wonder I didn't remember "defending a homophobe", because I didn't.
"you're a Birther"
Expert graphics analysts have proven beyond any doubt that Obama's "birth certificate" is phony. The official explanations given for the demonstrated anomalies in the file have been proven false. Not only that... EVERY OTHER piece of documentation that Obama has produced to support his citizenship (like his selective service registration) have overt signs of "forgery" written all over them. And in fact everything about his birth certificate smells to high heaven. Including the fact that its serial number is out of order.
That is statement of fact, not an ideology. I don't claim that he's not a citizen. I have claimed that all the evidence we have strongly suggests that his documents are forgeries. I did not make up this evidence. And there is NO counter-evidence. I'll go with the actual evidence, thank you very much. And I won't apologize for it, even if that gets me labeled a "birther" by people wearing blinders.
"... and a 9/11 Truther"
Again: a great deal of very strong EVIDENCE, much of it in the official reports, says we weren't told the truth about 9/11. But I have not sat here and tried to tell everybody my own truth instead... I don't know what that is. I've only said that we were being lied to. Again, a statement of fact, based on evidence. Not an ideology. Do you know how offensive it is to be called names simply because you lean toward the preponderance of evidence? But again, that's a typical propaganda technique.
"You've defended a homophobe..."
Really? Who was this "homophobe" I defended, and what did I defend him or her against? I won't claim I did not, I just don't remember off-hand what circumstances you are referring to. More on that in a moment.
"... called for Obama to be impeached, etc."
Most certainly. And why should I not? He's broken far more laws than Nixon did. In fact, just the other day (Wednesday? Tuesday?) a Federal judge said Obama broke the law with his executive order to shut down Yucca Mountain. Please note: A JUDGE said Obama was flagrantly violating Federal law by crafting executive orders in defiance of legitimate laws passed by Congress. You get it yet?
"Even if you really don't think these views are right wing, you should at least be aware that many other people do."
Did you COMPLETELY miss the point I made? Let me try it one more time. Quote: "The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend." Of course I realize that many people consider these things to be right-wing. It's not my fault that they are wrong. They aren't right-wing at all; they're simply against many things supported by the Left. And those are not the same at all.
And by the way, mr. or mrs. AC: you DO know that people on Slashdot consider sock-puppetry to be unacceptable behavior, yes? Funny, but it appears that you may remember some of my own old posts better than I do. So it's a bit funny that someone who has been around here that long is posting as Anonymous Coward, yes?
Just sayin'
I see. Yes, indeed, if SecureRandom() really isn't, then it's an OS problem.
"Don't want to burn bridges if you don't have to."
This is true. And I try to give notice unless it's completely impossible (rare but it happens). BUT... over the last 25 years, when bridges were burned (and they have been a few times), it was them doing the burning, not me.
" In a bad work environment at a large employer you'll probably be asked to leave as soon as you give any notice."
And then companies wonder why employees seldom have any loyalty these days.
"... many employers will give the dates of employment and whether the person is eligible for rehire."
Pardon me, but I don't understand what you mean by "eligible for rehire". My former employers have absolutely no say over who I work for now.
"I gave my 2 week notice last week because I have no complaints from this place and thought I should be considerate and tie up all the loose ends before I left."
I give notice when I reasonably can, and *IF* I am on good terms with the company when I leave. Both of those need explaining, though.
First, as long as I am on good terms with my employer, I try to give notice. But it has not always been possible. A couple of times in my life I have had emergencies that required me to be elsewhere, and giving notice simply wasn't possible. I know on at least one occasion my employer was angry that I didn't give notice. I explained: "Hey... I have no idea where I'll be three days from now, and I have no control over that. It's better that I quit now and tell you about it than to just disappear with no discussion at all." He was angry anyway. Well, hell. I did what I could.
As for the second thing: if it's just plain a shitty place to work and you can't count on a reference anyway, just walk. I have walked out on a couple of jobs. One was a part-time job I had while in school. My supervisor was a complete jerk. One day he kept telling me how to do something in a way that made no sense (and there is no question that I am definitely smarter than him). I suspect that he was just trying to mess with me, but I didn't care. I'd had enough. He said "It's gotta be done THIS way..." and I handed him my tools and said, "Then you're going to have to do it yourself." Then turned around and walked out.
I needed the job. And the manager (not the supervisor) was a decent guy. I went to him later and told him that I really didn't want to leave but I'd just had enough of the supervisor's shit. I told him the same thing I told other people before they hired me: I'll work hard and put up with a lot of crap, if you pay me well enough. I'll work hard for less, if I don't have to take a lot of crap. But you aren't going to get all three.
Another time, I left for the simple reason that I found out the company had been stealing money from my paycheck and benefits. I gave them a week's notice that they really didn't deserve. They were damned lucky I did not press criminal charges. By the time I quit I'd already spoken to the state and the feds about it. But I ended up getting most of my money out of them, so I let it go.
This is the part that shocked me.
When there was a big push to include content filters in our local library system, the Board said, "Okay. But it's going to be strictly optional for anyone over the age of 12."
"The flaw can be fixed at the application level by manually initializing the PRNG with entropy from /dev/random or /dev/urandom (the built-in tool wasn't doing that properly unless explicitly told to, hence the vulnerability)."
Exactly. This doesn't look like an OS flaw at all... people were just using the random number generator improperly.
There are 2 ways to use most PRNGs in software: with a "seed" value and without. In most cases, if you don't initialize with a properly random seed, you're doing it wrong. Un-seeded use might be fine for some games but little else.
Having said that, it could be that the default initialization seed is insecure, and the "patches" change how that behaves. Fine, in that case it's an OS problem, but a pretty damned minor one.