Toyota don't need another reliability scandal any time soon. If this is an issue they need to address, they need to address is with all haste.
Like someone said above, the A x B x C = X scenario from Fight Club doesn't take into account bad publicity and consumer dissatisfaction. I can tell you right now that the words that come into my mind when someone says "Describe Toyota" aren't "reliability, peace of mind, value for money, safety." You may as well have tried to sell me Firestone tyres in 2001.
"This guy has something to hide. Detain him for 4 hours, search his criminal records, family ties, known affiliates, strip search him, and put him on the Watch list."
I know exactly what would happen, as it's happened over here (in the UK). Thanks to Ian Huntley and his wife, "Soft" evidence (Someone once told their wife who knows a man who works for a guy who knows a copper and told him that someone once looked at a child and smiled) is included in CRB checks now. You only have to insinuate that someone once did something remotely similar to the behaviour of a child abuser and it's included in the report.
Exactly. I've posted about it twice on this thread already.
The tl;dr: The scanner in the video is thermal not backscatter / millimetre wave, the man would be told to remove his jacket and it would be scanned by baggage xray, and the scan process used in the video (bearing in mind that it isn't the same machine as deployed) was done on a "quick" mode for demo purposes, and hence lower resolution than would otherwise be achieved. All of this information is in the video.
It was probably a basic thermite reaction. The item in his mouth was the fuse, I'm not sure on the material. He stuffs it into the nozzle on one of the bottles as he leaves the studio, I believe (not watched the video for a few days). The bottles held the mixture pre-prepared, there were two of them to compensate for the "100ml only" rule.
N.B. this could probably be better / more accurately documented by a German speaker; I'm just going by what I saw.
Two things. Firstly, you've missed the point. This could well be for the reason that most of the general public miss the point: Media hype. This guy has been charged for possession of cartoon images of indecent acts involving children. He has been made example of because previously he had been convicted of possession of indecent images of actual children. This is all freely available information, much of it posted on/.
Secondly, no I absolutely will not be a test case. Firstly, images of cartoon characters having sex are puerile and daft to me, not sexually alluring. If I want that kind of humour, I'll check out some lolcats. This makes me someone who is not the target of this law, so prosecuting me for contravening it is at best moot and achieves nothing. Secondly, I'm already involved in issues of child protection in a professional manner. My interest here is to see sane laws which will actually protect children put in place, and idiotic laws repealed. This law is idiotic, for the reason you've implied above: Images of cartoon characters are not images of real people (the allusion to such from your final statement) and as such nobody is harmed by their (cartoon images) creation. However, the guy in Australia has a proven sexual interest in minors. He has already been convicted of such. The press coverage is to illustrate that the law protects children; A loose correlation in this case, but then again that's all the media need to trumpet it from the mountain tops. Note that I didn't say that I agree with the law in my original post, just recounted the facts from the story. I also didn't say that I agreed with the conviction based upon possession of images of non-persons. The difficulty is that there is a correlation between the evidence of both cases: Both involve depictions of a sexual nature which have been deemed illegal by the AUS government. Right now, they did the right thing convicting him. If they want to change that, they can vote on it and get it repealed.
I posted this in a reply above, so feel free to mod me redundant if you wish. I have to stop the FUD spread, though, or we'll end up fighting a battle with the wrong facts.
------
1) The scanner demonstrated is a body-heat scanner, picking up variations in infra-red radiation output from the body. The devices installed at Heathrow and Manchester are millimetre wave X-ray, measuring reflected x-rays from any item more dense than clothing.
2) When scanning properly, jackets are removed and placed through the baggage X-ray machine. The man has the containers in his jacket pockets. This would not be allowed.
3) The scan was done quickly, and is not representative of a full scan (remembering that this is not even the same scanner being used in the UK).
They say all of this in the video, and I posted a comment (which wasn't published) saying the same. The Reg was spreading FUD that day, and you bought it.
The manufacturer can put the devices into a Diagnostic mode. This is a hardware operation, as best as I can recall, not a software switch. I can't find where I heard that information, but I did.
1) The scanner demonstrated is a body-heat scanner, picking up variations in infra-red radiation output from the body. The devices installed at Heathrow and Manchester are millimetre wave X-ray, measuring reflected x-rays from any item more dense than clothing. 2) When scanning properly, jackets are removed and placed through the baggage X-ray machine. The man has the containers in his jacket pockets. This would not be allowed. 3) The scan was done quickly, and is not representative of a full scan (remembering that this is not even the same scanner being used in the UK).
They say all of this in the video, and I posted a comment (which wasn't published) saying the same. The Reg was spreading FUD that day, and you bought it.
Stale air, powdered egg and soya sausage served luke warm with cutlery so blunt you had to pick up your food, seating next to someone clearly over-proportioned for the room provided, and anywhere down to 28 inches of leg room ( http://www.westernair.co.uk/seatpitch.html ).
The law covers indecent images of children. They must be engaged in, or appearing to suggest, a sexual act. Photos of naked kids are not illegal, otherwise every parent in the country would be on the sex offender's register. That photo of you in the tin bath when you were two will not get your mum in jail, nor the one when you ran around the garden in the buff because you didn't want to wear powder blue swim shorts.
The guy you reference was previously convicted of having images which were of children engaged in sexual acts. That is what he was originally convicted for. He was convicted the second time for having cartoons which were of the same type of indecent images of children he had previously been convicted for having. Clearly, this man has a sexual desire to (at least) see children engaged in sexual acts, and was therefore prosecuted.
Had the man not been convicted before of a similar offence, I'm fairly certain the outcome (and press coverage) would be considerably different.
Nobody is putting the blame for those incidents onto the victim. That's your own faulty logic at work.
You're a squishy mass of blood and muscle, with maybe a pudding basin of packing foam on your head. If you're not looking out for your own safety, why do you expect a tit in a BMW with a map splayed against his steering wheel and a mobile phone pressed against his head in a 2 tonne cage of safety to do the same? He's isolated from you.
Nobody thinks this is the way things should be, it's just the way things are. Deal / Live with it, or find a new pastime.
Oh by the way, do you: - Wear a crash helmet - Wear high visibility clothing - Have bright, continuous beam lights affixed to the front and rear of your bike - Have reflectors fixed appropriately, front, rear, and to both sides of both wheels - Obey all laws of the road, including not weaving around traffic, not ignoring stop signs / traffic lights / pedestrian crossings etc - Ride courteously, stopping to allow fast-moving traffic to pass when appropriate (much like agricultural machinery must do)
If not, you should probably look up the definition of "self preservation."
Slashdot Mirror
Toyota don't need another reliability scandal any time soon. If this is an issue they need to address, they need to address is with all haste.
Like someone said above, the A x B x C = X scenario from Fight Club doesn't take into account bad publicity and consumer dissatisfaction. I can tell you right now that the words that come into my mind when someone says "Describe Toyota" aren't "reliability, peace of mind, value for money, safety." You may as well have tried to sell me Firestone tyres in 2001.
I can tell you what the outcome will be:
"This guy has something to hide. Detain him for 4 hours, search his criminal records, family ties, known affiliates, strip search him, and put him on the Watch list."
I know exactly what would happen, as it's happened over here (in the UK). Thanks to Ian Huntley and his wife, "Soft" evidence (Someone once told their wife who knows a man who works for a guy who knows a copper and told him that someone once looked at a child and smiled) is included in CRB checks now. You only have to insinuate that someone once did something remotely similar to the behaviour of a child abuser and it's included in the report.
I don't know if it made any difference. I guess a future with no incidents of child abuse within the education system will prove them corr... Oh, wait. Nursery worker Vanessa George pleads guilty to sexually abusing children
I don't know what the solution is. I just know that criminalising cartoons isn't it.
I don't suppose you'd like some volcano insurance, would you?
I'm fairly sure that if you haven't had a volcano recently that you're pretty much due to have one...
The upholstery cleaning bill would be phenomenal.
Why not just ban them from flying? Why not outlaw Islam? Oh, we tried that already Exactly where would you stop?
By the way, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_notable_aircraft_hijackings is why we don't profile for one race / religion.
Exactly. I've posted about it twice on this thread already.
The tl;dr: The scanner in the video is thermal not backscatter / millimetre wave, the man would be told to remove his jacket and it would be scanned by baggage xray, and the scan process used in the video (bearing in mind that it isn't the same machine as deployed) was done on a "quick" mode for demo purposes, and hence lower resolution than would otherwise be achieved. All of this information is in the video.
I don't know, it might make them coalesce and group together more effectively and organise effecting lobbying and political opposition.
If everyone has something to lose, they might well fight all the harder (no more armchair anarchists).
It was probably a basic thermite reaction. The item in his mouth was the fuse, I'm not sure on the material. He stuffs it into the nozzle on one of the bottles as he leaves the studio, I believe (not watched the video for a few days). The bottles held the mixture pre-prepared, there were two of them to compensate for the "100ml only" rule.
N.B. this could probably be better / more accurately documented by a German speaker; I'm just going by what I saw.
They'll gather in their dozens wearing Guy Fawkes masks, screaming "1984 is a warning, not a manual!"
When everyone is a criminal, crime is commonplace.
Stop working and go steal stuff. What do you have to lose?
N.B. This is not legal advice.
Two things. Firstly, you've missed the point. This could well be for the reason that most of the general public miss the point: Media hype. This guy has been charged for possession of cartoon images of indecent acts involving children. He has been made example of because previously he had been convicted of possession of indecent images of actual children. This is all freely available information, much of it posted on /.
Secondly, no I absolutely will not be a test case. Firstly, images of cartoon characters having sex are puerile and daft to me, not sexually alluring. If I want that kind of humour, I'll check out some lolcats. This makes me someone who is not the target of this law, so prosecuting me for contravening it is at best moot and achieves nothing.
Secondly, I'm already involved in issues of child protection in a professional manner. My interest here is to see sane laws which will actually protect children put in place, and idiotic laws repealed. This law is idiotic, for the reason you've implied above: Images of cartoon characters are not images of real people (the allusion to such from your final statement) and as such nobody is harmed by their (cartoon images) creation. However, the guy in Australia has a proven sexual interest in minors. He has already been convicted of such. The press coverage is to illustrate that the law protects children; A loose correlation in this case, but then again that's all the media need to trumpet it from the mountain tops. Note that I didn't say that I agree with the law in my original post, just recounted the facts from the story. I also didn't say that I agreed with the conviction based upon possession of images of non-persons. The difficulty is that there is a correlation between the evidence of both cases: Both involve depictions of a sexual nature which have been deemed illegal by the AUS government. Right now, they did the right thing convicting him. If they want to change that, they can vote on it and get it repealed.
tl;dr: No, thanks.
They want to photograph you naked when they scan you.
Something tells me that if you somehow stop them from doing that (cow skin bra, tin foil underpants etc) they might take things "To The Next Level."
I'll just not fly anywhere anymore. Suits me fine... Air travel is expensive.
I posted this in a reply above, so feel free to mod me redundant if you wish. I have to stop the FUD spread, though, or we'll end up fighting a battle with the wrong facts.
------
1) The scanner demonstrated is a body-heat scanner, picking up variations in infra-red radiation output from the body. The devices installed at Heathrow and Manchester are millimetre wave X-ray, measuring reflected x-rays from any item more dense than clothing.
2) When scanning properly, jackets are removed and placed through the baggage X-ray machine. The man has the containers in his jacket pockets. This would not be allowed.
3) The scan was done quickly, and is not representative of a full scan (remembering that this is not even the same scanner being used in the UK).
They say all of this in the video, and I posted a comment (which wasn't published) saying the same. The Reg was spreading FUD that day, and you bought it.
The manufacturer can put the devices into a Diagnostic mode. This is a hardware operation, as best as I can recall, not a software switch. I can't find where I heard that information, but I did.
1) The scanner demonstrated is a body-heat scanner, picking up variations in infra-red radiation output from the body. The devices installed at Heathrow and Manchester are millimetre wave X-ray, measuring reflected x-rays from any item more dense than clothing.
2) When scanning properly, jackets are removed and placed through the baggage X-ray machine. The man has the containers in his jacket pockets. This would not be allowed.
3) The scan was done quickly, and is not representative of a full scan (remembering that this is not even the same scanner being used in the UK).
They say all of this in the video, and I posted a comment (which wasn't published) saying the same. The Reg was spreading FUD that day, and you bought it.
Stale air, powdered egg and soya sausage served luke warm with cutlery so blunt you had to pick up your food, seating next to someone clearly over-proportioned for the room provided, and anywhere down to 28 inches of leg room ( http://www.westernair.co.uk/seatpitch.html ).
It was never pleasant.
The law covers indecent images of children. They must be engaged in, or appearing to suggest, a sexual act. Photos of naked kids are not illegal, otherwise every parent in the country would be on the sex offender's register. That photo of you in the tin bath when you were two will not get your mum in jail, nor the one when you ran around the garden in the buff because you didn't want to wear powder blue swim shorts.
The guy you reference was previously convicted of having images which were of children engaged in sexual acts. That is what he was originally convicted for. He was convicted the second time for having cartoons which were of the same type of indecent images of children he had previously been convicted for having. Clearly, this man has a sexual desire to (at least) see children engaged in sexual acts, and was therefore prosecuted.
Had the man not been convicted before of a similar offence, I'm fairly certain the outcome (and press coverage) would be considerably different.
Bottom line: nVidia closed source drivers are better than AMD closed source drivers, and AMD open source drivers are feature-incomplete.
That about right? Or am I "playing right into nVidia's hands" like the GP? If so, nVidia's hands is where I want to be, because their drivers work.
Turn up naked.
Birmingham is next. That's where I mostly fly from.
It's good that I enjoy camping more than I enjoy beaches.
Don't forget the shorts!
You know you're looking at a hardcore cyclist when you can see both of his helmets.
Nobody is putting the blame for those incidents onto the victim. That's your own faulty logic at work.
You're a squishy mass of blood and muscle, with maybe a pudding basin of packing foam on your head. If you're not looking out for your own safety, why do you expect a tit in a BMW with a map splayed against his steering wheel and a mobile phone pressed against his head in a 2 tonne cage of safety to do the same? He's isolated from you.
Nobody thinks this is the way things should be, it's just the way things are. Deal / Live with it, or find a new pastime.
Oh by the way, do you:
- Wear a crash helmet
- Wear high visibility clothing
- Have bright, continuous beam lights affixed to the front and rear of your bike
- Have reflectors fixed appropriately, front, rear, and to both sides of both wheels
- Obey all laws of the road, including not weaving around traffic, not ignoring stop signs / traffic lights / pedestrian crossings etc
- Ride courteously, stopping to allow fast-moving traffic to pass when appropriate (much like agricultural machinery must do)
If not, you should probably look up the definition of "self preservation."
This is the bit that will be patented to the hilt, so good luck getting that information before that time.
No, he'd have said mostly.