One difference is that MS is a _convicted_ monopolist, and as a result, in theory at least, they have to be a more careful about throwing their weight around.
On the other hand, Vista is far from final and this could be a deliberate leak by MS to get public and industry support. Oddly enough, the Apple pricing discussions got leaked before the final decision too...
Pedophiles and racists are chatting online. Read my lips. Big Fucking Deal. [...]
Very simple, racism is considered crime in Brazil,
Problem: In the USA, at least in terms of "chatting online" (ie. speech) not only is it not a crime, it is a right.
That this right conflicts with hate speech and similar laws in other jurisdictions is already well known - ask Yahoo about France and Nazi material. That one has been going for years through courts in France and the US, trying to settle which law applies to whom.
In this case, what we know is that some people (who could be anywhere - we're asking Google where they are, remember, and Google isn't telling yet) are chatting on US servers in a manner that is illegal in Brazil, but may well be protected in the US. Brazil wants Google to turn those people in. Or at least the IP address of the proxy they came in on...
Whose law applies ?
Now
s/Brazil/China/
Whose law applies ?
In practice, ISPs etc. give up the info when they feel they have to. Yahoo took on France, for a while, but caves in to China. They caved in to France in the end and banned Nazi stuff worldwide because of French law.
It'll start getting really interesting if/when the US (which likes exporting its particular brand of freedom) makes it illegal for them to cave in.
"very Simple" ? - not with multiple conflicting international jurisdictions involved it isn't.
It would seem like a logical thing to do would be to outfit a few departments with no disabled (I guess we're really talking about blind and partially-sighted) people with OOo, and hold back their licences for new people who do need MS Office.
You can't do that. Anymore than you can stick "a few departments with no disabled" in an inaccessible building.
It is also entirely likely that they want to maintain one platform (for deployment, maintenance, training and support reasons) rather than multiple (and the cost of multiple may well outweigh any MS licence savings).
Plus, using both MS and OO ODF implementations at the same time is likely to expose compatibility problems (see eg. this comment http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=194602&c id=15948385 on another article today). The last people you want to be inflicting compatibility problems on are your disabled user base - they have enough problems without also being relegated to an applications platform subtly different to everyone else's.
Before you start criticizing policy on actions taken to prevent it, consider what the real life impact would be without taking those measures.
Umm... about the same?
Amen to that. Both will stop people flying.
Will I be flying again soon ? Nope (certainly not through London) Because of the terrorists ? Nope. Because of the "security". Yes.
Looking at the figures claimed for the baggage backlog at heathrow after several days I reckon they could be losing bags for maybe 10% of pax, for several days.
So, that's a significant risk of spending your entire holiday with just the clothes you are in plus your passport+tickets (people had to check everything else), and then being locked out of your car and house on return. That's before we start on valuables / fragile items being pushed into hold baggage where neither the airline or your travel insurer will cover them (because it is too risky).
Sorry, but I don't think I want that risk, especially on holiday with kids. Driving suddenly looks a lot better option (I can even take water & games for the kids).
Now lets look at the terror risk:
Say we assume that with the new security measures the terrorist risk is zero, and without them they'd successfully blow up say 2500 passengers / month (10 a/c). Now we compare that risk with driving the same trip (say to south of France). Terrorist risk is about twice that of the drive. Factor in that it's driving long distance wrong-side-of-the-road in a foreign country (lots of additional risk factors)... and there'd probably be no difference at all.
So, with all the security measures, the best case is that we eliminated a risk that's the same as driving the trip instead.
Which means that if people do drive instead (and they will) the measures will have not improved the risk at all, at cost of massive disruption. Wonderful.
Er, nope, catholics (or just "irish accent") are previous not next - they have already been done, before we got onto the muslims.
That's in the UK at least - in the US I guess the catholics were "freedom fighters we send money to" rather than "terrorists", but hey, what's a few nail-bombs between friends.
A response from someone who knows more than me. [...] Any tips would be apriciated. Greatly.
My wife is heavily involved (and trained) with la lechce league which is a breastfeeding charity, so I've picked up a bit of knowledge along the way...
They are international, so there may be a group near you, and if not they have a lot of info on the web: http://www.lalecheleague.org/
They may be your best chance on getting advice for your wife's particular situation - because they are specialists, concentrating just on breastfeeding (very few health professionals are in that position) they see far wider range of cases. Local leaders can get info from the wider organisation and I expect there will be people there with first hand experience of helping people in your wife's position.
Also, because they are a charity mostly run by volunteers, it shouldn't cost you anything to see what advice you can get from them.
Until they downgraded the threat level, pencils and pens were banned in the recent fiasco in UK airports.
This applied to flight crew as well. See plenty of comments on pprune.org.
The fact that the pilots might actually need a pen to do their job (and that they have a perfectly good fire-axe behind their seat if they need a sharp weapon) is irrelevant. Mind you these days they probably use a laptop or handheld to work stuff out - oh, wait, they aren't allowed those either.
The best report I've read (can't find it again today though), which sums it all up was of an argument between pilot and security:
Pilot: states that having his glasses get damaged because not in a case, and having no spares (you were allowed only one pair, not in a case), could compromise the safety of the aircraft.
Security goon: "that's not my problem"
Sadly, for a british security jobsworth, that is an entirely believeable response. Their job is to use procedures A-K to ensure that all the punters follow rules M-Z, their job is not to ensure the safety of aircraft. Security theatre.
Your laptops and cameras, cellphones, pdas, all have to be in checked bags now for UK flights or if you are transiting UK. There is talk of these restrictions becoming permanent.
That's really going to be the big problem for business travellers in particular. All the discussion on toothpaste is bizarre - replacing a tube of toothpaste is trival compared to replacing your laptop cellphone and car keys. [when they lose them, not if].
Unfortunately, I'm a pragmatist rather than a pedantic theoretician. Terrorists are people who specifically target civilians for mass death
Like, say, [we] "will totally destroy any village..." - now which side said that ? (google it).
[oh, and any vehicle too, marked ICRC ambulances included, so don't even think about trying to leave your village before we totally destroy it, not that we left you any roads to leave on anyway]
the number of Lebanese dead would be in the millions
that would be all of them then ?
[ there's only 3.x million, over 1/4 of whom (ie. around a million) are already estimated to have been driven from their homes, and to me, blowing up someone's home but not killing them still counts as terrorism (I note you define only as "mass death") ]
hide behind civilians and launch attacks from civilian areas from behind human shields
Er, which side is that - both sides in this conflict have a proven history of using human shields.
All of these tactics are banned by the Geneva conventions
As are deliberate destruction of essential civilian infrastructure, targeting of red cross vehicles... again, both sides are blatantly violating geneva conventions. The difference is that the IDF are killing more and destroying more.
I have no love for hezbolla or hamas, nor would I refrain from criticizing them, but since right now they are killing a) mostly (invading) soldiers and b) a tiny fraction of the number of civillians the other side is killing... who should we criticize more ?
Of course, they always go crying to mommy when they get spanked for the wars that they start.
Actually, Hezbolla doesn't seem to be crying to anyone, in fact generally speaking they seem to be saying "bring it on", and by their standards they are probably spanking the IDF. When did the IDF last take so many casualties, and completely fail to meet its objectives (rescue captured soldiers - nope, stop rockets - nope) ? Presumably you think the IDF commander was just replaced because he was "spanking" hezbolla so well ?
If you have really big breasts they scare the crap out of a newborn
New one on me, and they don't seem to have scared any of my sons. I have heard they can make positioning more difficult.
So if he is a 10 lb. 22.75" giant like my son (very few if any women produce enough milk for such a child). You need to bottle the Brest milk so he can get all that mothers milk goodness and still consume enough calories to not go hungry and cry all night.
Low production is most commonly down to bad advice. Formula top-up is really really bad advice. Formula top-up is known to reduce milk production. Telling women they have to top-up because they "don't have enough milk" is therefore a self-fulfilling prophecy.
A 10lb baby is not that big (although much over that and you may want to check for maternal diabetes) and most women, with correct advice and support, will be able to exclusively breastfeed such a baby. Not only do I know several who have, but some who are tandem feeding as well. If you want to say that "very few if any wmone who top up with formula will produce..." then that may be correct - but it's the formula that does it.
Also, the "mothers milk goodness" is only part of the benefit - avoiding the formula not-goodness is a major benefit, that's why all the medical advice is for exclusive breastfeeding (to six months).
Finally, babies are also designed to feed (and cry) through the night, and night feeding is known to be important for stimulating and maintaining milk production. Formula puts them to sleep for the night because it hangs around longer because it is too hard to digest.
[how the f*** did we end up on this on/. ?? wierd]
Even if they were allowed to sell it (alcohol - and they aren't, today), why would you buy it when it will be removed before you get to the plane ?
Sure, you could drink it all, but then you'll probably be stopped from boarding for doing that.
all the items they are carrying, including those acquired after the central screening point, must be subjected to secondary search at the boarding gate. Any liquids discovered must be removed from the passenger.
the West takes a dim view of a government that is a terrorist organization
No they don't, because it is an oxymoron by their own definitions.
Terrorists are defined as non-governmental by western governments, possibly because it conveniently excludes themselves from the definition if they wish to carry out similar actions.
The enemy is terrorism--premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents.
[my emphasis]
The palestinian authority is not subnational or clandestine, so isn't terrorist.
In the current conflict, Hezbolla has killed more millitary targets than civilians - despite lack of guided weapons. Still arguably terrorist.
Israel has killed more civilians than millitary (even if you take their figures for number of hezbolla fighters among the dead). Despite having modern guided weapons (unsuprising since they are deliberately targeting civilian areas and infrastructure). But, again, they aren't subnational or clandestine so it doesn't count as terrorist.
The West could change its definitions, but you'd have to do some serious twisting of words to get it to include the PA and exclude Israel.
The reality, as ever, is that there are those "freedom fighters" that the West happens to like, and "terrorists" that it doesn't happen to like. Whether or not they target the West makes no difference either - the US funded the IRA for years, and still won't ratify an extradition treaty with the UK for fear that they might actually have to extradite some nailbombers.
Well, actually they are now saying they found a bunch of child porn on a computer.
The time delay is probably either to crack some encryption, or they had trouble finding a child porn site that would take their government credit card. Take your pick.
who have otherwise made sure, after an internal investigation, that they're not to blame at all for his death.
Actually, it was an independent investigation (IPCC), which the Met Police actually tried to prevent from happening.
And also, that investigation did recommend charges against officers involved - a recommendation that was overruled by the CPS who have decided to prosecute the Met as an organistion for health-and-safety breach instead.
In some ways, that decision might acutally have a result (for the rest of us in future) in changes to policy and procedures, where prosecuting individuals would still leave other police following the same flawed procedures.
About the Brazilian dude, when you run AT a bunch of agents armed to the teeth when you're wearing a heavy jacket on a warm day, you shouldn't be surprised when you get shot in the head, whether you're a terrorist or not.
Leaving aside the fact that that is not what he did (just what the police said, later proven to be lies), by your logic everyone who runs to catch a train and is wearing a coat on a warm day should be shot in the head (and presumably the police will lie about that afterwards also).
Just remove the battery, although the word is they can still go pyrotechnic.
Since they tend to blow when shorted, taking them out of the device is not necessarily better, in fact it may well be more dangerous unless you then carefully pack them in non-conductive material so they can't contact anything that could short them out.
In a month you will be able to carry all your stuff except liquids.
It's going to suck to be an airport (especially duty-free) retailer then isn't it - bye bye business model (a lot of them are just closed today in the uk).
Slashdot Mirror
Is not relevant to the original question, which I answered.
To be completely clear, nobody said to "the people who got screwed by Enron" that they couldn't get damages because the perps got jail time instead.
The fact that they actually did get damages is ample illustration of that.
If they didn't get as much as they could have, well then maybe they chose a poor lawyer - but nobody told them they couldn't sue.
No I'm not.
Civil courts determine liability. Criminal courts determine guilt or presume innocence.
Burden of proof is another difference, but not the only one.
Good question. What was it they said to the people who got screwed by Enron again?
h tm, http://www.law.stanford.edu/publications/stanford_ lawyer/issues/71/klausner.html).
They got damages from the directors, and others, (in addition to any possible jail terms). Same with WorldCom.
Most of the settlements were out of court though (eg. http://www.ucop.edu/news/archives/2002/aug27art1.
Civil law happened to it in this case - innocent until proven guilty is criminal law.
That distinction shouldn't be news - it's been that way for a long time.
One difference is that MS is a _convicted_ monopolist, and as a result, in theory at least, they have to be a more careful about throwing their weight around.
On the other hand, Vista is far from final and this could be a deliberate leak by MS to get public and industry support. Oddly enough, the Apple pricing discussions got leaked before the final decision too...
Problem: In the USA, at least in terms of "chatting online" (ie. speech) not only is it not a crime, it is a right.
That this right conflicts with hate speech and similar laws in other jurisdictions is already well known - ask Yahoo about France and Nazi material. That one has been going for years through courts in France and the US, trying to settle which law applies to whom.
In this case, what we know is that some people (who could be anywhere - we're asking Google where they are, remember, and Google isn't telling yet) are chatting on US servers in a manner that is illegal in Brazil, but may well be protected in the US. Brazil wants Google to turn those people in. Or at least the IP address of the proxy they came in on...
Whose law applies ?
Now
s/Brazil/China/
Whose law applies ?
In practice, ISPs etc. give up the info when they feel they have to. Yahoo took on France, for a while, but caves in to China. They caved in to France in the end and banned Nazi stuff worldwide because of French law.
It'll start getting really interesting if/when the US (which likes exporting its particular brand of freedom) makes it illegal for them to cave in.
"very Simple" ? - not with multiple conflicting international jurisdictions involved it isn't.
It would seem like a logical thing to do would be to outfit a few departments with no disabled (I guess we're really talking about blind and partially-sighted) people with OOo, and hold back their licences for new people who do need MS Office.
c id=15948385 on another article today). The last people you want to be inflicting compatibility problems on are your disabled user base - they have enough problems without also being relegated to an applications platform subtly different to everyone else's.
You can't do that. Anymore than you can stick "a few departments with no disabled" in an inaccessible building.
It is also entirely likely that they want to maintain one platform (for deployment, maintenance, training and support reasons) rather than multiple (and the cost of multiple may well outweigh any MS licence savings).
Plus, using both MS and OO ODF implementations at the same time is likely to expose compatibility problems (see eg. this comment http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=194602&
Amen to that. Both will stop people flying.
Will I be flying again soon ? Nope (certainly not through London)
Because of the terrorists ? Nope.
Because of the "security". Yes.
Looking at the figures claimed for the baggage backlog at heathrow after several days I reckon they could be losing bags for maybe 10% of pax, for several days.
So, that's a significant risk of spending your entire holiday with just the clothes you are in plus your passport+tickets (people had to check everything else), and then being locked out of your car and house on return. That's before we start on valuables / fragile items being pushed into hold baggage where neither the airline or your travel insurer will cover them (because it is too risky).
Sorry, but I don't think I want that risk, especially on holiday with kids. Driving suddenly looks a lot better option (I can even take water & games for the kids).
Now lets look at the terror risk:
Say we assume that with the new security measures the terrorist risk is zero, and without them they'd successfully blow up say 2500 passengers / month (10 a/c). Now we compare that risk with driving the same trip (say to south of France). Terrorist risk is about twice that of the drive. Factor in that it's driving long distance wrong-side-of-the-road in a foreign country (lots of additional risk factors)... and there'd probably be no difference at all.
So, with all the security measures, the best case is that we eliminated a risk that's the same as driving the trip instead.
Which means that if people do drive instead (and they will) the measures will have not improved the risk at all, at cost of massive disruption. Wonderful.
Catholics? You're next.
Er, nope, catholics (or just "irish accent") are previous not next - they have already been done, before we got onto the muslims.
That's in the UK at least - in the US I guess the catholics were "freedom fighters we send money to" rather than "terrorists", but hey, what's a few nail-bombs between friends.
A response from someone who knows more than me. [...] Any tips would be apriciated. Greatly.
My wife is heavily involved (and trained) with la lechce league which is a breastfeeding charity, so I've picked up a bit of knowledge along the way...
They are international, so there may be a group near you, and if not they have a lot of info on the web: http://www.lalecheleague.org/
They may be your best chance on getting advice for your wife's particular situation - because they are specialists, concentrating just on breastfeeding (very few health professionals are in that position) they see far wider range of cases. Local leaders can get info from the wider organisation and I expect there will be people there with first hand experience of helping people in your wife's position.
Also, because they are a charity mostly run by volunteers, it shouldn't cost you anything to see what advice you can get from them.
Sharp pencils and pens,
Until they downgraded the threat level, pencils and pens were banned in the recent fiasco in UK airports.
This applied to flight crew as well. See plenty of comments on pprune.org.
The fact that the pilots might actually need a pen to do their job (and that they have a perfectly good fire-axe behind their seat if they need a sharp weapon) is irrelevant. Mind you these days they probably use a laptop or handheld to work stuff out - oh, wait, they aren't allowed those either.
The best report I've read (can't find it again today though), which sums it all up was of an argument between pilot and security:
Pilot: states that having his glasses get damaged because not in a case, and having no spares (you were allowed only one pair, not in a case), could compromise the safety of the aircraft.
Security goon: "that's not my problem"
Sadly, for a british security jobsworth, that is an entirely believeable response. Their job is to use procedures A-K to ensure that all the punters follow rules M-Z, their job is not to ensure the safety of aircraft. Security theatre.
many press articles on this.
0 3,915393,00.html
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,69
for one.
Your laptops and cameras, cellphones, pdas, all have to be in checked bags now for UK flights or if you are transiting UK. There is talk of these restrictions becoming permanent.
That's really going to be the big problem for business travellers in particular. All the discussion on toothpaste is bizarre - replacing a tube of toothpaste is trival compared to replacing your laptop cellphone and car keys. [when they lose them, not if].
Unfortunately, I'm a pragmatist rather than a pedantic theoretician. Terrorists are people who specifically target civilians for mass death
Like, say, [we] "will totally destroy any village..." - now which side said that ? (google it).
[oh, and any vehicle too, marked ICRC ambulances included, so don't even think about trying to leave your village before we totally destroy it, not that we left you any roads to leave on anyway]
the number of Lebanese dead would be in the millions
that would be all of them then ?
[ there's only 3.x million, over 1/4 of whom (ie. around a million) are already estimated to have been driven from their homes, and to me, blowing up someone's home but not killing them still counts as terrorism (I note you define only as "mass death") ]
hide behind civilians and launch attacks from civilian areas from behind human shields
Er, which side is that - both sides in this conflict have a proven history of using human shields.
All of these tactics are banned by the Geneva conventions
As are deliberate destruction of essential civilian infrastructure, targeting of red cross vehicles... again, both sides are blatantly violating geneva conventions. The difference is that the IDF are killing more and destroying more.
I have no love for hezbolla or hamas, nor would I refrain from criticizing them, but since right now they are killing a) mostly (invading) soldiers and b) a tiny fraction of the number of civillians the other side is killing... who should we criticize more ?
Of course, they always go crying to mommy when they get spanked for the wars that they start.
Actually, Hezbolla doesn't seem to be crying to anyone, in fact generally speaking they seem to be saying "bring it on", and by their standards they are probably spanking the IDF. When did the IDF last take so many casualties, and completely fail to meet its objectives (rescue captured soldiers - nope, stop rockets - nope) ? Presumably you think the IDF commander was just replaced because he was "spanking" hezbolla so well ?
If you have really big breasts they scare the crap out of a newborn
/. ?? wierd]
New one on me, and they don't seem to have scared any of my sons. I have heard they can make positioning more difficult.
So if he is a 10 lb. 22.75" giant like my son (very few if any women produce enough milk for such a child). You need to bottle the Brest milk so he can get all that mothers milk goodness and still consume enough calories to not go hungry and cry all night.
Low production is most commonly down to bad advice. Formula top-up is really really bad advice. Formula top-up is known to reduce milk production. Telling women they have to top-up because they "don't have enough milk" is therefore a self-fulfilling prophecy.
A 10lb baby is not that big (although much over that and you may want to check for maternal diabetes) and most women, with correct advice and support, will be able to exclusively breastfeed such a baby. Not only do I know several who have, but some who are tandem feeding as well. If you want to say that "very few if any wmone who top up with formula will produce..." then that may be correct - but it's the formula that does it.
Also, the "mothers milk goodness" is only part of the benefit - avoiding the formula not-goodness is a major benefit, that's why all the medical advice is for exclusive breastfeeding (to six months).
Finally, babies are also designed to feed (and cry) through the night, and night feeding is known to be important for stimulating and maintaining milk production. Formula puts them to sleep for the night because it hangs around longer because it is too hard to digest.
[how the f*** did we end up on this on
Sure, you could drink it all, but then you'll probably be stopped from boarding for doing that.
That is straight off BAA website.
No they don't, because it is an oxymoron by their own definitions.
Terrorists are defined as non-governmental by western governments, possibly because it conveniently excludes themselves from the definition if they wish to carry out similar actions.
See eg. http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/60172
To quote:
[my emphasis]
The palestinian authority is not subnational or clandestine, so isn't terrorist.
In the current conflict, Hezbolla has killed more millitary targets than civilians - despite lack of guided weapons. Still arguably terrorist.
Israel has killed more civilians than millitary (even if you take their figures for number of hezbolla fighters among the dead). Despite having modern guided weapons (unsuprising since they are deliberately targeting civilian areas and infrastructure). But, again, they aren't subnational or clandestine so it doesn't count as terrorist.
The West could change its definitions, but you'd have to do some serious twisting of words to get it to include the PA and exclude Israel.
The reality, as ever, is that there are those "freedom fighters" that the West happens to like, and "terrorists" that it doesn't happen to like. Whether or not they target the West makes no difference either - the US funded the IRA for years, and still won't ratify an extradition treaty with the UK for fear that they might actually have to extradite some nailbombers.
Well, actually they are now saying they found a bunch of child porn on a computer.
The time delay is probably either to crack some encryption, or they had trouble finding a child porn site that would take their government credit card. Take your pick.
who have otherwise made sure, after an internal investigation, that they're not to blame at all for his death.
Actually, it was an independent investigation (IPCC), which the Met Police actually tried to prevent from happening.
And also, that investigation did recommend charges against officers involved - a recommendation that was overruled by the CPS who have decided to prosecute the Met as an organistion for health-and-safety breach instead.
In some ways, that decision might acutally have a result (for the rest of us in future) in changes to policy and procedures, where prosecuting individuals would still leave other police following the same flawed procedures.
About the Brazilian dude, when you run AT a bunch of agents armed to the teeth when you're wearing a heavy jacket on a warm day, you shouldn't be surprised when you get shot in the head, whether you're a terrorist or not.
Leaving aside the fact that that is not what he did (just what the police said, later proven to be lies), by your logic everyone who runs to catch a train and is wearing a coat on a warm day should be shot in the head (and presumably the police will lie about that afterwards also).
You're insane.
Just remove the battery, although the word is they can still go pyrotechnic.
B atteries.pdf?link=4
Since they tend to blow when shorted, taking them out of the device is not necessarily better, in fact it may well be more dangerous unless you then carefully pack them in non-conductive material so they can't contact anything that could short them out.
http://www.fedex.com/us/services/pdf/PKG_Shipping
So I suspect you'll still be free to pay inflated airport prices for your food and water and bring that on.
Right now in the UK, according to news reports, they are closing the airport shops or severely restricting what they can sell, so you suspect wrong.
Cellphones are already banned from aircraft cabins today in the UK.
In a month you will be able to carry all your stuff except liquids.
It's going to suck to be an airport (especially duty-free) retailer then isn't it - bye bye business model (a lot of them are just closed today in the uk).
Anyway, why bring a bottle on the plane if yer breastfeeding already (nothing would spoil formula)?
For some mothers/babies with feeding problems expressing + cup/bottle feeding is the only way they can make it work.
Oh, and think "teeth". WHO recommends exclusive breast feeding until at least six months, for some babies that's into teething time.