Actually, children have not reached the level of maturity where they can handle sexual activity. A child can very easily be coerced into many things, and they almost certainly won't know to say "no". It's a bad thing. Anyone who says differently is truly deluded.
I spoke to someone from Australia's DOCS once. He told me that what happens to the victim of paedophilia is horrendous.
This "it's genetic so there's nothing I can do about it" is crap. People should learn to take responsibility for their actions. Paedophilia is wrong, and those who practice it should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
Oh come now. They are still the market leader. I don't think it's a good thing, but they still have dominance over the desktop. Apply might be gaining ground, but they can still monopolize - and are, in fact, still attempting to.
Nobody will be happier than me if you were right now.
aif file not working in Helix player on Ubuntu 7.1
on
The Grammy In Mathematics
·
· Score: -1, Offtopic
Anyone know of any pointers on how to fix this? I open the file, but Helix Player just dies straight away.
If only someone on slashdot could filter out the above stupidity. That's the third article I've read this one. It contributes absolutely nothing to the topic being discussed.
I'm not ripping into them for having a blog. It's not a bad idea. I am ripping in to them for not knowing what was going on and needing to rely on a blog to identify problems.
Hardly outraged - you read too much into my comments. I don't live in the U.S. so it won't affect me. I am very surprised though at the lack of communications between departments of regional offices. Maybe it is normal behaviour, but it's most certainly not optimal.
Not relevant--- using the McDonald's analogy again: McD surely has a manual yet the experience at their stores can widely vary. A manual doesn't assure quality or uniform experience.
And yet... they were told to stop doing it. They were performing a useless and stupid procedure. Proof is in the pudding.
Comparing McDonalds and the TFA is a false comparison anyway. If there are security threats they believe that should be investigated, then they should be communicating it back to the head office. Are you suggesting that they shouldn't? If so, why?!?
None of that is relevant, since we don't know why the decision was made.
Use your brain. They don't consider the devices to be a threat. If they did, they would have instituted the checks nationwide.
In fact it is likely, approaching probability, that the policy was not instituted to combat a specific security concern but because some area or middle level manager wanted to pump up some metric he's being measured for. Since the sites are routinely tested for their ability to catch test bombs, it's safe to assume that's the metric that was being addressed.
How are you contradicting anything I said? That was my point!
It was a written policy by the local office of the TSA. The local offices never communicated that they believed the devices were a threat to the main organization.
If the devices were dangerous "small things" that "make it under the radar", why the heck weren't they communicating their concerns to someone?
For that matter, if the main office believes that this is not a threat, then how did the local offices come to believe that there was a risk caused by these devices?
Oh come on. Surely they have an operational manual? When they create policy or decide what needs searching, surely they would communicate this back to head office. If the electronic devices they were looking for were so dangerous, why weren't they notifying the main organization as to their concerns?
Just remember: head office didn't know that they considered these things to be dangerous. Let's say, for a second, that the devices were a danger. Why would only a few local offices checking them and not everyone?
Make you feel any safer, knowing that they are too disorganized to communicate concerns about what they felt were risks?
Precisely. I find it quite amazing that there are "field offices" who can just make up policy on the fly. I'm even more amazed that little or no information is being shared between offices and the main operations!
If this is the level of coordination to protect U.S. citizens from being blown up, then I think that there's a big problem with this agency.
Imagine it. They found out about this from a blog. They don't appear to do regular reviews of field offices (else they'd have known about this practice). What else is slipping through the net? Terrorists?
What a monumental and sterling example of bureaucratic incompetence.
Actually, he's not the one missing the point here. Had you read the OOXML spec, then you would have read the following:
2.15.3.6 autoSpaceLikeWord95 (Emulate Word 95 Full-Width Character Spacing)
This element specifies that applications shall emulate the behavior of a previously existing word processing application (Microsoft Word 95) when determining the spacing between full-width East Asian characters in a document's content.
[Guidance: To faithfully replicate this behavior, applications must imitate the behavior of that application, which involves many possible behaviors and cannot be faithfully placed into narrative for this Office Open XML Standard. If applications wish to match this behavior, they must utilize and duplicate the output of those applications. It is recommended that applications not intentionally replicate this behavior as it was deprecated due to issues with its output, and is maintained only for compatibility with existing documents from that application. end guidance]
There you go. Microsoft says don't use it. It's not a feature. It's a half-arsed experiment that Microsoft couldn't get right. Your argument is getting thinner by the second. Perhaps you shouldn't believe those friends and spout off before checking your facts first?
Microsoft are part of the standards process, right? So if they really wanted to have that stuff implemented, then they should propose a change to the standards body.
Yup, and to chime in here - that's the difference in this situation. Let's say IBM gets lots of money for an overpriced service. In this market, there is noone forcing you to use their services. With Microsoft software, however, because they have a virtual monopoly then everyone is forced to use Microsoft's non-open, locked down format.
The quote that was most telling for me was this one, from Tsilas:
"[Mandating open standards in government] is a new way to compete. They are using government intervention as a way to compete. It's competing through regulation, because you couldn't compete technically."
That quote is, frankly, hilarious. Finally they have found that they are uncompetitive in something, and boy do they find this difficult. They've been so used to forcing the market to use their product that when the market finally corrects itself they're not sure what to do. Thus they try to fast-track a technically inferior standard.
The end result is that the exact opposite of what Tsilas asserts is happening. The ODF format is technically superior, but because it won't work with old Microsoft "features" (read: bugs), Microsoft cannot compete.
Yeah, well. The level of paranoia going on here is amazing.
I had to laugh when I read the following:
"We just wanted to let you know that lighters and nail clippers are allowed through the checkpoint. Lighters were allowed starting in July 2007, and nail clippers, as well as smaller scissors and tools, have been allowed through the checkpoint since December 2005. Unlike improvised explosives devices (IEDs), these items do not present a significant threat to an airplane."
No! Small scissors and nailclippers are less of a threat than IEDs? Who would have thought?
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, children have not reached the level of maturity where they can handle sexual activity. A child can very easily be coerced into many things, and they almost certainly won't know to say "no". It's a bad thing. Anyone who says differently is truly deluded.
P.S. DOCS is the Dept of Community Services. Do your own research before spouting off in future.
Wow - there's a stretch. You believe I'm a Roman Catholic? Bwahahahaha!!!! I never once mentioned religion, and hell? Where did you get that from?
Methinks I'm dealing with a bit of a twit here... but I'll continue anyway.
I would suggest you research the dizzying amount of data that shows that paedophilia has a devastating effect on children.
I spoke to someone from Australia's DOCS once. He told me that what happens to the victim of paedophilia is horrendous.
This "it's genetic so there's nothing I can do about it" is crap. People should learn to take responsibility for their actions. Paedophilia is wrong, and those who practice it should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
Oh come now. They are still the market leader. I don't think it's a good thing, but they still have dominance over the desktop. Apply might be gaining ground, but they can still monopolize - and are, in fact, still attempting to.
Nobody will be happier than me if you were right now.
Anyone know of any pointers on how to fix this? I open the file, but Helix Player just dies straight away.
If only someone on slashdot could filter out the above stupidity. That's the third article I've read this one. It contributes absolutely nothing to the topic being discussed.
Anonymous coward: SHUT UP!
Wow, you wonder what monopoly position they hold, yet you ask whether they've been asleep for the past 5 years?
Time to get out from under that rock I think.
I'm not ripping into them for having a blog. It's not a bad idea. I am ripping in to them for not knowing what was going on and needing to rely on a blog to identify problems.
Don't they have site reviews?
Hardly outraged - you read too much into my comments. I don't live in the U.S. so it won't affect me. I am very surprised though at the lack of communications between departments of regional offices. Maybe it is normal behaviour, but it's most certainly not optimal.
Not relevant--- using the McDonald's analogy again: McD surely has a manual yet the experience at their stores can widely vary. A manual doesn't assure quality or uniform experience.
And yet... they were told to stop doing it. They were performing a useless and stupid procedure. Proof is in the pudding.
Comparing McDonalds and the TFA is a false comparison anyway. If there are security threats they believe that should be investigated, then they should be communicating it back to the head office. Are you suggesting that they shouldn't? If so, why?!?
None of that is relevant, since we don't know why the decision was made.
Use your brain. They don't consider the devices to be a threat. If they did, they would have instituted the checks nationwide.
In fact it is likely, approaching probability, that the policy was not instituted to combat a specific security concern but because some area or middle level manager wanted to pump up some metric he's being measured for. Since the sites are routinely tested for their ability to catch test bombs, it's safe to assume that's the metric that was being addressed.
How are you contradicting anything I said? That was my point!
Is it just me, or does anyone else find the idea of a terrorist taking down a plane with a Christmas pudding somewhat amusing?
Perhaps I'm just a sick, sick man.
Wow. What a waste of good booze. What's with you people? Drink it - don't burn it!
P.S. what do you mean by "if there ARE existing levels of communication"? You speak as if you don't believe anyone in the TSA talks to anyone else!
I can't work out whether you are defending them or damning them. That really is a most confusing post.
It was a written policy by the local office of the TSA. The local offices never communicated that they believed the devices were a threat to the main organization.
If the devices were dangerous "small things" that "make it under the radar", why the heck weren't they communicating their concerns to someone?
For that matter, if the main office believes that this is not a threat, then how did the local offices come to believe that there was a risk caused by these devices?
Oh come on. Surely they have an operational manual? When they create policy or decide what needs searching, surely they would communicate this back to head office. If the electronic devices they were looking for were so dangerous, why weren't they notifying the main organization as to their concerns?
Just remember: head office didn't know that they considered these things to be dangerous. Let's say, for a second, that the devices were a danger. Why would only a few local offices checking them and not everyone?
Make you feel any safer, knowing that they are too disorganized to communicate concerns about what they felt were risks?
Precisely. I find it quite amazing that there are "field offices" who can just make up policy on the fly. I'm even more amazed that little or no information is being shared between offices and the main operations!
If this is the level of coordination to protect U.S. citizens from being blown up, then I think that there's a big problem with this agency.
Imagine it. They found out about this from a blog. They don't appear to do regular reviews of field offices (else they'd have known about this practice). What else is slipping through the net? Terrorists?
What a monumental and sterling example of bureaucratic incompetence.
Goodness, if this was my post I'd feel positively embarrassed that I wrote it!
There you go. Microsoft says don't use it. It's not a feature. It's a half-arsed experiment that Microsoft couldn't get right. Your argument is getting thinner by the second. Perhaps you shouldn't believe those friends and spout off before checking your facts first?
Microsoft are part of the standards process, right? So if they really wanted to have that stuff implemented, then they should propose a change to the standards body.
Yup, and to chime in here - that's the difference in this situation. Let's say IBM gets lots of money for an overpriced service. In this market, there is noone forcing you to use their services. With Microsoft software, however, because they have a virtual monopoly then everyone is forced to use Microsoft's non-open, locked down format.
The quote that was most telling for me was this one, from Tsilas:
"[Mandating open standards in government] is a new way to compete. They are using government intervention as a way to compete. It's competing through regulation, because you couldn't compete technically."
That quote is, frankly, hilarious. Finally they have found that they are uncompetitive in something, and boy do they find this difficult. They've been so used to forcing the market to use their product that when the market finally corrects itself they're not sure what to do. Thus they try to fast-track a technically inferior standard.
The end result is that the exact opposite of what Tsilas asserts is happening. The ODF format is technically superior, but because it won't work with old Microsoft "features" (read: bugs), Microsoft cannot compete.
Yeah well, think of poor PNG. Looking at that graphic, they don't have a minister for redundancy, in fact - they have no link to the Internet at all!
Those screeners sound like real arseholes!
Yeah, well. The level of paranoia going on here is amazing.
I had to laugh when I read the following:
"We just wanted to let you know that lighters and nail clippers are allowed through the checkpoint. Lighters were allowed starting in July 2007, and nail clippers, as well as smaller scissors and tools, have been allowed through the checkpoint since December 2005. Unlike improvised explosives devices (IEDs), these items do not present a significant threat to an airplane."
No! Small scissors and nailclippers are less of a threat than IEDs? Who would have thought?
I wouldn't put any money based on what the Register says. Not a very reliable source!