Let's say that you're robbing a store after hours and you know your friend brought a gun.
While you may be right in your first assertion, your analogy is flawed. If you DID NOT know your friend brought a gun, and your friend shot and killed someone. You will be liable (well tried for homicide) in the guys death. Shoot, if the cops show up, and shoot your friend, you will be "liable" for his death. Basically if you are involved in a felony, and someone is killed, then EVERYONE guilty of the felony will be charged with homicide as well.
You're making a proactive effort to communicate with a driver in an unsafe way, on the other hand. You're sending them text messages. You know they're driving. You know the recipient is likely to respond, which means you're expecting them to respond.
"Hey Bob are you coming to the party?"
"Yep, on my way, driving down the freeway."
"Ok great. When you get here, go through the back door."
Now I expect bob to not answer my text or read it until he can safely do so. I've sent him a message I expect him to read when he arrives, or stops. But somehow I am responsible?
. Yep, and his 'free will' choice is now 'ignore the text and lose my job, or look at the text and maybe be in an accident'. I'm guess that one of those outcomes is much more likely than the other - so much for his 'free will'.
Or, I don't know, maybe we can pull over, stop the vehicle, and check the text message.
Or better yet, if the boss has "urgent" info that has to be answered right this second, or the guy loses his job. Perhaps the boss can CALL the person, rather than just text him and hope that the text gets to him. Cause you know, just because the text is sent, doesn't mean the driver gets it, and will get it right that second.
If you have to do something underhanded like "A management catch was that it could not appear to be a donation and it had to be for something we had notionally received in the current financial year" then you're going to run into trouble.
How is that underhanded? How is paying for something in the year you received underhanded?
Of course you can pay a non profit for their services. http://www.inc.com/articles/1999/10/14703.html
They can even pay their employees, and their CEO. Someone posted something from the IRS website and asked if there is anything about doing paid work, but there isn't anything about NOT doing paid work. For many non profits a lot of their moneys they use for charitable services come from their profits, not from donations.
As far as misappropriations are concerned: if your underspend is on a 'services' or 'software' category, and you use a lot of open source software, it isn't necessarily a misappropriation of funds (and the spirit of the account) to help ensure the projects on which your company depends stay in good health.
This sounds exactly why it was " it had to be for something we had notionally received in the current financial year." So, they are trying to pay some money for something they received THAT year. Don't quite see why someone thinks this is a tax dodge, or a misappropriation.
I have found that everyone who complains about The Python Whitespace Thing are people who have convinced themselves that they are special little snowflakes and therefore any attempt to limit their creative output on whitespace use must be some kind of crime against humanity.
I'm not special, and I don't use whitespace creatively. I can't STAND it when code isn't indented properly. And yet I still think Python's whitespace is awful, and it is what makes Python a toy language. For one thing, I had having to visually see my whitespace, yet if you don't, you might accidentally mix tabs and spaces and Python gets unhappy.
If they ever pulled an actual terrorist out of a line and subjected them to this sort of questioning, (Something that to my knowledge has never happened even ONCE, correct me if I'm wrong.) chances are they either wouldn't comply at all, or their demeanor or body language would very quickly give away that something was wrong.
If I was going to try to bring a bomb on a plane. I wouldn't opt out of the scan. OR if I was going to opt out of the scan, I would do everything in my power to make sure I wouldn't trigger the explosives test. I also wouldn't make a big stink, and would fully comply with everything they asked me to do. I would be as meek as possible. I would do everything I could do, to not draw attention to myself.
Or maybe I would be loud and obnoxious and draw attention to myself (cause what terrorist would actually do that) BUT I still would do everything possible to NOT set off the explosive machine.
The ONLY thing that should be a warning sign is the positive test. Everything else is just hogwash. Are you saying you HAVE to have a workplace? You can't be travelling alone? He has to have papers?
As far as TSA doing what they should be doing, why are they doing anything? Why do they exist.
The issue though is that folks are going to have to accept that nobody is now responsible to stop the bad guys from doing bad things on airplanes.
Who stops the bad guys on subways and on buses? Before TSA how many bad guys did bad things on airplanes? What exactly is it we are trying to stop?
Underwhere bombers? TSA failed there, show bombers? ditto (well the TSA equivalent in England) Perhaps stop people from putting explosives in printers? Ohh right, TSA failed to do that as well. So what is it they are supposed to do? Other than stick their hands down my pants?
If you don't like this kind of thing happening, then I suggest you not fly.
You realize that the TSA isn't limited to just airports, right? You do know they to "augment the security of any mode of transportation at any location within the United States."
What do I expect TSA to do? I expect them to not exist.
I'm in no way saying that a person deserves this kind of treatment for opting-out of a scan, and I think that the current security procedures border on reprehensible. But people need to understand that they are part of air travel nowadays.
You do know why most of us opt out, and then post these stories? It is to get people to understand that it does NOT have to be a part of air travel. That we ARE fighting the system. Just not doing it quietly.
Opt out. The more people that opt out, the sooner this nonsense will stop.
And then TSA would move on to subways, trains, bridges, and "augment the security of any mode of transportation at any location within the United States."
but he knew how it worked, and he got what he had coming.
Really? What he had coming was to get on a plane on going on his vacation. I'm not sure where you are from, but here in America we have a right to be "wise ass punks" (not agreeing with you in saying he was)
Lets suppose you, a fine upstanding citizen, than does nothing wrong, not even speed, gets pulled aside and told they are taking you to the back room for a further patdown and screening... What would you do? "oh yes sir, right away sir, whatever you say sir." You KNOW you've done nothing wrong, and your family is waiting for you to catch the flight, which leaves in 20 minutes. And you will just go silently? If you don't say something, anything, then YOU get what is coming to you...
If somebody tested positive for explosives residue going through airport security I'd be suspicious too.
He didn't test positive for explosive residue (well maybe he did, we don't know, more likely he tested positive for a chemical on the watch list.)
But what are you suspicious of? Why be suspicious, and why do you even need to test for it? Are you automatically assuming the "terrorist" is too stupid to take preventive measures? Or you automatically assume YOUR plane is a target, but NOTHING else in your life (the workplace, the mall, the school, the theatre) are targets?
there would appear to be some major flow in their passenger profiling
And hence the problem with profiling. One of the articles in a previous comment was about a guy who "act bizarrely" but a "terrorist" won't act bizarrely. Only bizarre people act that way. A terrorist will try to act as normal as possible and draw as little attention to himself as possible.
There were communist spies in the state department.
Wait, so there were guys who were spying for a political theory? Were there monarchy spies and republican spies as well? Maybe an anarchist spy or two?
"Because if they didn't vote for a lizard, the wrong lizard might get in."
This is one thing that makes me mad at election times. SO many people say "I would have voted for the third party candidate, but I didn't want to throw away my vote. So I voted for one of the evil guys instead." Just vote for the guy you want. Otherwise you ARE throwing away your vote. If EVERYONE did that, the third party guy might actually have a chance.
The guy's Indian, and to your average dimwitted, racist TSA goon that's just another variety of "terr'ist sand-nigger." They're not even smart enough to be racist properly.
This led to him getting an enhanced pat-down with an explosive swab test on his pants which came back positive for some unknown reason,
This happened because he opted out of the stupid whole body imaging machine. THEN he tested positive for something that may or may not have been explosives. It snowballed from there (and yes by the sound of it, there was a bit of racism going on, AFTER he was pulled aside)
This was NOT random, or profiling.
Slashdot Mirror
"So what are you in for?"
"I patented some software..."
Let's say that you're robbing a store after hours and you know your friend brought a gun.
While you may be right in your first assertion, your analogy is flawed. If you DID NOT know your friend brought a gun, and your friend shot and killed someone. You will be liable (well tried for homicide) in the guys death. Shoot, if the cops show up, and shoot your friend, you will be "liable" for his death. Basically if you are involved in a felony, and someone is killed, then EVERYONE guilty of the felony will be charged with homicide as well.
You're making a proactive effort to communicate with a driver in an unsafe way, on the other hand. You're sending them text messages. You know they're driving. You know the recipient is likely to respond, which means you're expecting them to respond.
"Hey Bob are you coming to the party?"
"Yep, on my way, driving down the freeway."
"Ok great. When you get here, go through the back door."
Now I expect bob to not answer my text or read it until he can safely do so. I've sent him a message I expect him to read when he arrives, or stops. But somehow I am responsible?
The driver has free will
. Yep, and his 'free will' choice is now 'ignore the text and lose my job, or look at the text and maybe be in an accident'. I'm guess that one of those outcomes is much more likely than the other - so much for his 'free will'.
Or, I don't know, maybe we can pull over, stop the vehicle, and check the text message.
Or better yet, if the boss has "urgent" info that has to be answered right this second, or the guy loses his job. Perhaps the boss can CALL the person, rather than just text him and hope that the text gets to him. Cause you know, just because the text is sent, doesn't mean the driver gets it, and will get it right that second.
. Granted, there's a lot of reasons he could pass through and it wouldn't be noticed, but I'd think there's some protection.
Apparently measles is not strictly on the list, if I'm reading this right.
There is some protection, its called vaccines, and pretty much the rest of the US population has taken them. So why bother?
If you have to do something underhanded like "A management catch was that it could not appear to be a donation and it had to be for something we had notionally received in the current financial year" then you're going to run into trouble.
How is that underhanded? How is paying for something in the year you received underhanded?
Of course you can pay a non profit for their services. http://www.inc.com/articles/1999/10/14703.html They can even pay their employees, and their CEO. Someone posted something from the IRS website and asked if there is anything about doing paid work, but there isn't anything about NOT doing paid work. For many non profits a lot of their moneys they use for charitable services come from their profits, not from donations.
As far as misappropriations are concerned: if your underspend is on a 'services' or 'software' category, and you use a lot of open source software, it isn't necessarily a misappropriation of funds (and the spirit of the account) to help ensure the projects on which your company depends stay in good health.
This sounds exactly why it was " it had to be for something we had notionally received in the current financial year." So, they are trying to pay some money for something they received THAT year. Don't quite see why someone thinks this is a tax dodge, or a misappropriation.
I have found that everyone who complains about The Python Whitespace Thing are people who have convinced themselves that they are special little snowflakes and therefore any attempt to limit their creative output on whitespace use must be some kind of crime against humanity.
I'm not special, and I don't use whitespace creatively. I can't STAND it when code isn't indented properly. And yet I still think Python's whitespace is awful, and it is what makes Python a toy language. For one thing, I had having to visually see my whitespace, yet if you don't, you might accidentally mix tabs and spaces and Python gets unhappy.
So after the 2013 Hempfest, they organizers said "well what were some of our problems, and how do we solve them for NEXT year?"
If they ever pulled an actual terrorist out of a line and subjected them to this sort of questioning, (Something that to my knowledge has never happened even ONCE, correct me if I'm wrong.) chances are they either wouldn't comply at all, or their demeanor or body language would very quickly give away that something was wrong.
If I was going to try to bring a bomb on a plane. I wouldn't opt out of the scan. OR if I was going to opt out of the scan, I would do everything in my power to make sure I wouldn't trigger the explosives test. I also wouldn't make a big stink, and would fully comply with everything they asked me to do. I would be as meek as possible. I would do everything I could do, to not draw attention to myself.
Or maybe I would be loud and obnoxious and draw attention to myself (cause what terrorist would actually do that) BUT I still would do everything possible to NOT set off the explosive machine.
The ONLY thing that should be a warning sign is the positive test. Everything else is just hogwash. Are you saying you HAVE to have a workplace? You can't be travelling alone? He has to have papers?
As far as TSA doing what they should be doing, why are they doing anything? Why do they exist.
The issue though is that folks are going to have to accept that nobody is now responsible to stop the bad guys from doing bad things on airplanes.
Who stops the bad guys on subways and on buses? Before TSA how many bad guys did bad things on airplanes? What exactly is it we are trying to stop?
Underwhere bombers? TSA failed there, show bombers? ditto (well the TSA equivalent in England) Perhaps stop people from putting explosives in printers? Ohh right, TSA failed to do that as well. So what is it they are supposed to do? Other than stick their hands down my pants?
If you don't like this kind of thing happening, then I suggest you not fly.
You realize that the TSA isn't limited to just airports, right? You do know they to "augment the security of any mode of transportation at any location within the United States."
What do I expect TSA to do? I expect them to not exist.
I'm in no way saying that a person deserves this kind of treatment for opting-out of a scan, and I think that the current security procedures border on reprehensible. But people need to understand that they are part of air travel nowadays.
You do know why most of us opt out, and then post these stories? It is to get people to understand that it does NOT have to be a part of air travel. That we ARE fighting the system. Just not doing it quietly.
Opt out. The more people that opt out, the sooner this nonsense will stop.
And then TSA would move on to subways, trains, bridges, and "augment the security of any mode of transportation at any location within the United States."
but he knew how it worked, and he got what he had coming.
Really? What he had coming was to get on a plane on going on his vacation. I'm not sure where you are from, but here in America we have a right to be "wise ass punks" (not agreeing with you in saying he was)
Lets suppose you, a fine upstanding citizen, than does nothing wrong, not even speed, gets pulled aside and told they are taking you to the back room for a further patdown and screening... What would you do? "oh yes sir, right away sir, whatever you say sir." You KNOW you've done nothing wrong, and your family is waiting for you to catch the flight, which leaves in 20 minutes. And you will just go silently? If you don't say something, anything, then YOU get what is coming to you...
If somebody tested positive for explosives residue going through airport security I'd be suspicious too.
He didn't test positive for explosive residue (well maybe he did, we don't know, more likely he tested positive for a chemical on the watch list.)
But what are you suspicious of? Why be suspicious, and why do you even need to test for it? Are you automatically assuming the "terrorist" is too stupid to take preventive measures? Or you automatically assume YOUR plane is a target, but NOTHING else in your life (the workplace, the mall, the school, the theatre) are targets?
You want to get rid of the TSA?
Don't fly.
It's that simple.
I'm not sure what not flying has to do with getting rid of the TSA. TSA's mission is
Protect the Nation's transportation systems to ensure freedom of movement for people and commerce.
Notice how is says "transportation systems" and not airports? They are authorized to
augment the security of any mode of transportation at any location within the United States.
ANY MODE... not just flying. So stop flying all you want, but it won't stop the TSA. This is not a case of "vote with your pocketbook"
The police were involved. So there should be a police report.
there would appear to be some major flow in their passenger profiling
And hence the problem with profiling. One of the articles in a previous comment was about a guy who "act bizarrely" but a "terrorist" won't act bizarrely. Only bizarre people act that way. A terrorist will try to act as normal as possible and draw as little attention to himself as possible.
There were communist spies in the state department.
Wait, so there were guys who were spying for a political theory? Were there monarchy spies and republican spies as well? Maybe an anarchist spy or two?
"Because if they didn't vote for a lizard, the wrong lizard might get in."
This is one thing that makes me mad at election times. SO many people say "I would have voted for the third party candidate, but I didn't want to throw away my vote. So I voted for one of the evil guys instead." Just vote for the guy you want. Otherwise you ARE throwing away your vote. If EVERYONE did that, the third party guy might actually have a chance.
Why did this happen?
The guy's Indian, and to your average dimwitted, racist TSA goon that's just another variety of "terr'ist sand-nigger." They're not even smart enough to be racist properly.
This led to him getting an enhanced pat-down with an explosive swab test on his pants which came back positive for some unknown reason,
This happened because he opted out of the stupid whole body imaging machine. THEN he tested positive for something that may or may not have been explosives. It snowballed from there (and yes by the sound of it, there was a bit of racism going on, AFTER he was pulled aside)
This was NOT random, or profiling.
What would a great CEO have done differently?
Pretty much everything.