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?
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 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.
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"
"Experience has proved that some people indeed know everything." -- Russell Baker
