As cynically as he stated it, I'm going to have to agree with him, as least as far as most office jobs are concerned.
While you may technically be paid to "work" for some minimum number of hours, with the increase in telecommuting, flex schedules, and honestly just the modus operandi in tech jobs these days, time is one of the worst ways to judge productivity, and is rarely a significant factor in any type of focal review.
Results matter. If you are in sales and bring in $10M in revenue with 30 hours a week of effort, while your co-workers brings in $1M with twice that, it's pretty clear who's getting the "big bonus" this year. Your boss probably won't know or care how much of that time was spent on Facebook vs meeting with customers, as long as you meet or exceed expectations.
I think this is a horrible law, but no need to exaggerate that ridiculously. No one would spend 3 months in jail because they forgot their identification. If you are a legal resident, you'd get out as soon as you proved it, which isn't all that hard. Still intrusive and humiliating for a legal resident, but not a "3 month prison sentence"...
your first post: responsibility stops at the local level, blame the bishops, not the leader
me: no it doesn't, plus he wasn't the Pope when it happened and further he intervened directly
you: provide a link of direct intervention
me: provides said link containing several confirmed direct quotes that he responded directly to the bishop
you: nitpicking Cacholic terms written facetiously in the first place and not addressing my actual point (ie "attacking the strawman") and then restating the assertion that the buck stops locally
me: stating two more unrefuted facts, with some admittedly sarcastic comments at the end
you: using the "ironic recursive strawman argument", which is making a strawman argument by claiming the other person's argument is a strawman argument. Like crane technique, cannot be defended!
Ok, agree to disagree, I have no issue with you or your religion... just don't like it when people won't admit mistakes, especially when they are influential world leaders...
1) priest CONVICTED of child molestation, specifically:
pleading no contest to misdemeanor charges of lewd conduct for tying up and molesting two young boys in a San Francisco Bay area church rectory
2) Ratzinger replies to defrocking request along the lines of (italics are the article, but quotations are direct):
the arguments for removing Kiesle are of "grave significance" but added that such actions required very careful review and more time. He also urged the bishop to provide Kiesle with "as much paternal care as possible"
That utterly inadequate reply over an admitted and convicted child molester was done for one purpose (another Ratzinger direct quote from a signed letter): "the good of the universal church."
Is he a good leader and polititian? Clearly. But putting the good of the church above the welfare of children like that sure isn't going to make him sainthood material any time soon...
To be honest, I really don't care to argue it any more, and have no interest in debating Catholic dogma. Morality != religion, and dogma is how real moral arguments turn into technicalities. He made a mistake, and doesn't want to admit to it. Religion doesn't have to come in to play, I don't see it as any different from any other conservative politician (GW Bush comes to mind) who wants to pretend he has never made a mistake in judgement.
I don't think people are arguing that he covered up the abuse, just that he ignored and/or delayed something that was VERY obviously a case of child molestation (the priest pled no contest and asked to be defrocked, THAT REQUEST WAS SUPPORTED BY THE LOCAL DIOCESE, and Ratzinger intentionally sat on it!) Sounds like a direct link to me.
Is he criminally liable? I would say not. Did he make a really big mistake, even an error in moral judgement? I think many would say yes. Not promising for the leader of a church with an official doctrine of "papal infallibility".
the Pope is the bishop of Rome, and his primacy is in matters of faith. He is *not* the CEO of the Church like you might find in an ordinary industry. If we want to find resolutions to the abuse scandal, we have to bring the local bishops to account.
Except that he wasn't the Pope when the abuse happened - he was a Bishop directly involved in the (non)-punishment of the offending priests. That's why he is still accountable.
3) Finder attempts to return it 4) Apple rebuffs finder and does not attempt to recover or claim the property (at this point how can it be considered stolen???)
Except that these two items are not yet remotely established as "facts". Even if he did call up some 1st tier Apple tech support (likely *anonymously*, otherwise Apple would already have his name), in what way is that making ANY serious attempt to return it, or an "Apple rebuff"?
His attempt was more like walking into a police department and telling the night janitor "I just saw some guy get mugged" and then people blaming the police for not following up on it.
Hell, I found a (mostly empty) wallet on the curb last week and flagged down a cop who happened to be driving by. He took the wallet, along with my name and number, since that is just good investigative procedure. I was happy to help. But this guy's acts are pretty suspicious for a "good samaritan" just trying to return lost property. Besides, the *law* says lost property is not "finders keepers". By CA law, you have 3 options: 1) return it to owner; 2) turn it in to establishment where it was found; 3) turn it into police. And if you can't be bothered to try those 3 options (that last of which *always* works), there is in fact a 4th: leave it the hell alone in the first place...
Too late. He already admitted (anonymously) to Gizmodo that he looked at Gray Powell's Facebook account on the phone when he found it - and that fact was published in Gizmodo. If he had called Apple's front desk and said "an Apple employee named Gray Powell lost his phone at a bar in Redwood City" rather than "hey I think I found some phone that might possibly be yours" it probably would have been a very different outcome.
2) The bartender could not necessarily be trusted to return something he believed might be valuable.
That doesn't matter. The OP's comment about "return the item either to owner, the place you found it, or to the police" is actually stated in the relevant CA law. besides, clearly the bartender was more trustworthy than the finder since he didn't return it AT ALL, he sold it!
It isn't cut and dry, that's true, but the finder clearly made some mistakes, and the police are now going to find out if those mistakes violated CA law...
Then again, the Romans didn't have the weaponry to destroy the entire planet several times over. I think "world wars" are pretty much history for the human race until we actually start having wars *over* worlds...
Hmm, not sure it is. You could stack a LOT of 2 dimensional desks on top of each other, but the hard part is finding the 2 dimensional engineers to sit in them...
Don't get me wrong, I think their "20%" concept, their "labs/beta" products, etc, are great ideas. I just don't think they are "risky".
I would define risky as taking a big enough chance on something that if it goes badly it could result in significant downside. Palm betting their future on a new phone OS... that's risky (oops!) Google allocating a higher-than-industry-average R&D budget? That's somewhat innovative, and probably good business practice, but not particularly risky.
In fact, they do some up with a lot of innovative and interesting product features, but I am having a hard time even thinking of a Google product that is not either an improved version of an existing idea or an acquisition. Not that there is really anything wrong with that, when the core business is as wildly successful as theirs...
They are?? Seems like a "risk taker" wouldn't have required months of research and usability studies to decide on a simple color change or that they should in fact increase the font size of their home page by 2 points...
Classy? They posted information that they came across by accessing applications and photos on his personal property. What kind of douchebag takes a phone home from a bar after knowing exactly who left it (and starts "playing with it" in the first place)? And then rips apart the casing! How is that classy!?
Sure, Apple knew, but they would have kept it private. Now he is publicly shamed as well. Have a fun time getting the next job!
I guess technically that would be *competition* ballroom dancing - which many consider a sport. So the, is a sporting competition art? In that case, wouldn't skateboarding, jogging, or even auto racing be art?
It is an interesting line of thought, though. Following that, music, painting, and - *gasp* - movies can also be won, because they can all be entered into competitions as well...
Though what I find interesting is that even if one were to try to dispute your point and claim that it can't be art, because art is in fact in the eye of the beholder, it still doesn't make sense. It just takes one "beholder" to appreciate a creation and put some abstract value on it to make it "art" in some form.
As long as the missile has an effective blast raduis less than the thickness of the dialectric. In which case you could also just call the dialectric "armor plating" (or call the missile "really crappy").
I'm sure Gizmodo/Gawker would easily pay 5 figures for the scoop that they are currently getting.
More like a guy on the street finding the Mon Lisa, and selling it to the Met, which will eventually have to return it to the Louvre anyway (after gloating for that they got to put it on display for a while).
I'll take that $5... if they went to the extent of fab-ing Apple-custom ICs just for an imitation phone (a *bit* unlikely), they'd deserve all the hoopla they can get.
If you RTFG and RTFE, it sounds like there is only one lost phone. Engadget never got their hands on the phone, just some low-quality photos. Now they are just linking to Gizmodo's story.
Still, doesn't mean Apple *didn't* leak the prototype to create some buzz and try to piss on the new Android phone releases...
Of course you can. I have all of them installed on one computer. They don't all have to be mixed into the same app, but each can be used to create different apps. That's the whole point.
(though with JNI you *can* use both a JVM and gcc...)
Slashdot Mirror
She's still hot. Just in the "hot mess" category.
As cynically as he stated it, I'm going to have to agree with him, as least as far as most office jobs are concerned.
While you may technically be paid to "work" for some minimum number of hours, with the increase in telecommuting, flex schedules, and honestly just the modus operandi in tech jobs these days, time is one of the worst ways to judge productivity, and is rarely a significant factor in any type of focal review.
Results matter. If you are in sales and bring in $10M in revenue with 30 hours a week of effort, while your co-workers brings in $1M with twice that, it's pretty clear who's getting the "big bonus" this year. Your boss probably won't know or care how much of that time was spent on Facebook vs meeting with customers, as long as you meet or exceed expectations.
I think this is a horrible law, but no need to exaggerate that ridiculously. No one would spend 3 months in jail because they forgot their identification. If you are a legal resident, you'd get out as soon as you proved it, which isn't all that hard. Still intrusive and humiliating for a legal resident, but not a "3 month prison sentence"...
Here's the summary:
your first post: responsibility stops at the local level, blame the bishops, not the leader
me: no it doesn't, plus he wasn't the Pope when it happened and further he intervened directly
you: provide a link of direct intervention
me: provides said link containing several confirmed direct quotes that he responded directly to the bishop
you: nitpicking Cacholic terms written facetiously in the first place and not addressing my actual point (ie "attacking the strawman") and then restating the assertion that the buck stops locally
me: stating two more unrefuted facts, with some admittedly sarcastic comments at the end
you: using the "ironic recursive strawman argument", which is making a strawman argument by claiming the other person's argument is a strawman argument. Like crane technique, cannot be defended!
Ok, agree to disagree, I have no issue with you or your religion... just don't like it when people won't admit mistakes, especially when they are influential world leaders...
It's pretty simple.
1) priest CONVICTED of child molestation, specifically:
pleading no contest to misdemeanor charges of lewd conduct for tying up and molesting two young boys in a San Francisco Bay area church rectory
2) Ratzinger replies to defrocking request along the lines of (italics are the article, but quotations are direct):
the arguments for removing Kiesle are of "grave significance" but added that such actions required very careful review and more time. He also urged the bishop to provide Kiesle with "as much paternal care as possible"
That utterly inadequate reply over an admitted and convicted child molester was done for one purpose (another Ratzinger direct quote from a signed letter): "the good of the universal church."
Is he a good leader and polititian? Clearly. But putting the good of the church above the welfare of children like that sure isn't going to make him sainthood material any time soon...
To be honest, I really don't care to argue it any more, and have no interest in debating Catholic dogma. Morality != religion, and dogma is how real moral arguments turn into technicalities. He made a mistake, and doesn't want to admit to it. Religion doesn't have to come in to play, I don't see it as any different from any other conservative politician (GW Bush comes to mind) who wants to pretend he has never made a mistake in judgement.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100409/ap_on_re_us/us_pope_church_abuse
I don't think people are arguing that he covered up the abuse, just that he ignored and/or delayed something that was VERY obviously a case of child molestation (the priest pled no contest and asked to be defrocked, THAT REQUEST WAS SUPPORTED BY THE LOCAL DIOCESE, and Ratzinger intentionally sat on it!) Sounds like a direct link to me.
Is he criminally liable? I would say not. Did he make a really big mistake, even an error in moral judgement? I think many would say yes. Not promising for the leader of a church with an official doctrine of "papal infallibility".
the Pope is the bishop of Rome, and his primacy is in matters of faith. He is *not* the CEO of the Church like you might find in an ordinary industry. If we want to find resolutions to the abuse scandal, we have to bring the local bishops to account.
Except that he wasn't the Pope when the abuse happened - he was a Bishop directly involved in the (non)-punishment of the offending priests. That's why he is still accountable.
3) Finder attempts to return it
4) Apple rebuffs finder and does not attempt to recover or claim the property (at this point how can it be considered stolen???)
Except that these two items are not yet remotely established as "facts". Even if he did call up some 1st tier Apple tech support (likely *anonymously*, otherwise Apple would already have his name), in what way is that making ANY serious attempt to return it, or an "Apple rebuff"?
His attempt was more like walking into a police department and telling the night janitor "I just saw some guy get mugged" and then people blaming the police for not following up on it.
Hell, I found a (mostly empty) wallet on the curb last week and flagged down a cop who happened to be driving by. He took the wallet, along with my name and number, since that is just good investigative procedure. I was happy to help. But this guy's acts are pretty suspicious for a "good samaritan" just trying to return lost property. Besides, the *law* says lost property is not "finders keepers". By CA law, you have 3 options: 1) return it to owner; 2) turn it in to establishment where it was found; 3) turn it into police. And if you can't be bothered to try those 3 options (that last of which *always* works), there is in fact a 4th: leave it the hell alone in the first place...
He'll say:
1) The owner was unknown
Too late. He already admitted (anonymously) to Gizmodo that he looked at Gray Powell's Facebook account on the phone when he found it - and that fact was published in Gizmodo. If he had called Apple's front desk and said "an Apple employee named Gray Powell lost his phone at a bar in Redwood City" rather than "hey I think I found some phone that might possibly be yours" it probably would have been a very different outcome.
2) The bartender could not necessarily be trusted to return something he believed might be valuable.
That doesn't matter. The OP's comment about "return the item either to owner, the place you found it, or to the police" is actually stated in the relevant CA law. besides, clearly the bartender was more trustworthy than the finder since he didn't return it AT ALL, he sold it!
It isn't cut and dry, that's true, but the finder clearly made some mistakes, and the police are now going to find out if those mistakes violated CA law...
Then again, the Romans didn't have the weaponry to destroy the entire planet several times over. I think "world wars" are pretty much history for the human race until we actually start having wars *over* worlds...
Hmm, not sure it is. You could stack a LOT of 2 dimensional desks on top of each other, but the hard part is finding the 2 dimensional engineers to sit in them...
Or get desks of different dimensions...
Yeah, and if you use 4 dimensions, they could all occupy the same space!
Don't get me wrong, I think their "20%" concept, their "labs/beta" products, etc, are great ideas. I just don't think they are "risky".
I would define risky as taking a big enough chance on something that if it goes badly it could result in significant downside. Palm betting their future on a new phone OS... that's risky (oops!) Google allocating a higher-than-industry-average R&D budget? That's somewhat innovative, and probably good business practice, but not particularly risky.
In fact, they do some up with a lot of innovative and interesting product features, but I am having a hard time even thinking of a Google product that is not either an improved version of an existing idea or an acquisition. Not that there is really anything wrong with that, when the core business is as wildly successful as theirs...
Google's famous for being a risk taker.
They are?? Seems like a "risk taker" wouldn't have required months of research and usability studies to decide on a simple color change or that they should in fact increase the font size of their home page by 2 points...
Like it or hate it (I kind of hate it, too) - it's the biggest tech news of the month. Get over it.
Classy? They posted information that they came across by accessing applications and photos on his personal property. What kind of douchebag takes a phone home from a bar after knowing exactly who left it (and starts "playing with it" in the first place)? And then rips apart the casing! How is that classy!?
Sure, Apple knew, but they would have kept it private. Now he is publicly shamed as well. Have a fun time getting the next job!
I guess technically that would be *competition* ballroom dancing - which many consider a sport. So the, is a sporting competition art? In that case, wouldn't skateboarding, jogging, or even auto racing be art?
It is an interesting line of thought, though. Following that, music, painting, and - *gasp* - movies can also be won, because they can all be entered into competitions as well...
Excellent argument.
Though what I find interesting is that even if one were to try to dispute your point and claim that it can't be art, because art is in fact in the eye of the beholder, it still doesn't make sense. It just takes one "beholder" to appreciate a creation and put some abstract value on it to make it "art" in some form.
As long as the missile has an effective blast raduis less than the thickness of the dialectric. In which case you could also just call the dialectric "armor plating" (or call the missile "really crappy").
Umm, one other possibility - $$$.
I'm sure Gizmodo/Gawker would easily pay 5 figures for the scoop that they are currently getting.
More like a guy on the street finding the Mon Lisa, and selling it to the Met, which will eventually have to return it to the Louvre anyway (after gloating for that they got to put it on display for a while).
I'll take that $5... if they went to the extent of fab-ing Apple-custom ICs just for an imitation phone (a *bit* unlikely), they'd deserve all the hoopla they can get.
If you RTFG and RTFE, it sounds like there is only one lost phone. Engadget never got their hands on the phone, just some low-quality photos. Now they are just linking to Gizmodo's story.
Still, doesn't mean Apple *didn't* leak the prototype to create some buzz and try to piss on the new Android phone releases...
Please read up on your spam history, and return when you can quote every Monty Python skit like the rest of slashdot ;)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spam_(Monty_Python)
though without an actual product, price or date it's tough to get really excited.
That didn't stop all of those months of speculation on the iPad.
Which means in the battle with Apple fanboydom, it has already lost...
Of course you can. I have all of them installed on one computer. They don't all have to be mixed into the same app, but each can be used to create different apps. That's the whole point.
(though with JNI you *can* use both a JVM and gcc...)