>> Had he said "I took the initiative in co-authoring legislation to fund some of the backbone hardware in the newly emerging internet", his detractors wouldn't have had a lot to say.
> That is what he said. "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet."
With all due respect, that isn't what he said, it is your interpretation of what he meant. The two statements (my hypothetical one which fits the facts and the actual quote you name) are different in meaning for any reasonable definition of what is, is.
HR conducted the interview. In fact, the only time I can remember when my boss conducted the exit interview was when I was laid off in the early nineties. What would be the point of your boss conducting the interview? HR wants to know why you're leaving. Presumably, your boss already knows.
In one exit interview, I pointed out that the company's salary cost savings had resulted in a brain drain so extreme that it had put them in the bizarre position where someone could quit the company and then get rehired at a substantial increase in pay. I was told that this was impossible, and I responded by naming two people for which this was the case. (They had bragged about it.) HR rep was somewhat taken aback. I don't know if the policy was ever changed, though. The dot com boom was beginning and I wanted a piece of it, so it never entered my head to reapply there.
Someone pointed out that if you're going to be critical in your exit interview, keep it constructive, don't just blow off steam. I think the exit interview is a good place to provide feedback on issues that would... not be career enhancing... should you volunteer your opinions while employed. But even then, keep it constructive. "That business venture was not a good idea, and resulted in the following collateral damage (a) (b) (c)" rather than "That was the stupidest decision since the redneck lit the fuse and said "watch this!!!"
And for Fudd's sake, don't do it until you have signed the papers on your new job. Just in case.
I disagree. A long, rather painful exit interview once got a boss demoted. Didn't really affect me, except for the knowledge that he couldn't treat new employees the same way he had treated me. Sometimes that's enough.
He could have been more clear and specific. But exactly which part of his statement if demonstrably, factually incorrect?
That Al Gore took the initiative in creating something that already existed. "Create" implies that he knowingly took some action that caused an object to exist that previously did not. He did not do this.
"I took the initiative in creating the internet" is not technically sound. He could have added words to make it so, but speculation is under stress he blew his lines. The internet arguably existed, in neophyte form, before he took office. He did co-author funding for some of the backbone machines, which was a good thing, but that is not "creating the internet" in the same sense that Frank Crowe created Boulder Dam. Or in any sense, really.
If there had never been a movie before Cameron's first one, (as was true for the Internet) the argument could be made that the meaning is the same.
But that's just playing with words. The actual quote was "I took the initiative in creating the internet" which is arguably wrong and (my opinion) a monstrous conceit. But it does illustrate the point that if you're gonna rag on someone, be certain of what he actually said.
You're right, and that's the reason we need to be precise in our language. Gore detractors continue to say "Al Gore said he invented the internet", and Gore apologists continue to counter, with technical accuracy, that he did not say that. You point out that "I took the initiative in creating the internet" has essentially the same meaning, but most people haven't done the research necessary to know the exact quote.
Parenthetically, there is a good chance that he simply blew his lines during the interview. Had he said "I took the initiative in co-authoring legislation to fund some of the backbone hardware in the newly emerging internet", his detractors wouldn't have had a lot to say. (In some cases, because they did not understand what he had just said.)
What Google should do is not play the Apple game. Offer a 32 gig device and... there is no second step. Advertise that even if you don't use the storage, it's being made available because MEMORY IS CHEAP, the additional cost of memory is buried down in the noise, and Google doesn't feel the need to play that game.
I don't expect them to do that, but it would be interesting to see what happened if they did.
I think Microsoft to a certain extent left themselves flapping in the wind, by pursuing late, and insisting on pushing a desktop paradigm on other devices even when it's apparent that it wasn't a good fit. They seemed to think that "it's Windows" was a good enough selling point that it didn't have to be useable. And that allowed other approaches to run away with the market. Even with Windows 8, they're still insisting on the same interface everywhere, this time, it appears, by dumbing down the desktop, in the interest of uniformity, to something that works on a smaller touch device.
I have a Droid X. At the time of it's release, I believe it was the biggest touch screen phone on the market. My daughter recently acquired a Bionic, which is slightly larger. A friend now carries one 'a' those giant phones by Samsung.
I got the Droid X because I planned to use Logmein Ignition to do remote administration, so I didn't have to carry a laptop when I was on-call. (It works really well after some training.) Daughter got the Bionic because it had features she liked and she didn't mind carrying a large phone. Friend got the giant phone because he owns and manages several websites and could do maintenance on the fly, and customer demos, directly from his phone.
It all depends on what you're doing. If you get a big smartphone because "of course bigger is better", you're an idiot. But if you have a specific purpose in mind, for instance, one where a larger screen means you don't have to carry a second device, then a bigger phone might be a good idea.
Just because there's big phones out there doesn't mean you have to own one. Unless, you know, you're a sheep.
A good day-to-day place to start is to get the officer's guide to law in your state and READ it. It's generally not long, and will give you an idea of what constitutes "legal" in your daily affairs. In many places it's available electronically if you have a smartphone. My copy has already prevented me from being arrested once.
Slashdot Mirror
>> Had he said "I took the initiative in co-authoring legislation to fund some of the backbone hardware in the newly emerging internet", his detractors wouldn't have had a lot to say.
> That is what he said. "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet."
With all due respect, that isn't what he said, it is your interpretation of what he meant. The two statements (my hypothetical one which fits the facts and the actual quote you name) are different in meaning for any reasonable definition of what is, is.
It's time to get over the 2000 election.
Often there's booming at first.
HR conducted the interview. In fact, the only time I can remember when my boss conducted the exit interview was when I was laid off in the early nineties. What would be the point of your boss conducting the interview? HR wants to know why you're leaving. Presumably, your boss already knows.
In one exit interview, I pointed out that the company's salary cost savings had resulted in a brain drain so extreme that it had put them in the bizarre position where someone could quit the company and then get rehired at a substantial increase in pay. I was told that this was impossible, and I responded by naming two people for which this was the case. (They had bragged about it.) HR rep was somewhat taken aback. I don't know if the policy was ever changed, though. The dot com boom was beginning and I wanted a piece of it, so it never entered my head to reapply there.
Someone pointed out that if you're going to be critical in your exit interview, keep it constructive, don't just blow off steam. I think the exit interview is a good place to provide feedback on issues that would... not be career enhancing... should you volunteer your opinions while employed. But even then, keep it constructive. "That business venture was not a good idea, and resulted in the following collateral damage (a) (b) (c)" rather than "That was the stupidest decision since the redneck lit the fuse and said "watch this!!!"
And for Fudd's sake, don't do it until you have signed the papers on your new job. Just in case.
I disagree. A long, rather painful exit interview once got a boss demoted. Didn't really affect me, except for the knowledge that he couldn't treat new employees the same way he had treated me. Sometimes that's enough.
He could have been more clear and specific. But exactly which part of his statement if demonstrably, factually incorrect?
That Al Gore took the initiative in creating something that already existed. "Create" implies that he knowingly took some action that caused an object to exist that previously did not. He did not do this.
Perhaps there wouldn't be so many clinging to the notion that Al Gore is a buffoon, if he didn't supply so many handles.
Maybe so, were it the very first cake ever.
When I heard Microsoft had purchased Skype, my first thought was "Skype is dead". It only remained to find out in what way it met it's demise.
"I took the initiative in creating the internet" is not technically sound. He could have added words to make it so, but speculation is under stress he blew his lines. The internet arguably existed, in neophyte form, before he took office. He did co-author funding for some of the backbone machines, which was a good thing, but that is not "creating the internet" in the same sense that Frank Crowe created Boulder Dam. Or in any sense, really.
If there had never been a movie before Cameron's first one, (as was true for the Internet) the argument could be made that the meaning is the same.
But that's just playing with words. The actual quote was "I took the initiative in creating the internet" which is arguably wrong and (my opinion) a monstrous conceit. But it does illustrate the point that if you're gonna rag on someone, be certain of what he actually said.
You're right, and that's the reason we need to be precise in our language. Gore detractors continue to say "Al Gore said he invented the internet", and Gore apologists continue to counter, with technical accuracy, that he did not say that. You point out that "I took the initiative in creating the internet" has essentially the same meaning, but most people haven't done the research necessary to know the exact quote.
Parenthetically, there is a good chance that he simply blew his lines during the interview. Had he said "I took the initiative in co-authoring legislation to fund some of the backbone hardware in the newly emerging internet", his detractors wouldn't have had a lot to say. (In some cases, because they did not understand what he had just said.)
I thought it was the University of Hawaii in 1971?
(And they probably based it on something earlier.)
A snarky person might say we all got together on March 9, 1999, and Al Gore gave Al Gore the credit.
(And yes, I know he said "created" not "invented".)
George Dickel (made in Tennessee) uses the Scottish spelling.
Yep. Fun fact: George Dickel, a Tennessee whisky (which they insist is *not* "bourbon") deliberately uses the Scots spelling of "whisky".
What Google should do is not play the Apple game. Offer a 32 gig device and ... there is no second step. Advertise that even if you don't use the storage, it's being made available because MEMORY IS CHEAP, the additional cost of memory is buried down in the noise, and Google doesn't feel the need to play that game.
I don't expect them to do that, but it would be interesting to see what happened if they did.
I think Microsoft to a certain extent left themselves flapping in the wind, by pursuing late, and insisting on pushing a desktop paradigm on other devices even when it's apparent that it wasn't a good fit. They seemed to think that "it's Windows" was a good enough selling point that it didn't have to be useable. And that allowed other approaches to run away with the market. Even with Windows 8, they're still insisting on the same interface everywhere, this time, it appears, by dumbing down the desktop, in the interest of uniformity, to something that works on a smaller touch device.
I have a Droid X. At the time of it's release, I believe it was the biggest touch screen phone on the market. My daughter recently acquired a Bionic, which is slightly larger. A friend now carries one 'a' those giant phones by Samsung.
I got the Droid X because I planned to use Logmein Ignition to do remote administration, so I didn't have to carry a laptop when I was on-call. (It works really well after some training.) Daughter got the Bionic because it had features she liked and she didn't mind carrying a large phone. Friend got the giant phone because he owns and manages several websites and could do maintenance on the fly, and customer demos, directly from his phone.
It all depends on what you're doing. If you get a big smartphone because "of course bigger is better", you're an idiot. But if you have a specific purpose in mind, for instance, one where a larger screen means you don't have to carry a second device, then a bigger phone might be a good idea.
Just because there's big phones out there doesn't mean you have to own one. Unless, you know, you're a sheep.
A good day-to-day place to start is to get the officer's guide to law in your state and READ it. It's generally not long, and will give you an idea of what constitutes "legal" in your daily affairs. In many places it's available electronically if you have a smartphone. My copy has already prevented me from being arrested once.
Wouldn't bother me overmuch, but might bother the people who had to look at me.