As far as the law is concerned it's probably not much of an issue, if you asked me and my kid was in that class I'd say "hell yes!" The first part of the law is very much built around what you do if you see or suspect abuse, not abuse that may happen... if the priest's superior knows that his priest-employee has been looking at kiddie porn for 30 years with no instances of abuse, then he can come to a reasonable conclusion that he won't abuse. He should definitely FIRE the guy, and carefully interview everyone around him, the children he has been in contact with, and their families.
But I guess the families have a right to know why the teacher is leaving, and they'd all be rather motivated to drop a dime on him, so I guess the law is proper -- it compels the mandated person to do what was eventually going to have to happen anyways, even if it were less demanding.
The problem is, the law is ordering you to ruin someone's career and life when no one has been harmed, when merely firing someone or moving them out of contact with children would be a completely suitable remedy to the danger the law is trying to prevent. If the cops throw up a sting and catch him with kiddie porn, then the law's the law and he should go to jail, but are we ready to force people's friends and coworkers to turn someone in for this?
It would seem strange that an employer would be required to report such a thing, particularly if there was no evidence that any child had been harmed, however, it would appear to be so, the indictment is specifically for "Failure of Mandated Reporter to Report." Here is the relevant Missouri statute.
PP 4 reads:
In addition to those persons and officials required to report actual or suspected abuse or neglect, any other person may report in accordance with sections 210.109 to 210.183 if such person has reasonable cause to suspect that a child has been or may be subjected to abuse or neglect or observes a child being subjected to conditions or circumstances which would reasonably result in abuse or neglect.
Does possession of child porn constitute "reasonable cause to suspect"?
Actually fertility and marriage rates have been uniformly declining for decades, especially among college graduates -- it's a serious demographic problem, and if all of these people had three kids then Social Security and Medicare would probably be solvent, unchanged, for the next hundred years.
got a $100,000 degree in some bullshit subject like Black Studies,
While I cannot quote statistics, most corporate officers and successful entrepreneurs I've interacted with generally had undergraduate degrees in some kind of "soft" liberal arts, like American studies, history, political science, and anthropology.
Steve Jobs famously dropped out of college in order to study calligraphy. Worked for him.
and then wonder why no one wants to hire them and that a nonprofit that gives out needles to dopeheads doesn't pay $100K a year.
Needle exchanges save lives. And I know a lot of people involved in non-profits, doing things they love and believe in, getting paid jack and making no complaints.
The problem aren't the people who want $100k a year to distribute needles. The problem are the people who think that anyone who chooses to not be a millionaire is a chump, and should be exploited, because they "bring it on themselves."
Because of the level of technology it's become more obvious that it is a status symbol.
I think the iPhone's circumstance as a status symbol has always been rather patent.
The interesting fact is that a Nexus S or a Blackberry or a Droid Bionic are also status symbols -- just because your phone runs a different OS, or it has twice the RAM, that doesn't suddenly make your purchase decision perforce more rational or less status-conscious. The fact that Android and Blackberrys (not so much the second one lately) have defenders and people proudly stating their ownership on this forum clearly demonstrates that owning these phones confers status and attributes the owner with a particular set of values, independent of the actual rational decision to buy the thing.
I just don't think the "status symbol" argument is a useful one -- everybody buys status, and people who run around with Frodo t-shirts and Star Trek bumper stickers (that's me) and hiking boots that never see a dirt road should probably be careful about how they critique social signaling.
Something cannot be "par" and a status symbol at the same time.
It seems to me that if you're making this argument, you're just as positionally-conscious as the iSheep (or whatever we'd like to call them), you just use different criteria, no doubt better criteria that is obviously more aligned with value than those other people you don't understand./s
There's some serious distortion as you move around that image, too.
This is induced by projection and can't be avoided. Your screen isn't the curved inward like a sphere, so when a spherical image is projected onto it you'll always get edge distortion. Note that when they crop in on the image, the distortion goes away because the image becomes flatter for smaller crops of the sphere, thus the projection becomes less distorted, in the same way that a mercator projection of the Earth is very distorting, but a mercator projection of Seattle will have relatively high fidelity for shapes and sizes. If your central vision could sweep out a 180 degree arc, and your visual cortex, which reinterprets the edges, could be switched off, you would see distorted edges as well.
The reason you don't see distortion in modern videogames is because the developers intentionally select a narrow enough camera frustum that restricts your viewing angle. The reason you see the distortion here is because the developers of the viewer want to give you a wide enough overview that you can navigate the image without regard to fidelity.
I remember telling people in 1998 that putting a keyboard on a PDA was a silly idea because Graffiti on the Palm Pilot was so much more efficient, you just had to learn the, ah, "special communication protocol." But for some reason keyboards win because people are comfortable with them, even though they waste space, might be slower for a lot of people.
For starters human-to-human communication has a huge amount of redundancy.
That's a channel issue, not a semantic one, and is distinct from the identity of the sender and receiver. The redundancy serves an important purpose, and any signal the sender can put on the medium, a receiver can be trained to interpret.
You don't want to have to tell to the car "can you please apply the brakes now?"
You don't want to have to spend 30 seconds digging through menus with your eyes on a screen to get directions, either.
Speculation: I bet a lot of geeks are secretly really attracted to the idea of having to learn a special argot in order to speak to their computer, for the same reason men have always been drawn to use argots; it shows others they belong to a special club, that they're initiated into special knowledge, and that a mystical aura surrounds the work done with it -- also if it's related to computers it lets others know just how clever they are. Using careful language on the radio is one thing, but doing it in the open air is really meant as a sort of social signifier, to connote status and to acknowledge peers.
Geeks hate it when normal people are able to do creative and status-earning things with computers, because it strikes at the heart of the modern geeks prestige.
I'm not saying videogames are bad in any sort of absolute way, but the GP seemed to imply that an App Store model didn't seem to produce "good games" relative to what console game developers produce, which, given what you buy on conoles now, doesn't strike me as a sustainable argument. If anything the EAs and Activisions of the world have become gatekeepers to distribution channles, and iPhones and Android phones have done a lot to disintermediate and bring better content, or at least more experimentation in form, to end users.
"Indie" is marketing speak for "ghetto." There's a reason they keep these products on a segregated channel: they don't want them coming up in an ad banner or search result presentment alongside games that are paying hundreds of thousands of dollars for their development chain, licensing, and market placement.
They're going to have to fix the delay issues if it works in the standard AirPlay way; I've noticed delays in the hundreds of milliseconds range, which for a videogame is not practical.
This doesn't exclude the possibility that Apple could build some way of offloading the rendering to the AppleTV and just use the wireless link for control, but that's not something they offer now.
Very few of them are capable of making actually good games though. Look at what's most popular in mobile gaming: small games that you can play for 5 minutes at a time. It's the world of angry birds and solitaire.
Yes, the living room is reserved for such highfalutin experiences as Madden NFL '12 and Mortal Kombat vs. the DC Universe.
I work in the movie business, and I've noticed how the console games manufacturers have, in about 1/5th the time Hollywood used, turned themselves into everything that sucks about the modern entertainment industry. They either just remake a game franchise that's been proven for the last 20 years, or they just reskin the Unreal engine with 20% more zombie, and let the engineers just crank up the photorealism (see Gears of War) -- there's your immersive experience. Granted, occasionally you get something like Bioshock which has something to say, but it's still just an FPS with a storyline from a college sophomore's Ayn Rand essay.
I would take any attempt to recognize the natural success of the incumbent console developer with a large grain of NaCl. Anything that disrupts their cozy relationship with content licensors and established distribution channels would be welcome.
It might even be more fun than that. Maybe they know things about you that you never told them, like your gender or age. I would also tend to believe that if they're able to figure out this information about people they're probably entitled to keep the fact of their knowing secret.
So you, by definition, have knowledge of all of you personal information (otherwise it wouldn't be personal), they must think that they have a way of turning knowledge about your self that is available to you consciously, into information that isn't, for example by analyzing your web history, or use of language, or friends, in order to predict certain cultural preferences, or ad susceptibility. That's perfectly believable, and no, you probably aren't entitled to it. If you don't want them building models of you, don't submit your information.
Google's openness to allow us to keep this message posted on its own social network is, in my opinion, a far greater asset than any SaS platform.
I suspect this post was "accidentally" leaked in the same sense that Apple's iPhone 4 prototype was "accidentally" lost in a bar.
Corporate messaging challenge: How do you acknowledge that your new product doesn't meet expectations, and that you're aware of the problems and serious about addressing them, while at no time admitting any error on the part of the corporate entity?
This hero was doing just fine until he wanted to make some money at Sothebys.
Possessing a piece of American history, even if you might not technically be entitled, is one thing. But selling a piece of American history, for profit, to the highest bidder, is something very different.
This is the big difference between iCloud and other cloud servcies. iCloud is primarily a synchronization platform, there's some remote storage but it's meant to always backs local assets, much more like Dropbox than Google Apps. A pure cloud solution would just let you read everything off the remote, but doesn't necessarily make it easy or friendly to maintain local mirrors.
If the servers go down, you lose the ability to sync, but you don't lose what you have.
It's been remarkable to see a bunch of otherwise-super-technical slashdotters fall back on criticizing a cellphone's case design. For some reason I thought this was part of the "shiny" "iBling" aspect of a product I was supposed to ignore.
Slashdot Mirror
You'd have to ask the judge and jury.
As far as the law is concerned it's probably not much of an issue, if you asked me and my kid was in that class I'd say "hell yes!" The first part of the law is very much built around what you do if you see or suspect abuse, not abuse that may happen... if the priest's superior knows that his priest-employee has been looking at kiddie porn for 30 years with no instances of abuse, then he can come to a reasonable conclusion that he won't abuse. He should definitely FIRE the guy, and carefully interview everyone around him, the children he has been in contact with, and their families.
But I guess the families have a right to know why the teacher is leaving, and they'd all be rather motivated to drop a dime on him, so I guess the law is proper -- it compels the mandated person to do what was eventually going to have to happen anyways, even if it were less demanding.
The problem is, the law is ordering you to ruin someone's career and life when no one has been harmed, when merely firing someone or moving them out of contact with children would be a completely suitable remedy to the danger the law is trying to prevent. If the cops throw up a sting and catch him with kiddie porn, then the law's the law and he should go to jail, but are we ready to force people's friends and coworkers to turn someone in for this?
It would seem strange that an employer would be required to report such a thing, particularly if there was no evidence that any child had been harmed, however, it would appear to be so, the indictment is specifically for "Failure of Mandated Reporter to Report." Here is the relevant Missouri statute.
PP 4 reads:
Does possession of child porn constitute "reasonable cause to suspect"?
Since it was a different person than the original poster, I presume honesty -- trolls do not collaborate.
99% of them are stupid whores who have 3 kids,
Actually fertility and marriage rates have been uniformly declining for decades, especially among college graduates -- it's a serious demographic problem, and if all of these people had three kids then Social Security and Medicare would probably be solvent, unchanged, for the next hundred years.
got a $100,000 degree in some bullshit subject like Black Studies,
While I cannot quote statistics, most corporate officers and successful entrepreneurs I've interacted with generally had undergraduate degrees in some kind of "soft" liberal arts, like American studies, history, political science, and anthropology.
Steve Jobs famously dropped out of college in order to study calligraphy. Worked for him.
and then wonder why no one wants to hire them and that a nonprofit that gives out needles to dopeheads doesn't pay $100K a year.
Needle exchanges save lives. And I know a lot of people involved in non-profits, doing things they love and believe in, getting paid jack and making no complaints.
The problem aren't the people who want $100k a year to distribute needles. The problem are the people who think that anyone who chooses to not be a millionaire is a chump, and should be exploited, because they "bring it on themselves."
I think the iPhone's circumstance as a status symbol has always been rather patent.
The interesting fact is that a Nexus S or a Blackberry or a Droid Bionic are also status symbols -- just because your phone runs a different OS, or it has twice the RAM, that doesn't suddenly make your purchase decision perforce more rational or less status-conscious. The fact that Android and Blackberrys (not so much the second one lately) have defenders and people proudly stating their ownership on this forum clearly demonstrates that owning these phones confers status and attributes the owner with a particular set of values, independent of the actual rational decision to buy the thing.
I just don't think the "status symbol" argument is a useful one -- everybody buys status, and people who run around with Frodo t-shirts and Star Trek bumper stickers (that's me) and hiking boots that never see a dirt road should probably be careful about how they critique social signaling.
Let's be honest, Samsung only wishes it could overload AT&Ts servers with Nexus S activations.
Something cannot be "par" and a status symbol at the same time.
It seems to me that if you're making this argument, you're just as positionally-conscious as the iSheep (or whatever we'd like to call them), you just use different criteria, no doubt better criteria that is obviously more aligned with value than those other people you don't understand. /s
There's some serious distortion as you move around that image, too.
This is induced by projection and can't be avoided. Your screen isn't the curved inward like a sphere, so when a spherical image is projected onto it you'll always get edge distortion. Note that when they crop in on the image, the distortion goes away because the image becomes flatter for smaller crops of the sphere, thus the projection becomes less distorted, in the same way that a mercator projection of the Earth is very distorting, but a mercator projection of Seattle will have relatively high fidelity for shapes and sizes. If your central vision could sweep out a 180 degree arc, and your visual cortex, which reinterprets the edges, could be switched off, you would see distorted edges as well.
The reason you don't see distortion in modern videogames is because the developers intentionally select a narrow enough camera frustum that restricts your viewing angle. The reason you see the distortion here is because the developers of the viewer want to give you a wide enough overview that you can navigate the image without regard to fidelity.
I remember telling people in 1998 that putting a keyboard on a PDA was a silly idea because Graffiti on the Palm Pilot was so much more efficient, you just had to learn the, ah, "special communication protocol." But for some reason keyboards win because people are comfortable with them, even though they waste space, might be slower for a lot of people.
For starters human-to-human communication has a huge amount of redundancy.
That's a channel issue, not a semantic one, and is distinct from the identity of the sender and receiver. The redundancy serves an important purpose, and any signal the sender can put on the medium, a receiver can be trained to interpret.
You don't want to have to tell to the car "can you please apply the brakes now?"
You don't want to have to spend 30 seconds digging through menus with your eyes on a screen to get directions, either.
Speculation: I bet a lot of geeks are secretly really attracted to the idea of having to learn a special argot in order to speak to their computer, for the same reason men have always been drawn to use argots; it shows others they belong to a special club, that they're initiated into special knowledge, and that a mystical aura surrounds the work done with it -- also if it's related to computers it lets others know just how clever they are. Using careful language on the radio is one thing, but doing it in the open air is really meant as a sort of social signifier, to connote status and to acknowledge peers.
Geeks hate it when normal people are able to do creative and status-earning things with computers, because it strikes at the heart of the modern geeks prestige.
I'm not saying videogames are bad in any sort of absolute way, but the GP seemed to imply that an App Store model didn't seem to produce "good games" relative to what console game developers produce, which, given what you buy on conoles now, doesn't strike me as a sustainable argument. If anything the EAs and Activisions of the world have become gatekeepers to distribution channles, and iPhones and Android phones have done a lot to disintermediate and bring better content, or at least more experimentation in form, to end users.
It's a good bet Apple would refuse to approve the app precisely because it would be an iDisk replacement.
I suppose it's by this rationale that the Dropbox app has been forbidden for a year now. Oh wait, that never happened.
"Indie" is marketing speak for "ghetto." There's a reason they keep these products on a segregated channel: they don't want them coming up in an ad banner or search result presentment alongside games that are paying hundreds of thousands of dollars for their development chain, licensing, and market placement.
They're going to have to fix the delay issues if it works in the standard AirPlay way; I've noticed delays in the hundreds of milliseconds range, which for a videogame is not practical.
This doesn't exclude the possibility that Apple could build some way of offloading the rendering to the AppleTV and just use the wireless link for control, but that's not something they offer now.
Very few of them are capable of making actually good games though. Look at what's most popular in mobile gaming: small games that you can play for 5 minutes at a time. It's the world of angry birds and solitaire.
Yes, the living room is reserved for such highfalutin experiences as Madden NFL '12 and Mortal Kombat vs. the DC Universe.
I work in the movie business, and I've noticed how the console games manufacturers have, in about 1/5th the time Hollywood used, turned themselves into everything that sucks about the modern entertainment industry. They either just remake a game franchise that's been proven for the last 20 years, or they just reskin the Unreal engine with 20% more zombie, and let the engineers just crank up the photorealism (see Gears of War) -- there's your immersive experience. Granted, occasionally you get something like Bioshock which has something to say, but it's still just an FPS with a storyline from a college sophomore's Ayn Rand essay.
I would take any attempt to recognize the natural success of the incumbent console developer with a large grain of NaCl. Anything that disrupts their cozy relationship with content licensors and established distribution channels would be welcome.
It might even be more fun than that. Maybe they know things about you that you never told them, like your gender or age. I would also tend to believe that if they're able to figure out this information about people they're probably entitled to keep the fact of their knowing secret.
So you, by definition, have knowledge of all of you personal information (otherwise it wouldn't be personal), they must think that they have a way of turning knowledge about your self that is available to you consciously, into information that isn't, for example by analyzing your web history, or use of language, or friends, in order to predict certain cultural preferences, or ad susceptibility. That's perfectly believable, and no, you probably aren't entitled to it. If you don't want them building models of you, don't submit your information.
So basically, I proved you wrong, so you spent 15 minutes Googling unrelated iPhone problems in order to change the subject.
I didn't say it was evil. I said it was something very different. Stay sharp WatchMaster.
If it were a standard connector then you might have a point. But it's just cosmetically identical; the conductors themselves have different profiles.
Google's openness to allow us to keep this message posted on its own social network is, in my opinion, a far greater asset than any SaS platform.
I suspect this post was "accidentally" leaked in the same sense that Apple's iPhone 4 prototype was "accidentally" lost in a bar.
Corporate messaging challenge: How do you acknowledge that your new product doesn't meet expectations, and that you're aware of the problems and serious about addressing them, while at no time admitting any error on the part of the corporate entity?
This hero was doing just fine until he wanted to make some money at Sothebys.
Possessing a piece of American history, even if you might not technically be entitled, is one thing. But selling a piece of American history, for profit, to the highest bidder, is something very different.
This is the big difference between iCloud and other cloud servcies. iCloud is primarily a synchronization platform, there's some remote storage but it's meant to always backs local assets, much more like Dropbox than Google Apps. A pure cloud solution would just let you read everything off the remote, but doesn't necessarily make it easy or friendly to maintain local mirrors.
If the servers go down, you lose the ability to sync, but you don't lose what you have.
To be fair, iOS 5 supports certificates, and the email client has always had SSL (certainly the MTA side wasn't secure, but what else is new?)
Android supports this as well with some third-party somethingerother.
It's been remarkable to see a bunch of otherwise-super-technical slashdotters fall back on criticizing a cellphone's case design. For some reason I thought this was part of the "shiny" "iBling" aspect of a product I was supposed to ignore.
The problem is that people have the idea that photojournalists are dodging gunfire to take shots as they happen.
"The journalist wasn't doing what I see journalists in movies do, therefore what he's reporting didn't happen."