dysamoria said: It's amazing how so many tech people side with "liberty" and slam government "control and overreach", but will still side with and promote draconian corporate policy in discussions of public issues between a company and an employee... so long as they're not the employee themselves.
Things are rarely so black and white as "you broke the rule and deserve whatever punishment is dealt", but these guys seem to be comfortable with nothing but.
Clearly, you’ve never been in a position to sign an NDA. I have, they ARE black and white, and for very good reasons already articulated far better than I could hope to
All the emotionalism and hand-wringing on display here is simply ill-informed.
Well-stated. I have to sign them all the time, and I have never seen a provision that says disclosure is authorized when your daughter says "please, daddy."
You know you better than anybody else does. If you know you can't or don't want to keep secrets, don't get a job that requires that.
Yep! Rules is Rules! (Except when it happens to a 'rules is rules' kind a guy).
lol. Let me know when you are capable of adding value to the discussion. This will be my last response to you until then.
Good... Glad to hear that you are retreating with your tail tucked between your little legs... But, I'll give you a "Nice Try" if it makes you feel better!
Not really. It seems to me he knows when something is a complete waste of time. Good for him.
No, sorry... He lost the debate. So he's running away...
Personally allowed, in violation of corporate contract.
Steve Jobs was no angel, Apple has a double standard here.
Steve Jobs didn’t talk about unreleased products. There’s no double standard.
Damn Right! You'd never catch Steve breaking any rules! ... Oh wait! That's why they fired him -- he wouldn't follow their rules...
For all those "rules is RULES" guys who support Apple firing this guy -- do you support their firing of Steve for the same reason? (Not following rules)...
It’s quite an assumption to suggest that those here agreeing with Apple in this matter and presenting their thoughtful views as to why they agree represent black and white ‘rules are rules’ people.
Assumption? When their argument is based on "Rules is Rules", then pointing that out is not an assumption. It's fact.
Meanwhile, nobody has been able to answer that question. It shows that even the "Rules is Rules" guys are willing to bend those rules or look the other way when enforcing them is not convenient.
dysamoria said: It's amazing how so many tech people side with "liberty" and slam government "control and overreach", but will still side with and promote draconian corporate policy in discussions of public issues between a company and an employee... so long as they're not the employee themselves.
Things are rarely so black and white as "you broke the rule and deserve whatever punishment is dealt", but these guys seem to be comfortable with nothing but.
Clearly, you’ve never been in a position to sign an NDA. I have, they ARE black and white, and for very good reasons already articulated far better than I could hope to
All the emotionalism and hand-wringing on display here is simply ill-informed.
Well-stated. I have to sign them all the time, and I have never seen a provision that says disclosure is authorized when your daughter says "please, daddy."
You know you better than anybody else does. If you know you can't or don't want to keep secrets, don't get a job that requires that.
Yep! Rules is Rules! (Except when it happens to a 'rules is rules' kind a guy).
lol. Let me know when you are capable of adding value to the discussion. This will be my last response to you until then.
Good... Glad to hear that you are retreating with your tail tucked between your little legs... But, I'll give you a "Nice Try" if it makes you feel better!
Not really. It seems to me he knows when something is a complete waste of time. Good for him.
No, sorry... He lost the debate. So he's running away...
Personally allowed, in violation of corporate contract.
Steve Jobs was no angel, Apple has a double standard here.
Steve Jobs didn’t talk about unreleased products. There’s no double standard.
Damn Right! You'd never catch Steve breaking any rules! ... Oh wait! That's why they fired him -- he wouldn't follow their rules...
For all those "rules is RULES" guys who support Apple firing this guy -- do you support their firing of Steve for the same reason? (Not following rules)...
It’s quite an assumption to suggest that those here agreeing with Apple in this matter and presenting their thoughtful views as to why they agree represent black and white ‘rules are rules’ people.
Assumption? When their argument is based on "Rules is Rules", then pointing that out is not an assumption. It's fact.
Meanwhile, nobody has been able to answer that question. It shows that even the "Rules is Rules" guys are willing to bend those rules or look the other way when enforcing them is not convenient.
Since you can't figure out how context is relevant yourself I'll help you with how you should read that: "He knew the rules [in this situation]. He violated the rules [in this situation]".
You can NOT generalise from that that ALL rules are the same. When YOU are interpreting that as "rules are rules", in an absolute sense, YOU are reading the words without any kind of social/normal human context. You are, simply put, failing at normal human conversation.
Way to miss the point… yet again. You may want to actually apply stop making ironic statements and apply context to what you read and actually think before you reply. Seriously, so many sad and pathetic commenters on this thread, especially the ones blaming the girl for getting her father fired simply because they can see her in the video despite he's the one that is holding the camera that's filming her in the employee cafeteria with his iPhone X. You do know that he still exists even though you can't see him on the video right?
I seriously can't tell if you're a troll, autistic or just simply bad at understanding social context; but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and try to explain this one last time…
A child that gets grounded and argues back might hear something along the lines of "rules are rules, young lady"; to which the child might react by giving an example of either someone else being allowed to, or some rules that her parents' broken, followed by an exclamation about how unfair this is to her.
Since this is being said to a child it could be said that it's unclear parenting, and that they should communicate better; BUT… as adults reading/hearing about this we don't have any problems with understanding that when her parents said "rules are rules" they're not saying that absolutely every single rule should be followed to the letter. No, as adults we understand that even though what they're saying sounds absolute, it's all about context.
For instance, even the most rule adherent of us wouldn't have a problem with ignoring a "no running"-rule if it's done to save a life; and "no snacking between meals" is easily broken if there's been extra physical activities, or meals being delayed.
So, even when people are clearly saying "rules are rules" IT IS STILL DEPENDENT ON CONTEXT; but what you've done is that you've taken peoples' already in context-comments and generalised them to the point where they are always applicable universal laws, WHICH IS THE EXACT OPPOSITE of how people communicate.
Intentionally or not what you're doing becomes a classic case of a straw man fallacy; which, if done intentionally, is a very dishonest way of trying to win an argument at the cost of truth.
Also, do give it a rest with the personal attacks against other people, it's just bad form; and, honestly, kind of makes you look like a fool.
Since you can't figure out how context is relevant yourself I'll help you with how you should read that: "He knew the rules [in this situation]. He violated the rules [in this situation]".
You can NOT generalise from that that ALL rules are the same. When YOU are interpreting that as "rules are rules", in an absolute sense, YOU are reading the words without any kind of social/normal human context. You are, simply put, failing at normal human conversation.
Way to miss the point… yet again. You may want to actually apply stop making ironic statements and apply context to what you read and actually think before you reply. Seriously, so many sad and pathetic commenters on this thread, especially the ones blaming the girl for getting her father fired simply because they can see her in the video despite he's the one that is holding the camera that's filming her in the employee cafeteria with his iPhone X. You do know that he still exists even though you can't see him on the video right?
I seriously can't tell if you're a troll, autistic or just simply bad at understanding social context; but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and try to explain this one last time…
A child that gets grounded and argues back might hear something along the lines of "rules are rules, young lady"; to which the child might react by giving an example of either someone else being allowed to, or some rules that her parents' broken, followed by an exclamation about how unfair this is to her.
Since this is being said to a child it could be said that it's unclear parenting, and that they should communicate better; BUT… as adults reading/hearing about this we don't have any problems with understanding that when her parents said "rules are rules" they're not saying that absolutely every single rule should be followed to the letter. No, as adults we understand that even though what they're saying sounds absolute, it's all about context.
For instance, even the most rule adherent of us wouldn't have a problem with ignoring a "no running"-rule if it's done to save a life; and "no snacking between meals" is easily broken if there's been extra physical activities, or meals being delayed.
So, even when people are clearly saying "rules are rules" IT IS STILL DEPENDENT ON CONTEXT; but what you've done is that you've taken peoples' already in context-comments and generalised them to the point where they are always applicable universal laws, WHICH IS THE EXACT OPPOSITE of how people communicate.
Intentionally or not what you're doing becomes a classic case of a straw man fallacy; which, if done intentionally, is a very dishonest way of trying to win an argument at the cost of truth.
Also, do give it a rest with the personal attacks against other people, it's just bad form; and, honestly, kind of makes you look like a fool.
The problem is: No matter how it is spun or seemingly justified (usually by rephrasing it or rehashing endless details), your "Rules is Rules" argument -- which as Soli correctly points out has been used in various guises throughout this discussion -- is typically rolled out when there is no other defense to an inappropriate punishment. It is the refuge of the failed argument.
There's a reason why the argument "Young lady, breaking rules is wrong, and you broke the rules" never seems to appease the young lady. It's a rationalization for a punishment using circular logic rather than a legitimate reason. It's a variation of the "Because I said so" argument. Neither is a legitimate defense.
And, in addition, it is typically used to rationalize the tunnel vision logic that there is no other alternative available.
Any person or entity of power (parent, employer or government) who has to rely on it (no matter how it is spun) has already failed their responsibility.
Did Apple do right or wrong here? I don't know. But justifying their actions with the Rules is Rules argument (no matter how it is phrased or spun) is not a valid argument. And, even those who use it seem to realize that when they roll out their overly loud protest that they aren't using it.
Since you can't figure out how context is relevant yourself I'll help you with how you should read that: "He knew the rules [in this situation]. He violated the rules [in this situation]".
You can NOT generalise from that that ALL rules are the same. When YOU are interpreting that as "rules are rules", in an absolute sense, YOU are reading the words without any kind of social/normal human context. You are, simply put, failing at normal human conversation.
Way to miss the point… yet again. You may want to actually apply stop making ironic statements and apply context to what you read and actually think before you reply. Seriously, so many sad and pathetic commenters on this thread, especially the ones blaming the girl for getting her father fired simply because they can see her in the video despite he's the one that is holding the camera that's filming her in the employee cafeteria with his iPhone X. You do know that he still exists even though you can't see him on the video right?
I seriously can't tell if you're a troll, autistic or just simply bad at understanding social context; but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and try to explain this one last time…
A child that gets grounded and argues back might hear something along the lines of "rules are rules, young lady"; to which the child might react by giving an example of either someone else being allowed to, or some rules that her parents' broken, followed by an exclamation about how unfair this is to her.
Since this is being said to a child it could be said that it's unclear parenting, and that they should communicate better; BUT… as adults reading/hearing about this we don't have any problems with understanding that when her parents said "rules are rules" they're not saying that absolutely every single rule should be followed to the letter. No, as adults we understand that even though what they're saying sounds absolute, it's all about context.
For instance, even the most rule adherent of us wouldn't have a problem with ignoring a "no running"-rule if it's done to save a life; and "no snacking between meals" is easily broken if there's been extra physical activities, or meals being delayed.
So, even when people are clearly saying "rules are rules" IT IS STILL DEPENDENT ON CONTEXT; but what you've done is that you've taken peoples' already in context-comments and generalised them to the point where they are always applicable universal laws, WHICH IS THE EXACT OPPOSITE of how people communicate.
Intentionally or not what you're doing becomes a classic case of a straw man fallacy; which, if done intentionally, is a very dishonest way of trying to win an argument at the cost of truth.
Also, do give it a rest with the personal attacks against other people, it's just bad form; and, honestly, kind of makes you look like a fool.
The problem is: No matter how it is spun or seemingly justified (usually by rephrasing it or rehashing endless details), your "Rules is Rules" argument -- which as Soli correctly points out has been used in various guises throughout this discussion -- is typically rolled out when there is no other defense to an inappropriate punishment. It is the refuge of the failed argument.
There's a reason why the argument "Young lady, breaking rules is wrong, and you broke the rules" never seems to appease the young lady. It's a rationalization for a punishment using circular logic rather than a legitimate reason. It's a variation of the "Because I said so" argument. Neither is a legitimate defense.
And, in addition, it is typically used to rationalize the tunnel vision logic that there is no other alternative available.
Any person or entity of power (parent, employer or government) who has to rely on it (no matter how it is spun) has already failed their responsibility.
Did Apple do right or wrong here? I don't know. But justifying their actions with the Rules is Rules argument (no matter how it is phrased or spun) is not a valid argument. And, even those who use it seem to realize that when they roll out their overly loud protest that they aren't using it.
The continuation often becomes somewhat circular only when that's not being argued against in a constructive manor…
When the argument is being made that what happened in a situation was a direct result of it being according to the rules, then it's not even an argument against the rules, nor how they were applied, when it's being faced with what essentially is a personal attack about that person being a "rules are rules"-type of person. It's abusive, it's irrelevant; it's argumentum ad hominem. When you (as he did) on top of that take comments out of context, and generalise them ad absurdum, then it's straight up building a straw man; which is a dishonest thing to do.
He even went so far as to taking his generalised version of what they said and accusing his opponents for not standing by that in another situation, without even trying to figure out what their thoughts were regarding that other situation.
There's no saving his actions in this discussion; he either acted wilfully, or is a fool.
If you are going to attack the (lack of) proportionality of a punishment vis-à-vis a committed offence, then do so; don't attack the person by calling them names or ascribing them anything that comes out of your emotional reaction to what they said. Going straight for the person rather than the argument is no more than a roundabout way of doing name calling (which he also straight up did, on more than one occasion).
The problem is: No matter how it is spun or seemingly justified (usually by rephrasing it or rehashing endless details), your "Rules is Rules" argument -- which as Soli correctly points out has been used in various guises throughout this discussion -- is typically rolled out when there is no other defense to an inappropriate punishment. It is the refuge of the failed argument.
Thing is, rules are the norm… Unless provided with a reason for not adhering to it, then rules are rules are rules. If you want to argue against it, then you need to argue against the rules, not attack the people pointing out what the rules are.
That being said, the only reason that discussions like these reach the stage where people do say nothing but "rules are rules" is because the people arguing against it are completely ignoring everything that's earlier been provided as context. Such as that the standard contracts in situations like these a extremely clear about people not being allowed to act like he did. People have also very clearly pointed out that it's not only about strictly adhering to the specifics of a contract, but about things such as his blatant disregard of the rules resulting in him no longer being trustworthy enough for his level of work at Apple; and that Apple must enforce contracts like these fairly strictly for them to not open up to being sued if they later on act differently in a similar situation.
Here, have a look at Graham's hierarchy of disagreement; then go ahead and deconstruct Soli's posts, and place them in the pyramid, followed by comparing that with those that Soli disagree with. Doing this right you start at the beginning of this discussion, and pay attention to at what levels things have been introduced at (or risen to); as well as where Soli has place xyrself when disagreeing.
Cafe Macs is open to the public - at least you can bring people in. So whatever rules apply within Apple proper can’t apply there.
Wrong, video taping ANYWHERE on campus is strictly prohibited, and Caffé Macs is public accessible by escort only, the rules extend to the visitors, and the escort must make the rules clear to them, and can be held accountable for their actions in the event of a breach of protocol.
You are a font of knowledge because you once signed an NDA for a different company. However there are plenty of pictures taken in cafe macs every year and no prosecutions. you should alert the authorities.
Your FUD response doesn't do anything to discredit or disprove anything I wrote in my post, so when you actually have something meaningful to say, feel free to come back.
Oh, are you determining what is posted here or not? No, I didnt think so.
I know lots about NDAs and how they can be litigated, and you clearly do not, except you apparently once signed one. Its probably not worth going into why this isnt probably isn's an NDA violation ( although it is a violation of Apple's internal rules, no doubt) as it's a hostile crowd. However he wont be prosecuted, and NDAs are designed to be prosecuted.
Since you can't figure out how context is relevant yourself I'll help you with how you should read that: "He knew the rules [in this situation]. He violated the rules [in this situation]".
You can NOT generalise from that that ALL rules are the same. When YOU are interpreting that as "rules are rules", in an absolute sense, YOU are reading the words without any kind of social/normal human context. You are, simply put, failing at normal human conversation.
Way to miss the point… yet again. You may want to actually apply stop making ironic statements and apply context to what you read and actually think before you reply. Seriously, so many sad and pathetic commenters on this thread, especially the ones blaming the girl for getting her father fired simply because they can see her in the video despite he's the one that is holding the camera that's filming her in the employee cafeteria with his iPhone X. You do know that he still exists even though you can't see him on the video right?
I seriously can't tell if you're a troll, autistic or just simply bad at understanding social context; but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and try to explain this one last time…
A child that gets grounded and argues back might hear something along the lines of "rules are rules, young lady"; to which the child might react by giving an example of either someone else being allowed to, or some rules that her parents' broken, followed by an exclamation about how unfair this is to her.
Since this is being said to a child it could be said that it's unclear parenting, and that they should communicate better; BUT… as adults reading/hearing about this we don't have any problems with understanding that when her parents said "rules are rules" they're not saying that absolutely every single rule should be followed to the letter. No, as adults we understand that even though what they're saying sounds absolute, it's all about context.
For instance, even the most rule adherent of us wouldn't have a problem with ignoring a "no running"-rule if it's done to save a life; and "no snacking between meals" is easily broken if there's been extra physical activities, or meals being delayed.
So, even when people are clearly saying "rules are rules" IT IS STILL DEPENDENT ON CONTEXT; but what you've done is that you've taken peoples' already in context-comments and generalised them to the point where they are always applicable universal laws, WHICH IS THE EXACT OPPOSITE of how people communicate.
Intentionally or not what you're doing becomes a classic case of a straw man fallacy; which, if done intentionally, is a very dishonest way of trying to win an argument at the cost of truth.
Also, do give it a rest with the personal attacks against other people, it's just bad form; and, honestly, kind of makes you look like a fool.
The problem is: No matter how it is spun or seemingly justified (usually by rephrasing it or rehashing endless details), your "Rules is Rules" argument -- which as Soli correctly points out has been used in various guises throughout this discussion -- is typically rolled out when there is no other defense to an inappropriate punishment. It is the refuge of the failed argument.
There's a reason why the argument "Young lady, breaking rules is wrong, and you broke the rules" never seems to appease the young lady. It's a rationalization for a punishment using circular logic rather than a legitimate reason. It's a variation of the "Because I said so" argument. Neither is a legitimate defense.
And, in addition, it is typically used to rationalize the tunnel vision logic that there is no other alternative available.
Any person or entity of power (parent, employer or government) who has to rely on it (no matter how it is spun) has already failed their responsibility.
Did Apple do right or wrong here? I don't know. But justifying their actions with the Rules is Rules argument (no matter how it is phrased or spun) is not a valid argument. And, even those who use it seem to realize that when they roll out their overly loud protest that they aren't using it.
The continuation often becomes somewhat circular only when that's not being argued against in a constructive manor…
When the argument is being made that what happened in a situation was a direct result of it being according to the rules, then it's not even an argument against the rules, nor how they were applied, when it's being faced with what essentially is a personal attack about that person being a "rules are rules"-type of person. It's abusive, it's irrelevant; it's argumentum ad hominem. When you (as he did) on top of that take comments out of context, and generalise them ad absurdum, then it's straight up building a straw man; which is a dishonest thing to do.
He even went so far as to taking his generalised version of what they said and accusing his opponents for not standing by that in another situation, without even trying to figure out what their thoughts were regarding that other situation.
There's no saving his actions in this discussion; he either acted wilfully, or is a fool.
If you are going to attack the (lack of) proportionality of a punishment vis-à-vis a committed offence, then do so; don't attack the person by calling them names or ascribing them anything that comes out of your emotional reaction to what they said. Going straight for the person rather than the argument is no more than a roundabout way of doing name calling (which he also straight up did, on more than one occasion).
Sorry, not attacking any person. Simply pointing out that the lack of validity of the "Rules is Rules" argument -- no matter how it is spun.
As I said: Did Apple do right or wrong here? I don't know. But arguing that they should fire the guy because the can -- because Rules is Rules -- is simply not a valid argument.
The problem is: No matter how it is spun or seemingly justified (usually by rephrasing it or rehashing endless details), your "Rules is Rules" argument -- which as Soli correctly points out has been used in various guises throughout this discussion -- is typically rolled out when there is no other defense to an inappropriate punishment. It is the refuge of the failed argument.
Thing is, rules are the norm… Unless provided with a reason for not adhering to it, then rules are rules are rules. If you want to argue against it, then you need to argue against the rules, not attack the people pointing out what the rules are.
That being said, the only reason that discussions like these reach the stage where people do say nothing but "rules are rules" is because the people arguing against it are completely ignoring everything that's earlier been provided as context. Such as that the standard contracts in situations like these a extremely clear about people not being allowed to act like he did. People have also very clearly pointed out that it's not only about strictly adhering to the specifics of a contract, but about things such as his blatant disregard of the rules resulting in him no longer being trustworthy enough for his level of work at Apple; and that Apple must enforce contracts like these fairly strictly for them to not open up to being sued if they later on act differently in a similar situation.
So, you're saying that their original argument was refuted -- so they reverted to the circular logic of "Rules is Rules"? ... Forgive me for pointing out the fallacy of that argument.
Should Apple have fired the guy? Perhaps. You lay out what, is to me, a valid argument saying that he was not trustworthy enough -- or that Apple had to make an example of him. It might be. Or, it may not be. We could have a legitimate debate about that pretty much forever for a number of reasons... ... For myself, I don't think we have enough information one way or another to make that determination. Only the insiders know -- and even then, it's a judgement call.
Since you can't figure out how context is relevant yourself I'll help you with how you should read that: "He knew the rules [in this situation]. He violated the rules [in this situation]".
You can NOT generalise from that that ALL rules are the same. When YOU are interpreting that as "rules are rules", in an absolute sense, YOU are reading the words without any kind of social/normal human context. You are, simply put, failing at normal human conversation.
Way to miss the point… yet again. You may want to actually apply stop making ironic statements and apply context to what you read and actually think before you reply. Seriously, so many sad and pathetic commenters on this thread, especially the ones blaming the girl for getting her father fired simply because they can see her in the video despite he's the one that is holding the camera that's filming her in the employee cafeteria with his iPhone X. You do know that he still exists even though you can't see him on the video right?
I seriously can't tell if you're a troll, autistic or just simply bad at understanding social context; but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and try to explain this one last time…
A child that gets grounded and argues back might hear something along the lines of "rules are rules, young lady"; to which the child might react by giving an example of either someone else being allowed to, or some rules that her parents' broken, followed by an exclamation about how unfair this is to her.
Since this is being said to a child it could be said that it's unclear parenting, and that they should communicate better; BUT… as adults reading/hearing about this we don't have any problems with understanding that when her parents said "rules are rules" they're not saying that absolutely every single rule should be followed to the letter. No, as adults we understand that even though what they're saying sounds absolute, it's all about context.
For instance, even the most rule adherent of us wouldn't have a problem with ignoring a "no running"-rule if it's done to save a life; and "no snacking between meals" is easily broken if there's been extra physical activities, or meals being delayed.
So, even when people are clearly saying "rules are rules" IT IS STILL DEPENDENT ON CONTEXT; but what you've done is that you've taken peoples' already in context-comments and generalised them to the point where they are always applicable universal laws, WHICH IS THE EXACT OPPOSITE of how people communicate.
Intentionally or not what you're doing becomes a classic case of a straw man fallacy; which, if done intentionally, is a very dishonest way of trying to win an argument at the cost of truth.
Also, do give it a rest with the personal attacks against other people, it's just bad form; and, honestly, kind of makes you look like a fool.
The problem is: No matter how it is spun or seemingly justified (usually by rephrasing it or rehashing endless details), your "Rules is Rules" argument -- which as Soli correctly points out has been used in various guises throughout this discussion -- is typically rolled out when there is no other defense to an inappropriate punishment. It is the refuge of the failed argument.
There's a reason why the argument "Young lady, breaking rules is wrong, and you broke the rules" never seems to appease the young lady. It's a rationalization for a punishment using circular logic rather than a legitimate reason. It's a variation of the "Because I said so" argument. Neither is a legitimate defense.
And, in addition, it is typically used to rationalize the tunnel vision logic that there is no other alternative available.
Any person or entity of power (parent, employer or government) who has to rely on it (no matter how it is spun) has already failed their responsibility.
Did Apple do right or wrong here? I don't know. But justifying their actions with the Rules is Rules argument (no matter how it is phrased or spun) is not a valid argument. And, even those who use it seem to realize that when they roll out their overly loud protest that they aren't using it.
And yet, seemingly ignored are the various arguments put forth. Did you not read my comment about how a breach of contract is a breach of trust? Should a company not take that aspect into account? The employee in this case (forget about the daughter) knowingly breached his NDA in at least one manner that we are aware of (allowing videoing on campus) and having been one of those who were trusted with the X was likely instructed not to hand it over for others to inspect, and certainly not to video. We can only assume such was covered in his NDA, but it doesn’t matter what we assume or don’t assume is covered. Apple fired him for breach of NDA, if we can believe this article’s headline. And so we can be fairly confident he did indeed breach it and having done so lost the trust of his employer. That may well be the reason for his dismissal, and that nuance has certainly been discussed. That’s not the same as simply taking the draconian approach of ‘rules are rules.’ But you and Soli didn’t read those comments or have an agenda that precludes your recognizing those nuances introduced into this discussion thread.
Further, having had several of us explain that we aren’t intending to apply the simple argument of ‘rules are rules’ you both continue to tell us that we are. You seem to believe you know our minds better than we do. And that suggests it is you who occupy the refuge of a failed argument.
Since you can't figure out how context is relevant yourself I'll help you with how you should read that: "He knew the rules [in this situation]. He violated the rules [in this situation]".
You can NOT generalise from that that ALL rules are the same. When YOU are interpreting that as "rules are rules", in an absolute sense, YOU are reading the words without any kind of social/normal human context. You are, simply put, failing at normal human conversation.
Way to miss the point… yet again. You may want to actually apply stop making ironic statements and apply context to what you read and actually think before you reply. Seriously, so many sad and pathetic commenters on this thread, especially the ones blaming the girl for getting her father fired simply because they can see her in the video despite he's the one that is holding the camera that's filming her in the employee cafeteria with his iPhone X. You do know that he still exists even though you can't see him on the video right?
I seriously can't tell if you're a troll, autistic or just simply bad at understanding social context; but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and try to explain this one last time…
A child that gets grounded and argues back might hear something along the lines of "rules are rules, young lady"; to which the child might react by giving an example of either someone else being allowed to, or some rules that her parents' broken, followed by an exclamation about how unfair this is to her.
Since this is being said to a child it could be said that it's unclear parenting, and that they should communicate better; BUT… as adults reading/hearing about this we don't have any problems with understanding that when her parents said "rules are rules" they're not saying that absolutely every single rule should be followed to the letter. No, as adults we understand that even though what they're saying sounds absolute, it's all about context.
For instance, even the most rule adherent of us wouldn't have a problem with ignoring a "no running"-rule if it's done to save a life; and "no snacking between meals" is easily broken if there's been extra physical activities, or meals being delayed.
So, even when people are clearly saying "rules are rules" IT IS STILL DEPENDENT ON CONTEXT; but what you've done is that you've taken peoples' already in context-comments and generalised them to the point where they are always applicable universal laws, WHICH IS THE EXACT OPPOSITE of how people communicate.
Intentionally or not what you're doing becomes a classic case of a straw man fallacy; which, if done intentionally, is a very dishonest way of trying to win an argument at the cost of truth.
Also, do give it a rest with the personal attacks against other people, it's just bad form; and, honestly, kind of makes you look like a fool.
The problem is: No matter how it is spun or seemingly justified (usually by rephrasing it or rehashing endless details), your "Rules is Rules" argument -- which as Soli correctly points out has been used in various guises throughout this discussion -- is typically rolled out when there is no other defense to an inappropriate punishment. It is the refuge of the failed argument.
There's a reason why the argument "Young lady, breaking rules is wrong, and you broke the rules" never seems to appease the young lady. It's a rationalization for a punishment using circular logic rather than a legitimate reason. It's a variation of the "Because I said so" argument. Neither is a legitimate defense.
And, in addition, it is typically used to rationalize the tunnel vision logic that there is no other alternative available.
Any person or entity of power (parent, employer or government) who has to rely on it (no matter how it is spun) has already failed their responsibility.
Did Apple do right or wrong here? I don't know. But justifying their actions with the Rules is Rules argument (no matter how it is phrased or spun) is not a valid argument. And, even those who use it seem to realize that when they roll out their overly loud protest that they aren't using it.
And yet, seemingly ignored are the various arguments put forth. Did you not read my comment about how a breach of contract is a breach of trust? Should a company not take that aspect into account? The employee in this case (forget about the daughter) knowingly breached his NDA in at least one manner that we are aware of (allowing videoing on campus) and having been one of those who were trusted with the X was likely instructed not to hand it over for others to inspect, and certainly not to video. We can only assume such was covered in his NDA, but it doesn’t matter what we assume or don’t assume is covered. Apple fired him for breach of NDA, if we can believe this article’s headline. And so we can be fairly confident he did indeed breach it and having done so lost the trust of his employer. That may well be the reason for his dismissal, and that nuance has certainly been discussed. That’s not the same as simply taking the draconian approach of ‘rules are rules.’ But you and Soli didn’t read those comments or have an agenda that precludes your recognizing those nuances introduced into this discussion thread.
Further, having had several of us explain that we aren’t intending to apply the simple argument of ‘rules are rules’ you both continue to tell us that we are. You seem to believe you know our minds better than we do. And that suggests it is you who occupy the refuge of a failed argument.
GeorgeBMac is dead on balls here. You (and many others) made a ridiculous statement and now you're defending it with "I may have said that but that isn't what I meant. You don't know me!" Even if you had said "He was fired because NDAs are ironclad and heavily enforced to keep others in check" it would still make a lot of presumptions but at least it would show some level of critical thinking. It's better if you just admit you got emotional, jumped to conclusions, and that you really don't know what went down with this engineer and Apple's decision to fire him.
Since you can't figure out how context is relevant yourself I'll help you with how you should read that: "He knew the rules [in this situation]. He violated the rules [in this situation]".
You can NOT generalise from that that ALL rules are the same. When YOU are interpreting that as "rules are rules", in an absolute sense, YOU are reading the words without any kind of social/normal human context. You are, simply put, failing at normal human conversation.
Way to miss the point… yet again. You may want to actually apply stop making ironic statements and apply context to what you read and actually think before you reply. Seriously, so many sad and pathetic commenters on this thread, especially the ones blaming the girl for getting her father fired simply because they can see her in the video despite he's the one that is holding the camera that's filming her in the employee cafeteria with his iPhone X. You do know that he still exists even though you can't see him on the video right?
I seriously can't tell if you're a troll, autistic or just simply bad at understanding social context; but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and try to explain this one last time…
A child that gets grounded and argues back might hear something along the lines of "rules are rules, young lady"; to which the child might react by giving an example of either someone else being allowed to, or some rules that her parents' broken, followed by an exclamation about how unfair this is to her.
Since this is being said to a child it could be said that it's unclear parenting, and that they should communicate better; BUT… as adults reading/hearing about this we don't have any problems with understanding that when her parents said "rules are rules" they're not saying that absolutely every single rule should be followed to the letter. No, as adults we understand that even though what they're saying sounds absolute, it's all about context.
For instance, even the most rule adherent of us wouldn't have a problem with ignoring a "no running"-rule if it's done to save a life; and "no snacking between meals" is easily broken if there's been extra physical activities, or meals being delayed.
So, even when people are clearly saying "rules are rules" IT IS STILL DEPENDENT ON CONTEXT; but what you've done is that you've taken peoples' already in context-comments and generalised them to the point where they are always applicable universal laws, WHICH IS THE EXACT OPPOSITE of how people communicate.
Intentionally or not what you're doing becomes a classic case of a straw man fallacy; which, if done intentionally, is a very dishonest way of trying to win an argument at the cost of truth.
Also, do give it a rest with the personal attacks against other people, it's just bad form; and, honestly, kind of makes you look like a fool.
The problem is: No matter how it is spun or seemingly justified (usually by rephrasing it or rehashing endless details), your "Rules is Rules" argument -- which as Soli correctly points out has been used in various guises throughout this discussion -- is typically rolled out when there is no other defense to an inappropriate punishment. It is the refuge of the failed argument.
There's a reason why the argument "Young lady, breaking rules is wrong, and you broke the rules" never seems to appease the young lady. It's a rationalization for a punishment using circular logic rather than a legitimate reason. It's a variation of the "Because I said so" argument. Neither is a legitimate defense.
And, in addition, it is typically used to rationalize the tunnel vision logic that there is no other alternative available.
Any person or entity of power (parent, employer or government) who has to rely on it (no matter how it is spun) has already failed their responsibility.
Did Apple do right or wrong here? I don't know. But justifying their actions with the Rules is Rules argument (no matter how it is phrased or spun) is not a valid argument. And, even those who use it seem to realize that when they roll out their overly loud protest that they aren't using it.
And yet, seemingly ignored are the various arguments put forth. Did you not read my comment about how a breach of contract is a breach of trust? Should a company not take that aspect into account? The employee in this case (forget about the daughter) knowingly breached his NDA in at least one manner that we are aware of (allowing videoing on campus) and having been one of those who were trusted with the X was likely instructed not to hand it over for others to inspect, and certainly not to video. We can only assume such was covered in his NDA, but it doesn’t matter what we assume or don’t assume is covered. Apple fired him for breach of NDA, if we can believe this article’s headline. And so we can be fairly confident he did indeed breach it and having done so lost the trust of his employer. That may well be the reason for his dismissal, and that nuance has certainly been discussed. That’s not the same as simply taking the draconian approach of ‘rules are rules.’ But you and Soli didn’t read those comments or have an agenda that precludes your recognizing those nuances introduced into this discussion thread.
Further, having had several of us explain that we aren’t intending to apply the simple argument of ‘rules are rules’ you both continue to tell us that we are. You seem to believe you know our minds better than we do. And that suggests it is you who occupy the refuge of a failed argument.
GeorgeBMac is dead on balls here. You (and many others) made a ridiculous statement and now you're defending it with "I may have said that but that isn't what I meant. You don't know me!" Even if you had said "He was fired because NDAs are ironclad and heavily enforced to keep others in check" it would still make a lot of presumptions but at least it would show some level of critical thinking. It's better if you just admit you got emotional, jumped to conclusions, and that you really don't know what went down with this engineer and Apple's decision to fire him.
GO back and read every single one of my comments. You’ll see that I was not among those who used the phrase ‘rules are rules’ except in replying to your comments on that phrase and George’s. And that shows right there that you are not even reading and following a conversation you are judging people on. Holy cow, man! Caught out much?
Oh, and if you did read my comments you’d see that I made a comment that covered both the trust issue AND the problem of creating future legal issues by not being consistent. But we already know that you haven’t been reading the comments.
Since you can't figure out how context is relevant yourself I'll help you with how you should read that: "He knew the rules [in this situation]. He violated the rules [in this situation]".
You can NOT generalise from that that ALL rules are the same. When YOU are interpreting that as "rules are rules", in an absolute sense, YOU are reading the words without any kind of social/normal human context. You are, simply put, failing at normal human conversation.
Way to miss the point… yet again. You may want to actually apply stop making ironic statements and apply context to what you read and actually think before you reply. Seriously, so many sad and pathetic commenters on this thread, especially the ones blaming the girl for getting her father fired simply because they can see her in the video despite he's the one that is holding the camera that's filming her in the employee cafeteria with his iPhone X. You do know that he still exists even though you can't see him on the video right?
I seriously can't tell if you're a troll, autistic or just simply bad at understanding social context; but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and try to explain this one last time…
A child that gets grounded and argues back might hear something along the lines of "rules are rules, young lady"; to which the child might react by giving an example of either someone else being allowed to, or some rules that her parents' broken, followed by an exclamation about how unfair this is to her.
Since this is being said to a child it could be said that it's unclear parenting, and that they should communicate better; BUT… as adults reading/hearing about this we don't have any problems with understanding that when her parents said "rules are rules" they're not saying that absolutely every single rule should be followed to the letter. No, as adults we understand that even though what they're saying sounds absolute, it's all about context.
For instance, even the most rule adherent of us wouldn't have a problem with ignoring a "no running"-rule if it's done to save a life; and "no snacking between meals" is easily broken if there's been extra physical activities, or meals being delayed.
So, even when people are clearly saying "rules are rules" IT IS STILL DEPENDENT ON CONTEXT; but what you've done is that you've taken peoples' already in context-comments and generalised them to the point where they are always applicable universal laws, WHICH IS THE EXACT OPPOSITE of how people communicate.
Intentionally or not what you're doing becomes a classic case of a straw man fallacy; which, if done intentionally, is a very dishonest way of trying to win an argument at the cost of truth.
Also, do give it a rest with the personal attacks against other people, it's just bad form; and, honestly, kind of makes you look like a fool.
The problem is: No matter how it is spun or seemingly justified (usually by rephrasing it or rehashing endless details), your "Rules is Rules" argument -- which as Soli correctly points out has been used in various guises throughout this discussion -- is typically rolled out when there is no other defense to an inappropriate punishment. It is the refuge of the failed argument.
There's a reason why the argument "Young lady, breaking rules is wrong, and you broke the rules" never seems to appease the young lady. It's a rationalization for a punishment using circular logic rather than a legitimate reason. It's a variation of the "Because I said so" argument. Neither is a legitimate defense.
And, in addition, it is typically used to rationalize the tunnel vision logic that there is no other alternative available.
Any person or entity of power (parent, employer or government) who has to rely on it (no matter how it is spun) has already failed their responsibility.
Did Apple do right or wrong here? I don't know. But justifying their actions with the Rules is Rules argument (no matter how it is phrased or spun) is not a valid argument. And, even those who use it seem to realize that when they roll out their overly loud protest that they aren't using it.
And yet, seemingly ignored are the various arguments put forth. Did you not read my comment about how a breach of contract is a breach of trust? Should a company not take that aspect into account? The employee in this case (forget about the daughter) knowingly breached his NDA in at least one manner that we are aware of (allowing videoing on campus) and having been one of those who were trusted with the X was likely instructed not to hand it over for others to inspect, and certainly not to video. We can only assume such was covered in his NDA, but it doesn’t matter what we assume or don’t assume is covered. Apple fired him for breach of NDA, if we can believe this article’s headline. And so we can be fairly confident he did indeed breach it and having done so lost the trust of his employer. That may well be the reason for his dismissal, and that nuance has certainly been discussed. That’s not the same as simply taking the draconian approach of ‘rules are rules.’ But you and Soli didn’t read those comments or have an agenda that precludes your recognizing those nuances introduced into this discussion thread.
Further, having had several of us explain that we aren’t intending to apply the simple argument of ‘rules are rules’ you both continue to tell us that we are. You seem to believe you know our minds better than we do. And that suggests it is you who occupy the refuge of a failed argument.
I never referred to the other arguments that you or others site and never commented on them. Let me say that again: I never referred to the other arguments that you or others site and never commented on them.
I have only referred to the quite numerous comments throughout this thread that used the Rules is Rules argument in all of its various guises. Specifically, I said: "Did Apple do right or wrong here? I don't know. But justifying their
actions with the Rules is Rules argument (no matter how it is phrased
or spun) is not a valid argument. And, even those who use it seem to
realize that when they roll out their overly loud protest that they
aren't using it. "
Other logical arguments are fine. Actually, that's good - and many have made them - and you just reiterated a few more. But that is quite obviously not what I was talking about since I previously said: "Should Apple have fired the guy? Perhaps. You lay out what, is to me, a
valid argument saying that he was not trustworthy enough -- or that
Apple had to make an example of him. It might be. Or, it may not be.
We could have a legitimate debate about that pretty much forever for a
number of reasons..."
But, Rules is Rules is still not a valid argument or justification for terminating an employee. That's all I have said. Reading something else into that doesn't change it.
Further: I don't know if you used the (invalid) Rules is Rules argument. If you don't think that you did, then nothing I said applies to you.
Sorry. But, tough. Apple can't take any chances with all the thieves out there. The stakes are too high.
If you sign an agreement, you stick to it. Period. Otherwise there's no point in having such a thing as an agreement, is there?
Have to agree 100%. Especially with Apple. Just got back from FCPX Summit and got a hands at Apple Campus with iMacPro and FCPX 10.4. Security was high but had to abide by the rules or lose out. They allowed pictures in one specific hands-on room and blessed us using social media from there only. Everyone respected and it went well. We have become way too entitled with everything we just "want to have, do, experience, etc." For those apologists out there you're simply wrong.
Comments
When their argument is based on "Rules is Rules", then pointing that out is not an assumption. It's fact.
Meanwhile, nobody has been able to answer that question. It shows that even the "Rules is Rules" guys are willing to bend those rules or look the other way when enforcing them is not convenient.
Stop! I can't take any more of your winning.
https://www.cnet.com/news/john-sculley-spills-the-beans-on-firing-steve-jobs/
Mostly you don’t. Enough of this shit. Maybe we shouldn’t enforce treason laws, because give a guy (or gal) a break, right?
A child that gets grounded and argues back might hear something along the lines of "rules are rules, young lady"; to which the child might react by giving an example of either someone else being allowed to, or some rules that her parents' broken, followed by an exclamation about how unfair this is to her.
Since this is being said to a child it could be said that it's unclear parenting, and that they should communicate better; BUT… as adults reading/hearing about this we don't have any problems with understanding that when her parents said "rules are rules" they're not saying that absolutely every single rule should be followed to the letter. No, as adults we understand that even though what they're saying sounds absolute, it's all about context.
For instance, even the most rule adherent of us wouldn't have a problem with ignoring a "no running"-rule if it's done to save a life; and "no snacking between meals" is easily broken if there's been extra physical activities, or meals being delayed.
So, even when people are clearly saying "rules are rules" IT IS STILL DEPENDENT ON CONTEXT; but what you've done is that you've taken peoples' already in context-comments and generalised them to the point where they are always applicable universal laws, WHICH IS THE EXACT OPPOSITE of how people communicate.
Intentionally or not what you're doing becomes a classic case of a straw man fallacy; which, if done intentionally, is a very dishonest way of trying to win an argument at the cost of truth.
Also, do give it a rest with the personal attacks against other people, it's just bad form; and, honestly, kind of makes you look like a fool.
There's a reason why the argument "Young lady, breaking rules is wrong, and you broke the rules" never seems to appease the young lady. It's a rationalization for a punishment using circular logic rather than a legitimate reason. It's a variation of the "Because I said so" argument. Neither is a legitimate defense.
And, in addition, it is typically used to rationalize the tunnel vision logic that there is no other alternative available.
Any person or entity of power (parent, employer or government) who has to rely on it (no matter how it is spun) has already failed their responsibility.
Did Apple do right or wrong here? I don't know. But justifying their actions with the Rules is Rules argument (no matter how it is phrased or spun) is not a valid argument. And, even those who use it seem to realize that when they roll out their overly loud protest that they aren't using it.
When the argument is being made that what happened in a situation was a direct result of it being according to the rules, then it's not even an argument against the rules, nor how they were applied, when it's being faced with what essentially is a personal attack about that person being a "rules are rules"-type of person. It's abusive, it's irrelevant; it's argumentum ad hominem. When you (as he did) on top of that take comments out of context, and generalise them ad absurdum, then it's straight up building a straw man; which is a dishonest thing to do.
He even went so far as to taking his generalised version of what they said and accusing his opponents for not standing by that in another situation, without even trying to figure out what their thoughts were regarding that other situation.
There's no saving his actions in this discussion; he either acted wilfully, or is a fool.
If you are going to attack the (lack of) proportionality of a punishment vis-à-vis a committed offence, then do so; don't attack the person by calling them names or ascribing them anything that comes out of your emotional reaction to what they said. Going straight for the person rather than the argument is no more than a roundabout way of doing name calling (which he also straight up did, on more than one occasion).
That being said, the only reason that discussions like these reach the stage where people do say nothing but "rules are rules" is because the people arguing against it are completely ignoring everything that's earlier been provided as context. Such as that the standard contracts in situations like these a extremely clear about people not being allowed to act like he did. People have also very clearly pointed out that it's not only about strictly adhering to the specifics of a contract, but about things such as his blatant disregard of the rules resulting in him no longer being trustworthy enough for his level of work at Apple; and that Apple must enforce contracts like these fairly strictly for them to not open up to being sued if they later on act differently in a similar situation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Graham_(computer_programmer)#Graham's_hierarchy_of_disagreement
I know lots about NDAs and how they can be litigated, and you clearly do not, except you apparently once signed one. Its probably not worth going into why this isnt probably isn's an NDA violation ( although it is a violation of Apple's internal rules, no doubt) as it's a hostile crowd. However he wont be prosecuted, and NDAs are designed to be prosecuted.
Simply pointing out that the lack of validity of the "Rules is Rules" argument -- no matter how it is spun.
As I said: Did Apple do right or wrong here? I don't know. But arguing that they should fire the guy because the can -- because Rules is Rules -- is simply not a valid argument.
... Forgive me for pointing out the fallacy of that argument.
Should Apple have fired the guy? Perhaps. You lay out what, is to me, a valid argument saying that he was not trustworthy enough -- or that Apple had to make an example of him. It might be. Or, it may not be. We could have a legitimate debate about that pretty much forever for a number of reasons...
... For myself, I don't think we have enough information one way or another to make that determination. Only the insiders know -- and even then, it's a judgement call.
Further, having had several of us explain that we aren’t intending to apply the simple argument of ‘rules are rules’ you both continue to tell us that we are. You seem to believe you know our minds better than we do. And that suggests it is you who occupy the refuge of a failed argument.
Oh, and if you did read my comments you’d see that I made a comment that covered both the trust issue AND the problem of creating future legal issues by not being consistent. But we already know that you haven’t been reading the comments.
Let me say that again:
I never referred to the other arguments that you or others site and never commented on them.
I have only referred to the quite numerous comments throughout this thread that used the Rules is Rules argument in all of its various guises.
Specifically, I said:
"Did Apple do right or wrong here? I don't know. But justifying their actions with the Rules is Rules argument (no matter how it is phrased or spun) is not a valid argument. And, even those who use it seem to realize that when they roll out their overly loud protest that they aren't using it. "
Other logical arguments are fine. Actually, that's good - and many have made them - and you just reiterated a few more. But that is quite obviously not what I was talking about since I previously said:
"Should Apple have fired the guy? Perhaps. You lay out what, is to me, a valid argument saying that he was not trustworthy enough -- or that Apple had to make an example of him. It might be. Or, it may not be. We could have a legitimate debate about that pretty much forever for a number of reasons..."
But, Rules is Rules is still not a valid argument or justification for terminating an employee. That's all I have said. Reading something else into that doesn't change it.
Further: I don't know if you used the (invalid) Rules is Rules argument. If you don't think that you did, then nothing I said applies to you.