Crap, that's nothing. Layoffs at Nortel, during the crash days, happened *10,000* at a time, and that happened more than once (consider an almost 50% contraction, from over 100,000 employees to around 60,000).
Well, somebody didn't learn anything about basic fiscal responsibility. So, to make it easy for you, here's a little story:
Joe has a credit card. Now, Joe was a moron in the past, and he's pretty deeply sunk into debt. But, right now, he has a choice before him: he can choose to pay down that credit card, or he can max it out to buy himself a new computer. Now, the new computer would really be cool! He could get more work done, and he could do all kinds of other neat stuff with it, too! On the other hand, he doesn't actually *need* the computer, and by buying it he would put himself further into debt, which will only make things worse for him in the long run (higher payments that he may not be able to carry, greater interest, so he's throwing more money away, etc).
I see no easy way for me to win the lottery so I think I should be allowed to print money as well. I'm not sure if that was a good counterexample, but I think it gets the general point across.
And that point was what, exactly? I seem to have missed it.
If you want to legally acquire those TV shows then tape then (even on to a computer with a TV tuner or TiVo).
I'd love to, if they hadn't *already aired*. Cripes, what part of "catch up" don't you understand?
You don't have any right to own copies of TV shows just because you saw them once or anything like that.
Whoa whoa, wait a second. I'm allowed to record those episodes to a tape, or even using a TV tuner or TiVO (which has commercial skip, thus eliminating the advertising revenue), and keep them, and that's okay. But if I download them, that's not okay? Even if the episodes had all the commercials still spliced in? How's that cognitive dissonance going for ya?
Just because you don't think it will financially impact any of the copyright holders doesn't make it legal or morally sound.
Actually, it does impact them. If I can catch up on the show, I'll start watching it on the network again, in which case they can advertise to me again. Result: one more viewer, meaning potentially more revenue. IOW, my piracy is, in fact, *helping them*.
Incidentally, I would never argue that generally pirating TV doesn't affect the copyright holders, as that's total bunk. It does, as it affects advertising revenue, which feeds ultimately back to the producers of the content.
Well, given I can't yet buy season one of Stargate: Atlantis, I see no way to catch up on the show other than to download the episodes. If, however, there is an official way for me to acquire those episodes (preferably in HDTV resolution), I'd love to hear about it.
Photo radar and red-light cameras should be banned. Not because they "spy", but because they convict people without due process. If I commit a crime, I'm supposed to be able to question my accuser. But if an automated system takes a picture of me in my car, and says I was speeding, then I'm automatically considered guilty, when the real story may be different: I may have had extenuating circumstances, like some violent person was chasing me, or the machine itself may have been faulty. If a policeman gives me the ticket, then he had to be there to see if there were a valid reason for me to run the light, and as a human and an officer of the law is responsible for testifying truthfully what he saw happened.
That's a good point, although some would argue that speeding is speeding, extenuating circumstances or not (and those calibration records for the cameras are available, so that's not a viable argument). The reason, in my mind, that these cameras should be removed is that they simply don't serve their purpose: they don't deter speeding and red-light running. Why? Because, since the punishment is executed long after the crime has been committed, the two events do not become connected in the mind of the offender, something which is supported in psych literature. As such, they end up serving one purpose: providing a revenue stream for the municipality. And that is immoral.
Umm... I think you could come up with better, more harmful examples. How 'bout: " is inferior", "woman aren't as important as men", " is the one and only religion, and everyone else is a blasphemer and evil".
Actually, I think what the original poster was trying to say is that once a system like that is in place, its uses may "vary" a little from its intital "sold to the public as" message.
Which is, of course, why you have public oversight of these things. It's not like the cops work under a cloak of secrecy... their actions are there to be scrutinized, and should be.
They already said that the designer of this device has worked on speech detection devices as well.
So? As many others have pointed out, this is a completely pointless observation.
BTW, this is, of course, the point where you lost all credibility.
The American people should be up in arms over systems like this, and the red light and speed cameras as well. It encourages abuse of the system and promotes lazy and dishonest law enforcement.
Can you cite a single example of "abuse" of red light cameras or photo radar? And, no, the fines don't count. I've *never* heard of those devices used for any purpose other than what they were designed and marketed for... to catch red-light runners/speeders so they can be fined (I happen to believe they don't actually *deter* anything, but that's a separate issue).
And do we need an example of dishonest and lazy law enforcement:
Well, assuming I bought the idea that these cameras would suddenly generate lazier, heartless cops, I'm sure your, admittedly very terrible story, would be quite moving and convincing. However, since I don't buy that argument, it just looks like a cheap attempt to play at my emotions. So, please, don't insult my intelligence.
Nice... This is the same government that wants to increase its revenue with speed and red-light cameras,
That I will agree with, unfortunately. Of course, considering this system isn't being put into place to increase revenue (since no fines will be generated, as far as I know), the comparison isn't a very good one.
and prevent you from defending yourself with firearms.
And that is clearly an inflammatory comment that is a matter of opinion (eg, my opinion is firearms in the home cause more harm than good. But I think we can agree to disagree on that one).
Or any other US network news agency, which is why I get my news from real news sources, as opposed to entertainment vehicles. I happened to pick FOX because, well, it was the first one to come to mind.
Who said anything about spying? This system is well known and out in the open. By this logic, photo radar and red-light cameras should be banned, because they "spy" on driver behaviours.
Now, if the government was secretly monitoring specific people it felt were "dangerous", but haven't yet committed a crime, I'd have a problem. But this system most certainly doesn't fit that definition.
it adopts the principle of guilty before proven innocent.
Oooh, pulling out the strawman... nice...
This principle is immoral, corrupt, unjust, and backwards.
And there you go, knocking it down. Well done, but you failed to actually make a point.
Under a just system of law, individuals are innocent until proven guilty.
Very true. Of course, the idea that this system deviates from that principle is a matter of opinion rather than fact.
Re:reducing viral load is a far cry from a cure fo
on
HIV Vaccine
·
· Score: 1
Are all of your 800+ posts this pointless and pedantic?
The creator emphasizes that the system cannot recognize voices or words, but his previous research into speech recognition systems suggests otherwise.
Right... so, surprise surprise, this guy has done research in speech recognition, an area likely quite related to the job of recognizing gunshots, and so somehow we must assume that this system is going to be used to spy on the general public? Damn... Slashdot is getting worse than FOX for just making things up in order to add some sensationalism to its stories.
Re:reducing viral load is a far cry from a cure fo
on
HIV Vaccine
·
· Score: 1
Dropping the viral load count dosn't mean much if it only works once and or dosn't ever wipe it out.
Man, I couldn't disagree more. If the viral load drops to 10% and stays there (and the current results indicate that it does), then the illness won't progress to AIDS, which is the real problem with HIV. Sure, the patient may end up carrying HIV for life, but who cares, at least they won't *die*.
Re:What's a dead virus?
on
HIV Vaccine
·
· Score: 1
How do you define "alive"? They reproduce, but only in the loosest sense (they hijack enzymes in existing cells to replicate, but they cannot reproduce on their own). They have no metabolic system, thus they consume no food and produce no waste. Really, the only thing a virus does that could qualify it as "life" is reproduce, but prions also reproduce, and we don't consider them to be alive (as far as I know, anyway).
My own view on this is that it takes far longer to find someone who is "perfectly qualified" than to mold such a person from a qualified Engineer.
And I disagree. In the areas Cisco works in, experience is the key above all, and training comes a very close second. So, given the choice between someone already trained in the field versus someone untrained, *why* would you pick the latter just because they're from the US?
Moreover, there is more than just the expense of training the person. You also need available manpower to mentor the person until they're able to function on their own. Thus, you end up using a valuable, senior resource in order to bring an unseasoned engineer up to speed, instead of dropping in an already experience individual who can simply pick up a ball and run with it.
I'd bet for less money they could've hired a person with sound Engineering skills that could've picked up the material in the time they wasted looking for Mr/Ms Perfect who may or may not exist.
And you're still not getting this point:
spend $20,000 to educate someone, who may either come out underqualified, or worse yet *leave*
This is a *significant risk*. If the person comes out unqualified, you're stuck with someone in whom you've sunk serious cash, but is still not useful to you. And the second case is even worse! One of the biggests risks for a company, regarding training, is that the company will train the candidate, and that person will then take off because they either got into the deal just to get the free training, after which they planned to bail, or alternatively, with the fresh new training they have, they got a sweet deal from another company.
Of those 80,000 Americans I'd bet a good number of them cared less where they'd work after endless months of unemployment and cared more about having a job in the field, period.
What part of "perfectly qualified" don't you get? It's likely that only a small percentage of those unemployed IT folks actually have the background that Cisco is looking for.
As for Cisco certs.. which makes more sense: bringing an Engineer in from overseas or training one that's already living here?
Okay, let's put this in perspective. You can either: 1) spend $20,000 to educate someone, who may either come out underqualified, or worse yet *leave*, or 2) spend $20,000 to bring someone from overseas who already has the necessary qualifications, what would *you* do?
Actually, that's the way NeXTStep is set up. For example, you have NSString, which is a subclass of NSObject, and you have NSMutableString, which is a subclass of NSString. Definitely more logical, IMHO. And I think it actually conforms better to the IS-A relationship, but I suppose that's a matter of perspective.:)
Well, one thing to keep in mind is that, in an American election, you are typically voting for more than just the President. On that same ballot you might be voting for your congresscritter, a judge, your local sherriff, and if you're in California, whether or not to increase school funding. As a result, their ballots are inherently far more complicated.
The term "unrated", as applied to DVDs, implies that you're getting something that couldn't be shown in the theaters.
No, the term "unrated" means that additional footage is provided on the DVD that wasn't presented to the film ratings board. As a result, the new material is "unrated". So, if they had an uncut version of Elf that included a bunch of material that was dropped before the final version was made available to the film board, guess what, the new version is "unrated".
Slashdot Mirror
Crap, that's nothing. Layoffs at Nortel, during the crash days, happened *10,000* at a time, and that happened more than once (consider an almost 50% contraction, from over 100,000 employees to around 60,000).
Just OOC, but how is this flamebait? This guy seems to have some legitimate concerns.
Well, somebody didn't learn anything about basic fiscal responsibility. So, to make it easy for you, here's a little story:
Joe has a credit card. Now, Joe was a moron in the past, and he's pretty deeply sunk into debt. But, right now, he has a choice before him: he can choose to pay down that credit card, or he can max it out to buy himself a new computer. Now, the new computer would really be cool! He could get more work done, and he could do all kinds of other neat stuff with it, too! On the other hand, he doesn't actually *need* the computer, and by buying it he would put himself further into debt, which will only make things worse for him in the long run (higher payments that he may not be able to carry, greater interest, so he's throwing more money away, etc).
So, what do you think is the better choice?
I see no easy way for me to win the lottery so I think I should be allowed to print money as well. I'm not sure if that was a good counterexample, but I think it gets the general point across.
And that point was what, exactly? I seem to have missed it.
If you want to legally acquire those TV shows then tape then (even on to a computer with a TV tuner or TiVo).
I'd love to, if they hadn't *already aired*. Cripes, what part of "catch up" don't you understand?
You don't have any right to own copies of TV shows just because you saw them once or anything like that.
Whoa whoa, wait a second. I'm allowed to record those episodes to a tape, or even using a TV tuner or TiVO (which has commercial skip, thus eliminating the advertising revenue), and keep them, and that's okay. But if I download them, that's not okay? Even if the episodes had all the commercials still spliced in? How's that cognitive dissonance going for ya?
Just because you don't think it will financially impact any of the copyright holders doesn't make it legal or morally sound.
Actually, it does impact them. If I can catch up on the show, I'll start watching it on the network again, in which case they can advertise to me again. Result: one more viewer, meaning potentially more revenue. IOW, my piracy is, in fact, *helping them*.
Incidentally, I would never argue that generally pirating TV doesn't affect the copyright holders, as that's total bunk. It does, as it affects advertising revenue, which feeds ultimately back to the producers of the content.
Well, given I can't yet buy season one of Stargate: Atlantis, I see no way to catch up on the show other than to download the episodes. If, however, there is an official way for me to acquire those episodes (preferably in HDTV resolution), I'd love to hear about it.
If you're watching that much porn, you have other problems...
Photo radar and red-light cameras should be banned. Not because they "spy", but because they convict people without due process. If I commit a crime, I'm supposed to be able to question my accuser. But if an automated system takes a picture of me in my car, and says I was speeding, then I'm automatically considered guilty, when the real story may be different: I may have had extenuating circumstances, like some violent person was chasing me, or the machine itself may have been faulty. If a policeman gives me the ticket, then he had to be there to see if there were a valid reason for me to run the light, and as a human and an officer of the law is responsible for testifying truthfully what he saw happened.
That's a good point, although some would argue that speeding is speeding, extenuating circumstances or not (and those calibration records for the cameras are available, so that's not a viable argument). The reason, in my mind, that these cameras should be removed is that they simply don't serve their purpose: they don't deter speeding and red-light running. Why? Because, since the punishment is executed long after the crime has been committed, the two events do not become connected in the mind of the offender, something which is supported in psych literature. As such, they end up serving one purpose: providing a revenue stream for the municipality. And that is immoral.
Umm... I think you could come up with better, more harmful examples. How 'bout: " is inferior", "woman aren't as important as men", " is the one and only religion, and everyone else is a blasphemer and evil".
That's an upside? Since when was there something wrong with a sexually mature adult induling in pornography?
Actually, I think what the original poster was trying to say is that once a system like that is in place, its uses may "vary" a little from its intital "sold to the public as" message.
Which is, of course, why you have public oversight of these things. It's not like the cops work under a cloak of secrecy... their actions are there to be scrutinized, and should be.
They already said that the designer of this device has worked on speech detection devices as well.
So? As many others have pointed out, this is a completely pointless observation.
BTW, this is, of course, the point where you lost all credibility.
The American people should be up in arms over systems like this, and the red light and speed cameras as well. It encourages abuse of the system and promotes lazy and dishonest law enforcement.
Can you cite a single example of "abuse" of red light cameras or photo radar? And, no, the fines don't count. I've *never* heard of those devices used for any purpose other than what they were designed and marketed for... to catch red-light runners/speeders so they can be fined (I happen to believe they don't actually *deter* anything, but that's a separate issue).
And do we need an example of dishonest and lazy law enforcement:
Well, assuming I bought the idea that these cameras would suddenly generate lazier, heartless cops, I'm sure your, admittedly very terrible story, would be quite moving and convincing. However, since I don't buy that argument, it just looks like a cheap attempt to play at my emotions. So, please, don't insult my intelligence.
Nice... This is the same government that wants to increase its revenue with speed and red-light cameras,
That I will agree with, unfortunately. Of course, considering this system isn't being put into place to increase revenue (since no fines will be generated, as far as I know), the comparison isn't a very good one.
and prevent you from defending yourself with firearms.
And that is clearly an inflammatory comment that is a matter of opinion (eg, my opinion is firearms in the home cause more harm than good. But I think we can agree to disagree on that one).
Or any other US network news agency, which is why I get my news from real news sources, as opposed to entertainment vehicles. I happened to pick FOX because, well, it was the first one to come to mind.
Because when government spies on innocent people
Who said anything about spying? This system is well known and out in the open. By this logic, photo radar and red-light cameras should be banned, because they "spy" on driver behaviours.
Now, if the government was secretly monitoring specific people it felt were "dangerous", but haven't yet committed a crime, I'd have a problem. But this system most certainly doesn't fit that definition.
it adopts the principle of guilty before proven innocent.
Oooh, pulling out the strawman... nice...
This principle is immoral, corrupt, unjust, and backwards.
And there you go, knocking it down. Well done, but you failed to actually make a point.
Under a just system of law, individuals are innocent until proven guilty.
Very true. Of course, the idea that this system deviates from that principle is a matter of opinion rather than fact.
Are all of your 800+ posts this pointless and pedantic?
The creator emphasizes that the system cannot recognize voices or words, but his previous research into speech recognition systems suggests otherwise.
Right... so, surprise surprise, this guy has done research in speech recognition, an area likely quite related to the job of recognizing gunshots, and so somehow we must assume that this system is going to be used to spy on the general public? Damn... Slashdot is getting worse than FOX for just making things up in order to add some sensationalism to its stories.
Dropping the viral load count dosn't mean much if it only works once and or dosn't ever wipe it out.
Man, I couldn't disagree more. If the viral load drops to 10% and stays there (and the current results indicate that it does), then the illness won't progress to AIDS, which is the real problem with HIV. Sure, the patient may end up carrying HIV for life, but who cares, at least they won't *die*.
How do you define "alive"? They reproduce, but only in the loosest sense (they hijack enzymes in existing cells to replicate, but they cannot reproduce on their own). They have no metabolic system, thus they consume no food and produce no waste. Really, the only thing a virus does that could qualify it as "life" is reproduce, but prions also reproduce, and we don't consider them to be alive (as far as I know, anyway).
My own view on this is that it takes far longer to find someone who is "perfectly qualified" than to mold such a person from a qualified Engineer.
And I disagree. In the areas Cisco works in, experience is the key above all, and training comes a very close second. So, given the choice between someone already trained in the field versus someone untrained, *why* would you pick the latter just because they're from the US?
Moreover, there is more than just the expense of training the person. You also need available manpower to mentor the person until they're able to function on their own. Thus, you end up using a valuable, senior resource in order to bring an unseasoned engineer up to speed, instead of dropping in an already experience individual who can simply pick up a ball and run with it.
I'd bet for less money they could've hired a person with sound Engineering skills that could've picked up the material in the time they wasted looking for Mr/Ms Perfect who may or may not exist.
And you're still not getting this point:
spend $20,000 to educate someone, who may either come out underqualified, or worse yet *leave*
This is a *significant risk*. If the person comes out unqualified, you're stuck with someone in whom you've sunk serious cash, but is still not useful to you. And the second case is even worse! One of the biggests risks for a company, regarding training, is that the company will train the candidate, and that person will then take off because they either got into the deal just to get the free training, after which they planned to bail, or alternatively, with the fresh new training they have, they got a sweet deal from another company.
Of those 80,000 Americans I'd bet a good number of them cared less where they'd work after endless months of unemployment and cared more about having a job in the field, period.
What part of "perfectly qualified" don't you get? It's likely that only a small percentage of those unemployed IT folks actually have the background that Cisco is looking for.
As for Cisco certs.. which makes more sense: bringing an Engineer in from overseas or training one that's already living here?
Okay, let's put this in perspective. You can either: 1) spend $20,000 to educate someone, who may either come out underqualified, or worse yet *leave*, or 2) spend $20,000 to bring someone from overseas who already has the necessary qualifications, what would *you* do?
Damn, I almost spat out my breakfast. Thanks a lot, dude.
Actually, that's the way NeXTStep is set up. For example, you have NSString, which is a subclass of NSObject, and you have NSMutableString, which is a subclass of NSString. Definitely more logical, IMHO. And I think it actually conforms better to the IS-A relationship, but I suppose that's a matter of perspective. :)
Don't you mean Smalltalk-style blocks?
With one of the many other booster options out there, like the Arianne? Or am I missing something?
Well, one thing to keep in mind is that, in an American election, you are typically voting for more than just the President. On that same ballot you might be voting for your congresscritter, a judge, your local sherriff, and if you're in California, whether or not to increase school funding. As a result, their ballots are inherently far more complicated.
Insightful?? Wrong, maybe...
The term "unrated", as applied to DVDs, implies that you're getting something that couldn't be shown in the theaters.
No, the term "unrated" means that additional footage is provided on the DVD that wasn't presented to the film ratings board. As a result, the new material is "unrated". So, if they had an uncut version of Elf that included a bunch of material that was dropped before the final version was made available to the film board, guess what, the new version is "unrated".
Umm, actually, considering the term "gay" is not derogatory to actual gay people, the example should be:
to everyone who came out to show their support for us and who defended us when everyone was calling us africans
The point is, the use of the term "gay" is not PC in this context because it implies that being "gay" is bad.