A couple of these remind me of the song "Star Trekkin'" which I heard on Dr. Dimento.
Star Trekkin', across the universe.
On the starship Enterprise, under Captain Kirk.
Star Trekkin' across the universe.
Only going forward 'cause we can't find reverse.
Versus include:
There's life Jim, but not as we know it. Not as we know it, Captain.
There's Klingons on the Starboard bow. Scrape 'em off Jim.
It's worse than that he's dead Jim.
We've come in peace, shoot to kill.
Scottie, beam me up!
Maybe I just missed this in the article, but what are we so afraid of that keeps us from exploring these areas of genetics?
I used to think that it was wrong to genetically modify an unborn child, but at the time I hadn't really thought about it. My answer was more of a reaction to the question and the idea that we hadn't done it before, things are working pretty well right now, let's keep things status quo. But by going status quo we don't learn anything, and there is actually a lot of good that can come from digging deeper into genetics. Can we honestly say it would have been better had we not explored space and the planets beyond Earth? Would we even know as much about Earth as we do now?
I once read or heard the idea that every few billion years, there is a kind of rebirth of the Earth and its inhabitants. The key to keeping the species alive is to use the time you have to learn and develop ways to survive the destruction and live to see the next rebirth.
An interesting theory and if true, we need to get beyond the fear of "playing with genetics" if we are to gain enough knowledge to continue our survival.
Finding the limit to experimentation is tough. How far do we go before we go too far? Maybe there is a point in which we start damaging ourselves more than helping. If we don't dig any deeper tho, how will we ever find that point and how long will the human species survive?
Better than getting a call from a company who had hired you as a summer intern and then had to call you back a few months later to say "Sorry, but we're closing." There isn't much you can get from a company that no longer exists.
This happened to an intern that will be coming to my office this summer. He had everything set up and ready and then had to scramble in April when things fell through.
Where in "Intel offers 'Unsigning Bonuses'" do you feel that the headline is being misleading?
Yes, the brief paragraph summary does mention that those who decline the unsigning bonus risk being laid off quickly. The truth is, it's a distinct possibility. There is nothing, legally, stopping Intel from following through with the hiring and then firing them soon after (at least none that I'm aware of). However, this would really hurt Intel's reputation and thus, they are offering this bonus as an alternative.
Intel is doing the smart thing here. When they found out how bad the economy was hurting them, they went to their new-hires, told them the truth, and gave them an option. At some point, when the economy turns, they can go back to these people and say we still like you and can afford you now. The article also mentioned that current employees would get first dibs at open positions...yet another reason for these new-hires to not risk taking the job and quickly getting the boot.
My company doesn't have a 1 year contract, but they do have a 6 month orientation period. During this period, you are only entitled to some of you benefits. After 6 months, you get a review with your boss and your status (fired, extended orientation, or full benefits) is decided. However, even within that period there is At Will firing/quitting.
Following the DMCA - the informaiton does not have to be false, or even proved harmful.
Where in the DMCA does it say that it does not have to be proven false or harmful?
Aside from that, if they sue somebody for libel, there are certain things that must be proven. According to the notes in FindLaw's dictionary (http://dictionary.findlaw.com) "A libel plaintiff must generally establish that the alleged libel refers to him or her specifically, that it was published to others, and that some injury (as to reputation) occurred that gives him or her a right to recover damages (as actual, general, presumed, or special damages)."
I don't know if a company has the same responsibilities in a libel suit as a general celebrity or politician, but since the NY Times v Sullivan case, there would be the added responsibility of proving malice. I would think that a company would be subject to this because it would be of "public concern." And malice is quite difficult to prove. It is very easy for somebody to say they were just venting and didn't actually mean what they were saying. And with bulletin boards and newsgroups,
Basically, if you don't post an outright lie about another company but state what happened to you and how upset you were, I don't think there is anything the company could do and it still allows for bitch sessions.
Slashdot Mirror
For the life of me, I can't remember the actor's name...
Star Trekkin', across the universe.
On the starship Enterprise, under Captain Kirk.
Star Trekkin' across the universe.
Only going forward 'cause we can't find reverse.
Versus include:
There's life Jim, but not as we know it. Not as we know it, Captain.
There's Klingons on the Starboard bow. Scrape 'em off Jim.
It's worse than that he's dead Jim.
We've come in peace, shoot to kill.
Scottie, beam me up!
I used to think that it was wrong to genetically modify an unborn child, but at the time I hadn't really thought about it. My answer was more of a reaction to the question and the idea that we hadn't done it before, things are working pretty well right now, let's keep things status quo. But by going status quo we don't learn anything, and there is actually a lot of good that can come from digging deeper into genetics. Can we honestly say it would have been better had we not explored space and the planets beyond Earth? Would we even know as much about Earth as we do now?
I once read or heard the idea that every few billion years, there is a kind of rebirth of the Earth and its inhabitants. The key to keeping the species alive is to use the time you have to learn and develop ways to survive the destruction and live to see the next rebirth.
An interesting theory and if true, we need to get beyond the fear of "playing with genetics" if we are to gain enough knowledge to continue our survival.
Finding the limit to experimentation is tough. How far do we go before we go too far? Maybe there is a point in which we start damaging ourselves more than helping. If we don't dig any deeper tho, how will we ever find that point and how long will the human species survive?
This happened to an intern that will be coming to my office this summer. He had everything set up and ready and then had to scramble in April when things fell through.
Yes, the brief paragraph summary does mention that those who decline the unsigning bonus risk being laid off quickly. The truth is, it's a distinct possibility. There is nothing, legally, stopping Intel from following through with the hiring and then firing them soon after (at least none that I'm aware of). However, this would really hurt Intel's reputation and thus, they are offering this bonus as an alternative.
Intel is doing the smart thing here. When they found out how bad the economy was hurting them, they went to their new-hires, told them the truth, and gave them an option. At some point, when the economy turns, they can go back to these people and say we still like you and can afford you now. The article also mentioned that current employees would get first dibs at open positions...yet another reason for these new-hires to not risk taking the job and quickly getting the boot.
My company doesn't have a 1 year contract, but they do have a 6 month orientation period. During this period, you are only entitled to some of you benefits. After 6 months, you get a review with your boss and your status (fired, extended orientation, or full benefits) is decided. However, even within that period there is At Will firing/quitting.
Following the DMCA - the informaiton does not have to be false, or even proved harmful.
Where in the DMCA does it say that it does not have to be proven false or harmful?
Aside from that, if they sue somebody for libel, there are certain things that must be proven. According to the notes in FindLaw's dictionary (http://dictionary.findlaw.com) "A libel plaintiff must generally establish that the alleged libel refers to him or her specifically, that it was published to others, and that some injury (as to reputation) occurred that gives him or her a right to recover damages (as actual, general, presumed, or special damages)."
I don't know if a company has the same responsibilities in a libel suit as a general celebrity or politician, but since the NY Times v Sullivan case, there would be the added responsibility of proving malice. I would think that a company would be subject to this because it would be of "public concern." And malice is quite difficult to prove. It is very easy for somebody to say they were just venting and didn't actually mean what they were saying. And with bulletin boards and newsgroups,
Basically, if you don't post an outright lie about another company but state what happened to you and how upset you were, I don't think there is anything the company could do and it still allows for bitch sessions.