80 years ago, when employers could do whatever they wanted with employee's, unions literally fought and died for workers rights. Unpaid overtime, dangerous work conditions, hazardous chemicals. Now days, those protections have been put into law and unions are considered unnecessary. Maybe rightly so. But without legal protections a lot of employers do behave badly. That's why businessmen love Republicans...they long for a return to the good old days. That's why "pure capitalism" doesn't work.
I don't disagree with any of LKM's points about programming (or any other "brain work"). I would like to correct the point about muscle work:
If you're building a brick wall and your boss asks you to work for an extra 2 hours he probably get's an extra two hours worth or work. If he asks you to work an extra two hours everyday, and then asks you to come in on Saturday--eventually your production begins to drop. If fact, after a few weeks he may be paying you for an extra 20 or 30 hours a week while only getting 40 hours worth of production.
Crazy, I know. But it happens all the time in construction. I'm guessing that something similar occurs in programming?
People are asked to work overtime when the perceived cost of hiring additional workers exceeds the overtime cost...or simply because additional workers aren't available.
One has to use at least a little common sense when comparing information from various sources. On the one hand, you've got an award winning, respected science magazine. On the other hand, you have a former Rush Limbaugh producer (Mark Moran), writing in Senator Inhofe's blog. (Inhofe--the guy who Barbara Boxer won't let play with the gavel anymore at the Senate committee on Environment and Public Works). Personally, I'd tend to give a little more weight to New Scientist.
So a supernova of 20 suns equivalent managed to explode and leave behind thousands of sun-like stars?
Apparently conservation of mass laws were different back then.
Oooh! Ooh! I know this one: The explosion of a supernova causes a shock wave. When this wave passes through a gas cloud, it causes the gas to "clump." This new density in the gas cloud seeds areas which gravitationally cause the attraction of more and more gas. Over time: a star is born.
Or in this case, thousands of stars.
A star of 20 solar masses consumes it's fuel (and goes supernova) in only about 10 million years, allowing plenty of time for our 4.6 billion year old star to have formed in a universe estimated to be about 13 billion years old.
Treating smoking as a civil rights issue ignores the fact that tobacco is one of the most addictive chemicals humans consume.
That's not true, but it would have no relevance anyway.
Premise: Tobacco isn't highly addictive.
Essentially all tobacco companies have to do is to entice new smokers to try their product and then biology takes over.
This is true of alcohol as well, and many other products. Also, there are surgeon's general warnings on every pack of cigarettes informing people of the consequences.
Premise: OK, tobacco is addictive, and dangerous.
Sorry friend, you can't have it both ways.
I just believe that one product that has been proven to be both highly addictive and highly dangerous ought not be a profit center for corporations with no apparent scruples about slowly killing their customers. They get off the legal hook by printing warnings on the side of the boxes, but it's obvious that the warnings are much less effective that the addictive properties of their product, or they wouldn't have been so gracious and downright public service oriented about printing them on the side of every box of cigarettes for the past 36 years.
Oh, and oh yeah, all the while concealing their own studies about the addictive and harmful nature of their own products.
Now we could continue to argue about whether tobacco is highly addictive or highly dangerous, but the scientific concensus seems to be clear...which is a lot like the case for global warming...which is where this whole argument started.
Treating smoking as a civil rights issue ignores the fact that tabacco is one of the most addictive chemicals humans consume. Essentially all tabacco companies have to do is to entice new smokers to try their product and then biology takes over.
Considering that besides being very addictive, it's also very deadly; it's obvious to me that there is sufficient reason for society to regulate both it's use and it's marketing. No reasonable person would demand that any other highly addictive substance should not only be sold, but should also be advertised, allowed to be used in public places, and marketed to children.
Slashdot Mirror
80 years ago, when employers could do whatever they wanted with employee's, unions literally fought and died for workers rights. Unpaid overtime, dangerous work conditions, hazardous chemicals. Now days, those protections have been put into law and unions are considered unnecessary. Maybe rightly so. But without legal protections a lot of employers do behave badly. That's why businessmen love Republicans...they long for a return to the good old days. That's why "pure capitalism" doesn't work.
I don't disagree with any of LKM's points about programming (or any other "brain work"). I would like to correct the point about muscle work: If you're building a brick wall and your boss asks you to work for an extra 2 hours he probably get's an extra two hours worth or work. If he asks you to work an extra two hours everyday, and then asks you to come in on Saturday--eventually your production begins to drop. If fact, after a few weeks he may be paying you for an extra 20 or 30 hours a week while only getting 40 hours worth of production. Crazy, I know. But it happens all the time in construction. I'm guessing that something similar occurs in programming? People are asked to work overtime when the perceived cost of hiring additional workers exceeds the overtime cost...or simply because additional workers aren't available.
One has to use at least a little common sense when comparing information from various sources. On the one hand, you've got an award winning, respected science magazine. On the other hand, you have a former Rush Limbaugh producer (Mark Moran), writing in Senator Inhofe's blog. (Inhofe--the guy who Barbara Boxer won't let play with the gavel anymore at the Senate committee on Environment and Public Works). Personally, I'd tend to give a little more weight to New Scientist.
But maybe that's just me.
The reason people use gmail instead of the owner furnished email system is because owners can, and do, read their mail!
As a non-IT guy, this strikes me as the perfect revenge for all of the bosses out there who read their employee's email.
Email encryption: Who's with me?!
So a supernova of 20 suns equivalent managed to explode and leave behind thousands of sun-like stars?
Apparently conservation of mass laws were different back then.
Oooh! Ooh! I know this one: The explosion of a supernova causes a shock wave. When this wave passes through a gas cloud, it causes the gas to "clump." This new density in the gas cloud seeds areas which gravitationally cause the attraction of more and more gas. Over time: a star is born.
Or in this case, thousands of stars.
A star of 20 solar masses consumes it's fuel (and goes supernova) in only about 10 million years, allowing plenty of time for our 4.6 billion year old star to have formed in a universe estimated to be about 13 billion years old.
Treating smoking as a civil rights issue ignores the fact that tobacco is one of the most addictive chemicals humans consume.
That's not true, but it would have no relevance anyway.
Premise: Tobacco isn't highly addictive.
Essentially all tobacco companies have to do is to entice new smokers to try their product and then biology takes over.
This is true of alcohol as well, and many other products. Also, there are surgeon's general warnings on every pack of cigarettes informing people of the consequences.
Premise: OK, tobacco is addictive, and dangerous.
Sorry friend, you can't have it both ways.
I just believe that one product that has been proven to be both highly addictive and highly dangerous ought not be a profit center for corporations with no apparent scruples about slowly killing their customers. They get off the legal hook by printing warnings on the side of the boxes, but it's obvious that the warnings are much less effective that the addictive properties of their product, or they wouldn't have been so gracious and downright public service oriented about printing them on the side of every box of cigarettes for the past 36 years.
Oh, and oh yeah, all the while concealing their own studies about the addictive and harmful nature of their own products.
Now we could continue to argue about whether tobacco is highly addictive or highly dangerous, but the scientific concensus seems to be clear...which is a lot like the case for global warming...which is where this whole argument started.
Treating smoking as a civil rights issue ignores the fact that tabacco is one of the most addictive chemicals humans consume. Essentially all tabacco companies have to do is to entice new smokers to try their product and then biology takes over. Considering that besides being very addictive, it's also very deadly; it's obvious to me that there is sufficient reason for society to regulate both it's use and it's marketing. No reasonable person would demand that any other highly addictive substance should not only be sold, but should also be advertised, allowed to be used in public places, and marketed to children.