I said half, not 50%:-) As in, when I was a kid and I got 3/4s of a cookie and my friend got 1/4, I'd say "this is my half, and that's your half". Of course, he's been unable to properly do math throughout his life because of me.
Yes, I have. From parents whose kids are walking to school in the dark.. Especially after congress changed to have DST end in November. A few weeks in and people get used to it.
This also depends upon where you are. It may be pitch black on one area of the US, and then within the same time zone the sun will be fully up over the horizon.
In Florida are all the workes slave to the 9-to-5 schedule? Even if they do, there's sunlight at 5:pm in Florida even in winter (maybe getting dark up north though in the panhandle). And you don't have to follow the schedule most of the time, adjust your own schedule by an hour either way and most bosses won't complain.
DST is what happens in Summer, it was never intended to remedy the effect of shorter days in Winter. Extending it year around is the equivalent of moving East an hour and joining the Atlantic time zone. On the other hand, Florida is the far west of the Eastern time zone, so for solar time they are off by a half hour anyway. Historically, Florida was in Central time zone for a long time, so it's already changed time zones once.
Before they had time zones, it was pretty much established in most of the western world that 12:00am was when the sun was the highest. That's how they set the clocks. When it took several hours to ride a horse to the next town then the time difference wasn't much of a bother. But with railroads it became more annoying, and the railroads set up the timezones in order to have better consistency with each town and provide better schedules.
Well, by that logic, why even have time zones in the first place? Put everyone in the world on the same time and eliminate confusion. The sun would be at its peak at 7am instead in parts of the US.
It's going to get dark early in the winter no matter what. Half the state is pissed that it is dark early, but you turn on DST and then the other half of the state is pissed that it's still dark in the morning. If you don't like it being dark at 4:30 then just wake up one hour early, go to work one hour early, and go home one hour early. It's just like DST except that you don't have to do unnatural acts with the clock.
If you think that you get more daylight just by moving the clock ahead, then try telling the boss that you are working an extra hour by moving the clocks ahead.
Well, given that the state does not even want something closest to natural time, where the sun is at the highest point closest to noon, but instead wants the artificial DST in effect permanently, is weird. The alternative of getting rid of DST permanently does make a sort of sense at least.
It's Florida! People on the beach don't care what time it is, the retirees don't care what time it is, so why insist on DST? Business won't make more money, you won't save more energy, and you've got a surplus of sunlight already. If DST is a pain, why not get rid of it?
Why not make it UTC time then they can have daylight in the middle of the night, that would be good for business too!
Actually one of the very first things they did after the US had nominal control of Baghdad, before realizing it was hard to do nation building than they thought, was to try and get the locally appointed legislature to pass some laws. Amongst the laws that the US was intent on pushing through quickly, was an agreement on copyright, patents, and other IP issues. Seriously, that was what they thought was high priority; before getting the country's infrastructure working again we had to make sure that Mickey Mouse was wasn't pirated.
At the time, the Amiga was state of the art for this sort of stuff. The PC was a joke, graphics cards for them were overpriced and not very good. Around the same time in 85/86 there were a few PC competitors making the rounds: Amiga, Atari ST, and Apple IIGS. All had much better graphical and audio capabilities than the PC.
Doing stuff in C was very common on Amiga. The basic was good enough to do much of what the artist did, but doing it in C you could make things smoother and use more capabilities. While today a lot of this seem like bog standard screensaver stuff, remember that these things were still new at the time and the graphics were things you'd otherwise only see on an expensive professional workstation.
What really made Amiga stand out is that it wasn't just a copy. It did a lot of things differently than how things were done in the home computer market. It didn't use your basic -bit pixels but used bit slices, which led to a different set of capabilities. It wasn't just a 16-bit upgrade over older single tasking DOS systems, it used multitasking (common in professional world but extremely rare for home computers), had a custom multithreaded GUI, and so forth. The biggest flaw of Amiga was their CLI/DOS, but that was outsourced to a third party.
It could be misused though. People are already routinely marking posts they disagree with as "troll". The idea could work if you're only allowed to use that -2 vote once in a while. Say once a day for anonymous posts or once a week for member posts.
I saw this article last night and wanted to see what slashdot had to say, and there were only 3 posts so far, two of them being filth. Public opinion about slashdot is pretty low I think from what my friends have said. Maybe it's time for slashdot to get some adult diapers.
False. And true... It really depends upon the individual. It actually takes more effort to be productive from home I think. If the person was a trouble in the office for not communicating effectively, it will usually become a disaster if that person works remotely. You often need to specify clear goals, sharply constrained tasks, and solid deadlines for remote workers. The company also has a responsibility to let the worker know clearly they they are or are not meeting expectations.
For instance, a contractor often does better at this, because they almost always have a clearly defined set of goals in their contract.
I would suggest that workers should only get a chance to work remotely once they've proven their value and work ethic. Of course, this depends upon the job type.
Ya, I didn't understand that. In Finland there's an air about being a center-socialist leaning government, but it really felt like a strong undercurrent of "redneck" mixed into the general populace. For a people that don't like to talk much, I heard more gay jokes in a month there than I ever heard in all of high school. And yes, I saw an entire floor of tech where the only females were admins, which I had not seen in the US up to that point (a decade later though and I did). I think the stereotype of scandinavia as ultra liberal touchy-feelie is inaccurate, except maybe in some cities.
On the other hand, being from California, I was surprised seeing the blonde, blue-eyed twenty something woman, could be a super-model, doing building maintenance with a tool belt and all.
There is not explicit exclusion often, but it does happen. It's unwritten and unofficial but it happens. Most of the time though, women are encouraged to work elsewhere, brought up by parents who tell them to do girl's stuff, by professors telling them it's not a good profession for women (I knew one professor who was very public about his disdain for women in math and CS), and the frat boy bro culture that occurs in some companies.
I don't want discrimination of any sort, but if you only get angry when white males are discriminated against and look the other way when it's women or minorities, then are you really against all discrimination too?
But how do you fix it? Part of the problem is that a lot of people don't see discrimination as a problem if it's not happening to them or their group. Leaving things as they are does not solve the problem either.
One problem I see is that people are quick to condemn reverse discrimination, but they are much more quiet about the original discrimination. That is they hate the tit-for-tat but don't hate the tat.
Discrimination exists and is still rampant. Staying with the status quo does not get rid of discrimination it just reinforces it. And unfortunately even in recent history race has been forefront and center in politics. I don't agree with Google here, but if the suit was over not hiring minorities, it would not have been as big of a news story.
A tax write off is never free. Sure, you get a small fraction of the charity back on taxes, but never 100%. In the past, even in the not too distant past, it was common to keep the workers uncomfortable, it was considered ok to shout at them, not give them breaks, exploit the hell out of them. The time was when no one thought that a happy staff was important to the bottom line.
Having a diverse workplace is turning into one of those things that keeps the staff happy and keeps the customers happy.
There are people who will take the undesirable job because they need a job. Maybe they'll leave later to someplace more comfortable to work. But if you have no job, that's often more uncomfortable than working for a bigot.
You should want diversity in the work place. So don't throw away resumes based on race or gender or other protected classes. Treat them the same, even if you don't like their accent or color, look at the resume. If two people are equal, why always choose the white male? But...
I know companies don't hire only on merit. When I see only the smartest women get hired but tons of mediocre or incompetent white men are in the workforce, in all departments, then hiring is not being done on merit. When a minority is rare in your company but you still have screwups and chair warmers who are white males, then hiring isn't being done on merit. You won't have to walk very far to find the Wally in your company. Sometimes it's a mistake, the person looked good on paper but turned out to be a dud, only you can't fire him because he's got a good golf game. Sometimes, the idiot is friends with someone, and being a buddy means you get the job over anyone else more qualified. Sometimes the interviewers just aren't good at evaluating people so they go with their gut feelings ("white males are like me, so it's a safer bet than that person with the accent"). Sometimes they just want a warm body.
In any case, the argument that companies are hiring on merit is false. Companies should hire on merit and the problem is that they don't.
Slashdot Mirror
I said half, not 50% :-) As in, when I was a kid and I got 3/4s of a cookie and my friend got 1/4, I'd say "this is my half, and that's your half". Of course, he's been unable to properly do math throughout his life because of me.
Yes, I have. From parents whose kids are walking to school in the dark.. Especially after congress changed to have DST end in November. A few weeks in and people get used to it.
This also depends upon where you are. It may be pitch black on one area of the US, and then within the same time zone the sun will be fully up over the horizon.
In Florida are all the workes slave to the 9-to-5 schedule? Even if they do, there's sunlight at 5:pm in Florida even in winter (maybe getting dark up north though in the panhandle). And you don't have to follow the schedule most of the time, adjust your own schedule by an hour either way and most bosses won't complain.
DST is what happens in Summer, it was never intended to remedy the effect of shorter days in Winter. Extending it year around is the equivalent of moving East an hour and joining the Atlantic time zone. On the other hand, Florida is the far west of the Eastern time zone, so for solar time they are off by a half hour anyway. Historically, Florida was in Central time zone for a long time, so it's already changed time zones once.
Before they had time zones, it was pretty much established in most of the western world that 12:00am was when the sun was the highest. That's how they set the clocks. When it took several hours to ride a horse to the next town then the time difference wasn't much of a bother. But with railroads it became more annoying, and the railroads set up the timezones in order to have better consistency with each town and provide better schedules.
Well, by that logic, why even have time zones in the first place? Put everyone in the world on the same time and eliminate confusion. The sun would be at its peak at 7am instead in parts of the US.
You know, I think the flat earthers are on to something here. Equal daylight for everyone!
It's going to get dark early in the winter no matter what. Half the state is pissed that it is dark early, but you turn on DST and then the other half of the state is pissed that it's still dark in the morning. If you don't like it being dark at 4:30 then just wake up one hour early, go to work one hour early, and go home one hour early. It's just like DST except that you don't have to do unnatural acts with the clock.
If you think that you get more daylight just by moving the clock ahead, then try telling the boss that you are working an extra hour by moving the clocks ahead.
Just move to UTC. No more DST, no more changing time zones as you cross state or county borders, and you always know what time it is in Nome, Alaska.
Well, given that the state does not even want something closest to natural time, where the sun is at the highest point closest to noon, but instead wants the artificial DST in effect permanently, is weird. The alternative of getting rid of DST permanently does make a sort of sense at least.
It's Florida! People on the beach don't care what time it is, the retirees don't care what time it is, so why insist on DST? Business won't make more money, you won't save more energy, and you've got a surplus of sunlight already. If DST is a pain, why not get rid of it?
Why not make it UTC time then they can have daylight in the middle of the night, that would be good for business too!
Actually one of the very first things they did after the US had nominal control of Baghdad, before realizing it was hard to do nation building than they thought, was to try and get the locally appointed legislature to pass some laws. Amongst the laws that the US was intent on pushing through quickly, was an agreement on copyright, patents, and other IP issues. Seriously, that was what they thought was high priority; before getting the country's infrastructure working again we had to make sure that Mickey Mouse was wasn't pirated.
Economic conservative - we want more freedoms
Social conservative - we want fewer freedoms
At the time, the Amiga was state of the art for this sort of stuff. The PC was a joke, graphics cards for them were overpriced and not very good. Around the same time in 85/86 there were a few PC competitors making the rounds: Amiga, Atari ST, and Apple IIGS. All had much better graphical and audio capabilities than the PC.
Doing stuff in C was very common on Amiga. The basic was good enough to do much of what the artist did, but doing it in C you could make things smoother and use more capabilities. While today a lot of this seem like bog standard screensaver stuff, remember that these things were still new at the time and the graphics were things you'd otherwise only see on an expensive professional workstation.
What really made Amiga stand out is that it wasn't just a copy. It did a lot of things differently than how things were done in the home computer market. It didn't use your basic -bit pixels but used bit slices, which led to a different set of capabilities. It wasn't just a 16-bit upgrade over older single tasking DOS systems, it used multitasking (common in professional world but extremely rare for home computers), had a custom multithreaded GUI, and so forth. The biggest flaw of Amiga was their CLI/DOS, but that was outsourced to a third party.
It could be misused though. People are already routinely marking posts they disagree with as "troll". The idea could work if you're only allowed to use that -2 vote once in a while. Say once a day for anonymous posts or once a week for member posts.
I saw this article last night and wanted to see what slashdot had to say, and there were only 3 posts so far, two of them being filth. Public opinion about slashdot is pretty low I think from what my friends have said. Maybe it's time for slashdot to get some adult diapers.
Google says that's not a bird you hear whistling, but that you have a deviated septum.
"This picture appears to be a baby sitting in the bath naked. We have notified the police, please do not move from your present location."
False. And true...
It really depends upon the individual. It actually takes more effort to be productive from home I think. If the person was a trouble in the office for not communicating effectively, it will usually become a disaster if that person works remotely. You often need to specify clear goals, sharply constrained tasks, and solid deadlines for remote workers. The company also has a responsibility to let the worker know clearly they they are or are not meeting expectations.
For instance, a contractor often does better at this, because they almost always have a clearly defined set of goals in their contract.
I would suggest that workers should only get a chance to work remotely once they've proven their value and work ethic. Of course, this depends upon the job type.
Because politics makes two or more sides two an issue, it's sad that racial or ethnic discrimination has two or more sides to it.
Ya, I didn't understand that. In Finland there's an air about being a center-socialist leaning government, but it really felt like a strong undercurrent of "redneck" mixed into the general populace. For a people that don't like to talk much, I heard more gay jokes in a month there than I ever heard in all of high school. And yes, I saw an entire floor of tech where the only females were admins, which I had not seen in the US up to that point (a decade later though and I did). I think the stereotype of scandinavia as ultra liberal touchy-feelie is inaccurate, except maybe in some cities.
On the other hand, being from California, I was surprised seeing the blonde, blue-eyed twenty something woman, could be a super-model, doing building maintenance with a tool belt and all.
There is not explicit exclusion often, but it does happen. It's unwritten and unofficial but it happens. Most of the time though, women are encouraged to work elsewhere, brought up by parents who tell them to do girl's stuff, by professors telling them it's not a good profession for women (I knew one professor who was very public about his disdain for women in math and CS), and the frat boy bro culture that occurs in some companies.
I don't want discrimination of any sort, but if you only get angry when white males are discriminated against and look the other way when it's women or minorities, then are you really against all discrimination too?
He could just be American, where we insist on our right to express outrage at a story after only reading the headline.
But how do you fix it? Part of the problem is that a lot of people don't see discrimination as a problem if it's not happening to them or their group. Leaving things as they are does not solve the problem either.
One problem I see is that people are quick to condemn reverse discrimination, but they are much more quiet about the original discrimination. That is they hate the tit-for-tat but don't hate the tat.
Discrimination exists and is still rampant. Staying with the status quo does not get rid of discrimination it just reinforces it. And unfortunately even in recent history race has been forefront and center in politics. I don't agree with Google here, but if the suit was over not hiring minorities, it would not have been as big of a news story.
A tax write off is never free. Sure, you get a small fraction of the charity back on taxes, but never 100%. In the past, even in the not too distant past, it was common to keep the workers uncomfortable, it was considered ok to shout at them, not give them breaks, exploit the hell out of them. The time was when no one thought that a happy staff was important to the bottom line.
Having a diverse workplace is turning into one of those things that keeps the staff happy and keeps the customers happy.
There are people who will take the undesirable job because they need a job. Maybe they'll leave later to someplace more comfortable to work. But if you have no job, that's often more uncomfortable than working for a bigot.
You should want diversity in the work place. So don't throw away resumes based on race or gender or other protected classes. Treat them the same, even if you don't like their accent or color, look at the resume. If two people are equal, why always choose the white male? But...
I know companies don't hire only on merit. When I see only the smartest women get hired but tons of mediocre or incompetent white men are in the workforce, in all departments, then hiring is not being done on merit. When a minority is rare in your company but you still have screwups and chair warmers who are white males, then hiring isn't being done on merit. You won't have to walk very far to find the Wally in your company. Sometimes it's a mistake, the person looked good on paper but turned out to be a dud, only you can't fire him because he's got a good golf game. Sometimes, the idiot is friends with someone, and being a buddy means you get the job over anyone else more qualified. Sometimes the interviewers just aren't good at evaluating people so they go with their gut feelings ("white males are like me, so it's a safer bet than that person with the accent"). Sometimes they just want a warm body.
In any case, the argument that companies are hiring on merit is false. Companies should hire on merit and the problem is that they don't.