That's the law. If you are classified as an hourly worker you MUST take at least a 30 minute lunch break and have a 15 minute break for every 4 hours you work. Overtime is also regulated in a similar way.
But not paying people for their lunch breaks isn't a requirement of the law.
Does what we can teach through gaming actually matter in real life? What does, and what doesn't? Therefore: what should we continue to teach with books and discussion, and where can gaming be used positively?
Critical thinking. I benefitted tremendously from playing text adventures when I was a kid. I still see those benefits now.
Huh? That makes even less sense than what my original post was responding to. Why would I care that Dell has a tiny marketshare? I'm neither a Dell shareholder nor an employee. Don't even own a Dell.
Charting Gartner's sales numbers for PCs since 1991--including its estimated sales through 2010--provides Apple with an embarrassingly tiny bit of blue next to the towering yellow bar representing the entire worldwide PC market, even when the chart is expanded vertically to flatter Apple.
However, in the same January 2007 press release, a Gartner analyst also stated that "the PC industry battled for wallet share against other consumer electronics products, such as games consoles and flat panel TVs." In other words, the vast PC market is but part of a larger market: consumer electronics.
That "however" doesn't just make any sense. In terms of marketshare of computers, Apple is tiny. How does saying that the PC market is a subset of a larger market have any impact on the truthfullness of the previous paragraph? All that means is that the Mac's tiny slice of the market looks even smaller when you incorporate consumer electronics into your definition of the market.
Nope, I don't get it. If coal has been considered safe enough, and nuclear power is safer (once again let's assume this is true for the sake of this pretty useless argument), then nuclear power should also be considered safe enough. Seems pretty clear to me.
You'll agree that there is a difference between "should", and "is", right? Coal has been considered safe enough. The fact that people in general have had this opinion over the past few hundred years is a fact.
But people "should" consider things safe enough only if they are actually safe, right?
If people were making a mistake thinking that coal was safe, then just because coal is safer than nuclear energy, doesn't mean it's in fact safe.
Let's say we have a safety scale of 1 to 10, with 5 being "too dangerous for use". Let's say people used to generally considered coal at 0. Let's say it's actually at 8.
Let's say nuclear power is at 7.
So the statement "coal is safer that nuclear power" is true. The statement that "people used to consider coal safe" is true. But nuclear power, at 7, isn't safe. People shouldn't consider it safe, just because it's safer than coal. The fact that people used to consider coal safe does not mean it's actually safe, or that something safer than coal is in fact safe for human use.
I mean, it's safer to drink bleach than cyanide. Bleach could easily kill you, cyanide almost certainly would. That doesn't mean drinking bleach is safe.
I think the GP's point was the nuclear power is safe enough for use, not that it's completely safe.
If the GP wants to argue or even just assert that, that's fine, but using a fundamentally illogical argument isn't the way to do that.
Coal is unsafe. And yet it has been considered safe enough for practical use for hundreds of years.
Yes, it has.
Nuclear power is safer than coal.
Arguable, but for the sake of this argument, let's assume that's true, too.
Therefore it should be considered safe enough for practical use.
...And there's where you make a huge non sequitur.
Your first statement isn't that coal is safe, but rather coal HAS BEEN CONSIDERED safe enough. Logically this is not equivalent to the statement coal is safe. Therefore your last statement does not follow.
Get it?
So...using coal is unsafe. Therefore, using nuclear power can't be unsafe. Which dimension do you come from where that makes any sort of sense whatsoever?
Its like saying I drive sober 100,000 times in my life so i shouldn't get in trouble for the 60 times that i drive drunk.
No, it's like saying that a cop pulls over people he thinks are driving drunk 100,000 times, and 60 of those times it turned out they were sober. That's pretty good policing.
We need back the innovative company that brought you Commander Keen and Wolfenstein 3D
As an older (30+) gamer who played games heavily throughout the 90s, I have never understood the esteem that Commander Keen is held in. The graphics were pretty mediocre even for the time, the platform gameplay was tedious, and the responsiveness was lousy (though that was a very common problem in PC arcade-style games of the time).
Oh please. Completely wrong. A huge chunk of the liberal rich are urban professionals who made their money on their own. Look at how many liberals work in the financial sector, or are physicians or lawyers or business executives.
The liberal-conservative affiliations are based more on culture and geography than economic class.
If money were made outof nothing then there wouldn't be an issue. But it isn't and we have issues. When you take money from me to give to them, i know have to make that money up somehow.
Why? Just live on the $50,000 a month instead of the $60,000, you'll be quite comfortable.
Slashdot Mirror
However, I still find the idea of sending the punitive damages to a separate fund intriguing, and maybe applicable to other types of suits.
Some states already do that.
That's the law. If you are classified as an hourly worker you MUST take at least a 30 minute lunch break and have a 15 minute break for every 4 hours you work. Overtime is also regulated in a similar way.
But not paying people for their lunch breaks isn't a requirement of the law.
Huh? Polymorphic software gives you heavy artillery units it says.
Now we can build units with heavy artillery!
None of you got that, did you...
Penny Arcade is for people who don't get Megatokyo.
I get megatokyo fine. I used to read it until I realized that it was kind of really boring. So it got replaced by order of the stick.
Well as bad as megatokyo gets, at least it will never be as bad as user friendly. I have no idea how I ever enjoyed that travesty.
The weird thing is no matter how the lineup shuffles around, I always settle on three webcomics.
Yea, tape is pretty common. DVD burners simply aren't rated for backups as some burned DVDs don't have a very long shelf life.
Huh? Maybe the technology has changed since the olden days when I worked in IT, but I thought most tapes had a shelf life of maybe 6 months.
The title "engineer" or "programmer" would have no bearing legally.
Actually licensed engineers have additional standards they must meet, things that non-licensed engineers or programmers don't have to.
USA! USA!
Actually you can look him up on the bar website, he's technically in good standing.
Okay, let me put it this way, maybe you understand then: PCs have a tiny marketshare.
Why would I care if PCs have a tiny marketshare? You're accusing me of some weird bias but you're not making any sense.
Does what we can teach through gaming actually matter in real life? What does, and what doesn't? Therefore: what should we continue to teach with books and discussion, and where can gaming be used positively?
Critical thinking. I benefitted tremendously from playing text adventures when I was a kid. I still see those benefits now.
ANASD (I am not a sniffer dog)
Isn't it kind of pointless to explain extremely common acronyms like that?
Huh? That makes even less sense than what my original post was responding to. Why would I care that Dell has a tiny marketshare? I'm neither a Dell shareholder nor an employee. Don't even own a Dell.
That "however" doesn't just make any sense. In terms of marketshare of computers, Apple is tiny. How does saying that the PC market is a subset of a larger market have any impact on the truthfullness of the previous paragraph? All that means is that the Mac's tiny slice of the market looks even smaller when you incorporate consumer electronics into your definition of the market.
Nope, I don't get it. If coal has been considered safe enough, and nuclear power is safer (once again let's assume this is true for the sake of this pretty useless argument), then nuclear power should also be considered safe enough. Seems pretty clear to me.
You'll agree that there is a difference between "should", and "is", right? Coal has been considered safe enough. The fact that people in general have had this opinion over the past few hundred years is a fact.
But people "should" consider things safe enough only if they are actually safe, right?
If people were making a mistake thinking that coal was safe, then just because coal is safer than nuclear energy, doesn't mean it's in fact safe.
Let's say we have a safety scale of 1 to 10, with 5 being "too dangerous for use". Let's say people used to generally considered coal at 0. Let's say it's actually at 8.
Let's say nuclear power is at 7.
So the statement "coal is safer that nuclear power" is true. The statement that "people used to consider coal safe" is true. But nuclear power, at 7, isn't safe. People shouldn't consider it safe, just because it's safer than coal. The fact that people used to consider coal safe does not mean it's actually safe, or that something safer than coal is in fact safe for human use.
I mean, it's safer to drink bleach than cyanide. Bleach could easily kill you, cyanide almost certainly would. That doesn't mean drinking bleach is safe.
I think the GP's point was the nuclear power is safe enough for use, not that it's completely safe.
If the GP wants to argue or even just assert that, that's fine, but using a fundamentally illogical argument isn't the way to do that.
Perjury only applies to sworn statements, and you need willful intent to actually lie.
Coal is unsafe. And yet it has been considered safe enough for practical use for hundreds of years.
...And there's where you make a huge non sequitur.
Yes, it has.
Nuclear power is safer than coal.
Arguable, but for the sake of this argument, let's assume that's true, too.
Therefore it should be considered safe enough for practical use.
Your first statement isn't that coal is safe, but rather coal HAS BEEN CONSIDERED safe enough. Logically this is not equivalent to the statement coal is safe. Therefore your last statement does not follow. Get it?
What crime does that fall under exactly?
So...using coal is unsafe. Therefore, using nuclear power can't be unsafe. Which dimension do you come from where that makes any sort of sense whatsoever?
Its like saying I drive sober 100,000 times in my life so i shouldn't get in trouble for the 60 times that i drive drunk.
No, it's like saying that a cop pulls over people he thinks are driving drunk 100,000 times, and 60 of those times it turned out they were sober. That's pretty good policing.
We need back the innovative company that brought you Commander Keen and Wolfenstein 3D
As an older (30+) gamer who played games heavily throughout the 90s, I have never understood the esteem that Commander Keen is held in. The graphics were pretty mediocre even for the time, the platform gameplay was tedious, and the responsiveness was lousy (though that was a very common problem in PC arcade-style games of the time).
Wolfenstein 3D was awesome, though.
Every open source project runs into people who are selfish, uncooperative, and disrespectful.
AKA "coders".
It is only the "old rich" that are liberal.
Oh please. Completely wrong. A huge chunk of the liberal rich are urban professionals who made their money on their own. Look at how many liberals work in the financial sector, or are physicians or lawyers or business executives.
The liberal-conservative affiliations are based more on culture and geography than economic class.
If money were made outof nothing then there wouldn't be an issue. But it isn't and we have issues. When you take money from me to give to them, i know have to make that money up somehow.
Why? Just live on the $50,000 a month instead of the $60,000, you'll be quite comfortable.
Then why would the Democrats want to remove firearms from the hands of individual citizens?
Because they think guns are sufficiently dangerous that they shouldn't be floating around in such large numbers.