Well if you are a programmer then you should know that semantics can matter a lot.
I wouldn't say you engineer processes. I'd say you develop processes, just as I develop code.
What I do IS engineering by pretty much any commonly accepted definition of the term. I engineer assembly lines but it is engineering all the same. You instruct a machine to do a task which is definitely a form of engineering.
Its just some touchy feely people who want the engineering title. Look at "food service engineer."
That is different. There no engineering is taking place therefore the person doing it is not (at that time) an engineer.
Only if you purchase a measuring device with greater precision than you need. For example we have a set of micrometers at my shop that measure to three decimal places. We could have purchased ones that do more but since our presses that make the parts they measure cannot do better than +/-0.001" there is no point in having a measuring device more precise. That isn't an analog vs digital thing. These ones happen to be analog but we would have done the same thing if they were digital.
Also when comparing parts it's easier to just look at the approximate difference in dial movement than remember the two numbers and subtract them in my head.
Depends on what you are comparing I suppose. For what we do approximations are of no value at all. Either the part is in spec or it isn't. Perhaps what you are doing is different but that would be an unusual case.
in Canada you can't legally claim to be an engineer or do engineering without being a member of the professional body.
Which is complete nonsense because plenty of people do engineering every day in Canada which are not a member of any engineering organization. I have worked in Canada myself as an engineer and it even said engineer on my business cards and at no time was I ever "a member of the professional body". For the type of engineering I do there would be no point or purpose in joining a professional engineering organization.
There are certain engineering functions that require licensing, typically those involving public safety and liability related to said safety. And for those it make some amount of sense. But it isn't some sort of universal requirement, even in Canada.
While in general the definition of engineering applies to programmers, as practitioners of mathematics and science, I would agree the more excepted definition of building physical things is more appropriate.
I'm an engineer (among other things) and even have several degrees to prove it. But that isn't what really makes me an engineer. I'm an engineer because I do engineering. The types of engineering I do have nothing to do with building buildings and often aren't even about building physical objects. Most of what I do is properly termed process engineering. I don't design the object, I design the system to build it.
As such, programmers are not really engineers. I always describe myself as software developer, not software engineer.
Disagree. I'm not a programmer and you should call yourself whatever you are comfortable with. But I would call you an engineer because you are doing engineering work.
Likewise, someone calling themselves a Software Engineer doesn't imply that they are a Professional Engineer (PE).
I am a professional engineer. I'm not a Professional Engineer because I haven't bothered to take/pass that test. Anyone who does engineering work and gets paid for it is a professional engineer. (note the lower case) An engineer is one who does engineering work. A Professional Engineer is one who is licensed to perform certain types of engineering work. Having the PE registration only means they can legally provide certain engineering practices to the public, typically stuff like civil engineering where there are safety consequences. It's a legal requirement more so than a practical one. It's a regulatory attempt to ensure a base level of competence but not having a PE doesn't mean the person isn't an engineer nor does it mean they are not competent.
I designed computer chips, then later on controllers for spacecraft and don't own a cellphone. I'm fairly normal (I think, but don't we all). I had one, but never used it and it got lost.
You might be quite normal in many ways but not having a cell phone is decidedly not normal these days. I barely know anyone who doesn't have a cell phone. Some admittedly use them more than others and not everyone has a smart phone but it's actually kind of hard to find anyone who isn't a child who doesn't have one.
There is no concept of professional licensing for programmers, so there is no legal justification for this.
I don't hold a professional license but I assure you that I am an engineer (among other things). That would be true even if I didn't have a degree in engineering. An engineer is one who does engineering. Any other criteria is superfluous. Now if you are talking about credentialing for legal/liability reasons then that is a separate issue. For certain activities you want to have reasonable assurance of competence. That is what a PE license is for. But most engineers are not certified nor is there any reason for them to be.
Also, programming is not an applied science, so there is no philosophical reason for this.
"Engineering is the application of mathematics, empirical evidence and scientific, economic, social, and practical knowledge in order to invent, design, build, maintain, research, and improve structures, machines, tools, systems, components, materials, and processes." It's more than just application of science to a problem. Programming absolutely can be engineering. It is instructing a machine to do a function. If that isn't engineering then nothing else is either.
If you are doing engineering then you are an engineer. What degrees or certificates you hold is irrelevant. My father worked as an engineer for the phone company for years but hold no formal degrees of any kind. Engineering is defined as "the application of mathematics, empirical evidence and scientific, economic, social, and practical knowledge in order to invent, design, build, maintain, research, and improve structures, machines, tools, systems, components, materials, and processes." If you are doing that then you are an engineer.
Yes but that doesn't mean their job gets priority over the actual business being conducted. Security is important and serious but it is not paramount.
Yes, the goals of the secpro often conflict with the goals of the desktop support technician, but in the end security is more important than usability.
Wrong. The only way to get perfect security is to make it effectively impossible to do anything useful. Security is very rarely more important than utility even for organizations like the military whose job is security. That doesn't mean security is unimportant or that some utility cannot be traded for security but a company that is perfectly secure will be out of business faster than you can say "Chapter 11".
Your job is really about securing access to data, and nothing else.
Wrong. A security pro's job is to be an advocate for security and help the organization balance security needs against functional needs. Their jobs is to help avoid the landmines and mitigate risk. Someone who doesn't realize this will be useless in their security job. A security pro who actually thinks security trumps all would be like a guard who thinks everyone should be strip searched upon entering a building. It's just not realistic, practical nor will it be acceptable.
I have Starett analog caliper and micrometer, and another Starett analog caliper in metric. I HATE digital calipers.
Other than the battery issue I don't really understand why you would dislike digital calipers. Our shop uses both analog and digital. The ONLY real advantage to analog is that you don't have to change batteries ever, which for some situations is nice. Otherwise the calibration procedures are the same and they work similarly effectively. Digital ones in my experience tend to be modestly easier to use but the difference is very minor outside of some specialty applications.
If you get drawings in both metric and US customary like us, carrying two measuring devices quickly becomes tiresome. Digital can switch between with a press of a button which is nice. Digital calipers can also output readings to a computer directly which can be really handy if you do a lot of it for stuff like PPAPs. There's nothing wrong with a good analog measuring device but there's nothing wrong with a good digital one either.
Slide Rules were the first personal computers and a status symbol akin to what cellphones are today.
"Status symbol"? Maybe if you were in physics class with the other geeks. More of a scarlet letter to the rest of the population.
Don't get me wrong, I've used a slide rule (dad lent me his) and rocked it proudly but let's not pretend it was a status symbol outside of a very narrow group of people.
Isn't it proper journalism practice to define acronyms on their first use, then continue on using the acronym through the remainder of the story?
Slashdot isn't journalism. Slashdot is a debate forum that is kinda sorta vaguely topical. Nobody comes to slashdot for breaking news. They come to debate things and occasionally be informed with a viewpoint they might not have considered previously.
If we can't even stop people that we know think this sort of terrorist attack is okay, then what the fuck will logging everyone's data achieve?
Power. Influence. Fear. Control.
This has nothing to do with terrorism and never did. "Stopping terrorism" is just a means to an end, not the end itself. Like you point out, I'm not aware of a single instance where the criminals were not already known to the authorities for reasons that had nothing to do with their facebook status. This is the police and intelligence services doing a power grab under the fig leaf of "combating terrorism". Much like the TSA in the US it won't result in any actual terrorists being caught but it will give these services vast new capabilities they can use to stay in power.
How will people respond accordingly if it's illegal to carry a gun into a flight?
Newsflash. There are ways of dealing with Bad Guys other than shooting them. It doesn't even matter if the Bad Guys are armed themselves if the number of passengers is greater than the number of bullets. Anyone trying to hijack a plane today will get beaten down almost immediately by the passengers. No point in sitting quietly if you think you are going to die anyway.
Is there an officer in each flight?
Not relevant. Nobody is going to wait for the police. Anyone starts some shit on a plan now and half the passengers will curb stomp them and tie them up until the plane can land.
The tracking protection only appears to work in Private Windows. It should work by default if you want it to, with or without Private Windows. I have NO interest in being tracked regardless of mode unless I opt-in to such tracking. (can't imagine me doing that but I should control the option)
What you can say on air: can be covered by laws about printing presses (which they had at the time.) All you need is that the law isn't specific to ink-on-paper technology.
Generic laws are often not appropriate in new circumstances. While you could in principle apply the same standards for speech, it's pretty easy to show cases where that isn't really optimal in different formats. Furthermore radio communications isn't just broadcasting. There is a LOT more to it than that.
The radio spectrum itself wasn't discovered, but you could certainly have a generic law about the use & regulation of any severely limited resource that becomes popular.
That's a framework but there still are radio specific nuances that need laws for radio specific issues. What sort of frequencies can you transmit? Who is allowed? What sort of power is acceptable? How do you prevent interference? Etc. None of these issues could be covered adequately by a generic law. We have the FCC precisely because we need a neutral arbiter to keep the airwaves usable and avoid a tragedy of the commons situation.
Why should laws keep up with technology? Laws should be written in such a way that the technology involved doesn't matter.
Kind of adorable that you think that is possible. Oh you can put a general framework out there but there ALWAYS are going to be specific details that need legislation. Congress in the 1700s could not possible have written a law that deals adequately with the nuances of radio communications 200 years later. Nobody is so smart as to be able to write laws in such a way that technology doesn't matter. Furthermore any law that is so broad as to cover everything will have innumerable corner case, loopholes and problems. You need a good framework but sooner or later you are going to have to get into the ugly specifics.
I want to work. I DON'T want to work at drudgery! Who does? No one... but I'll gladly do interesting work.
I don't really care if you enjoy your work or not. That's your concern. I genuinely hope you do like what you do but we all have to do things sometimes that we don't enjoy. Deal with it if it isn't fun and work towards something better but don't pretend you are entitled to only do things you enjoy, particularly if others are paying the bills. I've worked a number of jobs that were anything but fun. My parents worked jobs they hated for good portions of their lives to take care of me and to build a better life in the long run. Wasn't always fun and they certainly didn't feel they were entitled to avoid everything that didn't interest them. Life just doesn't work that way.
With a basic income, and basic healthcare, I would quit my $70k/year job and the benefits, and work on my side business of building musical instruments.... Work I already do, because I love it.
So you have a side business but you haven't figured out how to make it profitable yet? I've done that myself and that's great. But if you cannot eventually turn that into a sustainable enterprise I have NO interest in supporting your hobby indefinitely. Ask your family to support you if they are willing. If you want to come to me looking for an investment we can talk but pay you with my tax dollars to support your hobby? No thanks. Figure out how to fund that yourself.
I think you're just a curmudgeon, and like most people, you think everyone is like you. They're not.
"Curmudgeon" huh? So thinking that everyone should do something productive and valuable to society makes me a curmudgeon? (A bad tempered or surly person) Weird logic you have there. I very much do NOT want everyone to be like me. That would be a very boring world. I'm also something of a relentless optimist. But I'm old enough that I don't have any delusions about human nature either. People who have nothing demanded of them routinely produce nothing of value.
There is a huge difference between "winning the lottery" and "basic income".
There are plenty of people who treat them basically the same, weird as that sounds.
Some people would be happy to sit at home and do nothing except watch TV all day. So?
So I have no interest in paying for them to do that. If they want to earn enough money to do that, fine. (and I consider stay-at-home parenting to be value added activity so that's fine too) Then they have contributed something to society. If all they want to do is sponge off others when they are perfectly capable of working then they can just go ahead and starve as far as I'm concerned. I have enough on my plate supporting myself and my family. I don't need to support others who can support themselves.
You must know different people than I do. Most people I know would MUCH rather not work even if it is good for them. I've had a number employees of mine fraudulently claim disability. There isn't a single person on my staff at work that I believe would continue to work for a paycheck if they didn't have to.
I have enough money to never need to work another day in my life, yet I still enjoy being productive.
Even if that is true, it is not representative of a large portion of the population. I like the way Wanda Sykes put it in her stand up act. "If I won the lottery I'd walk off the stage in the middle of this joke." I know people who would continue to work if they didn't have to (I am one) but I don't think that describes anything close to a majority of the population.
How do you write down business hours on a door with that system?
Similar to how we do it now. Our current date and time system works from an epoch so it's really not much different. You'd need some sort of offset for a day for purely practical reasons. There are about 86164 seconds in a sidereal day but adjust the number to something close the actual rotation. Then it's just a multiple of that number from the epoch. Then you post the business hours as 32 kiloseconds to 64 kiloseconds. (that would be about 8 hours) Label the work week however you like. Could even remain the same as it is now if we like a 7 day week, though it might make sense to make a "week" 10 days or 5 days.
Same reason we should get rid of that DST crap. Simple = far fewer accidents.
Yep, go to DST year around. I have no use for daylight during working hours or during my morning commute. I do have a use for it after I get home. DST all year!
Because the primary function of time since the dawn of civilization has been to allow human activity to synchronize with the position of the sun, from planting seasons to night watches.
Most human beings have lives that are affected by sunlight.
The sunlight will happen at its own schedule whether or not we set our watches and calendars by it. We use Daylight Saving Time in large part precisely because the standard definition (noon = sun at highest point) doesn't actually work well for many of us. I don't really care if daylight starts at 7am or 7pm and it won't change fast enough within my lifetime for it to affect me much.
Slashdot Mirror
Its really just semantics over the word.
Well if you are a programmer then you should know that semantics can matter a lot.
I wouldn't say you engineer processes. I'd say you develop processes, just as I develop code.
What I do IS engineering by pretty much any commonly accepted definition of the term. I engineer assembly lines but it is engineering all the same. You instruct a machine to do a task which is definitely a form of engineering.
Its just some touchy feely people who want the engineering title. Look at "food service engineer."
That is different. There no engineering is taking place therefore the person doing it is not (at that time) an engineer.
The digital give me too much information,
Only if you purchase a measuring device with greater precision than you need. For example we have a set of micrometers at my shop that measure to three decimal places. We could have purchased ones that do more but since our presses that make the parts they measure cannot do better than +/-0.001" there is no point in having a measuring device more precise. That isn't an analog vs digital thing. These ones happen to be analog but we would have done the same thing if they were digital.
Also when comparing parts it's easier to just look at the approximate difference in dial movement than remember the two numbers and subtract them in my head.
Depends on what you are comparing I suppose. For what we do approximations are of no value at all. Either the part is in spec or it isn't. Perhaps what you are doing is different but that would be an unusual case.
in Canada you can't legally claim to be an engineer or do engineering without being a member of the professional body.
Which is complete nonsense because plenty of people do engineering every day in Canada which are not a member of any engineering organization. I have worked in Canada myself as an engineer and it even said engineer on my business cards and at no time was I ever "a member of the professional body". For the type of engineering I do there would be no point or purpose in joining a professional engineering organization.
There are certain engineering functions that require licensing, typically those involving public safety and liability related to said safety. And for those it make some amount of sense. But it isn't some sort of universal requirement, even in Canada.
While in general the definition of engineering applies to programmers, as practitioners of mathematics and science, I would agree the more excepted definition of building physical things is more appropriate.
I'm an engineer (among other things) and even have several degrees to prove it. But that isn't what really makes me an engineer. I'm an engineer because I do engineering. The types of engineering I do have nothing to do with building buildings and often aren't even about building physical objects. Most of what I do is properly termed process engineering. I don't design the object, I design the system to build it.
As such, programmers are not really engineers. I always describe myself as software developer, not software engineer.
Disagree. I'm not a programmer and you should call yourself whatever you are comfortable with. But I would call you an engineer because you are doing engineering work.
Likewise, someone calling themselves a Software Engineer doesn't imply that they are a Professional Engineer (PE).
I am a professional engineer. I'm not a Professional Engineer because I haven't bothered to take/pass that test. Anyone who does engineering work and gets paid for it is a professional engineer. (note the lower case) An engineer is one who does engineering work. A Professional Engineer is one who is licensed to perform certain types of engineering work. Having the PE registration only means they can legally provide certain engineering practices to the public, typically stuff like civil engineering where there are safety consequences. It's a legal requirement more so than a practical one. It's a regulatory attempt to ensure a base level of competence but not having a PE doesn't mean the person isn't an engineer nor does it mean they are not competent.
I designed computer chips, then later on controllers for spacecraft and don't own a cellphone. I'm fairly normal (I think, but don't we all). I had one, but never used it and it got lost.
You might be quite normal in many ways but not having a cell phone is decidedly not normal these days. I barely know anyone who doesn't have a cell phone. Some admittedly use them more than others and not everyone has a smart phone but it's actually kind of hard to find anyone who isn't a child who doesn't have one.
There is no concept of professional licensing for programmers, so there is no legal justification for this.
I don't hold a professional license but I assure you that I am an engineer (among other things). That would be true even if I didn't have a degree in engineering. An engineer is one who does engineering. Any other criteria is superfluous. Now if you are talking about credentialing for legal/liability reasons then that is a separate issue. For certain activities you want to have reasonable assurance of competence. That is what a PE license is for. But most engineers are not certified nor is there any reason for them to be.
Also, programming is not an applied science, so there is no philosophical reason for this.
"Engineering is the application of mathematics, empirical evidence and scientific, economic, social, and practical knowledge in order to invent, design, build, maintain, research, and improve structures, machines, tools, systems, components, materials, and processes." It's more than just application of science to a problem. Programming absolutely can be engineering. It is instructing a machine to do a function. If that isn't engineering then nothing else is either.
If you are doing engineering then you are an engineer. What degrees or certificates you hold is irrelevant. My father worked as an engineer for the phone company for years but hold no formal degrees of any kind. Engineering is defined as "the application of mathematics, empirical evidence and scientific, economic, social, and practical knowledge in order to invent, design, build, maintain, research, and improve structures, machines, tools, systems, components, materials, and processes." If you are doing that then you are an engineer.
The Security Professional's job is security.
Yes but that doesn't mean their job gets priority over the actual business being conducted. Security is important and serious but it is not paramount.
Yes, the goals of the secpro often conflict with the goals of the desktop support technician, but in the end security is more important than usability.
Wrong. The only way to get perfect security is to make it effectively impossible to do anything useful. Security is very rarely more important than utility even for organizations like the military whose job is security. That doesn't mean security is unimportant or that some utility cannot be traded for security but a company that is perfectly secure will be out of business faster than you can say "Chapter 11".
Your job is really about securing access to data, and nothing else.
Wrong. A security pro's job is to be an advocate for security and help the organization balance security needs against functional needs. Their jobs is to help avoid the landmines and mitigate risk. Someone who doesn't realize this will be useless in their security job. A security pro who actually thinks security trumps all would be like a guard who thinks everyone should be strip searched upon entering a building. It's just not realistic, practical nor will it be acceptable.
I have Starett analog caliper and micrometer, and another Starett analog caliper in metric. I HATE digital calipers.
Other than the battery issue I don't really understand why you would dislike digital calipers. Our shop uses both analog and digital. The ONLY real advantage to analog is that you don't have to change batteries ever, which for some situations is nice. Otherwise the calibration procedures are the same and they work similarly effectively. Digital ones in my experience tend to be modestly easier to use but the difference is very minor outside of some specialty applications.
If you get drawings in both metric and US customary like us, carrying two measuring devices quickly becomes tiresome. Digital can switch between with a press of a button which is nice. Digital calipers can also output readings to a computer directly which can be really handy if you do a lot of it for stuff like PPAPs. There's nothing wrong with a good analog measuring device but there's nothing wrong with a good digital one either.
Slide Rules were the first personal computers and a status symbol akin to what cellphones are today.
"Status symbol"? Maybe if you were in physics class with the other geeks. More of a scarlet letter to the rest of the population.
Don't get me wrong, I've used a slide rule (dad lent me his) and rocked it proudly but let's not pretend it was a status symbol outside of a very narrow group of people.
Isn't it proper journalism practice to define acronyms on their first use, then continue on using the acronym through the remainder of the story?
Slashdot isn't journalism. Slashdot is a debate forum that is kinda sorta vaguely topical. Nobody comes to slashdot for breaking news. They come to debate things and occasionally be informed with a viewpoint they might not have considered previously.
If we can't even stop people that we know think this sort of terrorist attack is okay, then what the fuck will logging everyone's data achieve?
Power. Influence. Fear. Control.
This has nothing to do with terrorism and never did. "Stopping terrorism" is just a means to an end, not the end itself. Like you point out, I'm not aware of a single instance where the criminals were not already known to the authorities for reasons that had nothing to do with their facebook status. This is the police and intelligence services doing a power grab under the fig leaf of "combating terrorism". Much like the TSA in the US it won't result in any actual terrorists being caught but it will give these services vast new capabilities they can use to stay in power.
Probably the most easily spotted contraband I have accidentally brought through was an almost full box of 7.62x54r
"Accidentally"? RIIIIIIIIGHT...
I believe you might have done that. I don't believe for a moment that it was an accident if you did.
How will people respond accordingly if it's illegal to carry a gun into a flight?
Newsflash. There are ways of dealing with Bad Guys other than shooting them. It doesn't even matter if the Bad Guys are armed themselves if the number of passengers is greater than the number of bullets. Anyone trying to hijack a plane today will get beaten down almost immediately by the passengers. No point in sitting quietly if you think you are going to die anyway.
Is there an officer in each flight?
Not relevant. Nobody is going to wait for the police. Anyone starts some shit on a plan now and half the passengers will curb stomp them and tie them up until the plane can land.
The tracking protection only appears to work in Private Windows. It should work by default if you want it to, with or without Private Windows. I have NO interest in being tracked regardless of mode unless I opt-in to such tracking. (can't imagine me doing that but I should control the option)
What you can say on air: can be covered by laws about printing presses (which they had at the time.) All you need is that the law isn't specific to ink-on-paper technology.
Generic laws are often not appropriate in new circumstances. While you could in principle apply the same standards for speech, it's pretty easy to show cases where that isn't really optimal in different formats. Furthermore radio communications isn't just broadcasting. There is a LOT more to it than that.
The radio spectrum itself wasn't discovered, but you could certainly have a generic law about the use & regulation of any severely limited resource that becomes popular.
That's a framework but there still are radio specific nuances that need laws for radio specific issues. What sort of frequencies can you transmit? Who is allowed? What sort of power is acceptable? How do you prevent interference? Etc. None of these issues could be covered adequately by a generic law. We have the FCC precisely because we need a neutral arbiter to keep the airwaves usable and avoid a tragedy of the commons situation.
Why should laws keep up with technology? Laws should be written in such a way that the technology involved doesn't matter.
Kind of adorable that you think that is possible. Oh you can put a general framework out there but there ALWAYS are going to be specific details that need legislation. Congress in the 1700s could not possible have written a law that deals adequately with the nuances of radio communications 200 years later. Nobody is so smart as to be able to write laws in such a way that technology doesn't matter. Furthermore any law that is so broad as to cover everything will have innumerable corner case, loopholes and problems. You need a good framework but sooner or later you are going to have to get into the ugly specifics.
I want to work. I DON'T want to work at drudgery! Who does? No one... but I'll gladly do interesting work.
I don't really care if you enjoy your work or not. That's your concern. I genuinely hope you do like what you do but we all have to do things sometimes that we don't enjoy. Deal with it if it isn't fun and work towards something better but don't pretend you are entitled to only do things you enjoy, particularly if others are paying the bills. I've worked a number of jobs that were anything but fun. My parents worked jobs they hated for good portions of their lives to take care of me and to build a better life in the long run. Wasn't always fun and they certainly didn't feel they were entitled to avoid everything that didn't interest them. Life just doesn't work that way.
With a basic income, and basic healthcare, I would quit my $70k/year job and the benefits, and work on my side business of building musical instruments.... Work I already do, because I love it.
So you have a side business but you haven't figured out how to make it profitable yet? I've done that myself and that's great. But if you cannot eventually turn that into a sustainable enterprise I have NO interest in supporting your hobby indefinitely. Ask your family to support you if they are willing. If you want to come to me looking for an investment we can talk but pay you with my tax dollars to support your hobby? No thanks. Figure out how to fund that yourself.
I think you're just a curmudgeon, and like most people, you think everyone is like you. They're not.
"Curmudgeon" huh? So thinking that everyone should do something productive and valuable to society makes me a curmudgeon? (A bad tempered or surly person) Weird logic you have there. I very much do NOT want everyone to be like me. That would be a very boring world. I'm also something of a relentless optimist. But I'm old enough that I don't have any delusions about human nature either. People who have nothing demanded of them routinely produce nothing of value.
There is a huge difference between "winning the lottery" and "basic income".
There are plenty of people who treat them basically the same, weird as that sounds.
Some people would be happy to sit at home and do nothing except watch TV all day. So?
So I have no interest in paying for them to do that. If they want to earn enough money to do that, fine. (and I consider stay-at-home parenting to be value added activity so that's fine too) Then they have contributed something to society. If all they want to do is sponge off others when they are perfectly capable of working then they can just go ahead and starve as far as I'm concerned. I have enough on my plate supporting myself and my family. I don't need to support others who can support themselves.
Most people want to work
You must know different people than I do. Most people I know would MUCH rather not work even if it is good for them. I've had a number employees of mine fraudulently claim disability. There isn't a single person on my staff at work that I believe would continue to work for a paycheck if they didn't have to.
I have enough money to never need to work another day in my life, yet I still enjoy being productive.
Even if that is true, it is not representative of a large portion of the population. I like the way Wanda Sykes put it in her stand up act. "If I won the lottery I'd walk off the stage in the middle of this joke." I know people who would continue to work if they didn't have to (I am one) but I don't think that describes anything close to a majority of the population.
I'm curious how inflation will not eat up most/all of this. I'm also curious how many people will simply decide to do nothing and live on the dole.
I think the intentions are good but I'm pretty dubious this will actually work and be net beneficial to society. Hope I'm wrong but doubt I am...
How do you write down business hours on a door with that system?
Similar to how we do it now. Our current date and time system works from an epoch so it's really not much different. You'd need some sort of offset for a day for purely practical reasons. There are about 86164 seconds in a sidereal day but adjust the number to something close the actual rotation. Then it's just a multiple of that number from the epoch. Then you post the business hours as 32 kiloseconds to 64 kiloseconds. (that would be about 8 hours) Label the work week however you like. Could even remain the same as it is now if we like a 7 day week, though it might make sense to make a "week" 10 days or 5 days.
Same reason we should get rid of that DST crap. Simple = far fewer accidents.
Yep, go to DST year around. I have no use for daylight during working hours or during my morning commute. I do have a use for it after I get home. DST all year!
Because the primary function of time since the dawn of civilization has been to allow human activity to synchronize with the position of the sun, from planting seasons to night watches.
Most human beings have lives that are affected by sunlight.
The sunlight will happen at its own schedule whether or not we set our watches and calendars by it. We use Daylight Saving Time in large part precisely because the standard definition (noon = sun at highest point) doesn't actually work well for many of us. I don't really care if daylight starts at 7am or 7pm and it won't change fast enough within my lifetime for it to affect me much.