I disagree there is a climate of "anti-science"; global warming debate notwithstanding, where is this new eschewing of science? Religion? That was always around, that's not new. Look at the rash of scientific discoveries made just this year alone. And for last year, http://news.nationalgeographic....
I'd say science is moving ahead pretty well, though I too would like to see it get more funding, especially for experimental research.
Read that page again. The strongest documented discrimination is over the race of the victim:
White Defendant / Black Victim (20)
Black Defendant / White Victim (270)
A black person who kills a white person is far more likely to be prosecuted and sentenced to death than vice versa.
Reread it again. That comparison is without relative context, they're not percentages: It's very possible that simply, more blacks are killing white people than white people are killing blacks, resulting in their higher percentage of interracial crime leading to higher instances of executions. The numbers given there do not state out of how many cases total there were, simply that more blacks were executed for killing whites than vice versa.
The solid statistic here is that 43.10% of deathrow inmates are whites, opposed to the lower percentage of 41.71% for blacks, which is contrary to everything you normally hear spouted on TV and newspapers.
It's not meant as a deterrent, you're right, it doesn't work as one. it's meant to simply eliminate remorseless, hopelessly evil people from the world.
The US has a high population than many other countries, thus a higher crime rate than those countries, but also an open news media, so nearly every crime is tracked and reported, and even sometimes makes national news if it serves an agenda.
If you look at http://www.nationmaster.com/co... there's even a disclaimer that states, "DEFINITION: Note: Crime statistics are often better indicators of prevalence of law enforcement and willingness to report crime, than actual prevalence.."
There is also a difference between a murder and an execution: a murder of an innocent is unprovoked; killing a murderer is not unprovoked and he/she is not innocent. (Granted, they should be DAMN SURE they guy they're executing is indeed the guilty party, in this particular case, it was no contest). Frankly it's akin to killing cancer cells. Rehabilitation where violent criminals are concerned is an extreme rarity, practically a myth. And I'm fairly sure that more than half the vocal anti-death penalty crowd here would suddenly drop their lofty principles if the man strapped in the gurney was Dick Cheney.
It looks like you fell for the old Republicans versus Democrats ruse. Like a college football rivalry, you don't pay attention to the details but instead root for the home team while yelling disparaging remarks about the other team. Using this way of thinking, you believe every stereotype given and you are in danger of endorsing or discrediting an legislative initiative based solely is it was sponsored by a republican or a democrat.
Republicans love taxes just as much as democrats. The main difference between the two parties could be boiled down to who pays the taxes and what the government spends the money on.
Republicans prefer that the working class pay the majority of the taxes and government spend its money on national defense and corporate subsidies.This redistributes the money from the working class to the wealthy via government contracts and outright corporate welfare.
This isn't fair. Republicans in general want lower taxes because they want less burden on businesses to stimulate the economy (especially difficult on small businesses), and smaller federal government with less bloat (except on defense, point taken). The constitution calls for a federal government that provides for a common currency and a national defense, but shouldn't be much more than the mortar that supports the bricks which are the separate states. This is what the right wing wants. The left wing wants a monolithic government with ever increasing federal powers, where the states are little more than provinces under central control.
Republicans would prefer lower taxes for the working class too, not just the rich. No one is looking to tax the crap out of the working stiff and give it to the rich, because you can't get blood from a stone; and the more the middle class shrinks, the more this holds true. It's unsustainable.
There is no logic in the notion of wealth redistribution; "wealth" is not a finite zero sum game of some kind where if I have more, you must have less (unless I specifically work for you, and you give yourself huge bonuses from the company coffers while I get boned..but both Rs and Ds happily do that.) If you believe otherwise, you'd believe simply printing more money makes the country richer.
The most ridiculous claims I've heard lately accuse rich people of "hoarding" their money, as though this ties up the money other people need; in fact, that money is in full circulation, since the banks use that money for loans, and stock investments are used by corporations. It's not the 1930s anymore when people literally stashed their cash under their mattress.
They justify this by using the "job creator" story. Unfortunately its been shown that most of the new employers are small businesses whose owners aren't in the wealthy class.
Wait, didn't you just state that republicans prefer to, in essence, give money to the rich via taxing the working class and subsidizing powerful corporations? If this doesn't work because most of these employers are small business owners, then why would they justify it? Sounds like they're trying to help out small business owners, to me.
The wealthy do spend money but trickle down economics doesn't take globalization in consideration and therefore most of the currency is exported in exchange for cheaper goods. The wealthy tend to be more libertarian since they are self sufficient and view regulations as a cost with little benefit.
Agreed that globalization does change the rules of the game, as it's no longer as closed a system as it was. That's going to take decades to level out -- if ever. Still, the basic idea that, if a company is doing well it expands and in doing so means hiring and promoting more workers, is sound. Except that offshoring labor for dirt cheap wages is mucking with that.
Democrats differ slightly on taxation since they want the wealthy to pay their "fair share" of the tax burden and want to lessen the tax burden on the lowest inc
Agreed. I also keep a small amount of skepticism alive in the theoretical sciences and cosmology, in the back of my head.
When the knowledge of the natural sciences can be used in the applied sciences, you know you have it right; but on the fringe of the natural sciences, there should be a little wiggle room. Example, imagine our embarrassment if it turns out the "standard candle" is somehow not truly standard after all; our entire estimation of the size and age of the universe is based on them. A revision of that one accepted scientific fact would change everything.
Dont kid yourself, when people find terms unreasonable, casual copying becomes justifiable.
Ultimately piracy is a delivery problem, not a legal one. Here in Australia if I want to watch Game of Thrones
Note that your key word here is "want".. not "need". And what people find unreasonable is certainly a subjective decision which will vary with individual and circumstance, and therefore falls anywhere from meaningful to meaningless. It is deemed justifiable only if you feel you are somehow entitled to the content they created and distribute.
I just wait for GoT to come out on BluRay, and buy it for $35 on amazon.com. Granted I'm a year behind this way, but I'm not paying for the extravagance that is HBO and other channels in a forced Comcast package for just one series. I still get to watch it though, without rationalizing not paying for it.
Not that I'm doing an anti-piracy rant, I'm not, I've done it myself before, when I was younger. I just don't believe in trying to rationalize it.
Well, we've got a truckload of butthurt nerds here apparently, who can't just relax and enjoy a funny show and laugh a little at themselves, or at least, their stereotypes, and recognize them for just that.
Why so serious? I've seen these arguments here before. Leonard's asthma/inhaler are bit over the top and cliched, granted, but it's just a show. I don't go to comic book stores or buy Batman or Star Wars figurines, and never did, but I know some geeky types who do that.
Another demographic joins the "I'm offended" crowd. *sigh*
No. Tall chairs exist. We used them all the time at our benches in the research labs. Part of the time you stand, part of the time you sit. Whichever is comfortable and works with your current activity.
Personally I'd love this. I always prefer to sit "up high" anyway, like a tall "bar" or restaurant stool. Sitting all day long is definitely not healthy but at least with these it's easy to go back and forth.
That's one way to skew it. But this is flatly oversimplified, I'm surprised intelligent people take this for reality, that people x or y are simply good or evil, as if this is an epic fantasy story. The truth lies in the middle, as usual. Republicans may tend to be less than empathetic about people down on their luck, but not entirely. Unemployment benefits have been extended how many times now? How many people in this country are using food stamps now? It's a disturbing trend. You're not doing people any favors with endless handouts.
One could argue that it's exactly the same way that Democrats/liberals frame and abuse the term "compassion" to get people to vote for more spending and taxing, presumably on social programs, portraying ever more and larger groups as victimized and utterly helpless, when a good deal of that targeted tax income goes into government bloat. Taking into account the fact that the country is already $16 trillion in debt; yet 29% of the budget was spent on welfare and health in 2013. (Military was 13%) this hardly smacks of incompassion, except maybe to future generations who have to incur this debt. The irony is, the more taxes go up, and Democrats know this, it's the middle class that suffers, which in turn makes more of them fall into that lower class needing help; the cycle continues and results in more money and power to the government, and more dependence by the people. The middle class is stuck in the middle.
If Republicans pander to the rich, then Democrats pander to people who believe they will "get something" from the government, whether compassionately justifiable or not, in order to secure more votes. How ironic is it then that more Democrats in congress are millionaires than Republicans?
To reiterate my first paragraph, I don't believe all democratic politicians are like this. But many are.Same with republicans, they're not all old evil white men. But some are.
Absolutely some people need assistance. Shit happens.
But if you think the system isn't rife with abuse and waste, and couldn't use some trimming, you're kidding yourself. Every government program is, including the military. It's a game to both parties.
Yeah, and supposedly this school has a zero tolerance policy towards bullying.
All that means is that their policy is to ignore bullying and pretend it doesn't exist, to do otherwise would admit a problem exists which tarnishes the public image of the school.
It should read, "zero tolerance policy towards recognizing bullying".
That's dark. I like it. 7 [i]billion [/i]people on the planet, a number of whom are just shit (as is evident in this story), we don't need them; they're part of the problem, not the solution. Some may change for the better eventually, but some never will.
I'm just surprised that here on "capital punishment is wrong" slashdot, you're modded up to the max for suggesting 86'ing someone.
I think you hit the nail on the head. This bully was clearly protected. I want to see every school official who went along with this fiasco fired with extreme prejudice, and the judge should be reprimanded or even disbarred. Anyone have the name of this Pennsylvania school?
That's how the entertainment industry would LIKE people to consume their media. Paying them directly, then supporting them indirectly through ad revenue as well.
So, in other words, exactly like a cable subscription.
Exactly this. Double dipping bastages. I feel like I pay $100 a month to watch a few hours of commercials every week, and maybe a few hours of actual show.
Every single time I surf the menu and see something that looks appealing, and change the channel, it's right to 5 minutes of commercials. Every. Single. Time.
I'm about 15 minutes from you, but I'm not aware of any other options than Verizon or Comcast; they're competitors but sometimes it feels like they're one big monopoly. Right now I have DSL w/ verizon, and Comcast for (way overpriced) cableTV. Our cable TV drops out and glitches a lot, and Verizon will never deliver FIOS in my town. I suppose it could be worse though.
Oh woe is them, the IRS, an innocent government entity whose sole purpose of existence is to merely collect money for the benevolent (since being headed by Obama) US government, and the poor things are so unfairly villainized by us selfish, self important American people who expect due process of all things; why, the nerve!! Clearly this is all the Republicans fault. But wait, isn't collecting money for the government more consistent with big government and by extension, socialism? Yes, yes, must be the republicans behind that...
You'd think they could manage the weather better too. I won't see squat because I'm on the East coast. I think we get more precipitation around here than Seattle anymore. I didn't place an order for this!
It's just plain thoughtless and inconsiderate!
Actually I wouldn't be surprised if I could find an American lawyer who would actually take my case if I said I wanted to sue Accuweather .;-p
I've had an account for a few years now (under my real name, darn it), and have posted all of two or three times; the only reason I joined was for a contest.. and I won. (I got a free Kymera wand out of the deal, totally worth it)
Other than that, I just don't see much call for it.
Beat me to it. These things are probably cyclic: Massive breakthrough(s), rapid acceleration of learning and application, long period of plateau; breakthrough, etc..
Or so I hope. Every learned person in history that has said, "man has learned everything he is going to", or "that is just ridiculous/impossible" should know better, and were proven wrong time and again. The next plateau could last a long time, decades, centuries, even a millennia.. but eventually, there will be a breakthrough, maybe how to manipulate gravity, and the the process repeats.
My thoughts exactly; Otherwise, mathematics proves you can get something from absolutely nothing - IOW, magic. . In the words of Grace Slick, logic and proportion have fallen sloppy dead.
If this were truly the case, it'd be as supernatural as the God explanation.
For there to be "fluctuations" there has to be something to actually fluctuate.
French companies can have 24x7 coverage, however they cannot force people to work after hours. Those people who elect to work odd hours or overtime are paid for doing so. Sounds just fine to me: it prevents a race to the bottom, and looking at the statistics French workers do just fine in terms of productivity.
Well, since this law just passed (?), there are no useful statistics on it just yet.
If they have people 24/7 with those being "normal" hours for some, then yeah, they should be okay; but if the corporations start getting stingy(er) and start laying off people, or people quit, and the boss expects others to pick up the workload, then they'll have a problem.. at least, that's how they operate around here!).
Presumably this law would probably prevent that, so I guess that's a good thing!
You forgot, "All old white men are evil clueless bigoted racist rich bastards who dance on the backs of the poor, play golf, and retire to Florida"
I hear quite a lot of that around here.
Well, "evidence" is hard to provide, but to (accurately) invoke the old saying "The plural of anecdote is data":
This needs to be pointed out a little more around here, I think. Those who are mired in their particular brand of ideology are quick to denounce other people's real world experiences which disagree with their viewpoint as merely, "anecdotal", and they wave it off as nothing. Sometimes..just sometimes, they have a point, but overall it tends to be overused as an excuse to ignore street reality.
Slashdot Mirror
I disagree there is a climate of "anti-science"; global warming debate notwithstanding, where is this new eschewing of science? Religion? That was always around, that's not new. Look at the rash of scientific discoveries made just this year alone. And for last year, http://news.nationalgeographic....
I'd say science is moving ahead pretty well, though I too would like to see it get more funding, especially for experimental research.
Read that page again. The strongest documented discrimination is over the race of the victim:
White Defendant / Black Victim (20) Black Defendant / White Victim (270)
A black person who kills a white person is far more likely to be prosecuted and sentenced to death than vice versa.
Reread it again. That comparison is without relative context, they're not percentages: It's very possible that simply, more blacks are killing white people than white people are killing blacks, resulting in their higher percentage of interracial crime leading to higher instances of executions. The numbers given there do not state out of how many cases total there were, simply that more blacks were executed for killing whites than vice versa.
The solid statistic here is that 43.10% of deathrow inmates are whites, opposed to the lower percentage of 41.71% for blacks, which is contrary to everything you normally hear spouted on TV and newspapers.
It's not meant as a deterrent, you're right, it doesn't work as one. it's meant to simply eliminate remorseless, hopelessly evil people from the world.
The US has a high population than many other countries, thus a higher crime rate than those countries, but also an open news media, so nearly every crime is tracked and reported, and even sometimes makes national news if it serves an agenda.
If you look at http://www.nationmaster.com/co... there's even a disclaimer that states, "DEFINITION: Note: Crime statistics are often better indicators of prevalence of law enforcement and willingness to report crime, than actual prevalence.." There is also a difference between a murder and an execution: a murder of an innocent is unprovoked; killing a murderer is not unprovoked and he/she is not innocent. (Granted, they should be DAMN SURE they guy they're executing is indeed the guilty party, in this particular case, it was no contest). Frankly it's akin to killing cancer cells. Rehabilitation where violent criminals are concerned is an extreme rarity, practically a myth. And I'm fairly sure that more than half the vocal anti-death penalty crowd here would suddenly drop their lofty principles if the man strapped in the gurney was Dick Cheney.
It looks like you fell for the old Republicans versus Democrats ruse. Like a college football rivalry, you don't pay attention to the details but instead root for the home team while yelling disparaging remarks about the other team. Using this way of thinking, you believe every stereotype given and you are in danger of endorsing or discrediting an legislative initiative based solely is it was sponsored by a republican or a democrat.
Republicans love taxes just as much as democrats. The main difference between the two parties could be boiled down to who pays the taxes and what the government spends the money on.
Republicans prefer that the working class pay the majority of the taxes and government spend its money on national defense and corporate subsidies.This redistributes the money from the working class to the wealthy via government contracts and outright corporate welfare.
This isn't fair. Republicans in general want lower taxes because they want less burden on businesses to stimulate the economy (especially difficult on small businesses), and smaller federal government with less bloat (except on defense, point taken). The constitution calls for a federal government that provides for a common currency and a national defense, but shouldn't be much more than the mortar that supports the bricks which are the separate states. This is what the right wing wants. The left wing wants a monolithic government with ever increasing federal powers, where the states are little more than provinces under central control.
Republicans would prefer lower taxes for the working class too, not just the rich. No one is looking to tax the crap out of the working stiff and give it to the rich, because you can't get blood from a stone; and the more the middle class shrinks, the more this holds true. It's unsustainable.
There is no logic in the notion of wealth redistribution; "wealth" is not a finite zero sum game of some kind where if I have more, you must have less (unless I specifically work for you, and you give yourself huge bonuses from the company coffers while I get boned..but both Rs and Ds happily do that.) If you believe otherwise, you'd believe simply printing more money makes the country richer.
The most ridiculous claims I've heard lately accuse rich people of "hoarding" their money, as though this ties up the money other people need; in fact, that money is in full circulation, since the banks use that money for loans, and stock investments are used by corporations. It's not the 1930s anymore when people literally stashed their cash under their mattress.
They justify this by using the "job creator" story. Unfortunately its been shown that most of the new employers are small businesses whose owners aren't in the wealthy class.
Wait, didn't you just state that republicans prefer to, in essence, give money to the rich via taxing the working class and subsidizing powerful corporations? If this doesn't work because most of these employers are small business owners, then why would they justify it? Sounds like they're trying to help out small business owners, to me.
The wealthy do spend money but trickle down economics doesn't take globalization in consideration and therefore most of the currency is exported in exchange for cheaper goods. The wealthy tend to be more libertarian since they are self sufficient and view regulations as a cost with little benefit.
Agreed that globalization does change the rules of the game, as it's no longer as closed a system as it was. That's going to take decades to level out -- if ever. Still, the basic idea that, if a company is doing well it expands and in doing so means hiring and promoting more workers, is sound. Except that offshoring labor for dirt cheap wages is mucking with that.
Democrats differ slightly on taxation since they want the wealthy to pay their "fair share" of the tax burden and want to lessen the tax burden on the lowest inc
Hortas are the children of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. They just have smaller meatballs.
Agreed. I also keep a small amount of skepticism alive in the theoretical sciences and cosmology, in the back of my head.
When the knowledge of the natural sciences can be used in the applied sciences, you know you have it right; but on the fringe of the natural sciences, there should be a little wiggle room. Example, imagine our embarrassment if it turns out the "standard candle" is somehow not truly standard after all; our entire estimation of the size and age of the universe is based on them. A revision of that one accepted scientific fact would change everything.
Dont kid yourself, when people find terms unreasonable, casual copying becomes justifiable. Ultimately piracy is a delivery problem, not a legal one. Here in Australia if I want to watch Game of Thrones
Note that your key word here is "want".. not "need".
And what people find unreasonable is certainly a subjective decision which will vary with individual and circumstance, and therefore falls anywhere from meaningful to meaningless. It is deemed justifiable only if you feel you are somehow entitled to the content they created and distribute.
I just wait for GoT to come out on BluRay, and buy it for $35 on amazon.com. Granted I'm a year behind this way, but I'm not paying for the extravagance that is HBO and other channels in a forced Comcast package for just one series. I still get to watch it though, without rationalizing not paying for it.
Not that I'm doing an anti-piracy rant, I'm not, I've done it myself before, when I was younger. I just don't believe in trying to rationalize it.
Well, we've got a truckload of butthurt nerds here apparently, who can't just relax and enjoy a funny show and laugh a little at themselves, or at least, their stereotypes, and recognize them for just that. /inhaler are bit over the top and cliched, granted, but it's just a show. I don't go to comic book stores or buy Batman or Star Wars figurines, and never did, but I know some geeky types who do that.
Why so serious? I've seen these arguments here before. Leonard's asthma
Another demographic joins the "I'm offended" crowd. *sigh*
No. Tall chairs exist. We used them all the time at our benches in the research labs. Part of the time you stand, part of the time you sit. Whichever is comfortable and works with your current activity.
Personally I'd love this. I always prefer to sit "up high" anyway, like a tall "bar" or restaurant stool. Sitting all day long is definitely not healthy but at least with these it's easy to go back and forth.
That's one way to skew it. But this is flatly oversimplified, I'm surprised intelligent people take this for reality, that people x or y are simply good or evil, as if this is an epic fantasy story. The truth lies in the middle, as usual. Republicans may tend to be less than empathetic about people down on their luck, but not entirely. Unemployment benefits have been extended how many times now? How many people in this country are using food stamps now? It's a disturbing trend. You're not doing people any favors with endless handouts.
One could argue that it's exactly the same way that Democrats/liberals frame and abuse the term "compassion" to get people to vote for more spending and taxing, presumably on social programs, portraying ever more and larger groups as victimized and utterly helpless, when a good deal of that targeted tax income goes into government bloat. Taking into account the fact that the country is already $16 trillion in debt; yet 29% of the budget was spent on welfare and health in 2013. (Military was 13%) this hardly smacks of incompassion, except maybe to future generations who have to incur this debt. The irony is, the more taxes go up, and Democrats know this, it's the middle class that suffers, which in turn makes more of them fall into that lower class needing help; the cycle continues and results in more money and power to the government, and more dependence by the people. The middle class is stuck in the middle.
If Republicans pander to the rich, then Democrats pander to people who believe they will "get something" from the government, whether compassionately justifiable or not, in order to secure more votes. How ironic is it then that more Democrats in congress are millionaires than Republicans?
To reiterate my first paragraph, I don't believe all democratic politicians are like this. But many are.Same with republicans, they're not all old evil white men. But some are. Absolutely some people need assistance. Shit happens.
But if you think the system isn't rife with abuse and waste, and couldn't use some trimming, you're kidding yourself. Every government program is, including the military. It's a game to both parties.
All that means is that their policy is to ignore bullying and pretend it doesn't exist, to do otherwise would admit a problem exists which tarnishes the public image of the school.
It should read, "zero tolerance policy towards recognizing bullying".
That's dark. I like it. 7 [i]billion [/i]people on the planet, a number of whom are just shit (as is evident in this story), we don't need them; they're part of the problem, not the solution. Some may change for the better eventually, but some never will.
I'm just surprised that here on "capital punishment is wrong" slashdot, you're modded up to the max for suggesting 86'ing someone.
I think you hit the nail on the head. This bully was clearly protected. I want to see every school official who went along with this fiasco fired with extreme prejudice, and the judge should be reprimanded or even disbarred. Anyone have the name of this Pennsylvania school?
Good point, I forgot about that. Not that Comcast controls that, it's probably done by the station, but yeah, that's annoying.
That's how the entertainment industry would LIKE people to consume their media. Paying them directly, then supporting them indirectly through ad revenue as well.
So, in other words, exactly like a cable subscription.
Exactly this. Double dipping bastages. I feel like I pay $100 a month to watch a few hours of commercials every week, and maybe a few hours of actual show.
Every single time I surf the menu and see something that looks appealing, and change the channel, it's right to 5 minutes of commercials. Every. Single. Time.
I'm about 15 minutes from you, but I'm not aware of any other options than Verizon or Comcast; they're competitors but sometimes it feels like they're one big monopoly. Right now I have DSL w/ verizon, and Comcast for (way overpriced) cableTV. Our cable TV drops out and glitches a lot, and Verizon will never deliver FIOS in my town. I suppose it could be worse though.
Oh woe is them, the IRS, an innocent government entity whose sole purpose of existence is to merely collect money for the benevolent (since being headed by Obama) US government, and the poor things are so unfairly villainized by us selfish, self important American people who expect due process of all things; why, the nerve!! Clearly this is all the Republicans fault. But wait, isn't collecting money for the government more consistent with big government and by extension, socialism? Yes, yes, must be the republicans behind that...
You'd think they could manage the weather better too. I won't see squat because I'm on the East coast. I think we get more precipitation around here than Seattle anymore. I didn't place an order for this! ;-p
It's just plain thoughtless and inconsiderate!
Actually I wouldn't be surprised if I could find an American lawyer who would actually take my case if I said I wanted to sue Accuweather .
I've had an account for a few years now (under my real name, darn it), and have posted all of two or three times; the only reason I joined was for a contest.. and I won. (I got a free Kymera wand out of the deal, totally worth it)
Other than that, I just don't see much call for it.
Beat me to it. These things are probably cyclic: Massive breakthrough(s), rapid acceleration of learning and application, long period of plateau; breakthrough, etc..
Or so I hope. Every learned person in history that has said, "man has learned everything he is going to", or "that is just ridiculous/impossible" should know better, and were proven wrong time and again. The next plateau could last a long time, decades, centuries, even a millennia.. but eventually, there will be a breakthrough, maybe how to manipulate gravity, and the the process repeats.
My thoughts exactly; Otherwise, mathematics proves you can get something from absolutely nothing - IOW, magic. . In the words of Grace Slick, logic and proportion have fallen sloppy dead. If this were truly the case, it'd be as supernatural as the God explanation.
For there to be "fluctuations" there has to be something to actually fluctuate.
French companies can have 24x7 coverage, however they cannot force people to work after hours. Those people who elect to work odd hours or overtime are paid for doing so. Sounds just fine to me: it prevents a race to the bottom, and looking at the statistics French workers do just fine in terms of productivity.
Well, since this law just passed (?), there are no useful statistics on it just yet.
If they have people 24/7 with those being "normal" hours for some, then yeah, they should be okay; but if the corporations start getting stingy(er) and start laying off people, or people quit, and the boss expects others to pick up the workload, then they'll have a problem.. at least, that's how they operate around here!).
Presumably this law would probably prevent that, so I guess that's a good thing!
You forgot, "All old white men are evil clueless bigoted racist rich bastards who dance on the backs of the poor, play golf, and retire to Florida"
I hear quite a lot of that around here.
Here's a few reasons why you don't want to be deaf:
.. 5. The best part of farts
No, that's all wrong.. it's a delicious olfactory delight, especially if one has ingested buffalo wings and heavy ale the night before..
Well, "evidence" is hard to provide, but to (accurately) invoke the old saying "The plural of anecdote is data":
This needs to be pointed out a little more around here, I think. Those who are mired in their particular brand of ideology are quick to denounce other people's real world experiences which disagree with their viewpoint as merely, "anecdotal", and they wave it off as nothing. Sometimes..just sometimes, they have a point, but overall it tends to be overused as an excuse to ignore street reality.