If Soylent News didn't allow ACs, I'd move there right now. As it is, I'll adopt a wait and see approach. See whether Slashdot persists on enforcing beta, and wait and see whether SN gets quality news and sufficient comments.
I can't speak for the US, but in the UK, lunch was always on the worker's own time. To the best of my knowledge, and my experience of working since the early 80s.
Breaks were and are on the employers time. Usually one of 10-15 mins morning and afternoon.
Legally they are simply required to give a 20 minute break to anyone working more than 6 hours. Hence 2x10 min breaks, and lunch on your own time.
You're quoting the exact same PDF created by a climate denial web-site that you did before. Just because they've put some claims into a PDF doesn't make them any more credible.
In the UK, the convention for an full time day is that you get a morning and afternoon break on employers time. And you take a lunch break on your own time.
Hours are usually 40 per week. But sometimes 37.5 hours.
If it's 37.5 hours, and you take a half hour break, you can indeed do 9-5.
The law is that if you work more than a 6 hour day, you are entitled to a 20 minute break. That's all. The rest is at the discretion of the contract.
No coward. He never said all jobs are being exploited. There are lots of fair employers. There are also lots of unfair employers (not necessarily in the same areas, nor employing the same kinds of workers), and they are indeed exploiting their workers.
Example: American cable TV and internet companies. In most parts of the U.S., their use can be said to be coerced because there are few if any other choices.
Right, and the same thing applies to work for many people. The are exploited, the could resign, as it's not slavery. Yet they don't have any other choice of work, at least none that isn't equally exploitative. And without work, they and their families starve.
Now I'm glad that you don't consider that these people are doing those jobs voluntarily, but most right wingers and libertarians would say they do.
As I said, a better antonym for exploited is fairness (or to be treated fairly).
There are counter examples to everything. Evolution isn't perfect. But the tendency I described to be more altruistic the closer the genes are to your own is trend that far outweighs those exceptions.
If you have your own explanation for those exceptions I'd be glad to hear it.
I guess there are cultural pressures such as religion and political alignments that have evolved in man because of different genetic reasons. But such conscious drives to conform to a culture seem less powerful than the instinctive one I mentioned.
Altruism isn't unexplained. It's explained by the selfish gene. It even explains why we care more for people close to us than people further away.
We are most altruistic to the people we share most genes with - close family, then extended family, then people in out tribe, then race, then members of our species, and as species get less and less closely connected to ours, the less we care.
Survival of the most genes like ours is what we strive for. That's what explains altruism.
I understand your world perfectly. I just grew out of it. If extra hours are expected they should be paid for. Doing them out of some sense of loyalty to a company, or worse fear of one, or even belief that it resulted in you being respected, as they inevitably are, is just plain wrong.
Of course some people have jobs that are so pleasurable to them that they are better than time spent with the family or pursuing their leisure time pursuits. But it's notable that that reason didn't feature in your justifications. I guess you were doing something like IT in an office environment rather than training dolphins.
That you were paid well, had job security, and got the opportunity to retire early are great. But they don't excuse your employer not paying for 33% of the time you worked. You were stiffed.
Definition is from working mostly in the mobile industry since 1997, including on the teams making some of the early smartphones. The smartphone definition is widely misused. But if you look for a distinction between the functionalities of a "featurephone" and a "smartphone", you'll find it is what I told you.
And if your think that the smart watches available in the last two decades limit themselfs to have PDA and calculators funktionalities, which were funcitonalities found in the '80
I merely commented on what you brought up. I'm reasonably aware of the various watches that computer companies have tried since the 80s. Though less so than I am of mobile phones. Nevertheless, I don't need to read any history. I lived it.
1) Nobody is claiming that climate doesn't change - the debate is over the source(s) of that change.
Change? There are still a handful of idiots trying to make the case that there is a global cooling trend.
There is no serious debate left. The only people that don't accept AGW are the same type of lunatics that still deny smoking causes cancer. They have been left behind by the rational people who tend to believe the scientists rather than the cranks.
That's absurd. Watch with higher funktionalities like calculator, PDA or so exist since the '80. There have been multiple models form a lot of different sources that have been released on regular basis. Some companies released a new model a year since 2000.
The thing that makes a smartphone is not calculator and PDA facilities. It's the ability to run third party apps as "first class citizens". i.e. downloadable software that has the same possibilities and UI as the built in apps (so featurephone stuff such as WAP and J2ME doesn't qualify.)
So surely a smartwatch should have the same qualification. Show me a watch that has an app store with full featured apps, and I'll accept it's a smartwatch. Show me a Casio calculator watch and I'll just laugh.
In my wee opinion, this is prima facie evidence that there is money in shouting the AGW 'gospel' and pushing the panic button.
Using your logic:
There's been massive flooding in the UK in recent weeks. So if the government allocate a significant budget to deal with the problem, that means that there wasn't really any flooding, it's just that there's money available for people to shout "Flood!"
Because you assume he has editorial control of his TV show. Which is nonsense.
The current format of Top Gear was pitched to the BBC by a production company co-owned by Clarkson and a producer. Clearly whilst they split their responsibilities into presenter and producer, Clarkson had the power to get his own way on pretty much anything. And certainly wrote his own material, rather than simply presenting what was given to him. (He has a motoring journalist background - he was a writer before he was a presenter.)
Some years later they sold the production company to the BBC, but there doesn't appear to have been any change in the day to day control of programme making.
The Clarkson bias against EVs presented on Top Gear is Clarkson's own.
I hardly see any one posting here on slashdot railing against Tesla Motors.
Sure the majority on here are pro Tesla and EVs. As one would expect given it's a tech site. I never said that the Tesla critics are in the majority here, I said they are mostly right wingers.
You're a right winger and you like Tesla. And you're overestimating the extent to which other right wingers are like you. The more general case is that right wingers value their right to squander fossil fuels and object to anything they see as a threat to that. They see both green energy and green vehicles as paving the way to restrictive legislation. That and conservatives just don't cope well with change of any sort.
Once electric cars become popular the government rebates aren't needed anymore. From the government's POV because they've already done their job of kickstarting the technology, and from the buyers POV because the manufacturers price has fallen though scale and improved technology such that it's a good buy even without the rebate.
Slashdot Mirror
email, dropbox, and if you have a Mac - iCloud.
If Soylent News didn't allow ACs, I'd move there right now. As it is, I'll adopt a wait and see approach. See whether Slashdot persists on enforcing beta, and wait and see whether SN gets quality news and sufficient comments.
At last, something to reject even more forcefully than beta!
To do so whilst reserving the ability of the limo owners cameras to work is unreasonable, and doesn't deserve any suggestions.
What are the paparazzi doing on-board in the first place? Paps are invariably outside the limo, i.e. off-board.
I can't speak for the US, but in the UK, lunch was always on the worker's own time. To the best of my knowledge, and my experience of working since the early 80s.
Breaks were and are on the employers time. Usually one of 10-15 mins morning and afternoon.
Legally they are simply required to give a 20 minute break to anyone working more than 6 hours. Hence 2x10 min breaks, and lunch on your own time.
You're quoting the exact same PDF created by a climate denial web-site that you did before. Just because they've put some claims into a PDF doesn't make them any more credible.
In the UK, the convention for an full time day is that you get a morning and afternoon break on employers time. And you take a lunch break on your own time.
Hours are usually 40 per week. But sometimes 37.5 hours.
If it's 37.5 hours, and you take a half hour break, you can indeed do 9-5.
The law is that if you work more than a 6 hour day, you are entitled to a 20 minute break. That's all. The rest is at the discretion of the contract.
No coward. He never said all jobs are being exploited. There are lots of fair employers. There are also lots of unfair employers (not necessarily in the same areas, nor employing the same kinds of workers), and they are indeed exploiting their workers.
Example: American cable TV and internet companies. In most parts of the U.S., their use can be said to be coerced because there are few if any other choices.
Right, and the same thing applies to work for many people. The are exploited, the could resign, as it's not slavery. Yet they don't have any other choice of work, at least none that isn't equally exploitative. And without work, they and their families starve.
Now I'm glad that you don't consider that these people are doing those jobs voluntarily, but most right wingers and libertarians would say they do.
As I said, a better antonym for exploited is fairness (or to be treated fairly).
There are counter examples to everything. Evolution isn't perfect. But the tendency I described to be more altruistic the closer the genes are to your own is trend that far outweighs those exceptions.
If you have your own explanation for those exceptions I'd be glad to hear it.
I guess there are cultural pressures such as religion and political alignments that have evolved in man because of different genetic reasons. But such conscious drives to conform to a culture seem less powerful than the instinctive one I mentioned.
Altruism isn't unexplained. It's explained by the selfish gene. It even explains why we care more for people close to us than people further away.
We are most altruistic to the people we share most genes with - close family, then extended family, then people in out tribe, then race, then members of our species, and as species get less and less closely connected to ours, the less we care.
Survival of the most genes like ours is what we strive for. That's what explains altruism.
Exploitation is rather the opposite of "voluntary".
What utter nonsense. Many people are exploited in their jobs. Yet they could give up the job.
The antonym of exploitation is fairness.
"friends of science" is an AGW denial site. It's worthless as a source.
As to "Bill Bye The Science Guy", you're being generous calling him an engineer. He's a science themed entertainer.
Up your game.
Actually, you're an idiot if you can't see the trend in a global temperature chart.
I understand your world perfectly. I just grew out of it. If extra hours are expected they should be paid for. Doing them out of some sense of loyalty to a company, or worse fear of one, or even belief that it resulted in you being respected, as they inevitably are, is just plain wrong.
Of course some people have jobs that are so pleasurable to them that they are better than time spent with the family or pursuing their leisure time pursuits. But it's notable that that reason didn't feature in your justifications. I guess you were doing something like IT in an office environment rather than training dolphins.
That you were paid well, had job security, and got the opportunity to retire early are great. But they don't excuse your employer not paying for 33% of the time you worked. You were stiffed.
Plurality means each viewpoint less than 50%. That is certainly not the case.
Definition is from working mostly in the mobile industry since 1997, including on the teams making some of the early smartphones. The smartphone definition is widely misused. But if you look for a distinction between the functionalities of a "featurephone" and a "smartphone", you'll find it is what I told you.
And if your think that the smart watches available in the last two decades limit themselfs to have PDA and calculators funktionalities, which were funcitonalities found in the '80
I merely commented on what you brought up. I'm reasonably aware of the various watches that computer companies have tried since the 80s. Though less so than I am of mobile phones. Nevertheless, I don't need to read any history. I lived it.
Right. It's merely 97% of the people most qualified to have a valid opinion. I can see why that troubles you.
It'd be great to have more trees, and trees do help with water run-off. It's also be a help for home-owners not to pave over their gardens.
But to think that the flooding has been caused by a lack of trees, is idiotic. It's been caused by the highest rainfall in a January since 1766.
But of course UKIP types ARE idiotic. To them everything is the fault of the EU.
1) Nobody is claiming that climate doesn't change - the debate is over the source(s) of that change.
Change? There are still a handful of idiots trying to make the case that there is a global cooling trend.
There is no serious debate left. The only people that don't accept AGW are the same type of lunatics that still deny smoking causes cancer. They have been left behind by the rational people who tend to believe the scientists rather than the cranks.
That's absurd. Watch with higher funktionalities like calculator, PDA or so exist since the '80. There have been multiple models form a lot of different sources that have been released on regular basis. Some companies released a new model a year since 2000.
The thing that makes a smartphone is not calculator and PDA facilities. It's the ability to run third party apps as "first class citizens". i.e. downloadable software that has the same possibilities and UI as the built in apps (so featurephone stuff such as WAP and J2ME doesn't qualify.)
So surely a smartwatch should have the same qualification. Show me a watch that has an app store with full featured apps, and I'll accept it's a smartwatch. Show me a Casio calculator watch and I'll just laugh.
In my wee opinion, this is prima facie evidence that there is money in shouting the AGW 'gospel' and pushing the panic button.
Using your logic:
There's been massive flooding in the UK in recent weeks. So if the government allocate a significant budget to deal with the problem, that means that there wasn't really any flooding, it's just that there's money available for people to shout "Flood!"
Because you assume he has editorial control of his TV show. Which is nonsense.
The current format of Top Gear was pitched to the BBC by a production company co-owned by Clarkson and a producer. Clearly whilst they split their responsibilities into presenter and producer, Clarkson had the power to get his own way on pretty much anything. And certainly wrote his own material, rather than simply presenting what was given to him. (He has a motoring journalist background - he was a writer before he was a presenter.)
Some years later they sold the production company to the BBC, but there doesn't appear to have been any change in the day to day control of programme making.
The Clarkson bias against EVs presented on Top Gear is Clarkson's own.
I hardly see any one posting here on slashdot railing against Tesla Motors.
Sure the majority on here are pro Tesla and EVs. As one would expect given it's a tech site. I never said that the Tesla critics are in the majority here, I said they are mostly right wingers.
You're a right winger and you like Tesla. And you're overestimating the extent to which other right wingers are like you. The more general case is that right wingers value their right to squander fossil fuels and object to anything they see as a threat to that. They see both green energy and green vehicles as paving the way to restrictive legislation. That and conservatives just don't cope well with change of any sort.
Once electric cars become popular the government rebates aren't needed anymore. From the government's POV because they've already done their job of kickstarting the technology, and from the buyers POV because the manufacturers price has fallen though scale and improved technology such that it's a good buy even without the rebate.