You're more likely to find them in some of the higher property value areas in LA. So, yeah, Victory might not have many, but Topanga does. Over the hill, Santa Monica and Wilshire have them in spades...until you get east of Highland, when they just end.
I just moved from LA to Austin, and let me tell ya, one of the big things I miss is traffic sensors. I've actually timed it, some lights (especially along the 35 frontage road) take up to 10 minutes to change! Pretty damn sad for the state frickin' capitol.
If you want less hours and less stress, there's a lot of options for you out there.
Some of them pay more per hour actually worked, too.
Dude, the woman in the anecdote is working as an investment banker with a big name firm. In about five years, she'll be making enough to buy you and me several times over. I imagine putting their employees through these long hours is how the partners filter out those with real drive, versus those just looking for a paycheck.
In the long run, her "pay per hour" is going to be astronomical. I'd say that's worth putting up with some shitty hours at the start of your career.
Something someone once said to me seems appropriate to pass on: if you only think in terms of dollars per hour, that's all you'll ever make. You have to look at the big picture if you want the big bucks.
The initial number of victims in Bhopal was something around 3000, that's the number I had in my head when I wrote my previous post. But regardless, Bhopal was a horrible accident, while 9/11 was a deliberate act. Comparing the two makes no sense. Would you compare the number of people killed each year by serial killers to those killed by auto accidents (leaving aside the possibility of a serial killer who causes traffic accidents as his kill method of choice)? Of course not, they're completely different. Then why try to compare UC with 9/11?
Unless it turns out that, as someone else posted, the tragedy at Bhopal really was caused by sabotage from Islamic nut jobs. If that were the case, then it would make 9/11 pale in comparison.
Remember, every death is tragic. Not all deaths are criminal.
Question for you: how does the number killed in Bhopal compare with the number killed in 9/11 ?
It doesn't. Oh, the numbers may be about the same, but the deaths themselves simply don't compare. The one was caused by negligence, and while that's tragic, it wasn't an overt act that caused thousands of victims to lose their lives. The other, though, was a deliberate, premeditated act of brutal murder. Completely different.
If I had a resume from a recent MIT graduate and a 25-year self-taught veteran, it would come down to what the task is, if I were hiring.
I think it's interesting that you're implying that someone with 25 years hands-on experience is comparable to someone who just finished four (six?) years of school. If that doesn't tell all the little Slashbots out there to stay in school (and eat all their vegetables), I don't know what will.
I would take the one without...in my experience, the one without usually has more drive, motivation and enthusiasm for programming
That makes absolutely no sense. Getting into a good four year school and matriculating through a rigorous CS course takes a lot of drive and motivation. And I'm saying this as someone who didn't finish college!
I think the MPAA and RIAA types, as well as their counter-parts in other countries, should take a minute to read through this essay by Eric Flint: http://www.baen.com/library/
A short quote from the essay: "My own opinion, summarized briefly, is as follows:
"1. Online piracy -- while it is definitely illegal and immoral -- is, as a practical problem, nothing more than (at most) a nuisance. We're talking brats stealing chewing gum, here, not the Barbary Pirates.
"2. Losses any author suffers from piracy are almost certainly offset by the additional publicity which, in practice, any kind of free copies of a book usually engender. Whatever the moral difference, which certainly exists, the practical effect of online piracy is no different from that of any existing method by which readers may obtain books for free or at reduced cost: public libraries, friends borrowing and loaning each other books, used book stores, promotional copies, etc.
"3. Any cure which relies on tighter regulation of the market -- especially the kind of extreme measures being advocated by some people -- is far worse than the disease. As a widespread phenomenon rather than a nuisance, piracy occurs when artificial restrictions in the market jack up prices beyond what people think are reasonable. The "regulation-enforcement-more regulation" strategy is a bottomless pit which continually recreates (on a larger scale) the problem it supposedly solves. And that commercial effect is often compounded by the more general damage done to social and political freedom."
And this is from an artist who stands to lose from piracy, not a consumer who won't lose his house because he make the mortgage payment due to loss of sales. If he gets it, and even convinced his publisher to get it, why can't other entertainment types?
How is it unethical to use what is already dead-never-gonna-grow-into-life tissue?
It's a question of how it's harvested. Embryonic stem cells come from the harvesting of fetal tissue, usually from abortions. So it's a little different than organ donation, for example.
Again, it's not a religious issue, it's an ethics issue.
But in the end, it's all a moot point, since the most promising results have come from adult and umbilical stem cells. So exploring fetal stem cells is just a waste of time, anyway.
Bush says he wants to encourage people to use them, but he banned federal dollars going to this cutting-edge research.
He did no such thing. He banned federal funds for collecting new fetal/embryonic (take your pick, it doesn't really matter) stem cell lines. You can still work on existing ones, and you can do plenty of work with adult and umbilical stem cells, the latter of which was used in this case.
I'd support Bush's decision to block funding if it were for the right reasons. Religious concerns are the wrong reasons to do anything in government. If he did it to be fiscally conservative, it would have been a totally different story.
Religion didn't enter into it, ethics did. Surely you understand that there are serious ethical considerations for many people regarding the harvesting of embryonic stem cells? And that those considerations have nothing to do with religion? Until those considerations are settled, better not to use tax dollars to do something many tax payers consider wrong. Especially since, as this South Korean advancement now demonstrates, there is better use to be gotten from other stem cell sources than just embryonic.
and show the Bushies that they are dumb (at least as far as science goes).
At least we know how to RTFA. The stem cells used were umbilical stem cells. You know, the type Bush wants to encourage people to use? As opposed to fetal stem cells, which are just covered in ethical and moral dilemmas.
More accurately, he cut off funding for fetal stem cells. Which would not effect the use of stem cells collected from umbilical blood, the type used in this particular medical miracle. So with apologies to all the Bush-haters out there, nothing Bush has done regarding stem cells would have stopped this procedure from occuring in the US.
BTW, in India, diarrhea is so common, it is normal for you to respond to "how are you doing?" with "I have diarrhea"
Damn, dude, if it's that common, get a frickin' euphamism.
"How are you doing?" "My elephant is rampaging again." or "I've got Ghandi's revenge again." or "I've been awarded the OBE (Order of Bowel Explosions)."
Perhaps it's better to say it's frustrating to live among people who wear their christian beliefs as a badge of honor, with the obvious insinuation that a lack of belief is unacceptable.
But it's OK for atheists to mock those beliefs? How does that make you any different from the people whom you profess to dislike?
it IS frustrating to live in a society (nearly any western country will do) where most people claim to believe in an imaginary (to an atheist), so a lot of that nastiness is just venting frustration.
Slashdot Mirror
You're more likely to find them in some of the higher property value areas in LA. So, yeah, Victory might not have many, but Topanga does. Over the hill, Santa Monica and Wilshire have them in spades...until you get east of Highland, when they just end.
I just moved from LA to Austin, and let me tell ya, one of the big things I miss is traffic sensors. I've actually timed it, some lights (especially along the 35 frontage road) take up to 10 minutes to change! Pretty damn sad for the state frickin' capitol.
And it was linked to all over the place and was an isssue of international importance.
Why? Because two guys in Canada got pissed about it? I think you're blowing this out of proportion.
From that article: "Michael, if you're out there, please know that I am sorry for having said hurtful things."
Yeah, a partisan hack would say that.
If you want less hours and less stress, there's a lot of options for you out there.
Some of them pay more per hour actually worked, too.
Dude, the woman in the anecdote is working as an investment banker with a big name firm. In about five years, she'll be making enough to buy you and me several times over. I imagine putting their employees through these long hours is how the partners filter out those with real drive, versus those just looking for a paycheck.
In the long run, her "pay per hour" is going to be astronomical. I'd say that's worth putting up with some shitty hours at the start of your career.
Something someone once said to me seems appropriate to pass on: if you only think in terms of dollars per hour, that's all you'll ever make. You have to look at the big picture if you want the big bucks.
... i always wanted to be part of a botnet
Said the Slashdot poster ironically.
Umm the numbers aren't even remotely the same.
The initial number of victims in Bhopal was something around 3000, that's the number I had in my head when I wrote my previous post. But regardless, Bhopal was a horrible accident, while 9/11 was a deliberate act. Comparing the two makes no sense. Would you compare the number of people killed each year by serial killers to those killed by auto accidents (leaving aside the possibility of a serial killer who causes traffic accidents as his kill method of choice)? Of course not, they're completely different. Then why try to compare UC with 9/11?
Unless it turns out that, as someone else posted, the tragedy at Bhopal really was caused by sabotage from Islamic nut jobs. If that were the case, then it would make 9/11 pale in comparison.
Remember, every death is tragic. Not all deaths are criminal.
Question for you: how does the number killed in Bhopal compare with the number killed in 9/11 ?
It doesn't. Oh, the numbers may be about the same, but the deaths themselves simply don't compare. The one was caused by negligence, and while that's tragic, it wasn't an overt act that caused thousands of victims to lose their lives. The other, though, was a deliberate, premeditated act of brutal murder. Completely different.
Kids these days can't even get the joke right!
That's because, in Korea only old people get the joke right.
As a Data Center Operator (OS/390 mainframe), I have to chime in on this one.
;)
Why worry? Won't you be retired long before 2024?
If I had a resume from a recent MIT graduate and a 25-year self-taught veteran, it would come down to what the task is, if I were hiring.
I think it's interesting that you're implying that someone with 25 years hands-on experience is comparable to someone who just finished four (six?) years of school. If that doesn't tell all the little Slashbots out there to stay in school (and eat all their vegetables), I don't know what will.
I would take the one without...in my experience, the one without usually has more drive, motivation and enthusiasm for programming
That makes absolutely no sense. Getting into a good four year school and matriculating through a rigorous CS course takes a lot of drive and motivation. And I'm saying this as someone who didn't finish college!
I think the MPAA and RIAA types, as well as their counter-parts in other countries, should take a minute to read through this essay by Eric Flint:
http://www.baen.com/library/
A short quote from the essay:
"My own opinion, summarized briefly, is as follows:
"1. Online piracy -- while it is definitely illegal and immoral -- is, as a practical problem, nothing more than (at most) a nuisance. We're talking brats stealing chewing gum, here, not the Barbary Pirates.
"2. Losses any author suffers from piracy are almost certainly offset by the additional publicity which, in practice, any kind of free copies of a book usually engender. Whatever the moral difference, which certainly exists, the practical effect of online piracy is no different from that of any existing method by which readers may obtain books for free or at reduced cost: public libraries, friends borrowing and loaning each other books, used book stores, promotional copies, etc.
"3. Any cure which relies on tighter regulation of the market -- especially the kind of extreme measures being advocated by some people -- is far worse than the disease. As a widespread phenomenon rather than a nuisance, piracy occurs when artificial restrictions in the market jack up prices beyond what people think are reasonable. The "regulation-enforcement-more regulation" strategy is a bottomless pit which continually recreates (on a larger scale) the problem it supposedly solves. And that commercial effect is often compounded by the more general damage done to social and political freedom."
And this is from an artist who stands to lose from piracy, not a consumer who won't lose his house because he make the mortgage payment due to loss of sales. If he gets it, and even convinced his publisher to get it, why can't other entertainment types?
Just click the link in my sig... :)
I'll never forget the first time my bard had sex.
;)
Yep. You're a gamer.
How is it unethical to use what is already dead-never-gonna-grow-into-life tissue?
It's a question of how it's harvested. Embryonic stem cells come from the harvesting of fetal tissue, usually from abortions. So it's a little different than organ donation, for example.
Again, it's not a religious issue, it's an ethics issue.
But in the end, it's all a moot point, since the most promising results have come from adult and umbilical stem cells. So exploring fetal stem cells is just a waste of time, anyway.
Bush says he wants to encourage people to use them, but he banned federal dollars going to this cutting-edge research.
He did no such thing. He banned federal funds for collecting new fetal/embryonic (take your pick, it doesn't really matter) stem cell lines. You can still work on existing ones, and you can do plenty of work with adult and umbilical stem cells, the latter of which was used in this case.
I'd support Bush's decision to block funding if it were for the right reasons. Religious concerns are the wrong reasons to do anything in government. If he did it to be fiscally conservative, it would have been a totally different story.
Religion didn't enter into it, ethics did. Surely you understand that there are serious ethical considerations for many people regarding the harvesting of embryonic stem cells? And that those considerations have nothing to do with religion? Until those considerations are settled, better not to use tax dollars to do something many tax payers consider wrong. Especially since, as this South Korean advancement now demonstrates, there is better use to be gotten from other stem cell sources than just embryonic.
and show the Bushies that they are dumb (at least as far as science goes).
At least we know how to RTFA. The stem cells used were umbilical stem cells. You know, the type Bush wants to encourage people to use? As opposed to fetal stem cells, which are just covered in ethical and moral dilemmas.
I just can't wait to see this research be verified.
;)
Well, when the formerly paralyzed woman walks over and kicks you in the shin, that should count pretty well as "verification".
More accurately, he cut off funding for fetal stem cells. Which would not effect the use of stem cells collected from umbilical blood, the type used in this particular medical miracle. So with apologies to all the Bush-haters out there, nothing Bush has done regarding stem cells would have stopped this procedure from occuring in the US.
What's the capitol of Africa again?
Africa City, of course. Jeez, you don't get out much, do you?
BTW, in India, diarrhea is so common, it is normal for you to respond to "how are you doing?" with "I have diarrhea"
Damn, dude, if it's that common, get a frickin' euphamism.
"How are you doing?"
"My elephant is rampaging again."
or
"I've got Ghandi's revenge again."
or
"I've been awarded the OBE (Order of Bowel Explosions)."
Use your imagination, make it fun.
Perhaps it's better to say it's frustrating to live among people who wear their christian beliefs as a badge of honor, with the obvious insinuation that a lack of belief is unacceptable.
But it's OK for atheists to mock those beliefs? How does that make you any different from the people whom you profess to dislike?
However, around grade 9, I decided to abandon my quest in order to get a life. I had memorized 1350 digits at that point.
Damn, you were too late.
You said you're frustrated with what other people believe. Not a very tolerant position, is it?
it IS frustrating to live in a society (nearly any western country will do) where most people claim to believe in an imaginary (to an atheist), so a lot of that nastiness is just venting frustration.
It's called "tolerance", go get some.