I agree with most of it, however, do you really think Exxon/Mobile/Shell is going to let go of their oil regime willingly?
When you've got major multinational corporations, each with budgets bigger than most nations and they feel their bottom lines start to shake, well, I'll leave that as an exercise for you to ponder.
/* He feels that people aren't going to want to subject themselves to a system where it's so easy to end up owing more than you realize */
Hmm..
Gas: $12/tank
Quick bite at Chinese restaurant: $15
Amazon.com: $150 (tapes, dvd's, books)
Ah shit, the car needs new tires.. $500
Crap, Needs a new clutch, too $600
Meal while getting car fixed: $10
repeat
Happens to millions of Americans everyday. it's called a Credit Card.
No shit, I meant to put that in there. And, to think that RC5 only uses the network when it's transmitting finished blocks and receiving new work. Man, I wonder who's getting a kickback here..:)
Yep! LoD! I forgot all about them. I vaguely remember the whole deal, but that was about the time got into 2600 magazine, the internet was still largely academic and.. well, nevermind.. Goddamn I feel old.
59 cents per *second* in data traffic? for RC5? WHOA..
I run RC5. It runs 24/7. Let's figure it out:
1500 for the system (homebuilt)(let's say 3 year lifespan, that's 500/year, or about $42/month.. I paid cash for the components)
my *total* electicity bill: 80/month
ISP + cable TV: 60/month
So, that's $182/month, a bit over $6/day in a 30 day month,.25/hour,.004/minute, and even less per SECOND. And I get a lot of use out of my machine, other than cracking RC5.
Anyone remember when the h(cr)acker stole some AT&T documents (was that Mitnick?) and AT&T priced the documents at something like half a million bucks (although it was listed in their document catalog for like $30)?
So, basically, the "cost" they incurred is bullshit, the jail time is fucking ridiculous (we can't even keep murderers in jail that long), god I'm sick of shit like this.
Yes, they weren't his computers. He should be fired. However, the fine and proposed sentence time is a gross misrepresentation of justice. Can't the State of Georgia go arrest some of them child pornographers the Government keeps talking about instead?
Re:Object Oriented programming is overrated
on
Why not Ruby?
·
· Score: 1
Depends on what you're writing. Sometimes, non-OOP is the quickest, most efficient, and *best* way to do a job. Other times, OOP is what you need. Like operating systems, use the best tool for the job..:)
Oh yeah, buddy. Executing murderers is *exactly* the same thing as running over peaceful protestors with tanks.
Re:Stupidity is Self Curing
on
Eco-Terrorism
·
· Score: 1
/*No, I'm not going to take decisions like this lightly... and no, you're not going to win me, or any other typical American I know, over to your cause by resorting to violence and vandalism*/
I'm a typical American. I'm also an environmentalist (for all the wrong reasons, as I like to say). I'm not a lefty, I'm actually quite the capitalist. However, no where in any law does it say "You have the right to pour toxic materials into the environment that may affect other humans." Carbon monoxide is a *poison*. Second-hand tobacco smoke causes *cancer*. Dumping pesticides into the groundwater is a bad thing. These are all verifiable. These are all true.
(and for the global warming, humans actually do better in a warmer world. The breadbaskets would shift northward (like, towards Canada), but global warming isn't such a bad thing unless you live in florida)
Basically, I don't want people poisoning me without my knowledge, and vice-versa. If switching to a more "sustainable" agricultural method is more efficient in the long run (rather than the short term gains and losses Corporate America focuses on), then sure, let's give it a shot. It's proven that intensive agriculture of an area, using varied crops produces *more* food, quantitatively and varietally speaking, than typical "factory farming" methods (see Rice crops in Arkansas vs. rice farming in just about any Asian country. Arkansas does not come close to the yields that the intensive, back-breaking, manual labor intensive Asian style. I suppose if Arkansas wanted to pay people to do it, they could, but it'd be very expensive).
I'm not a whacko. I'm just concerned for what could be a self-destructive road that we follow. YEs, more research is needed, but, goddammit, what harm is it to bike to work every once in awhile? What harm is it to turn off the tv and go outside (leave the laptop, too)? Seriously, if everyone would do one of those two once or twice a week, that would be a tremendous help to the environment as a whole, not to mention the *health* benefits to yourself (exercise). And you don't have to be a smelly hippy to do either.
*/Millions of blind kids in undeveloped countries would love to be able to choose to buy "natural" foods, but they can't afford it, and they wouldn't be able to read the label anyway because they're blind from Vitamin A deff. */
If they can't afford the stuff that's growing around them, they sure as heck can't afford something that has a per hectacre charge, not to mention administrative costs for field auditing and such. One of the major expenses for having a Microsoft house is the extensive "self-audits" you have to perform to ensure complaince. See Monsanto fiasco.
It's actually more like BSD and AT&T during the lawsuit years. You know the "that's our code and you can't freely distribute it!" and the whole rewrite process.
With corporate sponsership of the education process (some slashdot story on that earlier last week, I think), it may be dificult to find your "gnu/corn".
In the end, it's almost just like the debate of Linux/BSD vs. Microsoft. On one side, you have to work harder to get what you want out of it (diligence in the fields combating pests, weeds, drought, what not) and on the other side, ease of use with the problem of Lock In by the patent holder.
That would be called something like a toxic reflex. It still doesn't harm your DNA, just poisons you.:P
Personally, given the choice, I'm sticking with "natural" foods. I can wash any pesticide off the plant, it's generally cheap, and I know I'm not contributing to some giant monolith's goals of global domination (in evil voice).
Open Source: the natural stuff. You can selectively breed it for certain traits, nurture it, store it, give it to your friends, etc.
Proprietary: "We modified the source code of the corn, you're forbidden to see the changes we made and god help you if you reverse engineer it. We own it, you buy it, shut the hell up and get back in line."
As long as Open Source is still a viable option, I don't mind Proprietary stuff.
Nononono. Genetically engineered != selective breeding. It's cut and paste of genetic material from one organism into another.
As for affecting humans, AFAIK your stomach attempts to digest anything you throw at it, GE or not. We do not mutate from GE foods, nor do I see a way to (unless, of course, some viral properties are inadvertantly introduced into the specimen, etc etc).
The biggest concerns are replacement of native/natural foilage/plants/veggies/fruits/animals (you get the idea). If a plant is *too* successful, it can overtake and outgrow anything else. This is bad. Come on, apply the Evil Monopoly of Microsoft mentality. One Crop Bad. Mutliple Crops/breeds/variety Good.
The problem for the Greens seems to be that the companies are like Microsoft in another way: Profit. Most GE crops are also rendered sterile, you can't get viable seed from them. If you clone, distribute, or take rootstock, they sue you to kingdom come (hmm.. does an organism's genetic sequence fall under the DMCA?). You are to buy, plant, harvest, then buy again. Captive market. With normal crops, you plan right, you have seed for next year. What happens if GE plant 4, upon which your entire country has converted into production under dubious sponsership by some multinational corporation (think Nike and the like), ends up being replaced by super GE plant 4 PLUS, at a premium cost, that the country/people are not willing to pay? "Tough shit, guy, we're not selling GE plant 4 anymore." You've locked yourself into a perpetual upgrade->buy path. And because you've not been growing "natural" foods, you don't have stock to rebuild with and are at the mercy of said Multinational corporation. Not a pleasant thought.
If you're unwilling to allow one corporation to tell you what you can and can't run on your computer, why are many of you willing to allow one company to limit your choices at the supermarket? Why are you wiling to allow one company to dictate policy in another country?
Do you even know what's going on in other countries in the name of "commercialism" (not capitalism, although some may mistake it as such)? Those "loons" protesting the WTO and World Bank just might not be "loons" after all. Educate yourself, get your facts straight, then ask yourself if you feel comfortable the way things are.
As for myself, I say go for it. GE all you fucking want. But, from the consumer end, caveat emptor: sometimes you get what you pay for. At least be informed of the options.
We have that exact problem here. Our herds were so large at one point they had to add an extra season in there just to cull out more of the herd. I'd rather have a deer shot and dead quickly than have it face a slow, agonizing death of starvation.
On another note, I hear that the crabs cost the locals thousands in tire repairs every year, as well.:)
I wonder what would happen if a group of Linux/BeOS/alt.os users filed civil lawsuits against Roadrunner, @home, etc? The foundation would be "perpetuation of a monopoly" based on Judge jackson's finding on the Microsoft case. By denying alternative operating systems such as Linux and BeOS access to the network (whether real or just "in the contract"), they pretty much insist the user use an operating system from a company, found by law (whether I agree with it or not), to be a monopoly. Maybe this would be a good Ask Slashdot question.
Following your line of logic, go ahead and call up the NSA and give them your input.
And, btw, TVA is considered a government agency, but, like the Post Office, makes it own money. Your taxdollars are not hard at work there. Your grandparent's, probably.
Not necessarily. If you go back and read the halloween documents and various other texts from Microsoft, you can clearly see that THIS is what they've been building up to. MS knows it can't compete on price points. MS knows it can't just buy Linux outright. So, what has it done?
It must sow the seeds of doubt to the people that make the purchasing decisions in their companies. They want these IT managers to say "well, we could go linux and save $xxx, but I might lose my job if all that new-fangled Open Sauce stuff doesn't work as well as SQL Server. I can spend $1000 and keep my job because no one ever got fired for buying MS, or I can do it myself and I barely know how to eject the damn floppy."
MS is going to spread more and more FUD against the GPL and against Open Source in general (although they do seem to grok BSD style licenses), just so that IT managers begin to associate Linux = GPL = I dunno about that. It's that slight hesitation that will put MS on their servers and not Linux.
And you know what? It doesn't matter how much screaming and hollerin' you do on slashdot, none of those guys are geeks and none of them read slashdot (okay, there may be a few of you, but you're clued in, right?). With no central FUD fighting agency in the Linux/GPL world with a large enough mouth to fight MS at their own game (if that's even desired). So, MS takes a cheap, invalid shot at the GPL, a bunch of retorts come out, but they go to slashdot, or some Linux.advocacy mailing list. These retorts are not going to Jennifer IT Manager. Jennifer just read in some IT magazine that Bill Gates and MS don't like Linux and the GPL and that's that; another server lost to MS.
Back to the original point, first MS attacked Linux directly by saying "Oh, Linux is slower than NT (see mindcraft)." Thousands of linux advocates cried foul while a few hundred went back and realized that it was true, and FIXED the problem. Then they tried saying "Well, you can't get support for Linux." And that brought about literally hundreds of fly-by-night Linux support companies, but also proved that you CAN get linux support. And with Compaq, Dell, and IBM jumping on the support band wagon (along with RedHat, SuSE, Caldera, etc), well, that pretty much cut off that line of attack.
So, realizing that the community can respond within hours of a MS FUD attack against *linux*, they devised a somewhat new approach: Attack the licensing scheme. We can't change the GPL, nor would most of us want to (there's always BSD). Get management's confidence in the GPL (that's not even the Operating system, that's not even an application.. There are no benchmarks to run or dispute, there is no business model that can be created specifically for a license (although there are business models that take advantage of GPL software, that's different)). Gates & Co has just put the OSS community in check and we don't realize it even yet. Again, they are sowing the seeds of doubt in the IT Professional world. "I don't know what this GPL is, but I want it the hell away from my software! It sounds unAmerican and unBusiness-like." will be the reaction from boardroom directors. And, geeks or not at the mid-bottom layers, that's the line you have to toe up to.
And, don't think about changing your software to BSD style licensing just to satisfy some bizarre need to sell to corporations. MS wants you to do that. See BSD TCP/IP and such. They understand that Open Source software has advantages. Do you think a company with 40 billion in the bank doesn't realize that if they can get something for free, they won't take it?
JEsus. I lived in LA for 6 months and I did that merge a couple times. Who needs caffeine to get the heart pumping??
On the other hand, the other job I got shifted me back an hour so I missed the rush traffic.:) If I got caught in rush hour, it would take me damn near an hour to go from Melrose & Crescent Hgts to Sunset & San Vicente. About 2-3 miles. I walked it faster than that once. When I missed rush hour, it took me about 10-15 minutes, depending on the lights and the pedestrians on Melrose.
California has some fucked up driving laws, as well. What's with this "motorcycles allowed to drive between lanes" shit? In TN, that's called "open season." Same goes for pedestrians out of cross-walks. In the crosswalk, the driver is at fault. Out of crosswalk, oh well, buddy, tough shit, better luck next time. Shouldn't have been jaywalkin'.:)
Slashdot Mirror
I agree with most of it, however, do you really think Exxon/Mobile/Shell is going to let go of their oil regime willingly?
When you've got major multinational corporations, each with budgets bigger than most nations and they feel their bottom lines start to shake, well, I'll leave that as an exercise for you to ponder.
/* He feels that people aren't going to want to subject themselves to a system where it's so easy to end up owing more than you realize */
Hmm..
Gas: $12/tank
Quick bite at Chinese restaurant: $15
Amazon.com: $150 (tapes, dvd's, books)
Ah shit, the car needs new tires.. $500
Crap, Needs a new clutch, too $600
Meal while getting car fixed: $10
repeat
Happens to millions of Americans everyday. it's called a Credit Card.
:P
No shit, I meant to put that in there. And, to think that RC5 only uses the network when it's transmitting finished blocks and receiving new work. Man, I wonder who's getting a kickback here.. :)
Yep! LoD! I forgot all about them. I vaguely remember the whole deal, but that was about the time got into 2600 magazine, the internet was still largely academic and.. well, nevermind.. Goddamn I feel old.
59 cents per *second* in data traffic? for RC5? WHOA..
.25/hour, .004/minute, and even less per SECOND. And I get a lot of use out of my machine, other than cracking RC5.
I run RC5. It runs 24/7. Let's figure it out:
1500 for the system (homebuilt)(let's say 3 year lifespan, that's 500/year, or about $42/month.. I paid cash for the components)
my *total* electicity bill: 80/month
ISP + cable TV: 60/month
So, that's $182/month, a bit over $6/day in a 30 day month,
Anyone remember when the h(cr)acker stole some AT&T documents (was that Mitnick?) and AT&T priced the documents at something like half a million bucks (although it was listed in their document catalog for like $30)?
So, basically, the "cost" they incurred is bullshit, the jail time is fucking ridiculous (we can't even keep murderers in jail that long), god I'm sick of shit like this.
Yes, they weren't his computers. He should be fired. However, the fine and proposed sentence time is a gross misrepresentation of justice. Can't the State of Georgia go arrest some of them child pornographers the Government keeps talking about instead?
Depends on what you're writing. Sometimes, non-OOP is the quickest, most efficient, and *best* way to do a job. Other times, OOP is what you need. Like operating systems, use the best tool for the job.. :)
Oh yeah, buddy. Executing murderers is *exactly* the same thing as running over peaceful protestors with tanks.
/*No, I'm not going to take decisions like this lightly... and no, you're not going to win me, or any other typical American I know, over to your cause by resorting to violence and vandalism*/
I'm a typical American. I'm also an environmentalist (for all the wrong reasons, as I like to say). I'm not a lefty, I'm actually quite the capitalist. However, no where in any law does it say "You have the right to pour toxic materials into the environment that may affect other humans." Carbon monoxide is a *poison*. Second-hand tobacco smoke causes *cancer*. Dumping pesticides into the groundwater is a bad thing. These are all verifiable. These are all true.
(and for the global warming, humans actually do better in a warmer world. The breadbaskets would shift northward (like, towards Canada), but global warming isn't such a bad thing unless you live in florida)
Basically, I don't want people poisoning me without my knowledge, and vice-versa. If switching to a more "sustainable" agricultural method is more efficient in the long run (rather than the short term gains and losses Corporate America focuses on), then sure, let's give it a shot. It's proven that intensive agriculture of an area, using varied crops produces *more* food, quantitatively and varietally speaking, than typical "factory farming" methods (see Rice crops in Arkansas vs. rice farming in just about any Asian country. Arkansas does not come close to the yields that the intensive, back-breaking, manual labor intensive Asian style. I suppose if Arkansas wanted to pay people to do it, they could, but it'd be very expensive).
I'm not a whacko. I'm just concerned for what could be a self-destructive road that we follow. YEs, more research is needed, but, goddammit, what harm is it to bike to work every once in awhile? What harm is it to turn off the tv and go outside (leave the laptop, too)? Seriously, if everyone would do one of those two once or twice a week, that would be a tremendous help to the environment as a whole, not to mention the *health* benefits to yourself (exercise). And you don't have to be a smelly hippy to do either.
Just something to chew on.
take a look again. They offer a Reference Board, a Developer's station thingie, AND the cube.
And yes, the reference board is for integrating into *other* devices.. Nice nifty setup.. I can think of half a dozen projects right now..
*/Millions of blind kids in undeveloped countries would love to be able to choose to buy "natural" foods, but they can't afford it, and they wouldn't be able to read the label anyway because they're blind from Vitamin A deff. */
If they can't afford the stuff that's growing around them, they sure as heck can't afford something that has a per hectacre charge, not to mention administrative costs for field auditing and such. One of the major expenses for having a Microsoft house is the extensive "self-audits" you have to perform to ensure complaince. See Monsanto fiasco.
http://www.percyschmeiser.com/
Just something to read through.
It's actually more like BSD and AT&T during the lawsuit years. You know the "that's our code and you can't freely distribute it!" and the whole rewrite process.
With corporate sponsership of the education process (some slashdot story on that earlier last week, I think), it may be dificult to find your "gnu/corn".
:)
In the end, it's almost just like the debate of Linux/BSD vs. Microsoft. On one side, you have to work harder to get what you want out of it (diligence in the fields combating pests, weeds, drought, what not) and on the other side, ease of use with the problem of Lock In by the patent holder.
Just some other stuff to chew on..
That would be called something like a toxic reflex. It still doesn't harm your DNA, just poisons you. :P
Personally, given the choice, I'm sticking with "natural" foods. I can wash any pesticide off the plant, it's generally cheap, and I know I'm not contributing to some giant monolith's goals of global domination (in evil voice).
I picked this up from another comment:
http://www.percyschmeiser.com/
Think Open Source vs. Proprietary.
Open Source: the natural stuff. You can selectively breed it for certain traits, nurture it, store it, give it to your friends, etc.
Proprietary: "We modified the source code of the corn, you're forbidden to see the changes we made and god help you if you reverse engineer it. We own it, you buy it, shut the hell up and get back in line."
As long as Open Source is still a viable option, I don't mind Proprietary stuff.
Your correction: They actually splice genes that cause the plant to create chemical x, found to repel insects. Think cut and paste.
Most people seem to be unaware of the distinction between selective breeding and *real* genetic modification.
I don't see anything really wrong with it.
Nononono. Genetically engineered != selective breeding. It's cut and paste of genetic material from one organism into another.
As for affecting humans, AFAIK your stomach attempts to digest anything you throw at it, GE or not. We do not mutate from GE foods, nor do I see a way to (unless, of course, some viral properties are inadvertantly introduced into the specimen, etc etc).
The biggest concerns are replacement of native/natural foilage/plants/veggies/fruits/animals (you get the idea). If a plant is *too* successful, it can overtake and outgrow anything else. This is bad. Come on, apply the Evil Monopoly of Microsoft mentality. One Crop Bad. Mutliple Crops/breeds/variety Good.
The problem for the Greens seems to be that the companies are like Microsoft in another way: Profit. Most GE crops are also rendered sterile, you can't get viable seed from them. If you clone, distribute, or take rootstock, they sue you to kingdom come (hmm.. does an organism's genetic sequence fall under the DMCA?). You are to buy, plant, harvest, then buy again. Captive market. With normal crops, you plan right, you have seed for next year. What happens if GE plant 4, upon which your entire country has converted into production under dubious sponsership by some multinational corporation (think Nike and the like), ends up being replaced by super GE plant 4 PLUS, at a premium cost, that the country/people are not willing to pay? "Tough shit, guy, we're not selling GE plant 4 anymore." You've locked yourself into a perpetual upgrade->buy path. And because you've not been growing "natural" foods, you don't have stock to rebuild with and are at the mercy of said Multinational corporation. Not a pleasant thought.
If you're unwilling to allow one corporation to tell you what you can and can't run on your computer, why are many of you willing to allow one company to limit your choices at the supermarket? Why are you wiling to allow one company to dictate policy in another country?
Do you even know what's going on in other countries in the name of "commercialism" (not capitalism, although some may mistake it as such)? Those "loons" protesting the WTO and World Bank just might not be "loons" after all. Educate yourself, get your facts straight, then ask yourself if you feel comfortable the way things are.
As for myself, I say go for it. GE all you fucking want. But, from the consumer end, caveat emptor: sometimes you get what you pay for. At least be informed of the options.
We have that exact problem here. Our herds were so large at one point they had to add an extra season in there just to cull out more of the herd. I'd rather have a deer shot and dead quickly than have it face a slow, agonizing death of starvation.
:)
On another note, I hear that the crabs cost the locals thousands in tire repairs every year, as well.
http://www.tva.gov/abouttva/keyfacts.htm#howfunded
read and be enlightened.
BTW, my father is retired TVA, so I get my information first hand.
http://www.avert.org/virus2.htm
I wonder what would happen if a group of Linux/BeOS/alt.os users filed civil lawsuits against Roadrunner, @home, etc? The foundation would be "perpetuation of a monopoly" based on Judge jackson's finding on the Microsoft case. By denying alternative operating systems such as Linux and BeOS access to the network (whether real or just "in the contract"), they pretty much insist the user use an operating system from a company, found by law (whether I agree with it or not), to be a monopoly. Maybe this would be a good Ask Slashdot question.
looks like they're targeting on infra-red signatures and the like. Might take more than netting these days.
Following your line of logic, go ahead and call up the NSA and give them your input.
And, btw, TVA is considered a government agency, but, like the Post Office, makes it own money. Your taxdollars are not hard at work there. Your grandparent's, probably.
/*Sheer desperation. */
Not necessarily. If you go back and read the halloween documents and various other texts from Microsoft, you can clearly see that THIS is what they've been building up to. MS knows it can't compete on price points. MS knows it can't just buy Linux outright. So, what has it done?
It must sow the seeds of doubt to the people that make the purchasing decisions in their companies. They want these IT managers to say "well, we could go linux and save $xxx, but I might lose my job if all that new-fangled Open Sauce stuff doesn't work as well as SQL Server. I can spend $1000 and keep my job because no one ever got fired for buying MS, or I can do it myself and I barely know how to eject the damn floppy."
MS is going to spread more and more FUD against the GPL and against Open Source in general (although they do seem to grok BSD style licenses), just so that IT managers begin to associate Linux = GPL = I dunno about that. It's that slight hesitation that will put MS on their servers and not Linux.
And you know what? It doesn't matter how much screaming and hollerin' you do on slashdot, none of those guys are geeks and none of them read slashdot (okay, there may be a few of you, but you're clued in, right?). With no central FUD fighting agency in the Linux/GPL world with a large enough mouth to fight MS at their own game (if that's even desired). So, MS takes a cheap, invalid shot at the GPL, a bunch of retorts come out, but they go to slashdot, or some Linux.advocacy mailing list. These retorts are not going to Jennifer IT Manager. Jennifer just read in some IT magazine that Bill Gates and MS don't like Linux and the GPL and that's that; another server lost to MS.
Back to the original point, first MS attacked Linux directly by saying "Oh, Linux is slower than NT (see mindcraft)." Thousands of linux advocates cried foul while a few hundred went back and realized that it was true, and FIXED the problem. Then they tried saying "Well, you can't get support for Linux." And that brought about literally hundreds of fly-by-night Linux support companies, but also proved that you CAN get linux support. And with Compaq, Dell, and IBM jumping on the support band wagon (along with RedHat, SuSE, Caldera, etc), well, that pretty much cut off that line of attack.
So, realizing that the community can respond within hours of a MS FUD attack against *linux*, they devised a somewhat new approach: Attack the licensing scheme. We can't change the GPL, nor would most of us want to (there's always BSD). Get management's confidence in the GPL (that's not even the Operating system, that's not even an application.. There are no benchmarks to run or dispute, there is no business model that can be created specifically for a license (although there are business models that take advantage of GPL software, that's different)). Gates & Co has just put the OSS community in check and we don't realize it even yet. Again, they are sowing the seeds of doubt in the IT Professional world. "I don't know what this GPL is, but I want it the hell away from my software! It sounds unAmerican and unBusiness-like." will be the reaction from boardroom directors. And, geeks or not at the mid-bottom layers, that's the line you have to toe up to.
And, don't think about changing your software to BSD style licensing just to satisfy some bizarre need to sell to corporations. MS wants you to do that. See BSD TCP/IP and such. They understand that Open Source software has advantages. Do you think a company with 40 billion in the bank doesn't realize that if they can get something for free, they won't take it?
Think about it.
JEsus. I lived in LA for 6 months and I did that merge a couple times. Who needs caffeine to get the heart pumping??
:) If I got caught in rush hour, it would take me damn near an hour to go from Melrose & Crescent Hgts to Sunset & San Vicente. About 2-3 miles. I walked it faster than that once. When I missed rush hour, it took me about 10-15 minutes, depending on the lights and the pedestrians on Melrose.
:)
On the other hand, the other job I got shifted me back an hour so I missed the rush traffic.
California has some fucked up driving laws, as well. What's with this "motorcycles allowed to drive between lanes" shit? In TN, that's called "open season." Same goes for pedestrians out of cross-walks. In the crosswalk, the driver is at fault. Out of crosswalk, oh well, buddy, tough shit, better luck next time. Shouldn't have been jaywalkin'.