Yes, obviously (eye roll). And I don't wish skin cancer or death by falling rocks on you or anyone who decides to go on a tropical vacation once in a while. I assume you don't, really, either, and were just having a bad day or something. But if I'm wrong, then the douchenozzle comment stands.

Wait, you've *had* it and are still alive, and are dubious that it's highly treatable? (and you never researched it at all?) Ok, don't trust your own experience, I guess... but look it up!

"Skin cancer is the most common of all cancers. It accounts for nearly half of all cancers in the United States. More than 3.5 million cases of basal and squamous cell skin cancer are diagnosed in this country each year. Melanoma, the most serious type of skin cancer, will account for more than 76,000 cases of skin cancer in 2014."

"The overall 5-year relative survival rate for melanoma is 91%. For localized melanoma, it’s 98%; survival rates for regional and distant stage diseases are 62% and 16%, respectively. About 84% of melanomas are diagnosed at a localized stage." [from American Cancer Society]

I'll let you do the math, but I think it's pretty clear just by reading it that "skin cancer" as a whole (including melanoma, the only one that has significant mortality) has a well over 99% (really more like 99.99%) survival rate in a developed country.

I have two words for you. Surprised you haven't heard them, but apparently it may change your life!

Wear sunscreen.

For someone who claims to be a scientist, you seem to know almost nothing about really basic biology or medicine, huh? While it's the most common type of cancer, skin cancer also the most treatable.

IMO better to enjoy life, travel, and get outside than whatever you do for "fun" (hit rocks with little mallets in the basement?) But in any case you are a true douchenozzle for wishing death on anyone. Karma's a bitch, watch out for falling rocks...

Given that Dubai / UAE has been spending billions upon billions building massive resort islands for years now, that's not only plausible, but likely...

ie. 3rd world countries with problems catering to 1st world tourists.

Ah, interesting.

Agreed. In this, case, at least, it seemed like the judge had some common sense, but obviously it's open to abuse...

Because it's not from a lake, it's from offshore Federal waters, so it's their jurisdiction.

And there was NO criminal case over the size of a fish. It was over someone who could have accepted a minor fine but decided they wanted to deliberately flaunt Federal law to try to "get away with it". Conspiracy makes it worse, as it should.

That one may have been a bit overly harsh and punitive, but - good! When your own government representatives lie, I see no problem with "throwing the book at them". If you don't want to be under a microscope, don't be in a public office...

No, I think you totally misunderstood it... I'm saying that those without a degree should not be treated any differently (besides maybe requiring a couple extra years of experience/practical work to make up for the lack of a degree) while you seem to be telling the OP "hire them, you can get them for cheap!" While there are some (usually very conservative/old school) companies that do look for degrees, that's completely not the trend in Silicon Valley these days. Hell, many of the founders never completed theirs, so it's almost ingrained in the culture to go for talent over education. So I'm saying, don't underestimate the earning potential of those people! And it proves out over the years. At least in SV, your pay is largely a combination of the *range* of the position (which can be highly variable) and something that matches/beats an employee's current salary. If you keep settling you will never get the pay increases...

This is partly true. Private schools by definition, of course, are not. Though if you are going to Stanford or MIT you are probably going to be able to pay off those student loans quickly enough, anyway. Public schools IMO are the problem. How the hell can a public school charge $13k for tuition (which doesn't even include room and board). Well - we know the answer - because the US is no longer prioritizing education.

Which makes a lot of this is fairly academic (again no pun intended) since there is such a shortage of decent SW engineers in the US right now that we are importing as many as allowed from India and China, etc. And those developers will pretty much always have degrees AND be cheaper to hire. Not saying that's necessarily a good thing, but it's the current reality.

In fact, the combination of skyrocketing US tuition and more talent from out of the county means it's really not going to end up being a decision of the company HR or hiring managers, it's going to be up to the US government to fix (whether by fixing tuition or limiting H1Bs). And given the new Republican Congress doesn't give a rat's ass about student debt (they are happy with charging 7% on Federal loans when you can get a freaking mortgage or car loan for 4%), and shrinking H1Bs would seriously harm economic/tech growth in the US in the short/mid term, it's likely that nothing will be done in the near future. Big surprise...

Ok... 400k range UID... haven't seen the 100s of similar /. articles... did you just get out of prison yourself? Maybe caught one too many undersized groupers?

Wouldn't have gone to court or jail if they hadn't knowingly tried to destroy the evidence. Such a stupid move...

Well, bad analogy since cocaine trafficking is not a minor crime, but if one of your employees admitted to destroying the evidence on your orders, yes, in fact it *would* be obstruction...

I can't stand Alito, Scalia, Thomas, or the other ultra conservative judges who generally do this exact ridiculously literal interpretation on almost every case. Which is why it's so mind boggling that Kagan and Kennedy would pull that same idiotic overly literal reading (and in this case worse). Hard to say anything other than WTF. The Supreme Court may be as broken as Congress..

Total overreach, and I don't understand why they couldn't have gone with some simpler "destruction of evidence" charge (which I'm sure is still fairly serious and would turn a fine into a prison sentence).

Though if you read TFA he was sentenced to 30 days under a statute that could have given 20 years. The fact is he was ordered to preserve and turn over the evidence of his minor violation and he destroyed it, which was stupid and clearly worse than the original crime. The judge was actually pretty reasonable with the sentence, it was just the prosecutor who picked the wrong statue to prosecute...

Actually, if 30 days was the sentence for knowingly destroying the evidence that would have otherwise resulted in a fine, I'd say it's in NO way excessive. Though I guess the problem with it is not the sentence (which seemed totally reasonable) but the statute that was used to convict, which could actually define the rules for all preservation of "evidence" under Sarbanes-Oxley rules...

Seriously, though, it's not even a matter of Congress misunderstanding the law. It's a matter of the prosecutors (and even more scarily the courts) completely subverting the law through overly literal interpretation.

Though what disturbs me the most about this is that it may be the first non-unanimous Supreme Court decision in my lifetime where I 100% agree with the "conservative judges."

Seems like the prosecutors could have gone with a good old "destruction of evidence" and not had to delve into Sarbanes-Oxley (which while having many good intentions is in so many ways a totally fucked up law that has made billions for a few financial and auditing consulting companies and cost tens of billions for the rest.)

I still disagree with the numbers overall.

As far a overqualified: I have hired engineers with no BS (no pun intended) but generally they have 2-4 more years of experience than those of equivalent background with a BS (makes sense - same way an MS counts for an extra year and a PhD an extra 3 or so... which also means if you are doing it just to get a better job, PhDs are not in themselves remotely worth it!) I think in fact it would be disingenuous to those *without* a degree to underestimate their own ambitions that way!

Also, we do not pay engineers based on their debt, whether it be student loans, cars, or a mortgage (which dwarfs student loans in the Bay Area), and none have ever brought it up. So that's really a non-issue from a hiring manager's perspective. In fact, that sounds like a borderline discriminatory practice in itself...

My experience is that the A+ talent (and this is not grade inflation - "A+ talent" is the top few percent, max) can command the top salaries pretty much wherever they want. You are talking about the B+ talent. So I suppose I might grudgingly agree IF you are lucky you might be able to find a B+ engineer for a B salary because a few companies with dumb hiring policies passed based on lack of a degree...