Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. ×

Comment Re: Overboard, Sad! (Score 1) 148

Concussion covers a multitude of injuries. I've had a few, the worst when I was a child and decided to swing from some scaffolding that turned out to be less stable than I thought. I fell backwards and hit the back of my head on the corner of a doorstep (the concrete - the softer wooden step hadn't been installed yet). I spent the night in hospital, but was fine the following day. In the more mild instances, I've had a brief response check at the time and otherwise continued (though with a splitting headache).

A concussion just means that your head has been hit hard enough that your brain bounces off your skull. That can be fatal, or can be something that you shake off immediately, depending on the amount of force and the angle (and, presumably, how bouncy your brain is).

Comment Re:It's all out of whack... (Score 1) 655

As long as populations increase and jobs are available the demand will continue to push prices up.

That's two conditions that could cause a pop. Number one: companies realise that there's a big advertising bubble and little ROI from online advertising. Companies like Google, Facebook, and so on that depend heavily on advertising revenue see a massive drop in customers and have to aggressively start trimming workforce. Sudden drop in bay area jobs and people have to pack up and move to somewhere where they can get a job and afford to live.

Number two: cost of living reaches a point where it's cheaper to open a new office somewhere cheaper than to expand you SV presence. Jobs don't leave the area, but new jobs appear elsewhere instead. Gradually the exciting tech developments move so that management also moves to the other areas and eventually the SV office becomes the satellite office where people who retire or leave aren't replaced.

Comment Re:Landlords (Score 1) 655

Why is this a troll, he's exactly right. Significantly raising the median income has the effects that the grandparent is complaining about, but raising the minimum wage typically doesn't do that much. It does increase the costs of anything labour intensive, but we're already living in a world where the vast majority of things where labour costs are a significant fraction of the total price are luxury goods and services.

Comment Re:"borrow money to make it through the month" (Score 1) 655

Of course, if you're willing to have employees that work remotely, then your talent pool is the entire world rather than one small geographical area. And somewhere like the Bay Area without the ability to hire remote workers also locks you out of a lot of talent: i.e. all of the ones able to do basic arithmetic and realise that they won't have any financial security if they move to the Bay Area and work for a company that has a 50+% chance of not existing in a year's time (i.e. any startup).

Comment Re:Don't buy what you can't afford. 3,500feet, $24 (Score 1) 655

And the important corollary: look at cost of living before you negotiate a salary. If the employer isn't willing to pay you what you need for a comfortable cost of living, then run. You're obviously not valuable to them, so you'll likely be the first to be let go and you'll find it hard to get the next job after that.

Comment Re: Poor on $100k? Sure (Score 1) 655

It depends a bit. There's a trade for the management between salary costs and control. You can give someone a 20-50% pay cut when they move out of the bay area and they'll still have more take-home pay and a higher standard of living. It's increasingly hard for middle management to justify to senior management why they're not doing that. That said, the bay area situation is great for consultants living in places with a sane cost of living. When I was doing that, my contracting rate was lower than a salaried employee in the bay area, yet I was able to cover my cost of living and pay off my mortgage quickly if I worked two days a month. Anything beyond that built up a buffer in savings in case I wasn't able to get work for an extended period.

Comment Re:Poor on $100k? Sure (Score 1) 655

Buy a bread machine. It takes about 1-2 minutes to load it, wait a couple of hours and you have a loaf of bread that will last about a week and is about a quarter of the price in ingredients of an equally nice store-bought one. The bread machine has some capital costs, but mine is about 10 years old and still works fine, so it amortises well.

Comment Re:Thank your local trumper... (Score 1) 72

the tumpanzees will NEVER admit they made a mistake.

as long as they are STIGGINIT to the 'liburals' they are happy.

they could lose their health insurance, be jobless and still think that they 'won'.

we really should have an IQ test for voters. if you aren't at least average, you don't get a vote.

dumb voters are why we are in the shitty state of things. they are so easily manipulated (BUT, HER EMAILS!) and they are entirely the wrong people to decide the future of this country, as a whole.

I truly believe: we are 2 countries and we should split. let the rednecks form redneckia and the rest of us will continue to live in the US.

seriously - we are not one country and perhaps never have been. but its really tearing us apart. how much longer can we continue to fight left vs right, without getting a fucking thing done that helps us?

Comment Re:Building restrictions (Score 1) 655

I'm curious what "unwarranted" mean. Does that mean it's for In-Laws you hate and feel you don't deserve to live with, or you think you don't deserve to have to know them?

"In-law unit," I guess, is an SF colloquialism. It just means a small apartment within a house or other dwelling, usually designed for just 1-2 occupants. Picture something small, probably a single room plus its own washroom, maybe off the garage or in the basement.

"Unwarranted" means it's an illegal living unit. The owner didn't obtain permits to build it, and it probably isn't up to code. So you'd better be pretty friendly with whomever you rent it to (do in-laws count?) because if something is deemed actually unsafe -- like it has no heat, or the wiring is subpar -- you can be sued, if the tenants know their rights.

Comment Re:Building restrictions (Score 1) 655

But because San Francisco (and the whole Bay Area) think that everyone should have a veto on what everyone else does with their property, rebuilding doesn't happen, demand continues to rise, and the city becomes affordable only by the rich.

This paints the problem in too-narrow terms. Sure, the owner converts a single-family dwelling to a 10-unit tower and 9 (or more) additional people move to San Francisco. And lets say this happens to single-family dwellings all over the City. Multiply those new residents by a thousand or more. See what I'm getting at?

Where will all the infrastructure to support these new residents come from? I'm assuming not everybody who lives in these new units will want the hassle of owning a car in a City that's all but openly hostile to them -- and if they did, the gridlock would be totally unworkable. But the 15, 30, and 45 buses across town are already choked wall-to-wall with people. You literally have to ram your way in. BART (the intercity light rail system) is in a shambles. My daily commute downtown (a total of five stops) is often a standing-room-only affair, and any light weather causes delays. On some of the higher-traffic commuter stations, you can regularly expect one or even all of the escalators to be out of service, leaving huge crowds to pile out of trains onto the platforms and march up a few flights of stairs. Some of the staircases are single-file, so the queue just to leave the station can be 30-40 people long.

And where will they shop? Stores in San Francisco -- I'm thinking of something like a Target (department store) or a Safeway (supermarket) -- are typically smaller than their counterparts in cities with more overall real estate. Expect long lines for food and sundries.

And don't forget taxes! Sure, a bigger population does increase the tax base. But will it increase it enough to afford to hire all the extra firefighters and the upgrades they'll need to their engines and equipment to accommodate all those new towers? Ditto the police you need to support the population increase? And when every vehicle on the road is a private corporate bus shuttling workers back and forth from Silicon Valley, who will pay to repair the roads (which are already crumbling)? And the transit systems are once again claiming they need to either float multibillion dollar bond measures or raise the ticket fees -- as they do every other year.

So in short, just adding new people to the population won't solve San Francisco's problems. What longtime San Francisco residents recognize is that you're not talking about solutions, you're just talking about more development -- something that would please the kleptocrats in City Hall greatly, but won't do a lick to correct the complete imbalance in living costs we're currently experiencing.

P.S. Another idea I hear is that San Francisco should just accept that it needs to become more like Manhattan, with the East Bay becoming more like the other boroughs. But the major difference between the Bay Area and New York is that the Five Boroughs constitute a single tax base, under a single city government. San Francisco and the nearest cities in the East Bay aren't even in the same counties.

Comment Re:Leave. (Score 1) 655

I spent 20 years in Kansas(and decades more growing up in the south). I can assure you that Lawrence is an oasis of decency compared to the majority of Kansas. Some of the most viscous, bigoted assholes I've ever had the misfortune to have met came from small towns in Kansas. I got my kids the hell out of there, and I have never felt for a moment that I didn't make the right decision.

Seconded. Lawrence is basically what Americans call "a college town." It's got lots of things that cater to students and youngish people, like hip bars and restaurants and bespoke clothing stores and comic book stores. Companies sponsor events there to amuse people. But it's still basically an island. My friends who lived in Kansas City had some very pleasant, LGBT neighbors etc. But they also met folks who fit that "vicious, bigoted asshole" category (and this was in a major city -- the towns are far worse).

These weren't the run-of-the-mill rednecks we get in the Bay Area (and we surely have them). For large areas of Kansas, it's not so much "flyover country" as it is "conservative talk radio country." Plenty of people living there are quite content to spend their entire day hearing descriptions of the bestial practices of the Muslims and the Mexicans and what dire things are sure to come of it all.

Slashdot Top Deals

You have mail.