2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session 2013 special election arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration international internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes technology television terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

Back in the mid '90s, I was a software engineer in Salt Lake City, writing and building automated material handling systems, robots to the rest of the world. The company I was working for got bought out by its biggest competitor, and that was going to lead to some significnt changes to the Salt Lake office that I did not agree with, so I decided that a change was needed. I had always liked Portland, so I decided to look for a job here.  After about a year of searching, the best I could come up with was a System Administrator position. I went ahead and accepted it with the idea it would be temporary while I looked for another developer position. Now, 15 years later, I am still a System Administrator. That title has been good to me, it pays well and such, but I miss the developer work. I still think of myself as a software engineer, but I have been out of that line for so long that I will probably never get back to it without some serious re-training. But at least I made it to Portland!

posted 2 years, 11 months ago
view in context

Part of desiring to take risks is having confidence that you can deal with adverse issues that come up.  A person does this by utilizing what ever he has on hand, including tools and on self.  A locator is just one more tool.  One of last resort, maybe, but certainly one that could make the difference between being able to talk about it or just being talked about!

posted 3 years, 5 months ago
view in context

Since you have a member of the Mazamas on, I am reminded of Terry Cone, and very long time member of the Mazamas.  I am also a member and I have hiked with Terry a few times.  He is very experienced and has been up Mt. Hood many, many times (his 65th climb was on his 65th birthday!).  A couple of years ago, he was doing a solo climb.  Somewhere near the top, he ran into trouble, fell, and broke his ankle.  Not to worry!  He tripped the locator that he always carries, he was rescued, and today he is back hiking and climbing.  I wonder how different the outcome would have been had he not had the locator!

posted 3 years, 5 months ago
view in context

Two weeks ago I had a minor accident in which I sustained two somewhat deep cuts from falling glass in my arm.  It was evening and the nearby clinics were closed, so I went to the OHSU emergency room to get teh cuts stiched up.  After the  customery wait out front, I finally got into a room where a nurse practicioner performed the necessary work, which took about 20 minutes.  This week, I received a statement of charges.  The total was around $1500!!  I was appalled!  I called to verify if this was accurate, and the person that answered the phone assurred me it was, but couldn't understand why I was upset about this because I have insurance and they will cover it (or at least most of it).  But that is not the point.  I feel that this is exhorbitant for so little work, regardless of who ultimately pays for it!  No wonder our healthcare is in such dire straits!

posted 3 years, 8 months ago
view in context

I work for a global computer services outsourcing company, and I work out of my home in Portland.  I manage servers all over the country, all remotely, while sitting in a room in my home.  That is only possible because of the availability of broadband internet access.  I tell people that I could be sitting almost anywhere in the world and still do my job, but that is only true if I have broadbrand access.  I hope to eventually move to a home in the rural areas, but again, I can only do that if broadband is available where I choose to relocate to.

Working from home will become more common in the future, but it can only work if broadband is available everywhere, including the rural areas.

posted 4 years, 2 months ago
view in context

I am in my mid - 50s and am employed as a System Administrator for a large global systems outsourcing company.  This is usually considered a young man's occupation since the technology involved is constantly changing.  They prefer the young people because they tend to be more up on the current trends in technology.  I have managed to hang on by always continuning to take classes.  Few of them are credit classes; mostly they are just introductory classes is some new programming language (I just finished a class on the PHP language).  But that is enough to allow me to keep up and remain valuable to my employers.  I don't know how  long I can maintain this edge as it is getting harder, but it certainly has serverd me well so far.

Essentially, I never consider my education to be complete.  There is always another class I need to take.

posted 4 years, 3 months ago
view in context

Not true.  We may have 60 years worth of RAW uranium, but the fuel actually used up in a nuclear plant before the fuel rods have to be changed is actually quite small.  If the rods are reprocessed and the unused uranium is extracted, it can be made into new rods and reused.  This solves two problems: it creates an almost endless supply of fuel, and it vastly reduces the amount of waste that is generated, as most of the material is simply reused.  Again, it is expensive to reprocess, which is why it isn't favored now, but if you start comparing that against the total costs of other fuel sources, it doesn't look so bad any more.

posted 4 years, 3 months ago
view in context

Now add up ALL the costs to the other so called acceptable energy solutions, such as coal, natural gas, water, etc.  And I do mean ALL costs, including the environmental impact.  Coal polutes and destroys the environment (and don't foget the recent green coal fiasco in Tennessee, the cleanup cost is now approaching $500B), the carbon impact of gas, the damage to fish migration, the health issues, etc.  At least with nuclear, the waste is contained in one place.  And there are solutions to nuclear waste, however they are currently very expensive.  But, as with all other systems, costs will likely come down over  time as we improve efficiencies.

posted 4 years, 3 months ago
view in context

20 years ago, I was employed at the Idaho Nuclear Energy Laboratory near Idaho Falls, ID, very likely where the reactor being described in this episode was designed.  I worked at a facility that was being built to process spent nuclear fuel.  But congress decided that such a facility was not needed and cancelled funnding for it.  So today, we have a problem of nuclear fuel piling up at the plants around the country and no way to dispose of it.  The facility I worked at would have delt with that issue.

    Today I hear that there is talk about starting up the processing project again.  Hopefully they will complete it this time.  But meanwhile I feal cheated as I was very proud of the fact that I was helping to solve the country's energy issues.  When the project was cancelled, my career took a very different path outside of the energy industry.

posted 4 years, 3 months ago
view in context

I believe in the inspections. I also believe that the permits are necessary to ensure that the builder/installer is aware of rules and regulations. But I also believe that the process has become quite burdensome, to the point that it has become the norm to just bypass the system and proceed without a permit. In addition, I don't see that the inspections are adequate, which makes one wonder why bother if the inspection is going to be glossed over anyway. I voted against the measure because I believe it is to broad, but I hope it is a wake up call that the system needs to be revamped.

posted 4 years, 6 months ago
view in context

About ten years ago, I suffered an allergic reaction to some medication. I rushed to the nearest emergency room, which was OHSU. While there, the emergency room staff immediately place an IV in my arm, presumably a saline solution. I was seen shortly afterward by a physician that also had an entourage of student nurses with him. He questioned me breifly, then instructed one of the nurses to administer epinephrine to me, a standard procedure for allergic reactions. The nurse did so, however she injected it directly into the IV instead of into the skin as is standard practice. That was the equivalent of a very high dose, which resulted in an excruciatingly painful burning sensation as the epinephrine worked its way through my body, and my heart rate increasing to an extremely high rate. This lasted for approximately five minutes, but it seemed much longer to me. I survived (obviously), and when I was finally able to open my eyes (I held them tightly closed until the burning subsided)I saw the physician standing there with the heart shock paddles ready to jump if necessary.
It was an experience I will long remember. The physician was mortified and so apologetic; he called me at home several times afterward to ensure that I was okay. And he explained that he and his nurses were coming off of a long night on the floor and were very tired, that perhaps his judgment was impaired and he failed to say the word "subcutaneous" (under the skin) to the nurse, and so she just administered the epinephrine in the easiest method available, in the IV.
I probably could have made a case out of this as my heart could very easily have been damaged in the ordeal. There may yet be some residual affects that I do not yet know about, and probably will never be able to connect to this event. But I feel that he was acting in the best faith that what he was doing was to help me. I felt that making a case out of the issue was not in the best interest of myself or greater society. I may make a small monetary gain, but I would possibly be helping to deprive the hospital and society of a potentially good doctor, one that I may need in the future. I felt that the normal internal review of the incident would be enough to ensure that any necessary corrective actions would occur.

posted 4 years, 7 months ago
view in context