Look, all you have to do is look at the stills from the recent lunar orbters when taken over several orbits in differing light. You can *clearly* see the remains of the sound stage rigging they left there when they lifted off. None of that stuff was necessary for the landing - they just shot the video with faked effects right there and came back leaving all the video gear. You can't argue with that.

I've already selected the sword I will use to separate his head from his body.

There can be only one

I haven't been modded troll in, like 40 hours, so I was feeling left out. Anyway...

You're employer is under no requirement to pay for training unless they have asked you to job which requires that training and they hired you knowing that you did not have those skills. Some companies provide training as a benefit - allowing you to increase your skill level in your field or even a related one on their dime because they feel that developing in house expertise is valuable and will pay dividends. If your company identifies a need for a skill which you do not have, I would expect them to either hire someone else or offer to send you to training.

In any case where you bring a possibility for training, your manager (we hope, though sometimes it's faceless management or HR) will look to see if it increases your ability to perform work and provide additional value to the company. That gets played against the budget, the path your employer has for you within the organization, your value to the organization, and your overall marketability.

As a business owner, I can tell you that training is wildly expensive. As a former employee, I can tell you that conferences - on the whole - are wasted time and money for the employer. Training is a toss up unless it's directly related to your work or the work the company would like to go after or compete for. If you ever think training is cheap, take the cost of the class, the cost of transportation, the cost of lodging, the cost of per diem then add to it about $500 in internal time processing all the requests and approvals, then take your hourly rate times the number of hours you'll miss work and multiply it by 2.5. THAT'S the cost to the company. And that's why not all training is approved. A $250 conference for half a week can easily hit $5,000 in costs to the company.

I'm not saying that training is bad, or that companies can't find value in training, or that this particular company is good or bad. Merely pointing out that the cost of training is far higher than most employees ever realize.

I started out thinking he was far right, bludgeoning the people who think they know science but are really just too stupid to know better because they're not really geniuses - Fox lives on making fun of the "intellectuals." Then he claims that true science is hard and that people are just animals that can't get past their lack of understanding of basic probability, which puts him soundly on the left end of MSNBC. Then he wraps up by seeming to dismiss everything and everyone for not being good enough in his personal world/religious/scientific view, which could really put him in either the far right or far left.

I think he's mostly a pedant and a language troll, so I guess he fits right in here at /.

Most musicians I know make money doing gigs (i.e. working for a living). Movies are generally profitable or not based on theatrical sales - a time when there are no quality online versions; sales after a theatrical run is complete rarely changes a flop to profitability.

Interestingly, there are troupes of actors travelling all over the country and world who make money night after night performing in venues all over the country side. It's called theater, and - interestingly - when you put a "star" in a show you don't even have to travel. Have you seen the sellouts for Neil Patrick Harris, or Patrick Stewart on Broadway? Even if you ignore the fact that people can still make money performing live, the top movies, since 1920 have *the theatrical receipts* often exceeding the production cost by a factor of 4. That's a margin even the stingiest of capitalists drools over. In fact, the top 50 theatrically grossing movies (which are mostly from the last 20 years) grossed no less than 775 Million dollars EACH, and only 7 of them cost more than 200 Million to make, with none more than 300 Million. It's probably okay not to worry too much about being able to feed the families of the poor movie executives, even if by some strange change in the copyright law they lost all rights to their films at the close of the production run.

Financial reward isn't the goal of kickstarter backers. Never has been.

Your problem is using Waze. Maps should be all you ever need, and now that Google owns Waze you should expect a more and more hostile environment for the app.

Which is funny since I left the iOS world this because things stopped "just working."

There's noting innovative or interesting about this kind of 3D scanning technology. It has no purpose, and will only be part of some "spec war" that goes on in the android phone circles. People just don't need - or want - 3D scanners in their phones.

Until 2019, when Apple includes the most revolutionary thing to ever occur in a phone - and it's the one thing you can't live without. The i3D module will be what turns the mobile device market on it's head.

(Sorry for the troll. Sooo many Apple fanbois on my FB feed these last few days. NFC payments, big screens, and optical image stabilization are the second coming, apparently. I just had to lash out.)

Is this the online equivalent to getting tickets to the symphony? If so, it's no wonder they're all going under.

or maybe

If a symphony director thinks having all his buddies sign up for $9000 websites is a good idea, maybe we're paying symphony players too much.

or, perhaps better

Symphony conductor wants to keep all of the instrumentalists off his new site, so he sets the entry fee to be more than what they make in a year.

Came here just to ask if there was a discount, or if the membership would offer/reinstate a free I Am Rich app. for the first x users!

California law will require that handsets be able to be remotely disabled by the user. This is one of the easiest ways to do that - to encrypt the phone so that there is no way to operate it without entering the passcode. No resets, no workarounds. Both Google and Apple know that this is the chance to get it into the only x.0 release before that deadline.

It's not high and mighty, it's just getting into compliance. IMHO, it's a good thing, but it's not some special high road either one is taking.

Are you kidding, it's much easier to say "we cannot do that" than have to go through verifying and unlocking a device every time someone forgets their passcode. It may piss off those customers, but there's nothing they can do.

I think the iPhone 6s should have a user-writable strip on the back so you can write down your passcode in case you forget it. Maybe a little sticky strip to cover it up so people can't see it normally.

The backups are not encrypted with keys that Apple doesn't have, so they can turn over all of your backed up data - they just can't remotely unlock the physical phone device. All that's required is to make sure the phone is in range when it backs up and Apple can provide (nearly) all the data police require.

This is security on the device, but not of the backups. They should be doing client side encryption and zero-knowledge storage in the cloud.

So remember, kids - if you're going to go all jihad or spaceman with your iPhone, just make sure you set it not to save any backups!