You're equating the "buggy whip/automobile" quantum leap with the "C/C#/C++/Ruby/Perl/python/haskell/lisp/whatever" language wars? Or "cloud/client/distributed/centralized"? Or even "sql/nosql"?
Straw man. We don't know what kind of conference this is.
By implementing Obamacare, Obama has saved more American lives than any other person in history. Fact.
But only to build his army of gay-married socialist drones.
In certain circles there's no such thing as good news.
They have to do with the fact they are laughing at all the I-sheep
Enjoy throwing away your android phone once a new one comes out with an incremental improvement because you are not going to have anyone wanting to buy your used Android. iPhones, however, retain a great deal of resale value.
nVidia technology fell into the past through a wormhole.
Luckily it was properly static-bagged, because it actually went back to 1912 and had to be stored until a computer could be developed to interface to it
This is really pretty simple. If the funding isn't available to send you to a conference in Vegas -- You don't go.
If it's so simple, why did you make such a sophomoric error? This is about the funding being available, but the decision not being made to spend it in this fashion.
It seems that you can't afford to go and your employer doesn't see value in sending you.
So which is it, do you understand that the funding is available, or don't you?
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.
Ignorance, you're displaying it freely. Every job pretty much demands that you take on other duties as required. The world is a changing place, and jobs change with it or companies go away. As the world changes, training is needed.
Your (note lack of apostrophe) employer is under no requirement to pay for training unless they want to stay in business. Then they should probably think about paying for people to have the skills they need to succeed.
If your company is laying stone or something, this may not apply to you. But if you are doing anything technical, then it does. If you think it doesn't, you are on the road to destruction.
CEO: "What happens if we don't, and they stay?"
CFO: "We get to keep a productive employee doing the things he's been doing well,
CTO: Unfortunately, the world is changing, and we need to change with it.
Oh, no CTO? Too bad, so sad. Thou shalt fail, o maker of buggy-whips. Enjoy this moment while it lasts.
While your statement is surely true in many (and I daresay most) cases, the reality is that companies make money making cuts and not investments.
False. That is the opposite of reality. Companies save money by making cuts, but they make money by making investments.
Have you ever met someone who renewed?
So you're not neutral. You're picking a side that you feel is under-represented, and you're taking that position.
Sometimes I genuinely am neutral. Just because I understand both sides of an issue doesn't mean I necessarily give a crap about the issue. To give a rather silly example I genuinely do not care one way or the other about the relative merits of emacs versus vi. I understand the arguments and can articulate them if someone seems to misunderstand something but I genuinely do not care about either side of that debate. I am the very definition of neutral there. (Actually my opinion is something along the lines of "a pox on both your houses") Whatever agenda I have has nothing to do with favoring one side or the other, hence I am neutral.
on some level, you need to be interested, and you need to have some kind of agenda-- even if that agenda is just "entertainment at flexing my intellectual capacity".
Interest is not the same thing as opinion. There are lots of things I like to understand but don't really care about the relative merits of one side or the other.
You are definitely part of the problem.
Here's a nothing, kid. Buy a dictionary. "conformity with fact or reality; verity", "actuality or actual existence", "accuracy, as of position or adjustment"
If they're neutral, they wouldn't debate.
I debate things all the time that I have a neutral viewpoint on. Usually I do this to point out that there is another side to an argument that has some validity that the person I'm debating is not acknowledging. Sometimes I debate a topic to help figure out what I believe about a topic. Only an idiot takes a side in a debate without first trying to understand the relative merits of the different sides being debated. Having a debate where the goal is to poke and prod arguments rather than to convince the other side can be extremely useful.
Hell slashdot itself is pretty much clear evidence that you do not actually have to believe in a position to debate the issue at hand.
The one day you'd sell your soul for something, souls are a glut.
