Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:In lost the will to live ... (Score 1) 795

"No arheist is so stupid" was the claim. The link refutes the absolutist "no atheist", but perhaps I misread the misspelling, and you meant something else?

Still, I should have read further back in the conversation and posted this instead:
http://www.science20.com/writer_on_the_edge/blog/scientists_discover_that_atheists_might_not_exist_and_thats_not_a_joke-139982

Comment Re:You Don't Go (Score 1) 182

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?

Comment Re:Bzzzzt:: wrong! (Score 1) 182

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.

Comment Re:Good. IndieGoGo should do it too (Score 1) 203

Considering the sun is ~93 lumens per watt and we've got LEDs now pushing 300+ lumens per watt, not very much power, at all. One watt will put any LED brighter than even the glare on the glass.

The problem is that you're not just doing 1 LED when you're making lane markings using LEDs. You're lighting up dozens per hexagon, and the results we got had the power cost of the lane markings drowning out the power gained by the solar panels.

"Lumens per watt" doesn't make much sense when considering whether or not a light will be visible(and not just visible, 'easily visible') because you still have to consider how many watts the sun is putting out. Given solar panels somewhere between 10-15% efficient, you'll need a surface area at least 10 times that of the LED lighting to simply break even.

Comment Re:In lost the will to live ... (Score 1) 795

I was thinking more about the "Good without God" movement- definitively and explicitly atheist, yet still somehow affected by "Good" that just happens to coincide with the good of Christianity.

Your one true atheist would be rather unwelcome in such circles, having never worked at a soup kitchen.

Slashdot Top Deals

Happiness is twin floppies.

Working...