Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:You Don't Go (Score 1) 146

by drinkypoo (#47967467) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Who Should Pay Costs To Attend Conferences?

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) 146

by drinkypoo (#47967445) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Who Should Pay Costs To Attend Conferences?

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:Your employer (Score 1) 146

by drinkypoo (#47967415) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Who Should Pay Costs To Attend Conferences?

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.

Comment: Re:Bzzzzt:: wrong! (Score 1) 146

by pla (#47967265) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Who Should Pay Costs To Attend Conferences?
As a business owner, I can tell you that training is wildly expensive.

As an engineer, I can tell you that not training is much, much more expensive.

The last training my employer sent me to, this past spring, cost them a bit under $3000 total. For that $3000, they can:
1) now brag that they have a Foo(tm) certified developer working on the project (quite possibly worth far more than that $3k by itself), and
2) I can now actually do some key parts of the project without wasting a month or three bootstrapping the same info I learned in a week.

And just to put #2 in perspective, I cost my employer almost that much per week. You want "wildly expensive"? Waste a month of my productive time. That sort of short-sighted penny-pinching gets expensive fast. Yes, sending me off for training costs more than the list price of the training; it has an ROI many, many times that upfront cost, however.

As a former employee, I can tell you that conferences - on the whole - are wasted time and money for the employer.

Then you've gone to the wrong sort of conferences. I have yet to go to a conference that didn't help my employer more than having my butt in a chair for a week (and yeah, you could easily twist that into an obvious slam). And as a bonus, yes, conferences do offer a bit of a mini-vacation, so I come back refreshed and excited, on top of whatever more academic or networking-related benefits I get from going.

That said, I will agree with you and others who deride the FP's implied sense of entitlement. If my employer didn't see the value in improving the breadth of their in-house expertise, hey, their call; though I can promise that hell would get chilly before they directly benefited from anything I pay for out of my own pocket (fortunately not a problem at the moment - my current employer has a truly awesome continuing education program, and as long as I'll put in the time, they'll put in the dime for just about anything even remotely reasonable).

Comment: Re:In lost the will to live ... (Score 2) 463

by PopeRatzo (#47966297) Attached to: How Our Botched Understanding of "Science" Ruins Everything

Non-violence can be derived from any ethical position that views others as equal to yourself in all ways.

Yes, this. And not even in "all ways". All I need to do is see others as equal in the sense of existing to have an ethical position.

To treat others as I would like to be treated. The "Golden Rule" is not a Christian innovation. See, Uhl's "Enlightened Selfishness".

Comment: Re:Governmental ?? (Score 1) 111

by Reziac (#47965799) Attached to: Is Alibaba Comparable To a US Company?

I don't know anything about Alibaba as a company, or about their stock arrangements. But I do know that over the years the website has worked to become more buyer-friendly and to earn buyer trust. My main concern about this is that they don't go overboard with growth and ruin what so far seems to be a good thing.

Comment: Re:The article is more extreme than the summary (Score 1) 463

by drinkypoo (#47965249) Attached to: How Our Botched Understanding of "Science" Ruins Everything

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" ... Science is the pursuit of truth. What it is not is a declaration that a matter is forever settled. Everything is open to question. Some of the debates are considered settled for all practical purposes, and don't really need to be revisited unless other base assumptions are challenged by new findings, but that still doesn't mean that science is not a pursuit of truth. That everything is open to question is you know that it is. If the goal were to feel good, then we could declare all current matters closed.

Comment: Re:Just in time for another record cold winter (Score 1) 161

"Superstorm"* Sandy

* So named because it wasn't even strong enough to count as a real hurricane...

On the contrary, Sandy was a category 2 hurricane when it made landfall on Cuba. Moreover, it still had hurricane-force winds when it made landfall in New Jersey; the only reason it wasn't called a "hurricane" was that it was post-tropical. In other words, it was as severe as a hurricane, but a different kind of storm.

Comment: Re:"Stakeholders" (Score 2) 95

by mrchaotica (#47964533) Attached to: Nobody's Neutral In Net Neutrality Debate

It would be the government is now regulating the actual traffic on the internet

You are a liar, doing nothing but spreading FUD.

Regulating ISPs as Common Carriers would "regulate the actual traffic on the Internet" exactly as much as regulating phone companies as Common Carriers censors the content of telephone calls -- which is to say, not in the slightest.

Order and simplification are the first steps toward mastery of a subject -- the actual enemy is the unknown. -- Thomas Mann