Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Please describe exactly (Score 1) 385

Right. So when any of the normal annual changes take place (the way they handle certain experimental drugs or therapies, the way they handle certain hospital scenarios, etc), the insurer can no longer provide the plan - the ACA shuts it down because it doesn't provide post-menopausal women maternity care, etc.

So I am a bit confused about why that is a problem. The cost to the insurer of offering maternity care to post-menopausal women should be about zero. Why not tack that onto an otherwise good plan if that's what the law requires? Wouldn't that make more sense than scrapping the plan for such a flimsy reason?

Comment: Re:You Don't Go (Score 1) 172

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) 172

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) 172

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:Refunding my investment (Score 1) 192

by Saxerman (#47966615) Attached to: Kickstarter Lays Down New Rules For When a Project Fails

Creators are responsible for their projects. When you back a project, you’re trusting the creator to do a good job, so if you don’t know them personally or by reputation, do a little research first. Kickstarter doesn’t evaluate a project’s claims, resolve disputes, or offer refunds — backers decide what’s worth funding and what’s not.

Some projects won’t go as planned. Even with a creator’s best efforts, a project may not work out the way everyone hopes. Kickstarter creators have a remarkable track record, but nothing’s guaranteed. Keep this in mind when you back a project.

An investment is a risk-based transaction. Donating to Kickstarter technically qualifies, but what do you get in exchange for your money? Not an ownership stake, which is what a stock offers. Not a 'financial product', which has largely always been against Kickstarters terms and conditions.

You get a 'Backers Pledge'. And I have yet to see any legal case that would demonstrate that is anything other than charity. Any scammer worth their salt should be able to mount a legal 'reasonable effort' defense that would stand up on court.

Comment: Re:Governmental ?? (Score 1) 118

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) 715

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:The review ecosystem is good and truly broken.. (Score 2) 238

by rwa2 (#47963135) Attached to: Small Restaurant Out-Maneuvers Yelp In Reviews War

Pretty neat... I thought the online reviewing space was going the "reputation" route, becoming more "social" by allowing more highly weighting reviews from people in your group of friends (as well as entries in your "feeds" when friends visit a place). This seems to be the route of stuff like Foursquare... and... well, other similar services that I ignore because I don't have a very extensive network of friends who dine at the same sorts of places I go to.

The other route is to just have a place with reputable journalistic integrity do the reviews, which works OK in big cities. But then you pretty much have to know which journal to use in each major metro area, and deal with the reviews possibly being a year or two out of date. And, of course, probably little to no app integration with your favorite map search engine. is a great example for the DC area; we'd pretty much cycle through the entire "Cheap Eats" and "Dirt Cheap Eats" section for nearby neighborhoods, and maybe a few of the "100 best" for special occasions.

Other than that, I really do like Yelp for local recommendations, and have had great experiences using it. So much so that I downloaded the app when Google Maps switched from Yelp to Zagat for local search.

As an aside, I tried to like Zagat, even paid for a subscription back in the PalmOS days. But ultimately, Zagat reviews and ratings always seemed to be biased too much towards decor and not at all enough towards food quality, authenticity, and "interestingness", which Yelp excels in.

So it does suck to hear that Yelp is starting to extort business owners for listing good reviews, since I do make go/no-go decisions based on relative rankings. I dunno, maybe Yelp could start charging users extra for "journalistic integrity" mode that turns off some of their extortion effects, while the "free tier" of user gets rankings based more on advertising.

Anyway, articles like this do make me upset with Yelp. But a lot of places do seem to have yelp sticker on their window, so perhaps it's just part of the cost of doing business these days. I applaud this italian joint for lashing out against it in an entertaining way, and I'll start searching for some of the lowest reviewed places too, since I mostly use Yelp to find the exceptional places anyways.

Comment: Re:Corporations are belong to people = have rights (Score 1) 88

by drinkypoo (#47960971) Attached to: Is Google's Non-Tax Based Public School Funding Cause For Celebration?

Specifically if I invest money in a corporation with certain rights, I have the right to expect to see those rights not tampered with.

Nonsense. Laws are changed all the time. There's no constitutional guarantee to any of those rights, and many of them are based on deliberate misinterpretation of existing laws in any case.

Measure twice, cut once.