Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:You Don't Go (Score 1) 156

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) 156

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) 156

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:The article is more extreme than the summary (Score 1) 538

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:Largest Climate march in history (Score 0) 165

I love that story because it compared a shot of the Mall after the Inauguration to a shot of the Mall after the Tea Party protest, even though the Tea Party protest wasn't at the Mall. So it's true the Mall was very clean after the Tea Party protest. The entire story is as true as it is disingenuous.

Comment: Re:What a Waste of Fossil Fuels (Score 0, Troll) 165

by mi (#47964959) Attached to: Hundreds of Thousands Turn Out For People's Climate March In New York City

I doubt there's a person on this earth that's ever achieved their political goals without at some point having to sacrifice their principles to at least some degree.

Golden words. And it is especially true about Communists, who nowadays masquerade as "environmentalists". Like watermelons, they are green on the outside, but red inside.

Scratch a "green" activist, and you'll find a Che Guevara T-shirt underneath. Whether global warming is really happening (and it is already accepted, that we are living through a "pause" in it), if it helps sabotage Capitalism, it is a worthy cause.

And you'll notice, that these types — who also appear on every "anti-war" demonstration — would call themselves peaceful, non-violent, and opposed to "hatred". But, should they ever be allowed to perform their "revolution" (because Capitalism can't be reformed, you see), they'll all recall Che Guevara's

A revolutionary must become a cold killing machine motivated by pure hate.

Comment: brilliant way to hide the genuine bad reviews, too (Score 1) 226

by SuperBanana (#47962293) Attached to: Small Restaurant Out-Maneuvers Yelp In Reviews War

Pay no attention to the fact that what they're really doing is strongly diluting the actual poor reviews.

Honestly, the FAQ on their website makes them sound like complete fucking assholes. You don't have to bend over backwards for customers, but you really don't need to go around insulting the hell out of them.

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.

People are always available for work in the past tense.

Working...