Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:You Don't Go (Score 1) 158

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) 158

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) 158

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) 587

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: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.

Comment: Re:Manufacturing (Score 2) 386

by drinkypoo (#47958357) Attached to: Why You Can't Manufacture Like Apple

I think you have no idea what you are talking about. Drilling one hole with a laser isn't too hard. Drilling millions of holes with tight tolerances with near perfect repeatability IS as difficult as "rocket science". (as if that is some sort of valid comparison...) That's exactly what make manufacturing hard.

No, he's right. The benefit of laser cutting is that it is predictable and repeatable. It's far easier to laser-cut millions of holes with tight tolerances with near perfect repeatability with a laser cutter than it is to do it with a mill, provided that the surface being cut lends itself to laser cutting. The problem of positioning the laser is no more complex than the problem of positioning the part on a mill (arguably, it is less so) while milling the holes adds a significant number of additional complexities which are not present in a laser cutting system. That's why laser cutting has become so popular, to say nothing of its ability to handle materials which cannot practically be machined. Then again, laser cutting a fat billet isn't really practical either, so clearly both approaches have their benefits. I imagine that's why both approaches are used by Apple on the same hardware.

Comment: Re:This is why you outsource manufacturing. (Score 1) 386

by drinkypoo (#47958307) Attached to: Why You Can't Manufacture Like Apple

Outsource to a big company like Foxconn or Solectron that has already invested in all the expensive equipment and processes (in both cases, some of it actually paid for by Apple), and have them do your manufacturing for you.

The problem with that notion is that you can and will be pushed aside if Apple wants to do a bunch of manufacturing right now. You are last in line for the big guys. You need to be matched with the appropriate manufacturer.

Comment: Re:Dont forget! (Score 1) 386

by drinkypoo (#47958295) Attached to: Why You Can't Manufacture Like Apple

I wonder if some kind of fair trade system could be developed for electronics, just like we have for food products?

The simplest fix is to charge a tariff to offset the benefits of cheap labor. Then you get money and eliminate the benefits of slavery, without actually outlawing trade. In order to prove that you're unfairly assessing these tariffs, they have to prove that they're not oppressing their people, so the process drives transparency.

It won't fix the low value of human life in China overnight, but it will apply pressure in the correct direction. Sadly, it's not even on the radar.

Comment: Re:It is doable. (Score 1) 386

by drinkypoo (#47958281) Attached to: Why You Can't Manufacture Like Apple

Until you get really sick or run off to Argentina with Miffy, and then the remaining staff hasn't a clue about how to run or fix all the custom contraptions.

The complexity of equipment we're talking about here is nothing like software development. You do realize that even machine tools only have a handful of moving parts, right? Tools which hold animals (or cut, smash, or otherwise affect them) can be apprehended simply by dissasembling them. Then you measure some distances center to center, and maybe the bore and stroke of some cylinders, and do some simple math (as in, even I can do it, and I have issues with numbers) and et voila, you know how it works. Especially if they have more than one of them, and replacement parts can be copied from another machine. Farm equipment is regularly repaired by people who don't have a manual.

Comment: Re:"compared to consumer grade cameras" (Score 1) 50

Because in order for me to give a shit, I have to be able to afford it. Otherwise, I really don't care. I can, however, muster enthusiasm for open-source cameras with the quality of video provided by an expensive DSLR, but cheaper, and still able to use their lenses. If someone can point me to something like that, I'll be excited.

I am a computer. I am dumber than any human and smarter than any administrator.

Working...