A way to watch porn 'in public' without being hassled by 'the man'. Better yet, can you imagine driving at 75 mph while your favorite 'artist' performs her special talent. Seriously, we'll look back to the 'good old days' when people were just distracted by their cell phones, and not email, porn, and shopping. Hopefully cars will drive themselves before 'Joe SUV' gets his hands on 'this'.
The bitter irony is that it's these very industrial and technological advancements that make the discovery, analysis, synthesis, mass production, and world-wide distribution at affordable prices of this painkiller possible in the first place.
So, you think global warming is an advancement. Personally I see it as an accounting issue; hidden costs which some people pass on to other people, in particular future generations. Perhaps the reason why the Northeast is considered so 'liberal' is that one doesn't have to go far to find a brown field. A place of dead earth, unfit for human development, left by some long gone business which was unburdened by environmental regulation. The cleanup of someone else's mess is a continuing burden, both on the treasury, and the health of people who have long ago, if ever, benefited from their creation.
At one point cities didn't have sewers or trash collection, they just threw their daily waste into the middle of the street. Often the contents of chamber pots would rain down on the pedestrians below, and the rivers became so choked with human and animal filth, that they caused plague, and misery. Eventually cities, and towns raised taxes for sewers, required trash collection, then sanitary sewers, and eventually waste treatment facilities. Today one doesn't think of these things as unnecessary, or too costly, as the benefits of these requirements obviously far outweigh the costs of not having them, yet when the laws were first developed buffoons such as yourself, fought their implementation as being too costly, and unneeded. History has proven those fools wrong, as it will you.
Because the $100 per console made per WII for the first year will not make up for it's development costs either.
Few manufactured items, in particular innovative ones are profitable in their first year by those standards. Accountants have a neat trick called amortization, which can assume that initial costs are considered over the expected lifetime of the item. Also, I don't know where you are getting your numbers from, but I'd be very surprised if any manufacturer every made $100 each on anything selling for a retail price of $250 per unit.
Why would you purposely close the gap or actively prevent someone from getting in front of you
I don't stop people from passing me altogether, but when traffic is stacked up, the space between me and the car that I am following is the minimum space I like, a nice 'safe' two car-lengths (nearly three if I'm doing over 60). You weavers seem to think that is a invitation to make my 2 car lengths of space into a half a car(or less). Tell me how that is safer? I see it as a choice between 1 car-length behind a car which I 'know' or 1/2 behind some new driver. Unless there is a pacer in front of me it doesn't last long, and most know what I'm doing. If there is a pacer, I tend to just slow down as traffic will get dangerously stacked up, sometimes I'll even consider the next exit for a stop, as pacers are the trigger for most weavers.
Despite my best effort sometime people do get into that space and I give them the proper space require in front of me, but it slows down traffic behind me, I can't tailgate them. Sometimes they still do get ahead of me, and since my primary job is to keep myself safe, I slow down by 5 mph, what's the difference, well, times that by the number of cars which they 'force' to give space. It slows down traffic, thus making more people more aggressive, and increasing the number of weavers. Have you ever wondered why on some road traffic is either going 70 mph or crawling along: Often it's the number of people switching lanes ahead of you, and others giving them the proper space that they need to be safer.
Perhaps your breaking reactions are perfect, and you can perfectly time a car's speed, but the rest of us have two choices, either over-break, or slam into the other car. Also, you might not realize it yet, but some people who are put in a situation where they come to fear for their lives, react aggressively. Most people who commit deadly road rage acts are not the original offender, but someone who over-reacted to what they saw as a threat to their lives, it's actually a natural human response to a threat.
If being out front means having more response options available to you - then I'm out front.
Except for breaking, as all the cars are stacked up behind you, perhaps many of then tailgating each other, sure in a pile up you'd have the 'best' chance of surviving, unless a semi plows through the lot of you. Besides, we really do see you blocking up traffic, and I'll bet that you've seen more than a few people pull out in front aggressively, it's not 'random' you've pissed them off for the last 5 miles. Classic deadly Road Rage is most often a response to poor/inconsiderate driving such as yours, the left hand lane is the 'passing lane' which means one should never 'keep pace' with a car to their right. Stacking up traffic behind you is a pile-up waiting to happen, sure you 'might' not be involved, but other drivers feel this danger, and will then act aggressively against you when they can. Some fearful people cocoon to threats, others swing out in rage. Ironically, it's likely you see it as 'they did not see your car, further reinforcing your 'rule', however it's a wonder you have gotten shot yet.
Personally, I get a little 'spooked' when some does try to pace me, in particular the 'open' highway, if something like a deer runs into the road, it likely that we'll both try to avoid it by a combination of steering and breaking, and what are the chances that we'll do that at the same pace? I try my best to stay at a steady 10 mph over, moving over to the right to let faster drivers pass, and when I know that I won't be trapped in the right hand lane. Unlike others I really don't mind someone else passing me, but if I pass them again, I try not to let them ahead of me again.
For the nose-sitters, they're often of the variety that first tailgates, and when they finally do pass they will just pull up close in front of you.
I call them weavers, they weave in and out of traffic as if it's a NASCAR race. I try not to give them enough space to pull out in front of me. Often I reduce my normal two car-length gap to one when I see one approaching. It's not hard to see one coming up from behind, but the ones who are already in the right lane are hard to judge. However the guy who is tailgating a 'slow' moving car in the right lane is usually a weaver who tried to exploit a gap in the right lane and got trapped there. My general rule is (unless there is a left hand exit), I don't allow people to get in front of me, from the right hand lane, but I do allow it from the left lane, if there is no real space behind me.
Also, I've seen plenty of 'weavers' turn into pacers (and stay steady with the car to the right) when they get to the front of the pack, as it seems that their biggest concern isn't keeping a good speed, but being 'first'.
Those callers are bill collectors. Mark was (and likely is) a deadbeat (not that there is anything wrong with that:]). By law, or convention (I'm not really sure) they don't talk about Mark's financial problem with anyone else but Mark. The next round of creditors will start automated messages "I have an important message for Mark (his last name), call...", and this will repeat 4 or more times a day. Get rid of that number now, it won't stop.
what makes you think a blabber mouth ex-spy and a few journalists are anything other than foot soldiers?
Because that is all they have; It's not like Washington is going to stand up for the truth, or for that matter Europe. Hell, we are having enough trouble with Iraq as it is, the last thing we need is them to start supplying them with more Russian anti-tank weapons at a reduced cost and the Europeans are more concerned with heating their homes than a new Russian Plutocracy. Like it or not when people who speak up die, others have a tenancy to keep their mouths shut. Frankly, I gave a pausing thought of continuing this thread, and this is even my 'don't talk about myself account' on this site.
I would be more open to your (and the Russian state media) accusations of 'wag the dog' assignations, if there was some real historical precedent of media coverage of political killings fully bringing down a corrupt government and placing an opposing leadership in power, but there is none. There is no comparative example of it, and there is no solid opposing leadership to exploit it.
Everything in this story points to a 30 or 40 year old KGB plot, executed by people who were concern that another shooting would be too 'messy'. Thanks in part to 9/11 and planning for 'dirty bomb' officials and medical staff were prepared to spot and trace nuclear attacks. Add to that our new found access to samples from Russian nuclear plants and old KGB assumptions would be moot. I don't know if Putin was directly involved, but every sign says that it was (at least) done on his behalf.
What the state-controlled media is suggesting is that 'some unknown persons killed a leading voice of dissent by an exotic poison in an effort to create negative press for a political leader they all oppose'.
It is so common among that Japanese they actually have a title for those they do it to. Kamikaze. Terrorists were sacrificed in a similar manner if you believe the official 911.. These are not comparative examples, first of all movements sacrifice foot soldiers, or innocents not leaders and primary voices of opposition. Second both of your examples are of the 'we'll kill until you surrender' type, and not an orchestrated media ploy.
There are some who say that Bush (or the Jews) plotted 9/11, but there are also some who still believe OJ is innocent, that aliens do anal probes, and that a Nigerian will make them rich. P. T. Barnum never did say "There's a Sucker Born Every Minute", but whoever did gave a fair estimation of the availability of gullible people.
If you think Fox News is the only source of "no facts whatsoever" on TV, you're stupider than you look. Well, Fox News is just a low hanging fruit that often masquerades well as a legitimate news source. Another 'fine' example is Rush 'water boy' Limbaugh, who actually admitted on his show to 'carrying the water' for the republican party, which was likely the most honest thing he had ever said. However anytime Anne 'happy widow' Coulter is on any TV program, the 'factual content' tends to drop more than anyone else.
BTW, for the record, I said "Seriously, part of being a 'responsible consumer of knowledge' from any source is knowing that the facts may be different than presented.", I do not limit my skepticism from any source, in particular Slashdotters who use 3rd grade taunts.
There really is no hope for Slashdot when this drivel is modded Insightful.
By 'this' do you mean your own 'comment'? Do you belive everything you read on the internet or see on TV? or do you believe everything that Fox News put in the 'talking points memo' today? Likely you would have scored it 'insightful' youself if I slammed another media outlet like CNN. Damn liberal bias and all that!
Come back and play when you have something to say besides just whining about moderation.
Wikipedia should really have a disclaimer at the top of every page warning and reminding users that there's a good chance that the page below may contain absolutely no facts whatsoever. That really would solve a lot of issues, and is honest. It's a good idea, but why limit it to Wikipedia, it should just be built into the browser itself. For that matter the TV could print a such a warning when one changes the channel to Fox News.
Seriously, part of being a 'responsible consumer of knowledge' from any source is knowing that the facts may be different than presented.
Still, the whole "Putin did it because he's bad" line of reasoning
I'm not convinced that Putin did it. In fact, we're unlikely to know for certain *who* did it. Ever. The guy made a lot of enemies, and there are also a lot of people who'd be glad to sacrifice one ex-spy to make Putin look like a villain.
-b.
The guy made a lot of enemies, and there are also a lot of people who'd be glad to sacrifice one ex-spy to make Putin look like a villain.
That comment is strait from the 'official talking points' from the state supported media. It would seem that the 'anti-Putin' faction seems to be particularly blood thirsty, as they are killing of numerous reporters, and other dissidents. They really need to get that plot to Hollywood as it might make a good thriller. While the tin-hat folk would disagree, I cannot recall one proven historical event where people were 'sacrificed' for a cause in such a way. Sure a few times accidents and random crimes have been 'spun' for political affect (like the Maine in Cuba), but killing off people who agree with you is not a conventional nor logical tactic.
Hell, the state-corrupted media has even gone as far as suggesting that the former spy killed himself, perhaps with the polonium 210 pack all spies carry.
The fact is that killing dissidents is old Soviet SOP, the fact that it is making a come back with an old KGB guy at the helm is no real surprise. In my mind the only real question is 'does Putin know or is it being done without his knowledge by those who benefit from his coattails?'. Frankly, I suspect the latter, but only because I don't really want to piss him off, because every one knows what happens to his critics.
I don't think any higher up (in organized government) would be dumb enough to order a hit this sloppy.
You might have said the same thing about Nixon. Corruption and crime are nothing new in politics, and those that hold office will continue to prove that they are simply human. Sure the KGB (or whatever they are calling it these days) are 'smarter' than 'that' as a group, but it's likely that whoever is doing 'these dirty deeds' doesn't report though the normal chain of command, nor are these plans well vetted with the experts in the community. I believe that it is most likely that they thought that a quick onset of cancer is a lot less likely to make the evening news. Chances are that they didn't anticipate the number or the sensitivity of radiation detectors, nor the astute analysis of the medical staff. I guess that is what happens when you dust off 30 year old assignation plans from the KGB archive.
The dead guy had a long history of making enemies...
If this was the first one of Putin's critics to meet a unfortunate end, you might have a point. In fact the first 'official' response (from state controlled media) suggested that he may have committed suicide. Sorta like the proverbial mod boss claim that his dead colleague in the room simply 'fell' on his knife 27 times. To me it looks like it now the Russian voters time to clean house, that is of course if Putin doesn't stop them.
Why is he writing this memo now and not two years or one year ago?
Likely, his memo last 'big memo' said to maximize 'scope' to increase chances of finding the next great 'thing'. The way to get the 'really big bonus' is to propose a really big sweeping corporate change. Plans which involve 'cost savings' are really good because if you play your cards right, you get the bonus this year for estimated 'savings' five years down the line.
He could also be management's agent of change. Someone brought in, placed there, or 'sacrificed' to 'give the bad news', so that the rest of top mgmt only looks like they 'can't escape the logic' rather than being than being the bad guys.
Some people (perhaps even me) would insist that 'if it is such a good idea, he should be the first to go', but it's most likely that he won't be in Yahoo much longer anyways. As people like that are often aggressive job hoppers, or they are left isolated, perhaps even feared by their peers. Either way, to paraphrase Dilbert's boss, he'll "make your bonus non-existent, so that mine will be huge"
I don't know about the rest of you but my TV market is flooded with these 'clean coal advocacy' ads. Seems that four or five times a night some 6 year old start to lecture me about the promise of 'clean coal technology' in *her* lifetime. Or another which tells me that emissions are down 40% but generation is up double (or something like that; he didn't mention that the industry fought really hard against those same pollution controls).
Seriously, is this how the energy companies are spending their windfall profits? Campaign style fantasies, and 'facts', I just can't wait for the negative advertising, like how wind farms slow down the earth's rotation.
That's the exact same article, and I think you mean the PS3 won't be able to repeat the success of the PS2.
well, it's the second page to the article (I did say that it is a good article), and yes, that is a typo, but it wasn't mine, I copied it directly from the page.
Of course it was a joke, nearly all AC posts are jokes, most, like yours, isn't funny. Misusing Godwin's law is rarely 'funny', and never 'informative' (as it was when I posted) that post was no exception.
First post and it's already Godwin time! Is this a record?
I doubt it would be a record, if it applied. Godwin's Law is about comparing something/someone to Nazism/Hitler. The post was an example of offensive speech the should banned before the word 'porn'.
I'm hoping one of these days people will realize, just like Tamagotchies, pet rocks and the Tubthumping song, that the only reason sites like YouTube and MySpace prevade culture are because they're popular. It has nothing to do with great content or inherently good design.
Tell that to Craig's list as well. It's not 'how pretty', or 'technically advanced' a website is but how many people look at it, and how many people use it for what they want to present, even if it most of it isn't great, some stuff does shine (or at least funny as hell). Sure there are technical problems with YouTube, but they have the eyeballs, and the Google engineers should be able to fix it up quicker than anyone else.
Re:Whats wrong with hygiene?
on
Self Cleaning Mouse
·
· Score: 2, Informative
f you don't clean the environment you occupy for 1/3rd of your day, then heck, you deserve to get sick.
A third! you Slacker! However I agree fully. Personally I change my keyboard, both at home and at work about once a year, and I get rid of mice at nearly the same rate. I also wipe them (in particular the mouse), with a disinfectant spray once in a while. My desk chair (at home) is changed about every two years (I've also swapped out my chair at work with unused matches before). As anyone who knows me, I am NOBODY's neat freak, nor am I a germaphobe, but I live at my desk, it should be at least as clean as my toilet (which is about a week from it's last scrubbing right now). Of course I've been changing my feather bed pillows every two years these days (that's another one you should see studies on).
That's the solution, work around him. Obviously, you can't just start giving work to someone else, but the real nugets, the gems should get handed to others, likely the business people who you work directly with. Make you boss the last one to know your best ideas rather than the first. Find you boss's nemisis and start giving your stategic planning to him. They still might not give you credit, but your boss won't have the credit either, and eventually upper management will seek you out.
Slashdot Mirror
A way to watch porn 'in public' without being hassled by 'the man'. Better yet, can you imagine driving at 75 mph while your favorite 'artist' performs her special talent. Seriously, we'll look back to the 'good old days' when people were just distracted by their cell phones, and not email, porn, and shopping. Hopefully cars will drive themselves before 'Joe SUV' gets his hands on 'this'.
So, you think global warming is an advancement. Personally I see it as an accounting issue; hidden costs which some people pass on to other people, in particular future generations. Perhaps the reason why the Northeast is considered so 'liberal' is that one doesn't have to go far to find a brown field. A place of dead earth, unfit for human development, left by some long gone business which was unburdened by environmental regulation. The cleanup of someone else's mess is a continuing burden, both on the treasury, and the health of people who have long ago, if ever, benefited from their creation.
At one point cities didn't have sewers or trash collection, they just threw their daily waste into the middle of the street. Often the contents of chamber pots would rain down on the pedestrians below, and the rivers became so choked with human and animal filth, that they caused plague, and misery. Eventually cities, and towns raised taxes for sewers, required trash collection, then sanitary sewers, and eventually waste treatment facilities. Today one doesn't think of these things as unnecessary, or too costly, as the benefits of these requirements obviously far outweigh the costs of not having them, yet when the laws were first developed buffoons such as yourself, fought their implementation as being too costly, and unneeded. History has proven those fools wrong, as it will you.
Few manufactured items, in particular innovative ones are profitable in their first year by those standards. Accountants have a neat trick called amortization, which can assume that initial costs are considered over the expected lifetime of the item. Also, I don't know where you are getting your numbers from, but I'd be very surprised if any manufacturer every made $100 each on anything selling for a retail price of $250 per unit.
I don't stop people from passing me altogether, but when traffic is stacked up, the space between me and the car that I am following is the minimum space I like, a nice 'safe' two car-lengths (nearly three if I'm doing over 60). You weavers seem to think that is a invitation to make my 2 car lengths of space into a half a car(or less). Tell me how that is safer? I see it as a choice between 1 car-length behind a car which I 'know' or 1/2 behind some new driver. Unless there is a pacer in front of me it doesn't last long, and most know what I'm doing. If there is a pacer, I tend to just slow down as traffic will get dangerously stacked up, sometimes I'll even consider the next exit for a stop, as pacers are the trigger for most weavers.
Despite my best effort sometime people do get into that space and I give them the proper space require in front of me, but it slows down traffic behind me, I can't tailgate them. Sometimes they still do get ahead of me, and since my primary job is to keep myself safe, I slow down by 5 mph, what's the difference, well, times that by the number of cars which they 'force' to give space. It slows down traffic, thus making more people more aggressive, and increasing the number of weavers. Have you ever wondered why on some road traffic is either going 70 mph or crawling along: Often it's the number of people switching lanes ahead of you, and others giving them the proper space that they need to be safer.
Perhaps your breaking reactions are perfect, and you can perfectly time a car's speed, but the rest of us have two choices, either over-break, or slam into the other car. Also, you might not realize it yet, but some people who are put in a situation where they come to fear for their lives, react aggressively. Most people who commit deadly road rage acts are not the original offender, but someone who over-reacted to what they saw as a threat to their lives, it's actually a natural human response to a threat.
Except for breaking, as all the cars are stacked up behind you, perhaps many of then tailgating each other, sure in a pile up you'd have the 'best' chance of surviving, unless a semi plows through the lot of you. Besides, we really do see you blocking up traffic, and I'll bet that you've seen more than a few people pull out in front aggressively, it's not 'random' you've pissed them off for the last 5 miles. Classic deadly Road Rage is most often a response to poor/inconsiderate driving such as yours, the left hand lane is the 'passing lane' which means one should never 'keep pace' with a car to their right. Stacking up traffic behind you is a pile-up waiting to happen, sure you 'might' not be involved, but other drivers feel this danger, and will then act aggressively against you when they can. Some fearful people cocoon to threats, others swing out in rage. Ironically, it's likely you see it as 'they did not see your car, further reinforcing your 'rule', however it's a wonder you have gotten shot yet.
Personally, I get a little 'spooked' when some does try to pace me, in particular the 'open' highway, if something like a deer runs into the road, it likely that we'll both try to avoid it by a combination of steering and breaking, and what are the chances that we'll do that at the same pace? I try my best to stay at a steady 10 mph over, moving over to the right to let faster drivers pass, and when I know that I won't be trapped in the right hand lane. Unlike others I really don't mind someone else passing me, but if I pass them again, I try not to let them ahead of me again.
I call them weavers, they weave in and out of traffic as if it's a NASCAR race. I try not to give them enough space to pull out in front of me. Often I reduce my normal two car-length gap to one when I see one approaching. It's not hard to see one coming up from behind, but the ones who are already in the right lane are hard to judge. However the guy who is tailgating a 'slow' moving car in the right lane is usually a weaver who tried to exploit a gap in the right lane and got trapped there. My general rule is (unless there is a left hand exit), I don't allow people to get in front of me, from the right hand lane, but I do allow it from the left lane, if there is no real space behind me.
Also, I've seen plenty of 'weavers' turn into pacers (and stay steady with the car to the right) when they get to the front of the pack, as it seems that their biggest concern isn't keeping a good speed, but being 'first'.
Those callers are bill collectors. Mark was (and likely is) a deadbeat (not that there is anything wrong with that :]). By law, or convention (I'm not really sure) they don't talk about Mark's financial problem with anyone else but Mark. The next round of creditors will start automated messages "I have an important message for Mark (his last name), call...", and this will repeat 4 or more times a day. Get rid of that number now, it won't stop.
Maybe he is joining Newt Gingrich on his assault on free speech in a effort at being Newt's running mate.
Because that is all they have; It's not like Washington is going to stand up for the truth, or for that matter Europe. Hell, we are having enough trouble with Iraq as it is, the last thing we need is them to start supplying them with more Russian anti-tank weapons at a reduced cost and the Europeans are more concerned with heating their homes than a new Russian Plutocracy. Like it or not when people who speak up die, others have a tenancy to keep their mouths shut. Frankly, I gave a pausing thought of continuing this thread, and this is even my 'don't talk about myself account' on this site.
I would be more open to your (and the Russian state media) accusations of 'wag the dog' assignations, if there was some real historical precedent of media coverage of political killings fully bringing down a corrupt government and placing an opposing leadership in power, but there is none. There is no comparative example of it, and there is no solid opposing leadership to exploit it.
Everything in this story points to a 30 or 40 year old KGB plot, executed by people who were concern that another shooting would be too 'messy'. Thanks in part to 9/11 and planning for 'dirty bomb' officials and medical staff were prepared to spot and trace nuclear attacks. Add to that our new found access to samples from Russian nuclear plants and old KGB assumptions would be moot. I don't know if Putin was directly involved, but every sign says that it was (at least) done on his behalf.
There are some who say that Bush (or the Jews) plotted 9/11, but there are also some who still believe OJ is innocent, that aliens do anal probes, and that a Nigerian will make them rich. P. T. Barnum never did say "There's a Sucker Born Every Minute", but whoever did gave a fair estimation of the availability of gullible people.
BTW, for the record, I said "Seriously, part of being a 'responsible consumer of knowledge' from any source is knowing that the facts may be different than presented.", I do not limit my skepticism from any source, in particular Slashdotters who use 3rd grade taunts.
Come back and play when you have something to say besides just whining about moderation.
I'm not convinced that Putin did it. In fact, we're unlikely to know for certain *who* did it. Ever. The guy made a lot of enemies, and there are also a lot of people who'd be glad to sacrifice one ex-spy to make Putin look like a villain.
-b.
That comment is strait from the 'official talking points' from the state supported media. It would seem that the 'anti-Putin' faction seems to be particularly blood thirsty, as they are killing of numerous reporters, and other dissidents. They really need to get that plot to Hollywood as it might make a good thriller. While the tin-hat folk would disagree, I cannot recall one proven historical event where people were 'sacrificed' for a cause in such a way. Sure a few times accidents and random crimes have been 'spun' for political affect (like the Maine in Cuba), but killing off people who agree with you is not a conventional nor logical tactic.Hell, the state-corrupted media has even gone as far as suggesting that the former spy killed himself, perhaps with the polonium 210 pack all spies carry.
The fact is that killing dissidents is old Soviet SOP, the fact that it is making a come back with an old KGB guy at the helm is no real surprise. In my mind the only real question is 'does Putin know or is it being done without his knowledge by those who benefit from his coattails?'. Frankly, I suspect the latter, but only because I don't really want to piss him off, because every one knows what happens to his critics.
If this was the first one of Putin's critics to meet a unfortunate end, you might have a point. In fact the first 'official' response (from state controlled media) suggested that he may have committed suicide. Sorta like the proverbial mod boss claim that his dead colleague in the room simply 'fell' on his knife 27 times. To me it looks like it now the Russian voters time to clean house, that is of course if Putin doesn't stop them.
but not always
Likely, his memo last 'big memo' said to maximize 'scope' to increase chances of finding the next great 'thing'. The way to get the 'really big bonus' is to propose a really big sweeping corporate change. Plans which involve 'cost savings' are really good because if you play your cards right, you get the bonus this year for estimated 'savings' five years down the line.
He could also be management's agent of change. Someone brought in, placed there, or 'sacrificed' to 'give the bad news', so that the rest of top mgmt only looks like they 'can't escape the logic' rather than being than being the bad guys.
Some people (perhaps even me) would insist that 'if it is such a good idea, he should be the first to go', but it's most likely that he won't be in Yahoo much longer anyways. As people like that are often aggressive job hoppers, or they are left isolated, perhaps even feared by their peers. Either way, to paraphrase Dilbert's boss, he'll "make your bonus non-existent, so that mine will be huge"
Seriously, is this how the energy companies are spending their windfall profits? Campaign style fantasies, and 'facts', I just can't wait for the negative advertising, like how wind farms slow down the earth's rotation.
For me it's all about the price
Of course it was a joke, nearly all AC posts are jokes, most, like yours, isn't funny. Misusing Godwin's law is rarely 'funny', and never 'informative' (as it was when I posted) that post was no exception.
That's the solution, work around him. Obviously, you can't just start giving work to someone else, but the real nugets, the gems should get handed to others, likely the business people who you work directly with. Make you boss the last one to know your best ideas rather than the first. Find you boss's nemisis and start giving your stategic planning to him. They still might not give you credit, but your boss won't have the credit either, and eventually upper management will seek you out.