Dennis Kucinich is such a funny little dwarf. I imagine him standing on a little box, hidden by the podium, just so that he can reach the microphone.
I'm more interested in how many people fell asleep during this moronic diatribe, than what were the charges he read. In the end, this was a great waste of time and energy.
If they were actually concerned with conserving energy, they would have turned off the lights and sound in the chamber when the little gnome mounted the podium.
There is no way the US will EVER give up control.... especially in the present power crazed and fear driven attitude
For gods sake think of the children/terrorists/economic situation (delete as appropriate)we can't let an organisation comprised of non-americans have any power, they might do something we don't like
That has to be the most absurd statement I have seen in a long time. The only domain blocking (read squashing of free speech rights) we see on the internet is in countries where the ruling regime controls access to domains. Many of those countries would love to see anyone (the UN?!?) other than the US have control of ICANN. That would give them an opportunity to impose their brand of censorship on all of us.
I'd rather see control of the internet stay where it's less likely to be hammered into the NOAS (Network of Only Approved Speech).
I'm not sure what arena you are talking about. As for what I'm really made of, I'm not anyone or anything special. I'm just a guy that questions the perspectives of the society in which I find myself.
Not much point defining which tools are required if your toolbox is empty.
If I know which tools I need then I can set about obtaining them. If I don't know what tools I need, I might very well buy a hammer where a screwdriver would serve much better.
I am not blind. I choose which questions to answer.
Thus, it would seem you will only answer a question that someone has already answered. Of course, should you not understand the problem, you will still fire off some answer without regard as to whether or not it applies to the question asked.
I somehow thought you'd decline...
Again illustrating the point that you don't understand what humility is. Or is it that you don't understand the question, "How is a man humble?"
You cannot build on the learning of the past until you've mastered it.
I wish I could just bow to you as Master of the Obvious, but I'm not sure that you have taken in the whole learning of the past.
There are none that you could simply figure out "on-the-fly" so to speak. You need the tools.
The question is in defining which tools are necessary. For example, you seem to lack the tools to understand that without the ability to understand/deduce the problem, you won't have even the slightest idea of which tool to apply. Your blindness is the same as that defined by Douglas Adams in his Hitchhiker's Guide series. You seem to think that you only have to provide a solution, without regard as to whether or not it answers the correct question.
Come try. We'll teach you humility.
By this statement, you demonstrate your own lack of understanding in the concept of humility. I am not the one to teach you.
Deducing problems is easy. Deducing the solutions, however, is much harder.
I have to disagree with you. Many people have as much trouble understanding the actual problem as they do coming up with a solution. Solutions also come in different flavors. Some people can only find the "brute force" solutions, while others can find the more elegant solutions. Usually, it takes a better understanding of the problem to be able to find a more elegant solution.
And university is about learning the best practices and tactics that have been discovered and published by those who came before you, and learning how to apply those techniques to problem-solve.
Hence the problem with too many university undergraduate programs. Getting all caught up in finding the solution from "those who came before you" will mean that you will not be doing anything to innovate. True innovation and invention come not from just reusing the solutions of the past, but from thinking outside the box that many university programs stuff you into.
Is it wise to study those that have already solved many of the problems that we encounter? Of course it is, but to say that it is the only way (or even the best way) for us to be great at what we do is equally arrogant.
Hmmm...how hard is this to figure out? Let's see...
I got it! Let's not pre-install any file system! Woah! That's a dangerous idea!
The fact that the manufacturer may pre-install a FAT based file system does not equate to the manufacturer being required to pre-install any file system.
Memory, whether in the form of RAM, EPROM (in all its various flavors), or some sort of spinning opto/mechanical media, does not have a file system until someone puts one there. Send out unformatted flash cards and they get whatever file system is applied by the user's equipment!
"Score:4, Informative"? You have alot of room to talk about moderation!
Condescension is not a good strategy for you here. I am a physicist. Most of my training is in gravitational physics.
You too! That's great to hear! Where did you study? Can you provide me with some of your data and/or calculations that you used in determining the inaccuracies in MOND? Just point me to a page, please.
Really, dude. Your condescension is seriously backfiring here.
If I recall, it was your original posting that played the condescension card. At any rate, I grow bored with this.
Neither you, nor I, are going to change our basic philisophical attitudes, based on what we read on this site. I held your point of view for many years, and I know that nothing that was said to me during that time would shake me from my belief. Consequently, I don't actually expect you to change because of anything I say.
BTW, I truly would be interested in whatever you can point me to regarding MOND and any other studies of gravitational motion and effects. I majored in physics at Purdue University, but moved to computers because there was more money.
Meaning: your position is indefensible so you're ducking out while you still can. I notice that you had no response to my rebuttals. In fact, all your posts are remarkably long on rhetoric, and short on actual scientific merit.
No, actually it meant that I was leaving my office and I figured I would be busy with things that are much more entertaining than responding to commentary by the dull-witted. As it turned out I finished with other items quicker than I had originally anticipated.
In fact, all your posts are remarkably long on rhetoric, and short on actual scientific merit.
As are your's. You regurgitate the party line well, though, so I suppose you should get points for non-originality.
It wasn't when I saw it in school. What's the evidence that supports this claim?
I have my personal observation as experience. I have observed what is taught in the local schools, and I have talked with the teachers who spout this babble.
Gee, it would be nice if you had some basis for that assertion as well. Come, tell me, who are these people, and what facts demonstrate that they are "blindly" following their own belief?
You march to this drum quite nicely. Thank-you for providing the example which you requested. Oh, I know, you believe that you have the weight of scientific evidence on your side. Your need to attack what you don't seem to be able to grasp is a bit disappointing. It's okay, though. I mean you do follow the same patterns as such great institutions as the medieval Catholic church, the Flat Earth Society, and I'm sure many others.
When you have the capability to look beyond your own understanding of the world, and when you have grown enough to ask questions that have some merit, then perhaps you will be ready to discuss things on a level that I am willing to engage.
Such a shame, I thought that since you were at least familiar with the term abiogenesis you might have some useful arguments. Given your response, I'm guessing you picked it up off a board, and decided to use it because it made you sound like you had an inkling of intelligence.
The people who spend the most time whinging about the probabilities involved in evolution seem to have little grasp of the magnitudes of the numbers involved.
Well, at least you bring the term abiogenesis into the discussion. If it were not for the fact that I am growing bored with this conversation, I would love to follow that line. Unfortunately, evolutionary theory is commonly taught as an explanation for the creation of life. Most of the people responding here don't seem to dispute it, and certainly haven't had the intelligence to bring abiogenesis up. Then again, they probably have decided that I am some junk-scientist (or even !gasp! a religious nut), since I have the audacity to question the altar of evolution.
In any case, I will continue to chuckle at the people who are accusing one group of blindly following their belief, as they do the same with their own...
You mean, like being taught old and outdated Newtonian mechanics? I mean really, that junk was disproven a century ago.
You really need to keep up on your reading. Perhaps I'll find the article later, but there's been some interesting data showing that Newtonian models of motion do a better job of predicting some of the planetary motion. Then again, I'm not sure that you are capable of understanding the physics behind it. Perhaps if you go back to school you can catch up with the rest of the class.
The only "other ideas" in biology that compete with "old and outdated evolutionary theory" are "new and modern evolutionary theory".
So, I assume you would rather teach something that is known by scientific evidence to be false? You see, the system of checks you so laboriously documented for me is meant to keep false positives from being brought into the community. It is meant as a means from keeping us from stating that we know something that we don't know. However, as you describe its use, we also use it to perpetuate teaching the things we know are false.
Yeah, yeah, persecution complex. Give me a fucking break.
Glad to see that my legacy of using derisive language to attempt to demean someone that has alternate views is alive and well. Too bad you don't know how to put someone down without resorting to expletives. At least when I used to put down those that I considered my intellectual inferior I could use language that was civilized. Perhaps your bloodline will evolve to that point some day; or perhaps it will be found to be as inferior as you represent it and natural selection will take care of it for us.
Wrong. We have no choice but to suggest that nobody knows exactly how it works. The essence of scientific reasoning is the ability to say "we don't know", and not jump into the intellectual cowardice of superstition.
Perhaps if this was the way it was taught then we wouldn't even be having this discussion. However, it isn't taught that way. From what I can tell, the vast majority of high school science teachers, and text book authors, don't have "nobody knows" as part of their vocabulary.
Instead, they continue to teach evolution not as Origin of Species, but as Origin of Life.
No other aspect of biology, no other scientific theory is forced into the same corner.
A big reason that this one is picked out, or picked on, has to do with the way it is being taught. As a parent (in Kansas, no less), I can tell you that evolution is usually not taught as theory, but as fact.
The argument that there are holes in theory of evolution is correct, but then again, all theories have holes in them; unanswered questions, some data that doesn't fit neatly and the like.
For any other science that I know of, if you have data that doesn't fit your theory then you have to go back and rewrite your theory. The school systems often put forth the argument that high school students are not grounded well enough in the ideas of scientific theory to be able to grasp the nuances of evolutionary theory. So, they go for the lowest denominator. The truly sad part is that people like yourself are so narrow minded (and you have the gall to talk about how narrow minded religious groups are) that you would rather kids were taught old and outdated evolutionary theory, rather than opening up the discussion to other ideas.
The Catholic church versus Galileo has nothing on today's evolution zealots.
You do not understand evolution. I would suggest you take the time to read the most rudimentary book on the subject.
This is what is so fascinating about/. You can make completely absurd assumptions about what another writer knows, simply by taking a phrase out of context. Your suggestion that the person you quoted take time to read a rudimentary book about evolution is perhaps the most presumptuous thing I have seen.
Evolution is exactly not random, you have been mislead.
When you attempt to use the theory of evolution as the means by which life came into being, you have no choice but to suggest that it was random chance. If it was anything else then you would be suggesting that there must have been some sort of intelligence behind it.
The exercise of determining intelligent design versus a purely random occurrence would seem to be an interesting exercise. We could start out by randomly mixing chemicals in various environments that were devoid of any other life, and see how close we get to creating a single cell life form. Then, as we look at the mathematics behind it we could perhaps begin to calculate the odds that this occurred without anyone, or anything, to do the mixing. If it is as straight-forward as the pure evolution crowd proposes then all we need to do is artificially create a few strands of DNA, RNA, etc. and let them go at it. Eventually, they would surely come together into some form of bacteria.
Given enough time and impetus to evolve, they might even be able to make more intellectually enlightened statements than you have.
Your questions rings of popular junk science and junk philosophy.
This is the stereotypical response of "scientists" to anything that is said by someone whose credentials are unknown to the scientist, and whose opinion is not necessarily in keeping with the generally accepted theories of the day.
Although, unfortunately, in most cases people's understanding of a subject ends with the simplified explanation.
Ah, yes, another of the ivory-towered, black-robed magicians favorite tactics. I used to use this same approach when talking to people about physics and/or computers. It made me feel superior to say that what I was capable of understanding was so far beyond their limited capacity. As one that practiced those high ideals of studying physics, chemistry and computer science (at the university level) I find it contemptable when someone tries to use such transparent tactics on me.
Einsteinian Physics is an extension of Newtonian Physics), but it does not apply to Evolution versus Intelligent Design.
I am quite aware of Einsteinian vs Newtonian models of physical motion, and was not attempting to apply either of those to the concepts surrounding evolution. Rather, I was referring to the idea that so many times when we think we have finally understood something, we find that our understanding is mistaken (or perhaps misapplied).
Occam/Ockham's Razor only applies to equal explanations. It does not apply to two completely different explanations, even if one of them happens to be simpler.
What makes one explanation equal with another? If they were equal, would that mean that they were both correct? Or is it only an equal explanation if you can through empirical evidence, and experimentation, prove them to an equal degree? How do you define explanations to be equal?
Evolution versus Intelligent Design is not an example of Occam/Ockham's Razor.
Would I be correct in assuming that you say this because you don't hold the explanations found in intelligent design to be equal to the explanation found in the theories of evolution? Again, what is the criteria that makes explanations equal enough that you would apply Ockham's Razor?
I just have to chuckle at your use of heliocentric vs geocentric. Quite recently, I have begun to wonder if we haven't taken Occam's Razor to the extreme and come up with the "easier" solutions instead of the right solutions. One of the first questions I had to ask myself was, is the solar system (and perhaps even the universe) geocentric and we have just applied the easy answer instead of the right one?
I don't ask this to be flippant (although I do belive it to be non-crucial), but I do wonder if some of the deviations that we have noticed in movements of celestial bodies would not be explained if we didn't attempt to apply the easy answer first. Before you ask, I don't recall the exact situations of deviation but I do know that there are such wonderful theories as "dark matter" and such to attempt to explain these things.
In any case, I just thought it interesting that you should use an analogy that ties to something which I have begun to recently question.
I'm not sure how serious you are trying to be here, but the reason for starting with 0 (zero) in our arrays has nothing to do with the number of combinations of single digits. When we supply an array element designator what we are really doing is supplying the offset from the starting point of the array; hence the first item in the array is at offset zero, the second item is at offset one, etc. It has nothing to do with the "count" of items in the array, except that the last element will always be designated as one less than the size of the array.
Disclaimer: Some of these concepts may not be true in the programming language you use. If that is the case then it is because the authors of the language have hidden that detail from you.
BTW, I have a new rule. Whenever someone makes a big deal out of their Christianity, I challenge them to recite, from memory, the Beatitudes - the heart of Jeshua ben Jospeh's teaching. Can you? Just asking. (I do vaguely recall something in there about the meek being blessed...certainly Christianity would have a better rep if more who claim the label listened to that advice.)
Yeah, I already posted them on your blog site a couple of months ago. Never saw a reply, and it's certainly no test of someone's faith to ask them to post the Beatitudes (since anyone could look them up).
As for your assertions regarding the origins of bibical stories, it sounds like you probably subscribe to much of what Joseph Campbell wrote/taught? Or are you more of a devotee to Barbara Thiering? Either way, I suspect you didn't like some aspect of what the church was teaching you. Personally, I don't particularly like the Catholic teachings either. I also would say that to paint all of Christianity with the brush of Catholic beliefs is unwise.
In any case, have a merry Christmas and a happy new year.
Anyway: by now everyone's heard of it. So, you've let everyone know, y'all can shut up about it now.
This statement by itself points out how little you know, much less understand. I know that I still run across people, here in the United States, that don't know the message of Christianity. There are plenty of other places in the world where people don't know anything at all about Christianity, often because their government works to make sure they don't hear about it.
Then I'd recognize it as a scam. Sounds like a multi-level marketing scheme for a time-share or something.
Yeah, I really profit alot in this world for everyone that I tell the message of Christ. And I get so much respect from those that don't agree! Yeah, it's a wonderful scam and it makes all of us ordinary Christians so rich!
Certainly those who founded the cult of Jeshua ben Josesph knew their stuff; steal from previous mythologies
Sure...we stole it from...uhhhh...oh yeah, the Jews! Tell you what, when you want to learn a little bit about Christianity let me know. Oh, you wouldn't dare ask anyone that actually is one. After all, we are all idiots and you are so knowledgable!
If not, why would it need to be "preached" and "taught"?
This shows your ignorance of the full message. The reason for preaching and teaching is not so that Christians can just indoctrinate more people. Think of it this way...
Suppose you found the way to some wonderful new place to live, and you could bring along all the people you love. Would you ask them to come join you? What if the guy at the gate of this fabulous place told you that you can come in, but before he lets you in he wants you to tell 10 other people about it? Would you find 10 other people and let them know?
The message of Christianity is much like this. Those of us that believe in Jesus Christ know that we have a wonderful place to go. The "gatekeeper" asked us to do one thing before he went back to this wonderful place. He asked us to let everyone know that they could come along. That is the reason we "preach" and "teach".
I think it's more important for beginning programmers to learn to program the abstract machine that their language presents to them, rather than the "real" or "bare metal" machine they are taught to believe in. These abstract machines are specified in language definitions and guaranteed by language implementers, so they are real enough to be depended on and reasoned with.
I would tend to agree with this statement, except for one critical area; debugging. The younger programmers I deal with often are lacking in understanding the underlying "machine." When one lacks an understanding of the way the "machine" operates, it makes it difficult to find the more esoteric bugs that find their way into code. To neglect teaching basic concepts, such as memory management, means that programmers miss out on some of the underlying principals that can make their jobs easier.
This comment, and the many that have preceeded it, and likely will follow, illustrate the difference between managing and leading. The missing party in this case is a leader.
This manager wanted to hold on to the power of his position, without providing any direction to the person that was responsible for executing the work. His action of taking the programmer/engineer to "the room" showed that he was insecure in his position. A good leader seeks to empower the people they lead.
This manager was not concerned with either the customer, or the company he worked for. He wasn't even really concerned with how the customer perceived the company, although he would probably try to convince you otherwise. His real concern was how the customer perceived him. He didn't what his actions did to the morale of the employee that works for him. He will do this over, and over, again; and if he gets to a high enough position within the company, this attitude of managing, instead of leading, will take the company down.
Personally, I would leave that job as quickly as possible. Look to find a company that seeks to build on your success, and that has leaders in the positions of power. Managers are a dime a dozen...and most are worth even less. Good leaders are worth more than their weight in gold.
Normally I wouldn't bother replying to such worthless tripe, but since I don't have any mod points to burn right now I gotta say that your post is about as far from insightful as the east is from the west.
No matter what the supremes have done in the past (and there is none, with the new appointee(s)), you're losing it in the US. Just ask the guy who was against the Iraq war in a red state; just because it's not written into the law but enforced by your neighbours (who'll beat you up for wearing anti-bush t-shirts), it's still censorship.
You obviously have no idea what the difference is between government sanctioned censorship and vigilanty based violence. Let me educate you...
Government sanctioned censorship = you go to prison for disagreeing with the government Vigilanty violence = those that attack you may go to prison for their crimes
Do you understand the difference? Do you get the concept that in many of the countries that are intent on gaining "control" over the internet the normal outcome of your disagreeing with their policies is an extended stay in prison? Or are you just so caught up in whining about Bush that it doesn't really matter where the truth is?
I could cite more of your worthless statements, and perhaps even teach you something about critical thinking. I doubt that you have any desire to learn that ability, though.
Sorry, but this is complete hogwash. Many a company has been willing to slash its development staff so that the guys at the top can keep their fat salaries. Do I hold that against them? No, I think that if they can convince the shareholders that they can still accomplish the business plan without the supporting staff then the shareholders get what they deserve.
By the same token, I think that if the company I where I work does not want to lose me as an asset then they have a couple of things they need to do. First, make sure the environment is one that is likely to be one where I would want to stay. Second, make sure that my compensation is sufficient that the hassle of going someplace else isn't overshadowed by the rise in compensation.
The long and short of it is that non-compete contracts are a form of indentured servitude. Up until recently, I have had the ability to get companies to strike them from any contract I signed. Now, everyone wants me to commit the rest of my career to them. Between that and the whole craziness of patenting everything that moves, after 25+ years in the industry I am leaving software development behind. I wish all of you that continue on nothing but good, too bad I don't think you'll actually receive it.
Slashdot Mirror
Dennis Kucinich is such a funny little dwarf. I imagine him standing on a little box, hidden by the podium, just so that he can reach the microphone.
I'm more interested in how many people fell asleep during this moronic diatribe, than what were the charges he read. In the end, this was a great waste of time and energy.
If they were actually concerned with conserving energy, they would have turned off the lights and sound in the chamber when the little gnome mounted the podium.
I'd rather see control of the internet stay where it's less likely to be hammered into the NOAS (Network of Only Approved Speech).
I'm not sure what arena you are talking about. As for what I'm really made of, I'm not anyone or anything special. I'm just a guy that questions the perspectives of the society in which I find myself.
Is it wise to study those that have already solved many of the problems that we encounter? Of course it is, but to say that it is the only way (or even the best way) for us to be great at what we do is equally arrogant.
Hmmm...how hard is this to figure out? Let's see...
I got it! Let's not pre-install any file system! Woah! That's a dangerous idea!
The fact that the manufacturer may pre-install a FAT based file system does not equate to the manufacturer being required to pre-install any file system.
Memory, whether in the form of RAM, EPROM (in all its various flavors), or some sort of spinning opto/mechanical media, does not have a file system until someone puts one there. Send out unformatted flash cards and they get whatever file system is applied by the user's equipment!
"Score:4, Informative"? You have alot of room to talk about moderation!
When you have the capability to look beyond your own understanding of the world, and when you have grown enough to ask questions that have some merit, then perhaps you will be ready to discuss things on a level that I am willing to engage.
Such a shame, I thought that since you were at least familiar with the term abiogenesis you might have some useful arguments. Given your response, I'm guessing you picked it up off a board, and decided to use it because it made you sound like you had an inkling of intelligence.
In any case, I will continue to chuckle at the people who are accusing one group of blindly following their belief, as they do the same with their own...
MERRY CHRISTMAS and HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!
Instead, they continue to teach evolution not as Origin of Species, but as Origin of Life.
The Catholic church versus Galileo has nothing on today's evolution zealots.
When you attempt to use the theory of evolution as the means by which life came into being, you have no choice but to suggest that it was random chance. If it was anything else then you would be suggesting that there must have been some sort of intelligence behind it.
The exercise of determining intelligent design versus a purely random occurrence would seem to be an interesting exercise. We could start out by randomly mixing chemicals in various environments that were devoid of any other life, and see how close we get to creating a single cell life form. Then, as we look at the mathematics behind it we could perhaps begin to calculate the odds that this occurred without anyone, or anything, to do the mixing. If it is as straight-forward as the pure evolution crowd proposes then all we need to do is artificially create a few strands of DNA, RNA, etc. and let them go at it. Eventually, they would surely come together into some form of bacteria.
Given enough time and impetus to evolve, they might even be able to make more intellectually enlightened statements than you have.
I just have to chuckle at your use of heliocentric vs geocentric. Quite recently, I have begun to wonder if we haven't taken Occam's Razor to the extreme and come up with the "easier" solutions instead of the right solutions. One of the first questions I had to ask myself was, is the solar system (and perhaps even the universe) geocentric and we have just applied the easy answer instead of the right one?
I don't ask this to be flippant (although I do belive it to be non-crucial), but I do wonder if some of the deviations that we have noticed in movements of celestial bodies would not be explained if we didn't attempt to apply the easy answer first. Before you ask, I don't recall the exact situations of deviation but I do know that there are such wonderful theories as "dark matter" and such to attempt to explain these things.
In any case, I just thought it interesting that you should use an analogy that ties to something which I have begun to recently question.
I'm not sure how serious you are trying to be here, but the reason for starting with 0 (zero) in our arrays has nothing to do with the number of combinations of single digits. When we supply an array element designator what we are really doing is supplying the offset from the starting point of the array; hence the first item in the array is at offset zero, the second item is at offset one, etc. It has nothing to do with the "count" of items in the array, except that the last element will always be designated as one less than the size of the array.
Disclaimer: Some of these concepts may not be true in the programming language you use. If that is the case then it is because the authors of the language have hidden that detail from you.
As for your assertions regarding the origins of bibical stories, it sounds like you probably subscribe to much of what Joseph Campbell wrote/taught? Or are you more of a devotee to Barbara Thiering? Either way, I suspect you didn't like some aspect of what the church was teaching you. Personally, I don't particularly like the Catholic teachings either. I also would say that to paint all of Christianity with the brush of Catholic beliefs is unwise.
In any case, have a merry Christmas and a happy new year.
Then again, you seem to have the view that there's a limit on the amount of heaven available. Pity that you have such a small view of the universe.
Suppose you found the way to some wonderful new place to live, and you could bring along all the people you love. Would you ask them to come join you? What if the guy at the gate of this fabulous place told you that you can come in, but before he lets you in he wants you to tell 10 other people about it? Would you find 10 other people and let them know?
The message of Christianity is much like this. Those of us that believe in Jesus Christ know that we have a wonderful place to go. The "gatekeeper" asked us to do one thing before he went back to this wonderful place. He asked us to let everyone know that they could come along. That is the reason we "preach" and "teach".
I would tend to agree with this statement, except for one critical area; debugging. The younger programmers I deal with often are lacking in understanding the underlying "machine." When one lacks an understanding of the way the "machine" operates, it makes it difficult to find the more esoteric bugs that find their way into code. To neglect teaching basic concepts, such as memory management, means that programmers miss out on some of the underlying principals that can make their jobs easier.
This comment, and the many that have preceeded it, and likely will follow, illustrate the difference between managing and leading. The missing party in this case is a leader.
This manager wanted to hold on to the power of his position, without providing any direction to the person that was responsible for executing the work. His action of taking the programmer/engineer to "the room" showed that he was insecure in his position. A good leader seeks to empower the people they lead.
This manager was not concerned with either the customer, or the company he worked for. He wasn't even really concerned with how the customer perceived the company, although he would probably try to convince you otherwise. His real concern was how the customer perceived him. He didn't what his actions did to the morale of the employee that works for him. He will do this over, and over, again; and if he gets to a high enough position within the company, this attitude of managing, instead of leading, will take the company down.
Personally, I would leave that job as quickly as possible. Look to find a company that seeks to build on your success, and that has leaders in the positions of power. Managers are a dime a dozen...and most are worth even less. Good leaders are worth more than their weight in gold.
You obviously have no idea what the difference is between government sanctioned censorship and vigilanty based violence. Let me educate you...
Government sanctioned censorship = you go to prison for disagreeing with the government
Vigilanty violence = those that attack you may go to prison for their crimes
Do you understand the difference? Do you get the concept that in many of the countries that are intent on gaining "control" over the internet the normal outcome of your disagreeing with their policies is an extended stay in prison? Or are you just so caught up in whining about Bush that it doesn't really matter where the truth is?
I could cite more of your worthless statements, and perhaps even teach you something about critical thinking. I doubt that you have any desire to learn that ability, though.
Sorry, but this is complete hogwash. Many a company has been willing to slash its development staff so that the guys at the top can keep their fat salaries. Do I hold that against them? No, I think that if they can convince the shareholders that they can still accomplish the business plan without the supporting staff then the shareholders get what they deserve.
By the same token, I think that if the company I where I work does not want to lose me as an asset then they have a couple of things they need to do. First, make sure the environment is one that is likely to be one where I would want to stay. Second, make sure that my compensation is sufficient that the hassle of going someplace else isn't overshadowed by the rise in compensation.
The long and short of it is that non-compete contracts are a form of indentured servitude. Up until recently, I have had the ability to get companies to strike them from any contract I signed. Now, everyone wants me to commit the rest of my career to them. Between that and the whole craziness of patenting everything that moves, after 25+ years in the industry I am leaving software development behind. I wish all of you that continue on nothing but good, too bad I don't think you'll actually receive it.