I say vote your conscience man. Do it, do it, do it. Don't listen to the naysayers.
As for voting reform, I think we need a system like the Aussies. Preferential voting. Here's a page that has info about one implementation if you're interested:
http://www.vec.vic.gov.au/ElectoralInfo/WP_Prefere ntialVoting.htm
There will always appear to be too much at stake. That's the trap. Do you think Kerry will undo the Patriot Act? Do you think he will pull us out of Iraq?
I'm not trying to trash kerry either. If I had to vote for one or the other, it would be Kerry over Bush. But I don't have to, so I'm not going to.
The big disagreement seems to be that I see the purpose of science as being able to produce experimentally derived information that has been fact checked by experts and reasonably well qualified so that lay people can make statements without having to dig into the evidence.
I agree with everything you said, right up to the "so that lay people can make statements without having to dig into the evidence." This sets up science as a dangerous authority(as opposed to a benevolent one). I don't think people should be arguing things they don't understand. It's one thing to question, it's one thing to offer things you've read or been taught as being things you've read or been taught, but when you argue authoratively off of other peoples understanding, I think you've crossed the line into being dogmatically unreasonable and dogmatically closed minded.
I'd imagine that religious people who are 'weary of science' are weary for other reasons as well, namely they want revealed religion (i.e. their say so) to stand on the same level as conclusions supported via experimentation and proven to have predictive value.
They're frustrated when it doesn't.
I can't deny that some religious people are like that, but others aren't. Do we treat all religious people the way some are? Do we stand quietly while science laymen dogmatically smack down everything they say, doing the very things we don't like done by religious people to us? It's one thing entirely, to take issue with what someone says and address it head on. It's another thing to view yourself superior and write off everything they say with a wave of your hand, modding them down as flamebait because you know they're "wrong" because they're religious.
You know where I first read about the Speed of Light not being a constant? A creation research institute publication. Yes, those nuts. That was 15 years ago, and here we are 15 years later and that theory is gaining wide mainstream acceptance. Do you know what it was like to try to dicuss such a thing to the dogma bound, so sure Einstein was the expert, that everything they were taught was right on. That type of closed mindedness is the worst possible attitude a science student can take. We must never become so sure of our own opinions or what the experts say, that we lose the ability to consider new ideas, new possibilities. And we must not let laymen and psuedo scientists whose "understanding" comes from what others have studied, shout down different ideas. I'm not saying give equal respect to all ideas, if that were the case, I'd be arguing that every idea should be modded 5. But we shouldn't use the mod system to mod them down as flamebait because they said something that contradicts what an expert told us, or even worse, simply because religion was mentioned somewhere in the post. That's bigoted. Science should not be bigoted.
So that's my long winded explanation of where I'm coming from.:)
In a sense. But faith and trust are not identical, and faith in the apostle of a revealed religion is not the same as trusting a scientist using the scientific method.
Again, dangerous precedent IMO. Trusting a religious person because of their perceived position and trusting a scientist because of their perceived position, is the road to heartache, dogmatism, and just plain confusion. The open mind, taking things within the context they are offered, minus the ascribing of absolute authority, is the way we should percieve science, as well as religion.
The scientist can be proven wrong, in time. The religious person can't.
That's not entirely true. You're using broad strokes. Have you studied Buddhism for example? Or Taoism?
The scientist can be 'audited' by his peers based on evidence. The religious apostle can only be held in conformity with the views of his ancestors.
Broad strokes again. This is no doubt true for many religious peo
He said a crew. Everyone knows how bad you guys are when you get together and start egging each other on.
Oh yeah, that's a phenomenon unique to Libertarians. Uh-huh. Yeah, democrats, socialists, republicans, fascists, no other group gets that way. C'mon, let's be real here.
I asked for a reason why he felt a Libertarian would engage in that, to find out his perspective. He gave me a good reason in response.
Well, the LP is fundamentally nonsensical. (The most generous way to describe them is as arguing an extreme position in anticipation of a compromise. More aggressively, they can be called deluded utopianists or even nascent crypto-fascist elites).
Such big words... Underneath it all, you're just calling names.
Their platform is that the government should only exist to protect citizens from "force or fraud". Unfortunately, in real life there is no firm dividing line between forced and unforced interactions.
I think there very well is a firm dividing line between forced and unforced interactions. If I give you 20 bucks because you ask me for it, then that is unforced. If I give you 20 bucks because you threaten me, that is forced. In between the two extremes, the courts would have to decide, JUST AS THEY DO NOW. Do you have an example where the line is so blurred that a clear answer can't be given?
So much of the governance they decry is genuinely working at that very challenging question.
What? What country do you live in? Instead of walking the vague highway, how about some examples?
In the case of corporate tyranny, it's quite possible for a monopolist to wield immense and harmful power without ever resorting to force or fraud. A doctrinal Libertarian would have no recourse.
Walking the vauge highway. Example?
A better example of how a Libertarian might not always be a libertarian is slavery. The Libertarian position says that a person should be able to sell himself into permanent slavery for a one-time fee. (Many Libertarians won't admit this, but it's a direct consequence of their simplistic platform).
You have a very interesting way of arguing, unfortuantely, it's riddled with fallacies. What you are doing here, is saying that the libertarian positions says one thing, and in the next breath, admitting that it doesn't really say that, but rather you've decided it does because of YOUR simplistic understanding of their platform.
The principles are expressed simplisticaly, yes, as all principles should be, but application of them is not neccesarily simple. That's why, even in the libertarian party, you have to be careful who you elect. To make sure they aren't simpletons.
Take your "arguments" offered here... They themselves are vague and simplistic statements, that could easily be applied to any other party just as validly by simply substituting "LP" for the other parties name. Don't believe me?: Well, the Democratic Party is fundamentally nonsensical. (The most generous way to describe them is as arguing an extreme position in anticipation of a compromise. More aggressively, they can be called deluded utopianists or even nascent crypto-fascist elites).
That actually works for me. And if you dropped Republican in there, that would work for me too. Why not, instead of dressing up name calling in big words to sound intelligent, you just say you think they suck?
The lower-case form is the simple idea that personal/individual liberty is valuable. A libertarian can, for example, argue that strong state protections are needed to protect individuals from corporate tyranny, a position anathema to the Libertarian Party.
Interesting distinction, thanks. I'm going to get whacked on that one as sometimes I miss the shift key.:)
I disagree with the absolute statement that state protection from corporate tyranny is anathema to the Libertarian Party. When that tyranny results in material harm or violation of rights of the individuals, it most certainly would meet with state intervention under Libertarian Party philosophy. Limited government does not mean no government.
Also, I'm interested when you say you're "open to minimal regulations". Do you count forcing open standards upon IT companies as "minimal"?
Unless a point could be made that it would protect the public from material harm, no. But there are other ways government can encourage Open Standards without force. Below...
For Microsoft to have embraced open standards to the extent that they couldn't have monopolised the OS and Office markets, the US Government would have had to prosecute any company that published any software in the USA that didn't allow full interoperation. That, on the face of it, seems like a pretty huge move into the market to me, akin to forcing car companies to make it easy for 3rd party spare parts manufacturers, or even forcing all businesses in impoverished areas to invest a certain percentage of their revenue in the local economy. All of them can be argued for on grounds of stimulating the market, which is perhaps (I'm guessing) how you'd justify any minimal regulation of the market.
No, I wouldn't go about it with that justification. I believe Open Standards could have been(and can now) pushed through a governmental policy of only purchasing software based on Open Standards, as well as only doing business with and granting grants to, companies who embraced open standards as well.
Do you see now how they were related?
After the above I do. Interesting, I didn't quite read your first post that way.
Well to begin with, two of the core ideas of liberalism
That's Libertarianism, not liberalism...:)
torn between the Ayn Rand nonsense and common sense.
Yeah, can't argue that there. Some libertarians turn libertarianism into a cult of Ayn Rand. It's embarassing some times.
Personally, I'm open to minimal regulations. There's quite a few Libertarians who also happen to engage in realism. But really, the main reason I asked you this question, is I didn't see how your comment related to this: A more interesting thought experiment (more interesting than I-love-Apple dreaming, that is) would be to imagine a possible world in which Microsoft embraced and developed open standards from the start. Of course there'd be no good business reason for this, but one has to wonder what would have become of OS/2, BeOS, Netscape and other big competitors if they had been able to interoperate with Microsoft products properly.
Well crap, maybe you should start thinking for him.
The price routine has been covered many times. For the quality and performance you get with Apple products, it is well worth the money spent and equals out to any other PC products.
Completely subjective. Yeah, a Lincoln towncar is a very nice high quality car. But so is a Nissan Maxima. A lincoln towncar owner will explain how it is worth all the extras and performance to pay more for his towncar, but that doesn't change the fact, that if you can't afford a towncar, you can't afford a towncar.
Further, this guy could very well be talking about his choice for a PC back in the day. There was a time when price differences were upwards of 1500 bucks. The pretty UI and all the other fluff wasn't worth 1500 bucks for me when I was working my way through college pumping gas for a little above minimum wage.
There are a lot of games for the Mac found here.
Yeah, today. Even then, there are still way more games available for the PC. Or are you going to tell people that they just plain wrong for wanting what they want?
Personally, I don't give a crap about games. I use Linux. I'm on a PC because that's what I know, and I ended up on a PC because back in the day, Macs were way to fricking expensive. I would have had to drop out of college and get a second job to afford one. I already had to eat Ramen for months to buy the PC I bought.
I suspect that's part of the "leaky pipe" problem mentioned in the article. One possible way to prevent what you suggest is to use "line of sight" frequencies. But radio isn't my thing, any Hams in the audience with some ideas on this one?
There's enough evidence for each of these things you mention that faith isn't required.
This was the point I was getting at... If you haven't seen the evidence, haven't utilized the scientific method for yourself, then you have taken things on faith. You have believed things because an authority told you they were so.
It was never my point to argue against evolution, the expanding universe, or anything else. As I stated before, I tend to agree with evolution and I generally defend it when the dicsussion arises. As for expanding universe, I have to agree with you that the evidence within the context we have now, as FAR AS I KNOW, AND AS FAR AS I HAVE LEARNED of the subject, indicates that is the case. But, I haven't done any of the research. I haven't used the scientific method myself to arrive at those conclusions. If I were to treat these things as gospel truth, without verifying them for myself, and treated everyone as inferior making vague references to the superiority of the scientific method(which I myself didn't use to arrive at these conclusions), I would be dogmatic. I would be taking things on faith. If you care to explain how that wouldn't be the case, I'm completely open to hearing it.
If someone says 'you're wrong because I say so' and offers no reasons or faulty reasons to back that up, or if the theory is non-predictive, such views should be attacked.
"Because I said so" is flamebait.
ABSOLUTELY. I would never take issue with such a moderation. If someone, however, goes out of their way to explain how they see things, would you mod them flamebait because you didn't agree with what they were saying for any reason? I really wish I had bookmarked those two posts. Both of them were intelligent in their own right, I certainly didn't agree with either of them, and one of them the guy presented a rather coherent explanation of his beliefs across something like 5 paragraphs. Only to be modded flamebait. That isn't tolerance, that's bigotry. And I'll bet, that the clown who modded that as flamebait, isn't a scientist, doesn't use the scientific method, just read some books extolling the superiority of science over religion and philosophy. That's a useless and very unenlightened way of dealing with the world.
Probably it would be better to argue with the premises of the 'non-mainstream' poster as opposed to modding them down. But if you're going to take the opinion that all views are equal, and that faith is the equivalent of reason, then the notions of truth and falsehood fly out the window.
I didn't argue that view, but I'll tell you this... If you're going to take the opinion that any scientific view taken on faith, and not investigated for yourself, is equivalent to scientific reason, then I question your notion of science.
Not really. Science is focused on objective reality and repeating patterns that can be measured objectivly, modeled, predicted and so forth. Understanding other people scientifically might useful in predicting their behavior, but doesn't extend much beyond that. And psychology is still more art than science.
Well now you're going to piss of the psychological science students. I mean we could take it a step further, I'm a physics major, I consider physics and math "hard science" and biology and pyschology "soft science". I guess I'm bringing this up to show the subjective nature of what you're saying.
Granted, the person arguing against you made a number of incorrect statements.
And it was really the context of what that person was saying and suggesting to me, that I made the statements you replied to. That person was demonstrating the characteristics of the type of people who take science on faith, and have little firsthand or even useful understanding of science themselves. Those people are dogmatic and they are the reason religious people are so weary of science. They should just join a fricking cult if they want to irrationally and illogically argue for
It was either them or the ATF. I think we lucked out personally.
On a serious note, it does kind of fall under the Drug Administration aspect of it. Do you really want a Federal Bureau of Network Security? Or the Computers and Embeded Devices Administration?
Re:I wonder how Newton would do on slashdot...
on
The Unknown Newton
·
· Score: 1
That'd be a good point, if the context offered wasn't with regard to moderation and non-scientific ideas.
I'll take a stab at answering my objections to this, based upon the premise that the information you are applying here is accurate:
Darwin's primary racist viewpoints summed up (from my complete paper; not all quotes are in this post):
1. Humans are divided into sub-species
That's what he believed at the time. There are still some clowns who talk like this is the case(think KKK)... So he got that wrong. Einstein got things wrong too.
2. The strongest live and the weakest die, which is good (Hitler and Marx agreed)
This is an observable phenomenon. I'm sure hitler and marx would have agreed the sky is blue, does that make the sky less blue?
3. The sub-species are not simply variants
So he got parts of it wrong.
4. A "race war" would be beneficial to mankind
Genius is often accompanied by touches of insanity.
5. Blacks and Aborigines occupy a sub-species between Apes and Caucasians
I'm sure it seemed to make sense to him at the time. Our founding fathers held slaves(assuming you are an American), does that make the constitution and Bill of Rights less genius and visionary?
6. The extinction of blacks and gorillas to advance the white "race" is good
Racism was quite prevalent at the time. He simply didn't know enough.
7. Sub-species are also known as races
8. Different sub-species have different characteristics, such as mental capabilities
9. Irish are also non-Aryan and should be extinct
10. Europe doesn't owe any ancestry to the Greeks
11. It would be good if a wealthy nation replaces a less privileged race
12. Christianity is a damnable doctrine, and Hitler agreed saying it is a rebellion against nature
13. Social Darwinism includes imperialism, racial extermination and sexual inequality as Darwinism was intended to explain society as a whole
14. "lower class" races should not normally be cared for; they should not multiply and should become extinct
All these things are the same type thing. Obviously, assuming these are true, Darwin believed some pretty idiotic things. But even idiots get things right at times. Indeed, even geniuses can be idiots when it comes to certain things. I'd suggest you toss all this stuff out of your head, or use it only for your political science teacher(is that who you said was praising darwin?), and forget about mentioning it here, unless someone starts prasing darwin as some kind of great humanitarian. Otherwise, people aren't going to listen to you about this and will write you off as someone with an agenda. Unless you have an agenda, in which case, you should understand that most people are turned off by people with agendas. There is a time and a place for this type of discussion, I would wait for the right time and place for it before engaging in it.
If you analyze any fanatical religious cult, and then compare it to any fanatical mad scientist (or group of mad scientists), there's really no difference, except in the location, methods, group aspect, etc (ceremonial and physical aspects differ, but are not the determining factor). With a religious cult, their "religion" is usually their leader. Their world revolves around their leader. To a fanatical scientist, their religion is science. Their world revolves around science.
Or in the case of cult followings of popular sciece writers(Robert Anton Wilson for example), their religion is the science of the writer. Yes, I understand and agree with this. Science is a tool, not a religion. Science is a method, not a God, not a doctrine, not a dogma, not a way of life. It is a tool and a method to be incorporated in life. A very valuable and effective tool, quite possibly the best thing since sliced bread in my book. Or did it come before sliced bread?
Science even has only begun to find that the speed of light is not constant, which would basically render almost every single measurement that used C as a constant, invalid.
Not neccesarily every single measurement, and not neccesarily invalid. Depends on the context. I used to follow that theory(the speed of light not being a constant) but I lost interest as soon as I got into quantum theory. If you haven't looked into yet, and you have an affinity for linear algebra, I highly recommend "The Structure and Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics" by R.I.G. Hughes. Changed my whole fricking perspective.
I've got another post in this discussion, in which I posted excerpts from a reference paper that I wrote (with help from another guy), which directly quotes Darwin and uses that as a basis to question Darwin's theories. I even quoted those (the quotes) to a political science teacher who was literally *preaching* about Darwin (for months), and his face turned bright red when he heard those, and could barely come up with a response.
Ya gotta learn to take the good with the bad. We all, as human beings, come with the good and with the bad. If Darwin said the sky was blue, would you disbelieve the sky was blue because of the issues you've taken with him? Consider it.
I try to listen and understand the other person's viewpoints completely when I discuss stuff; but other people have never tried to understand me first.
Don't take the victim mindset. Call them on it when they do it, then let it go. Be the change you wish to see. Argue when they ask for it, make peace when they ask for it. Don't instigate it. Know yourself, be yourself. Recognize yourself in them, and them in you.
I don't share your antagonistic view towards Darwin. When you consider historical figures from his era, and even people from any era(including this one), you need to consider their societal background and the prevailing beliefs in the time and place in which they lived. To dismiss everything he had to say, because of racism he expressed, is the same principle, in my book, that Gad_zuki is doing towards people of religions that he/she finds offensive. Don't fall into that trap. Take the good, acknowledge the bad. Entertain ideas that you don't agree with, simply for the sake of understanding them. If you don't believe evolution, don't believe it, but learn it and understand it, so that you can know what other people believe. That's how I see it. I don't believe in Islam, but I've studied it. I don't believe in confuscianism, but I studied it. I don't believe in communism, but I studied it. etc... My opinion.
You can translate my "you" to mean a lot of people arguing the same point you made which is pretty much something akin to "See, now who is the blind follower now?"
Well that isn't how you posted it. You posted a direct reply to me, accusing me of engaging in the strawman fallacy, and assigned a ton of beliefs to me, as well as played the part of victim from my post by claiming that I offended you. You don't like religion? You better find some way to know yourself. That's the only way to defend yourself against being victimized and offended all the time by other peoples speech. I sure as hell wasn't targeting science. I sure as hell wasn't arguing for any given viewpoint on science. I'll tell you what I was arguing below...
to equate some kind of blind belief to those who know that Newtonian physics works isn't fair at all and bereting the slashdot community with conspiracy theories is pretty silly.
Did I do this? WTF? If you're going to respond to someones posts, then RESPOND TO WHAT *THEY* POST, not what you make up, inject, expand, etc... Don't play this game. This is completely unreasonable. You're straw manning again. Do you know what the straw man fallacy is? Let me help you: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html
And in case you don't want to follow links: The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position.
This is what you are doing. Who the hell are you addressing here?
Sure, moderation isn't perfect, but the bible guy and the new ager get modded down for a reason that isn't just "blind group think." You can be in the majority and be right sometimes
I didn't equate anything to a blind group think. See definition of Strawman fallacy above.
Sure, moderation isn't perfect, but the bible guy and the new ager get modded down for a reason that isn't just "blind group think." You can be in the majority and be right sometimes!
Look, I was making a lighthearted observation, about the bigotry that goes on here. You're constantly inflating what I said, have been from your first reply, and trying to make me out to be arguing for something I'm not. You want to use your mod points to mod someone as flamebait because you don't agree with them(which goes against the moderation guidelines), that's your business. You want to seek to silence people who believe things different than you, that's your business(I say sieg heil to that though). But understand as long I'm meta moderating, I will undo those things and it will affect your ability to get mod points in the future.
The mod system does not exist for people to flag those they don't agree with. That's a very bigoted way of using it. If some Jesus guy, new age star child, or whatever is posting something offtopic, I'm all for flagging them. But if they have something to say on the subject that is based on their jesus guyness, or new age starchildness, I'm not going to be a bigot and seek to silence them. This is a community forum. That's what this is.
Sorry you're not for free speech and tolerance of viewpoints that aren't lock step with your own. I AM.
Re:Protoscience and psuedoscience
on
The Unknown Newton
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Wow, I love how people who passionately argue for the scientific method, jump to conclusions in a very unscientific way.
Oh please. Netwon lived in a time before the scientific method as we know it and before what eventually became the scientific community distanced itself and became aware of pseudo-scientific pursuits like astrology, prophecy, etc.
Can science tell you who you are? I don't mean some vauge descrition of being a bipedal primate, I mean telling you who YOU are? I noticed you convieniently left out philosophy out of your list. Do you discount philosophy in general?
Its not the 17/18th century anymore and your argument is a pretty weak strawman.
Is it? First, define how I was arguing anything. Next, define strawman, and assuming you're able to explain how I was arguing anything, explain how I strawmanned. I asked a question based upon my personal experience and resulting observation.
Essentially you are saying "Newton's physics were valid (ignoring Einstein) thus his other views are just as valid and deserve the same audience and respect."
No, that's not what I'm saying at all. I was referring specifically to modding posts as flamebait when those posts weren't flamebait, they were just other people expressing ideas not embraced by the mainstream. I wish I had book marked those posts, there were two of them. What it basically boils down to is, todays science students, having taken a good deal of what they've learned on faith, especially with regards to things like the big bang, evolution, etc... have developed very closed minds and dogmatic adherence to what they have been taught. Now I'm arguing something, feel free to argue this back.
All the world's society's gave superstion more than the benefit of the doubt for millenia. It didn't pan out. Move on, don't complain that the book of Revelation or Alchemy or Phrenology deserves a 2nd chance. They have gotten more than their fair share of attention. Its not my fault or anyone else's these theories didn't pan out.
Weren't you just leveling accusations about straw manning? Please defend your deciscion here to assign me these beliefs and then attack me for them. Here's one scripture that just panned out: "Physician, heal thyself."
I also take slight offense at how you're saying its "hip" to be against these dead philosophies, when in reality its much more hip to be against those eggheads in their ivory towers who challenge traditional beliefs.
More straw manning. You read a volume into what I said and now are arguing against beliefs you assigned me, rather than taking issue with what I actually said. If you're offended, it's your own damned fault for assigning meaning not expressed. Not mine. I didn't say anything of the sort.
Its very hip for the religious to cry "Persecution!" when a science teacher mentions evolution or when a social studies teacher mentions different religions other than xtianity. I see it in the paper almost weekly. Yet you can join any religion you want, make your kids believe what you like, and religious organizations enjoy tax-free status, gambling rights, and a power-structure that protects them from criminal investigations (at least for a while).
And you know, I would be very inclined to agree with you to a large degree on many points, had you not presented this as my beliefs and set this up as a strawman for you to attack, acting like you're proving something against me. You have no clue at all what was said in the threads I was referring to. You don't seem to have understood that when I said "I personally believe evolution", I meant it.
I'll tell you what's never "hip" in my book, to use your terminology, closing your mind to the way other people believe because you happen to think the way you believe is superior. What understanding can be had of closing your mind to other people? Is it scientific? Isn't trying to understand what other people believe and whe
Re:I wonder how Newton would do on slashdot...
on
The Unknown Newton
·
· Score: 1
Just think, alot of people in the audience may not have the advantage of that science either, depending on their upbringing, where they were raised, and what they studied. It's very easy to fall into the trap of assuming other people have had the benefits of learning what we have learned.
Re:I wonder how Newton would do on slashdot...
on
The Unknown Newton
·
· Score: 1
I think we are in complete agreement...
I wonder how Newton would do on slashdot...
on
The Unknown Newton
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
... sharing his "non-scientific" ideas? I've noticed while meta-moderating here that people put some very thoughtful posts, containing non-mainstream but on topic views about things like evolution, the big bang, etc... they get modded flamebait. I personally believe evolution, but it's also not such a religious belief with me that I have to moderate down other people who don't believe in it.
I wonder if this is going to lower peoples opinions of Newton here on slashdot?
I'm glad you're in a comfortable environment. I actually did have the extreme pleasure of working for a software company that gave a damn. Where are they now? They got bought about a larger software company and that was the end of that.
I've never found another company like that since then. Enjoy it while you have it. Suck the marrow out of it. You just never know when it's going to end. Don't lose contact with your friends and management that you are enjoying now, they will be more valuable than gold if anything should happen to your company down the line.
Free agency has a lot going for it. It's an excellent choice for people who can (and want to) handle it. Not everyone has the drive and creativity it requires to succeed in that environment, but it's always an option worth considering.
I think those that don't have the drive or the confidence to try, ought to work towards unionization. Maybe they can avoid the mistakes of past unions? IMO, if IT workers don't have some solidarity at some point, whether it be refusing to work for corporations as regular employees, or be through a union, the industry is going to continue the steady march towards paying us as little as possible, and putting us in as piss poor working environments as possible.
I'm not going to play corporate games anymore. A corporation wants to hire me? Agree to my terms, show me the money, or don't bother calling. They sure as hell are not going to put me into a factory assemblyline environment.
Only because I recognize that some people are better suited to a union, and some people are better suited to working for themselves. I don't see the concepts diametrically opposed in the big picture of things. I think those who can take the entrepenurial route, should. I highly recommend it, it's been rewarding. Those who can't, should take the union route. Doing nothing is letting others dictate to you how things should be. Either way I suggested, is you telling others how you think things should be. Just how I see it.
Slashdot Mirror
I say vote your conscience man. Do it, do it, do it. Don't listen to the naysayers.
e ntialVoting.htm
As for voting reform, I think we need a system like the Aussies. Preferential voting. Here's a page that has info about one implementation if you're interested:
http://www.vec.vic.gov.au/ElectoralInfo/WP_Prefer
There will always appear to be too much at stake. That's the trap. Do you think Kerry will undo the Patriot Act? Do you think he will pull us out of Iraq?
I'm not trying to trash kerry either. If I had to vote for one or the other, it would be Kerry over Bush. But I don't have to, so I'm not going to.
Thanks for jumping in on this thread...
:)
The big disagreement seems to be that I see the purpose of science as being able to produce experimentally derived information that has been fact checked by experts and reasonably well qualified so that lay people can make statements without having to dig into the evidence.
I agree with everything you said, right up to the "so that lay people can make statements without having to dig into the evidence." This sets up science as a dangerous authority(as opposed to a benevolent one). I don't think people should be arguing things they don't understand. It's one thing to question, it's one thing to offer things you've read or been taught as being things you've read or been taught, but when you argue authoratively off of other peoples understanding, I think you've crossed the line into being dogmatically unreasonable and dogmatically closed minded.
I'd imagine that religious people who are 'weary of science' are weary for other reasons as well, namely they want revealed religion (i.e. their say so) to stand on the same level as conclusions supported via experimentation and proven to have predictive value. They're frustrated when it doesn't.
I can't deny that some religious people are like that, but others aren't. Do we treat all religious people the way some are? Do we stand quietly while science laymen dogmatically smack down everything they say, doing the very things we don't like done by religious people to us? It's one thing entirely, to take issue with what someone says and address it head on. It's another thing to view yourself superior and write off everything they say with a wave of your hand, modding them down as flamebait because you know they're "wrong" because they're religious.
You know where I first read about the Speed of Light not being a constant? A creation research institute publication. Yes, those nuts. That was 15 years ago, and here we are 15 years later and that theory is gaining wide mainstream acceptance. Do you know what it was like to try to dicuss such a thing to the dogma bound, so sure Einstein was the expert, that everything they were taught was right on. That type of closed mindedness is the worst possible attitude a science student can take. We must never become so sure of our own opinions or what the experts say, that we lose the ability to consider new ideas, new possibilities. And we must not let laymen and psuedo scientists whose "understanding" comes from what others have studied, shout down different ideas. I'm not saying give equal respect to all ideas, if that were the case, I'd be arguing that every idea should be modded 5. But we shouldn't use the mod system to mod them down as flamebait because they said something that contradicts what an expert told us, or even worse, simply because religion was mentioned somewhere in the post. That's bigoted. Science should not be bigoted.
So that's my long winded explanation of where I'm coming from.
In a sense. But faith and trust are not identical, and faith in the apostle of a revealed religion is not the same as trusting a scientist using the scientific method.
Again, dangerous precedent IMO. Trusting a religious person because of their perceived position and trusting a scientist because of their perceived position, is the road to heartache, dogmatism, and just plain confusion. The open mind, taking things within the context they are offered, minus the ascribing of absolute authority, is the way we should percieve science, as well as religion.
The scientist can be proven wrong, in time. The religious person can't.
That's not entirely true. You're using broad strokes. Have you studied Buddhism for example? Or Taoism?
The scientist can be 'audited' by his peers based on evidence. The religious apostle can only be held in conformity with the views of his ancestors.
Broad strokes again. This is no doubt true for many religious peo
He said a crew. Everyone knows how bad you guys are when you get together and start egging each other on.
Oh yeah, that's a phenomenon unique to Libertarians. Uh-huh. Yeah, democrats, socialists, republicans, fascists, no other group gets that way. C'mon, let's be real here.
I asked for a reason why he felt a Libertarian would engage in that, to find out his perspective. He gave me a good reason in response.
Well, the LP is fundamentally nonsensical. (The most generous way to describe them is as arguing an extreme position in anticipation of a compromise. More aggressively, they can be called deluded utopianists or even nascent crypto-fascist elites).
Such big words... Underneath it all, you're just calling names.
Their platform is that the government should only exist to protect citizens from "force or fraud". Unfortunately, in real life there is no firm dividing line between forced and unforced interactions.
I think there very well is a firm dividing line between forced and unforced interactions. If I give you 20 bucks because you ask me for it, then that is unforced. If I give you 20 bucks because you threaten me, that is forced. In between the two extremes, the courts would have to decide, JUST AS THEY DO NOW. Do you have an example where the line is so blurred that a clear answer can't be given?
So much of the governance they decry is genuinely working at that very challenging question.
What? What country do you live in? Instead of walking the vague highway, how about some examples?
In the case of corporate tyranny, it's quite possible for a monopolist to wield immense and harmful power without ever resorting to force or fraud. A doctrinal Libertarian would have no recourse.
Walking the vauge highway. Example?
A better example of how a Libertarian might not always be a libertarian is slavery. The Libertarian position says that a person should be able to sell himself into permanent slavery for a one-time fee. (Many Libertarians won't admit this, but it's a direct consequence of their simplistic platform).
You have a very interesting way of arguing, unfortuantely, it's riddled with fallacies. What you are doing here, is saying that the libertarian positions says one thing, and in the next breath, admitting that it doesn't really say that, but rather you've decided it does because of YOUR simplistic understanding of their platform.
The principles are expressed simplisticaly, yes, as all principles should be, but application of them is not neccesarily simple. That's why, even in the libertarian party, you have to be careful who you elect. To make sure they aren't simpletons.
Take your "arguments" offered here... They themselves are vague and simplistic statements, that could easily be applied to any other party just as validly by simply substituting "LP" for the other parties name. Don't believe me?:
Well, the Democratic Party is fundamentally nonsensical. (The most generous way to describe them is as arguing an extreme position in anticipation of a compromise. More aggressively, they can be called deluded utopianists or even nascent crypto-fascist elites).
That actually works for me. And if you dropped Republican in there, that would work for me too. Why not, instead of dressing up name calling in big words to sound intelligent, you just say you think they suck?
Ah that's neat. I didn't even know about that. Anyone interested in reading more...
5 01,00.htm
http://networks.silicon.com/lans/0,39024663,39121
The lower-case form is the simple idea that personal/individual liberty is valuable. A libertarian can, for example, argue that strong state protections are needed to protect individuals from corporate tyranny, a position anathema to the Libertarian Party.
:)
Interesting distinction, thanks. I'm going to get whacked on that one as sometimes I miss the shift key.
I disagree with the absolute statement that state protection from corporate tyranny is anathema to the Libertarian Party. When that tyranny results in material harm or violation of rights of the individuals, it most certainly would meet with state intervention under Libertarian Party philosophy. Limited government does not mean no government.
Also, I'm interested when you say you're "open to minimal regulations". Do you count forcing open standards upon IT companies as "minimal"?
Unless a point could be made that it would protect the public from material harm, no. But there are other ways government can encourage Open Standards without force. Below...
For Microsoft to have embraced open standards to the extent that they couldn't have monopolised the OS and Office markets, the US Government would have had to prosecute any company that published any software in the USA that didn't allow full interoperation. That, on the face of it, seems like a pretty huge move into the market to me, akin to forcing car companies to make it easy for 3rd party spare parts manufacturers, or even forcing all businesses in impoverished areas to invest a certain percentage of their revenue in the local economy. All of them can be argued for on grounds of stimulating the market, which is perhaps (I'm guessing) how you'd justify any minimal regulation of the market.
No, I wouldn't go about it with that justification. I believe Open Standards could have been(and can now) pushed through a governmental policy of only purchasing software based on Open Standards, as well as only doing business with and granting grants to, companies who embraced open standards as well.
Do you see now how they were related?
After the above I do. Interesting, I didn't quite read your first post that way.
Well to begin with, two of the core ideas of liberalism :)
That's Libertarianism, not liberalism...
torn between the Ayn Rand nonsense and common sense.
Yeah, can't argue that there. Some libertarians turn libertarianism into a cult of Ayn Rand. It's embarassing some times.
Personally, I'm open to minimal regulations. There's quite a few Libertarians who also happen to engage in realism. But really, the main reason I asked you this question, is I didn't see how your comment related to this:
A more interesting thought experiment (more interesting than I-love-Apple dreaming, that is) would be to imagine a possible world in which Microsoft embraced and developed open standards from the start. Of course there'd be no good business reason for this, but one has to wonder what would have become of OS/2, BeOS, Netscape and other big competitors if they had been able to interoperate with Microsoft products properly.
Your reasons are tired and plain wrong.
Well crap, maybe you should start thinking for him.
The price routine has been covered many times. For the quality and performance you get with Apple products, it is well worth the money spent and equals out to any other PC products.
Completely subjective. Yeah, a Lincoln towncar is a very nice high quality car. But so is a Nissan Maxima. A lincoln towncar owner will explain how it is worth all the extras and performance to pay more for his towncar, but that doesn't change the fact, that if you can't afford a towncar, you can't afford a towncar.
Further, this guy could very well be talking about his choice for a PC back in the day. There was a time when price differences were upwards of 1500 bucks. The pretty UI and all the other fluff wasn't worth 1500 bucks for me when I was working my way through college pumping gas for a little above minimum wage.
There are a lot of games for the Mac found here.
Yeah, today. Even then, there are still way more games available for the PC. Or are you going to tell people that they just plain wrong for wanting what they want?
Personally, I don't give a crap about games. I use Linux. I'm on a PC because that's what I know, and I ended up on a PC because back in the day, Macs were way to fricking expensive. I would have had to drop out of college and get a second job to afford one. I already had to eat Ramen for months to buy the PC I bought.
But then of course the libertarian crew will shout me down for suggesting that a market alone isn't the best way to regulate industries ;-)
Are you joking? Why would a libertarian shout you down for that? -A Libertarian
I suspect that's part of the "leaky pipe" problem mentioned in the article. One possible way to prevent what you suggest is to use "line of sight" frequencies. But radio isn't my thing, any Hams in the audience with some ideas on this one?
There's enough evidence for each of these things you mention that faith isn't required.
This was the point I was getting at... If you haven't seen the evidence, haven't utilized the scientific method for yourself, then you have taken things on faith. You have believed things because an authority told you they were so.
It was never my point to argue against evolution, the expanding universe, or anything else. As I stated before, I tend to agree with evolution and I generally defend it when the dicsussion arises. As for expanding universe, I have to agree with you that the evidence within the context we have now, as FAR AS I KNOW, AND AS FAR AS I HAVE LEARNED of the subject, indicates that is the case. But, I haven't done any of the research. I haven't used the scientific method myself to arrive at those conclusions. If I were to treat these things as gospel truth, without verifying them for myself, and treated everyone as inferior making vague references to the superiority of the scientific method(which I myself didn't use to arrive at these conclusions), I would be dogmatic. I would be taking things on faith. If you care to explain how that wouldn't be the case, I'm completely open to hearing it.
If someone says 'you're wrong because I say so' and offers no reasons or faulty reasons to back that up, or if the theory is non-predictive, such views should be attacked. "Because I said so" is flamebait.
ABSOLUTELY. I would never take issue with such a moderation. If someone, however, goes out of their way to explain how they see things, would you mod them flamebait because you didn't agree with what they were saying for any reason? I really wish I had bookmarked those two posts. Both of them were intelligent in their own right, I certainly didn't agree with either of them, and one of them the guy presented a rather coherent explanation of his beliefs across something like 5 paragraphs. Only to be modded flamebait. That isn't tolerance, that's bigotry. And I'll bet, that the clown who modded that as flamebait, isn't a scientist, doesn't use the scientific method, just read some books extolling the superiority of science over religion and philosophy. That's a useless and very unenlightened way of dealing with the world.
Probably it would be better to argue with the premises of the 'non-mainstream' poster as opposed to modding them down. But if you're going to take the opinion that all views are equal, and that faith is the equivalent of reason, then the notions of truth and falsehood fly out the window.
I didn't argue that view, but I'll tell you this... If you're going to take the opinion that any scientific view taken on faith, and not investigated for yourself, is equivalent to scientific reason, then I question your notion of science.
Not really. Science is focused on objective reality and repeating patterns that can be measured objectivly, modeled, predicted and so forth. Understanding other people scientifically might useful in predicting their behavior, but doesn't extend much beyond that. And psychology is still more art than science.
Well now you're going to piss of the psychological science students. I mean we could take it a step further, I'm a physics major, I consider physics and math "hard science" and biology and pyschology "soft science". I guess I'm bringing this up to show the subjective nature of what you're saying.
Granted, the person arguing against you made a number of incorrect statements.
And it was really the context of what that person was saying and suggesting to me, that I made the statements you replied to. That person was demonstrating the characteristics of the type of people who take science on faith, and have little firsthand or even useful understanding of science themselves. Those people are dogmatic and they are the reason religious people are so weary of science. They should just join a fricking cult if they want to irrationally and illogically argue for
It was either them or the ATF. I think we lucked out personally.
On a serious note, it does kind of fall under the Drug Administration aspect of it. Do you really want a Federal Bureau of Network Security? Or the Computers and Embeded Devices Administration?
That'd be a good point, if the context offered wasn't with regard to moderation and non-scientific ideas.
I'll take a stab at answering my objections to this, based upon the premise that the information you are applying here is accurate:
Darwin's primary racist viewpoints summed up (from my complete paper; not all quotes are in this post): 1. Humans are divided into sub-species
That's what he believed at the time. There are still some clowns who talk like this is the case(think KKK)... So he got that wrong. Einstein got things wrong too.
2. The strongest live and the weakest die, which is good (Hitler and Marx agreed)
This is an observable phenomenon. I'm sure hitler and marx would have agreed the sky is blue, does that make the sky less blue?
3. The sub-species are not simply variants
So he got parts of it wrong.
4. A "race war" would be beneficial to mankind
Genius is often accompanied by touches of insanity.
5. Blacks and Aborigines occupy a sub-species between Apes and Caucasians
I'm sure it seemed to make sense to him at the time. Our founding fathers held slaves(assuming you are an American), does that make the constitution and Bill of Rights less genius and visionary?
6. The extinction of blacks and gorillas to advance the white "race" is good
Racism was quite prevalent at the time. He simply didn't know enough.
7. Sub-species are also known as races 8. Different sub-species have different characteristics, such as mental capabilities 9. Irish are also non-Aryan and should be extinct 10. Europe doesn't owe any ancestry to the Greeks 11. It would be good if a wealthy nation replaces a less privileged race 12. Christianity is a damnable doctrine, and Hitler agreed saying it is a rebellion against nature 13. Social Darwinism includes imperialism, racial extermination and sexual inequality as Darwinism was intended to explain society as a whole 14. "lower class" races should not normally be cared for; they should not multiply and should become extinct
All these things are the same type thing. Obviously, assuming these are true, Darwin believed some pretty idiotic things. But even idiots get things right at times. Indeed, even geniuses can be idiots when it comes to certain things. I'd suggest you toss all this stuff out of your head, or use it only for your political science teacher(is that who you said was praising darwin?), and forget about mentioning it here, unless someone starts prasing darwin as some kind of great humanitarian. Otherwise, people aren't going to listen to you about this and will write you off as someone with an agenda. Unless you have an agenda, in which case, you should understand that most people are turned off by people with agendas. There is a time and a place for this type of discussion, I would wait for the right time and place for it before engaging in it.
If you analyze any fanatical religious cult, and then compare it to any fanatical mad scientist (or group of mad scientists), there's really no difference, except in the location, methods, group aspect, etc (ceremonial and physical aspects differ, but are not the determining factor). With a religious cult, their "religion" is usually their leader. Their world revolves around their leader. To a fanatical scientist, their religion is science. Their world revolves around science.
Or in the case of cult followings of popular sciece writers(Robert Anton Wilson for example), their religion is the science of the writer. Yes, I understand and agree with this. Science is a tool, not a religion. Science is a method, not a God, not a doctrine, not a dogma, not a way of life. It is a tool and a method to be incorporated in life. A very valuable and effective tool, quite possibly the best thing since sliced bread in my book. Or did it come before sliced bread?
Science even has only begun to find that the speed of light is not constant, which would basically render almost every single measurement that used C as a constant, invalid.
Not neccesarily every single measurement, and not neccesarily invalid. Depends on the context. I used to follow that theory(the speed of light not being a constant) but I lost interest as soon as I got into quantum theory. If you haven't looked into yet, and you have an affinity for linear algebra, I highly recommend "The Structure and Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics" by R.I.G. Hughes. Changed my whole fricking perspective.
I've got another post in this discussion, in which I posted excerpts from a reference paper that I wrote (with help from another guy), which directly quotes Darwin and uses that as a basis to question Darwin's theories. I even quoted those (the quotes) to a political science teacher who was literally *preaching* about Darwin (for months), and his face turned bright red when he heard those, and could barely come up with a response.
Ya gotta learn to take the good with the bad. We all, as human beings, come with the good and with the bad. If Darwin said the sky was blue, would you disbelieve the sky was blue because of the issues you've taken with him? Consider it.
I try to listen and understand the other person's viewpoints completely when I discuss stuff; but other people have never tried to understand me first.
Don't take the victim mindset. Call them on it when they do it, then let it go. Be the change you wish to see. Argue when they ask for it, make peace when they ask for it. Don't instigate it. Know yourself, be yourself. Recognize yourself in them, and them in you.
I don't share your antagonistic view towards Darwin. When you consider historical figures from his era, and even people from any era(including this one), you need to consider their societal background and the prevailing beliefs in the time and place in which they lived. To dismiss everything he had to say, because of racism he expressed, is the same principle, in my book, that Gad_zuki is doing towards people of religions that he/she finds offensive. Don't fall into that trap. Take the good, acknowledge the bad. Entertain ideas that you don't agree with, simply for the sake of understanding them. If you don't believe evolution, don't believe it, but learn it and understand it, so that you can know what other people believe. That's how I see it. I don't believe in Islam, but I've studied it. I don't believe in confuscianism, but I studied it. I don't believe in communism, but I studied it. etc... My opinion.
You can translate my "you" to mean a lot of people arguing the same point you made which is pretty much something akin to "See, now who is the blind follower now?"
n .html
And in case you don't want to follow links:
Well that isn't how you posted it. You posted a direct reply to me, accusing me of engaging in the strawman fallacy, and assigned a ton of beliefs to me, as well as played the part of victim from my post by claiming that I offended you. You don't like religion? You better find some way to know yourself. That's the only way to defend yourself against being victimized and offended all the time by other peoples speech. I sure as hell wasn't targeting science. I sure as hell wasn't arguing for any given viewpoint on science. I'll tell you what I was arguing below...
to equate some kind of blind belief to those who know that Newtonian physics works isn't fair at all and bereting the slashdot community with conspiracy theories is pretty silly.
Did I do this? WTF? If you're going to respond to someones posts, then RESPOND TO WHAT *THEY* POST, not what you make up, inject, expand, etc... Don't play this game. This is completely unreasonable. You're straw manning again. Do you know what the straw man fallacy is? Let me help you:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-ma
The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position.
This is what you are doing. Who the hell are you addressing here?
Sure, moderation isn't perfect, but the bible guy and the new ager get modded down for a reason that isn't just "blind group think." You can be in the majority and be right sometimes
I didn't equate anything to a blind group think. See definition of Strawman fallacy above.
Sure, moderation isn't perfect, but the bible guy and the new ager get modded down for a reason that isn't just "blind group think." You can be in the majority and be right sometimes!
Look, I was making a lighthearted observation, about the bigotry that goes on here. You're constantly inflating what I said, have been from your first reply, and trying to make me out to be arguing for something I'm not. You want to use your mod points to mod someone as flamebait because you don't agree with them(which goes against the moderation guidelines), that's your business. You want to seek to silence people who believe things different than you, that's your business(I say sieg heil to that though). But understand as long I'm meta moderating, I will undo those things and it will affect your ability to get mod points in the future.
The mod system does not exist for people to flag those they don't agree with. That's a very bigoted way of using it. If some Jesus guy, new age star child, or whatever is posting something offtopic, I'm all for flagging them. But if they have something to say on the subject that is based on their jesus guyness, or new age starchildness, I'm not going to be a bigot and seek to silence them. This is a community forum. That's what this is.
Sorry you're not for free speech and tolerance of viewpoints that aren't lock step with your own. I AM.
Wow, I love how people who passionately argue for the scientific method, jump to conclusions in a very unscientific way.
Oh please. Netwon lived in a time before the scientific method as we know it and before what eventually became the scientific community distanced itself and became aware of pseudo-scientific pursuits like astrology, prophecy, etc.
Can science tell you who you are? I don't mean some vauge descrition of being a bipedal primate, I mean telling you who YOU are? I noticed you convieniently left out philosophy out of your list. Do you discount philosophy in general?
Its not the 17/18th century anymore and your argument is a pretty weak strawman.
Is it? First, define how I was arguing anything. Next, define strawman, and assuming you're able to explain how I was arguing anything, explain how I strawmanned. I asked a question based upon my personal experience and resulting observation.
Essentially you are saying "Newton's physics were valid (ignoring Einstein) thus his other views are just as valid and deserve the same audience and respect."
No, that's not what I'm saying at all. I was referring specifically to modding posts as flamebait when those posts weren't flamebait, they were just other people expressing ideas not embraced by the mainstream. I wish I had book marked those posts, there were two of them. What it basically boils down to is, todays science students, having taken a good deal of what they've learned on faith, especially with regards to things like the big bang, evolution, etc... have developed very closed minds and dogmatic adherence to what they have been taught. Now I'm arguing something, feel free to argue this back.
All the world's society's gave superstion more than the benefit of the doubt for millenia. It didn't pan out. Move on, don't complain that the book of Revelation or Alchemy or Phrenology deserves a 2nd chance. They have gotten more than their fair share of attention. Its not my fault or anyone else's these theories didn't pan out.
Weren't you just leveling accusations about straw manning? Please defend your deciscion here to assign me these beliefs and then attack me for them. Here's one scripture that just panned out: "Physician, heal thyself."
I also take slight offense at how you're saying its "hip" to be against these dead philosophies, when in reality its much more hip to be against those eggheads in their ivory towers who challenge traditional beliefs.
More straw manning. You read a volume into what I said and now are arguing against beliefs you assigned me, rather than taking issue with what I actually said. If you're offended, it's your own damned fault for assigning meaning not expressed. Not mine. I didn't say anything of the sort.
Its very hip for the religious to cry "Persecution!" when a science teacher mentions evolution or when a social studies teacher mentions different religions other than xtianity. I see it in the paper almost weekly. Yet you can join any religion you want, make your kids believe what you like, and religious organizations enjoy tax-free status, gambling rights, and a power-structure that protects them from criminal investigations (at least for a while).
And you know, I would be very inclined to agree with you to a large degree on many points, had you not presented this as my beliefs and set this up as a strawman for you to attack, acting like you're proving something against me. You have no clue at all what was said in the threads I was referring to. You don't seem to have understood that when I said "I personally believe evolution", I meant it.
I'll tell you what's never "hip" in my book, to use your terminology, closing your mind to the way other people believe because you happen to think the way you believe is superior. What understanding can be had of closing your mind to other people? Is it scientific? Isn't trying to understand what other people believe and whe
Just think, alot of people in the audience may not have the advantage of that science either, depending on their upbringing, where they were raised, and what they studied. It's very easy to fall into the trap of assuming other people have had the benefits of learning what we have learned.
I think we are in complete agreement...
... sharing his "non-scientific" ideas? I've noticed while meta-moderating here that people put some very thoughtful posts, containing non-mainstream but on topic views about things like evolution, the big bang, etc... they get modded flamebait. I personally believe evolution, but it's also not such a religious belief with me that I have to moderate down other people who don't believe in it.
I wonder if this is going to lower peoples opinions of Newton here on slashdot?
I'm glad you're in a comfortable environment. I actually did have the extreme pleasure of working for a software company that gave a damn. Where are they now? They got bought about a larger software company and that was the end of that.
I've never found another company like that since then. Enjoy it while you have it. Suck the marrow out of it. You just never know when it's going to end. Don't lose contact with your friends and management that you are enjoying now, they will be more valuable than gold if anything should happen to your company down the line.
Free agency has a lot going for it. It's an excellent choice for people who can (and want to) handle it. Not everyone has the drive and creativity it requires to succeed in that environment, but it's always an option worth considering.
I think those that don't have the drive or the confidence to try, ought to work towards unionization. Maybe they can avoid the mistakes of past unions? IMO, if IT workers don't have some solidarity at some point, whether it be refusing to work for corporations as regular employees, or be through a union, the industry is going to continue the steady march towards paying us as little as possible, and putting us in as piss poor working environments as possible.
I'm not going to play corporate games anymore. A corporation wants to hire me? Agree to my terms, show me the money, or don't bother calling. They sure as hell are not going to put me into a factory assemblyline environment.
Only because I recognize that some people are better suited to a union, and some people are better suited to working for themselves. I don't see the concepts diametrically opposed in the big picture of things. I think those who can take the entrepenurial route, should. I highly recommend it, it's been rewarding. Those who can't, should take the union route. Doing nothing is letting others dictate to you how things should be. Either way I suggested, is you telling others how you think things should be. Just how I see it.