The Politics of Technology

airrage writes "An interesting Washington Post article today, concerning technology's voice on Capital Hill, talks about how the high-tech sector is no longer the belle of the congressional ball. Apparently, circa 2000, politicos were simply tripping over themselves to be seen as pro-technology. Currently, it's much harder to get congressional leaders to embrace pro-technology initiatives. Seems like technology in general is trending towards more regulation as the industry is seen as staid as railroads, coal, or shipping."

Comments

But the internet

[reitoei1971]

Politicians love technology! Gore virtually single handedly invented the internet!

Re:But the internet

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Why do comments like this still get modded as "funny," or indeed anything but the trolls they are? The "Gore claimed he invented the internet" thing was bullshit propaganda two years ago; now it's just a dead horse. Give it up, people.

Re:But the internet

[Brad Wilson]

Awww... are you angry that your Internet-inventor didn't get elected? :-p

Re:But the internet

[cscx]

"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet."

-Albert Arnold Gore, Jr, 3/11/99

Re:But the internet

[yeti (dn)]

Czech state TV reported Bill Gates invented the Internet... and what?

Some may belive. Some laugh. Noone cares.

There are too many people who invented the Internet yet, so one or two more is nothing.

Re:But the internet

[Anonymous Coward]

woo! an out-of-context quote that doesn't even directly say anything! so impressive!

Not suprised

[Devil's BSD]

I'm not surprised by this. If they really cared about the internet and such, we would have people like Bill Gates and Linus Torvalds (oh yeah, and CowboyNeal and CmdrTaco and...) as top Presidential/Senatorial/Congressional consultants and there would be GOOD anti-spam legislation.

Re:Not suprised

[DarkSkiesAhead]

If they really cared about the internet and such, we would have people like Bill Gates and Linus Torvalds (oh yeah, and CowboyNeal and CmdrTaco and...) as top Presidential/Senatorial/Congressional consultants

"Mr Gates, how do you propose we deal with Iraq?"

"Well, have you tried buying up the country and annexing it? Or if that doesn't work you could patent plutonium and sue the pants off of Saddam."

Re:Not suprised

[Stephen VanDahm]

"If they really cared about the internet and such, we would have people like Bill Gates and Linus Torvalds (oh yeah, and CowboyNeal and CmdrTaco and...)"

The upcoming election in South Carolina is so hopelessly depressing that I'd welcome the addition of a CowboyNeal option:

Who should be governor?

( ) Mark Sanford (Republican)
( ) Jim Hodges (Democrat)
(X) CowboyNeal is my candidate of choice!

[VOTE] [Results] [Polls]

Your vote (3) has been registered.

Steve

Re:Not suprised

[MrSubtle]

You can tell if someone is interested in golf because he learns to play the game and buys himself some clubs. You can tell if someone is interested in dogs because he will buy a puppy to live with him, or at least hang out with people who do. If Mr. Gore were really interested in the Internet he would have bothered to learn to program or sling cable, and maybe even do something hard like get an engineering degree. If Mr. Gore really was so creative he might have invented TCP/IP, or HTTP, Java, or C++. If Mr. Gore really wanted to contribute something useful he might have donated some of his own money (or his daddy's money) to promote open source projects to build the Net faster and better. But he never did any of those things. He voted to spend other people's money on some research projects (which given his lack of comprehension of technological matters, he had no rational reason to think was anything more than a boondoggle). Whoopty fuckin' doo. Voting to spend other people's money on research you don't understand isn't a demonstration of insight or sincere interest, it's a demonstration of his willingness to buy power with taxpayer money. Gore is a power-hungry politician. He is like most politicians in that he cares about only one thing, and it's not the Internet. He'd make the Internet illegal in a second if he thought it would get him a lot of votes, campaign contributions, or political pull. You can tell that because seeking political power is all he has ever done in his life. I'll reconsider my opinion if he troubles himself to write HelloWorld() to demonstrate a passing interest and understanding of what we do. If I were interested in being a power monger I would be out there trying to take credit for other people's accomplishments too. I'd be buying influence with taxpayer money, and be trying like mad to get elected to the highest office I could, but I'm not. Gore had as much to do with the creation of the Internet as I had to do with the outcome of the presidential election. After all, I took my own time to read a bit, watched some TV, and voted and that's more than Gore did regarding the Net.

Re:Not suprised

[Anonymous Coward]

"Well, have you tried buying up the country and annexing it?"

Which is basically the approach US based banks, MNCs, and politicos have been using for 90 years.. sounds like Bill is purrfect for politics, or at least head of a central bank! :-) He's already in up to his ears anyway as part of the globalists media working group.. which is fracturing currently, cheaper is better.. even for the Dr. evil's of the world

I quickly glanced over the article, we see Adam Smith and SBA quoted in there. /dev/null comes to mind

High-tech Pork

[Aztech]

I'd say this is way to pessimistic, a lot of government money is washing into technology, which may not be good for the long-term considering the healthiness of most state supported industries.

the dot com bubble ruined verything

[SirOgre]

The pols don't want to be burned again like they were burned when the dot com bubble burst. A lot of people lost a lot of money and politicians don't want to be linked to that.

When politicians care about the high tech sector..

[saskboy]

Pigs will fly, or I will be a politician. If I were a politician, then there would be at least one person who knows how to avoid infecting their computer with a virus, or that there should be legislation against SPAM mail. Too many Computer Science geeks are too meek to run for office where they could further the nerd agenda.

Gates for President! ;-)
[I'd say Linus, but he wasn't born States side.]

Bribery

[Anonymous Coward]

"Rather than dropping a little bit of money here, dropping a little bit of money there," ITAA is looking to help established "friends" on Capitol Hill, especially those locked in tight races, Miller said.

It has always bugged me how lobbyists and campaign contributors just have to spread money around to get the votes. Frankly I'm surprised the general public accepts it as much as they do.

Re:Bribery

[Vinum]

It is because of one of the negative side-effects of capitalism that is being used in the USA. Too much capital is in the hands of too few people. Those with the most capital can pay for the TV ads, flyers, etc etc to get political people in power.

This will just get worse and worse. When someone has 30 billion dollars, that is 30 billion dollars that someone else doesn't have. (Imagine how many people would live quite well if they split that 30 billion into 250k/person.)

The solution is simple... let people be rich, but tax the fuck out of them for being so. This tax money will then be used by the government which will spread the money back through the economy which will be more likely to end in the hands of you and me and we can use that money to get the political people to do what we want. Unfortuantly monkies will fly from my butt before this happens.

The most likely sitution is that too many people will acquire too much capital and the riots of L.A. will look like chickenshit compared to what will happen.

It is funny because unemployment is supposidly at a historic low.. but I qestion those figures because I know many people that have skills and degrees that should get them nice jobs, but have to take more menial dayjobs to support themselves. If you are a computer science major yet you are selling tuxedos for a living than you should be considered unemployed as far as statistics go. This isn't a world where just anyone can go work a hard day's work at any old job and buy a house and support a wife and two kids anymore.

Ohh well, what do I know...

Re:Bribery

[asparagus]

There is this concept that if we look at a homeless man and a billionare, the latter somehow obtained his riches by stealing from the former.

I think this theory is intellecutally bankrupt, but that's me.

If you look at the amount of money actually given to politicans, it's scarily low. What's shocking is not whether they will sleep with you for money...it's how low their prices are.

The american political system is dominated by two groups: a small minority who know how to push buttons to get their agendas pushed forward, and the great unwashed masses who would rather sit about and complain about the system.

If you want change, then you must join the former rather than sitting about navelgazing and blaming the problems of society upon whichever group you're not a part of (rich, poor, white, black, hispanic, drug users, terrorists, aliens from outer space).

Re:Bribery

[Anonymous Coward]

umemployment isnt at an all time low. But its not very high, historically speaking.

The LA riots had nothing to do with money, the rodney king verdict was an excuse for all the troublemakers to vandalize their own neighborhood, they didnt loot the rich neighborhoods, they destroyed the property and businesses of their neighborhoods.

"The solution is simple... let people be rich, but tax the fuck out of them for being so. "
The is a small problem with your idea. High tax rates discourage people from investing money and taking risks. It gets hard to take money away that isnt there, and it wont be there because people arent going to take the risks if there is almost no reward. We tried 70%+ tax rates on the wealthy, and it wasnt good. There is this thing called diminishing returns. Tax revenue doesnt increase proportionally to the tax rate. Its more logarithmic. So doubling the tax rate wont double your revenue. If you want to increase tax revenue, then you keep rates as low as you can without running deficits (in most years) and you keep inflation and deflation under control.

Basically im saying that taxing the hell out of rich peopole will make everyone worse off.

Re:Bribery

[neitzsche]

Um, excuse me, but just what planet are you from, where they tried 70%+ tax rates on the wealthy? Most "wealthy" here in the US pay little or no tax.

We should have a "Maximum Annual Income." Whether that is $100k, 1 mil or 10 mil or somewhere in-between should be a matter of on-going debate. But having a CEO earn more than 100 times the lowliest employee is disgraceful...(and that was the standard from decades ago that was given up on as unattainable in the US!)

Re:Bribery

[Stonehand]

Perhaps you've forgotten your history, or maybe you never looked it up... but the United States has had marginal tax rates exceeding 90%; and during the Carter years, the highest marginal rate was 70%; it took the Reagan tax cuts to bring things down to a saner place on the Lasser curve. See this table.

As for the wealthy, according to a CBO report in 1999, the top 5% of US taxpayers pay 50% of all taxes, while the top 1% pay 29%. Hmmm, that doesn't sound like "little or no tax" to me.

Re:Bribery

[sconeu]

If you look at the amount of money actually given to politicans, it's scarily low. What's shocking is not whether they will sleep with you for money...it's how low their prices are.

Reminds me of an old story...

A man walks up to a woman, and asks her, "Would you sleep with me for $1million?"

She says yes. He then asks, "Would you sleep with me for $10?"

Shocked, she replies, "What kind of woman do you think I am?!?"

He answers, "We've already established that. What were doing now is haggling on price."

Sounds like our Congress.

Re:Bribery

[neitzsche]

Thanks for the informative link. (No, I had never looked up tax rates from before I was born - I obviously had no idea where to look.)

As for the top 5% factoid: it does seem very reasonable to me that the top 5% of the taxpayers pay some extrordinary portion of all taxes, but that says nothing about the 5% wealthiest. Those two groups do not coincide exactly!

I still maintain that this country would be much better off with income caps.

Re:Bribery

[spanky555]

I still maintain that this country would be much better off with income caps.

WHAT?! How would this makes things better? Who gets to decide on the cap? Who is going to pay your salary if all people have caps on their income? Why would anyone drive themselves toward entrepeneurial heights if they are going to be capped by a Marxist policy?

I've heard some pretty silly ideas, but this takes the cake, at least for this week....I don't even know where to start explaining how anti-American (at least, as it was conceived as having laissez-faire economics; lately, we've had what I'd call the "enemy within" - Marxist professors deconstructing everything good about this great nation and LYING to the younger generations about the good and blowing way out of proportion the bad) this concept is. Do you know that being free means ECONOMIC freedom as well as social freedom? How, then, can you justify the iron fist of government setting a cap on the incomes in a free market economy?

I won't even ask what your thoughts on property rights are, or how old you are, or your stance on the first, second, and other amendments are...

Re:Bribery

[elphkotm]

Income caps? That's a good one... Most people who have large salaries deserve it. If you actually worked somewhere worthwhile, you would see that 90% of people at the bottom deserve to be there (playing Fantasy Football for a good portion of the day comes to mind). It just sucks that the other 10% didn't kiss enough ass to get to the top.

Re:Bribery

[neitzsche]

I hope it does not seem like I was suggesting that the they do not deserve "more." Of course the founders of a company deserve better renumeration than the lowliest janitor. But recent excesses (1980-2002) show that limits are needed. Now.

I still maintain that this country would be much better off with income caps.

Re:Bribery

[neitzsche]

How, then, can you justify the iron fist of government setting a cap on the incomes in a free market economy?

Err, the same way (unconstitutional) income taxes were justified at the start of the 1900s.

My point is that the current system lacks equity. And the imbalance is increasing. (Some recent examples even got noticed, e.g. Enron.)

I still maintain that this country would be much better off with income caps.

Re:Bribery

[Anonymous Coward]

It all depends what you mean by "free", and most
important, free to whom? There are conficting interests here: if the billioners will not not pay more, they the automatic question is who should pay. Perhaps those who work much more that the billioners and cannot even make a living wage??

In a country where Cisco, and other major corparations did
not pay federal tax, I think we should start
taxing there, and take away their "freedom",
instead of taxing those who depend on the $200
social security, or the $120 unemployment benefits. Where is
freedom for these people.

(And next time, don't post some paragraphs from
Regonomics, we are not that stupid.)

Re:Bribery

[0x0d0a]

Most people who have large salaries deserve it...the other 10% didn't kiss enough ass to get to the top

I can see that you'll go far.

Re:Bribery

[Weirsbaski]

As for the wealthy, according to a CBO report in 1999, the top 5% of US taxpayers pay 50% of all taxes, while the top 1% pay 29%. Hmmm, that doesn't sound like "little or no tax" to me.

It isn't cited, so I have to ask- did that CBO report say whether that top 1% had more than 29% of the total income?

Re:Bribery

[Anonymous Coward]

The top 5% most probably include the high end of the middle class, ie.. those earning 100-150k/year; these are the true victims in the tax code, while the truely wealthy pay a much lower percentage. You work your arz off to make a decent living, and how does uncle sam reward you? That's right, he takes damn near 40% right off the top.

I hope everyone ditches the US dollar and paypal or other anonymous digital e-cash replaces it; screw mc/visa too! If they can't smell it, they can't tax it, screw them bastards who call themselves hero's, they are nothing but a bunch of bloodsucking theifs!

Re:Bribery

[Anonymous Coward]

Most people who have large salaries deserve it.

Ah...so how, exactly, is it that, oh, say, professional athletes deserve multiple millions of dollars a year to do something that most of us would do as recreation? And how is it that CEOs "deserve" their multiple millions or multiple billions of dollars a year for...um...stealing multiple millions of dollars a year from their companies and consumers?

I think you need to take a long look at who's actually making that money, how much money it is, and what they actually do. My father, a professor, works, much of the time, more than 70 hours a week, and makes about $55K. He teaches people, so that they can become productive members of the workforce. In fact, he teaches physics, so the people he teaches go on to become high-powered researchers at big universities. He's really helping this country. And the CEOs are...stealing from the country. Doing their cursed hardest to avoid doing anything that will benefit anyone but themselves. And you say that they deserve that kind of money?

Dan Aris, thoroughly disgusted by this country

CmdrTaco - US Flag desecrator and anti-Delawarian!

[Anonymous Coward]

As noted on the Smithsonian Institution's site, the first official American flag had thirteen stars and thirteen stripes, each representing one of the thirteen original states.

The flag icon for Slashdot's 'United States' section is missing its first stripe - the stripe that represents Delaware, the first state admitted to the Union. While a simple oversight could be forgiven, it should be known from here on out that Slashdot is in fact aware of the missing stripe, and even worse, refuses to do anything about it!

This vulgar flag desecration and rabid anti-Delawarism must be put to a stop. Let the Slashdot crew know that we will not accept a knowingly mutilated flag or the insinuation that Delawarians deserve to be cut out of the union. I ask you, what has Delaware done to deserve this insolence, this wanton disregard, this bigotry?

This intentional disregard of a vital national symbol is unpatriotic. Why, the flippant remarks CmdrTaco made about our flag border on terrorism! I urge you to join the protest in each 'United States' story. Sacrifice your karma for your country by pointing out this injustice. Let's all work together to get our flag back. Can you give your country any less?

Not entirely a bad thing

[Anonymous Coward]

Some things are long overdue. Like applying standard contract law to EULAs and declaring them unenforceable. Or using existing product liability laws to hold software vendors accountable for their defective products.

Legislators treating technology like a special case is exactly what gives us crap like the DMCA and UCITA.

Re:When politicians care about the high tech secto

[Ari Rahikkala]

At first I was going to comment that it doesn't make sense to think of Gates in the same job as Linus, but then I remembered that supervillains always tell superheroes that they're quite similar people. And on an off-topic note, they are. Not real, that is. I guess Bill and Torvalds always say the same thing when they enter people's homes ;).

Uh... Democracy, rememeber?

[Lao-Tzu]

Keep in mind those politicians who aren't interested in technology are there because you put them in power. (Well, at least in the states...) If you want more technically competant congressmen, some technically competant people need to quit their jobs as IT/IS folks and start campaigning instead. I personally would prefer that they stay disinterested in technology as long as they aren't savvy in the field. That's how we get things like the DMCA. Well, rich corporations buying legislation helps there too.

Don't I hear half of slashdot whining about being unemployed all the time too? Of course, if you're unemployed, you may be overly incompetant to be a politician... well, let's be realistic, it's hard to be more incompetant than the current politicians. ;)

Technology is Politics

[locarecords.com]

I think it is important that technologists realise the importance of politics to technology. The centres of power cannot simply be ignored and difficult questions about where technology is leading us and where we want it to lead us need to be addressed particularly by those who understand the technology.

This is especially crucial when politicians start to introduce crazy new laws (DMCA anyone?) without any deeper understanding of the implications.

People claiming that Open Source must remain apolitical and neutral are naive. To address this subject we are running an open debate on technology and politics on our website digitalagora.com and would welcome your comments and debate.

Re:Technology is Politics

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting to read the Eric Raymond interview.. Is he mad or what?

FF

Re:Technology is Politics

[timeOday]

I think it is important that technologists realise the importance of politics to technology.

If only *somebody* would come up with a website to foment discussion on the intersection of politics and technology in a nerd-accessible way...

But who am I kidding?

Re:Technology is Politics

[Anonymous Coward]

Cool web site...

You should run a debate like this digitalagora.com one on slashdot. But somehow it needs to be balanced and structured so it doesn't become 1000 people shouting loudly...

Re:Technology is Politics

[locarecords.com]

We are trying. But it is very very difficult to develop a real forum for debate that doesn't go round in circles or lose itself due to nesting and other text tricks.

Any ideas/software suggestions would be appreciated email to editor@digitalagora.com

Thanks

Re:Technology is Politics

[hkhanna]

Laws like the DMCA make me want to say why don't we just burn the Constitution and Fed-Ex it back to 1787 and tell them "we don't want your Free Speech."

Seriously when is the public going to wake up and realize their rights are being chipped away by the Republicrats? Argh!

Re:Technology is Politics

[Anonymous Coward]

Quite, quite mad... and getting more insane by the day. His recent pseudo-intellectual outbursts in non-Open Source matter are shockingly moronic.

Re:Technology is Politics

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you mean mad about being asked the same pointless questions over and over? I kind of thought so. Raymond made perfect sense-- provided you understand where he's coming from. It should be the interviewer's job to help the reader understand the subject's point of view.

Re:Technology is Politics

[MrSubtle]

I guess that the "centers of power" are important, but where are they? We can get along just fine without them and their nosey and ignorant ways. they on the other hand NEED our attention, money, and votes so they can continue to pretend they are in charge of what we are doing.

Just waht would you propose that we do in the area of "paying attention" to them? We pay a lot more attention to them than they pay to us. I can name a hundred politicians, can then name ten engineers? What good would it do to have them understand a little bit anyway? When we tell them that we don't need them to tell us what to do or "help" us, they will never believe it anyway. The one thing a politician will never believe is that you don't seen him as the center of your social universe and that you don't want him to be.

Re:Technology is Politics

[MrSubtle]

1000 of which would be geeks anyway. In my many years of discussing things on the Net I have never once seen a politician trouble himself to participate. Think that might be

A. Because they don't care what we think?

B. Because they are put off by the fact that we think they are self-important morons?

C. Because they can't make an honest coherent argument?

D. Because they can't type?

E. All of the above?

Re:When politicians care about the high tech secto

[Anonymous Coward]

Too many geeks aren't lawyers. Lawyers are the ones who get voted into office. And for all I care, they can have them. I'd much prefer being one of the men behind the curtain, the ones with the real power.
It's time for geeks to band together and further our own agendas. Fuck the politicians. They've been fucking us long enough. Let's take the world back!
Ban Showers! Ban fashion. Ban sports! WE ARE THE POWER!!!!!!!!

Sure they care about technology....

[i_want_you_to_throw_]

If you are one of the companies that can line their pockets with cash.

Some things never change.

Trust

[danimrich]

A lot of people had to learn that not everything that glitters is gold the hard way - they probably would not trust someone who promises a second dot-com boom.

Politics is not so much doing the best for the country's future as trying to please voters and supporters.

Re:CmdrTaco - US Flag desecrator and anti-Delawari

[Anonymous Coward]

You jerk! Telling people to commit karma suicide, while you hide in a cave in Montana under the guise of an AC post. You sir, are scum.

Drowning...

[chewy]

Post Bubble, Tech Sector Urged to Practice Politics 101

It's ironic how the Tech Sector is being portrayed as the group wishing for Capitol attention...

1.0?

[Anonymous Coward]

Republicans unveiled an "e-contract with America" and Democrats responded with a series of high-tech legislative agendas numbered like software releases ("e-genda 1.0," etc.).

ummm... since when has a software release looked like "e-genda 1.0" ? maybe "e-genda 2.4.51-pre0" would be more like it...

Re:1.0?

[Anonymous Coward]

or e-genda XP

More regulated?

[RebelTycoon]

"Seems like technology in general is trending towards more regulation as the industry is seen as staid as railroads, coal, or shipping."

If anything its the opposite. Look at how they dealt with Microsoft. Personally I would welcome a little more regulation. It seems that we in the technology sector seem to like the Wild Wild West and the Internet Gold Rush.

Sure, shit laws like the DMCA get passed, but that's not regulating the technology industry as much as it is the Consumers of the technology. The DMCA actually give more power / less regulation to technologies companies at the expense of the consumers.

Hold your horses!

[CatWrangler]

Is this article suggesting that the tech industry is not important to politicians anymore because they have less money in petty cash to grease the congress critters with in this election cycle?

I suppose you are also going to tell me that congress allows 181 Fortune 500 companies loopholes so they don't pay any federal taxes just because these corporations fill up their war chests.

Nothing is new under the sun.

The Politics of Cracking Many Websites

[Anonymous Coward]

telnet to charlesfaris.com - login "charles" - password "maniac"

Regulation?

[SexyKellyOsbourne]

If Congress began to act for the brick-and-mortar industries to stifle the internet revolution by creating laws such as bandwidth, sales, and e-mail technologies, it would be a further disaster for our economy.

The internet/tech sector may have suffered a tulip fever and fell from it, but it is still the future of the economy -- any government regulation of industry is bad and damages free markets, both at the business and consumer level, and if the Democrats (with moderate Republican support) began putting all kinds of red tape and creating bureaucracies on .coms and tech companies, it could stomp our high-tech industry nearly into oblivion.

Re:Regulation?

[gad_zuki!]

>any government regulation of industry is bad and damages free markets

Nonsense, Mr Gates. All sorts of things fall into the category of regulation like anti-trust laws, environmental laws, labor laws, etc. It would behoove the pie-in-the-sky libertarians and other lassiez faire types to acknowledge that free markets do a poor job of remaining free and also consolidate power in a way which defeats the purpose of a market to begin with. Regulation should be judged individually, not generalized as being bad because it counters what your conservative professor told you in Economics 101.

could it be something else

[anthonyrcalgary]

I don't think it's about the dot com bubble, at least not completely. There are a lot of conflicting viewpoints, and lobbying dollars at the moment. The entertainment industry wants to castrate some technologies, so they can't be used for piracy. The manufacturors want fewer restrictions, because restrictions will lower demand, and restrict possible international exports. The open source communities, the ACLU, etc, want fewer restrictions on principal. And so on like that. In an environment like that, strong support for any given position is likely to get a politician in trouble from someone, so they probably think it's better to be seen as indifferent or neutral.

Thesis subject

[SixDimensionalArray]

Actually, this happens to be a part of my college thesis - and it's really interesting to see the effect of control of technology(and who that control gives power to). These "politics of technology" are incredibly disruptive to the free flow of information within organizations. Most of these politics arise through the external pressure from the government and the internal pressures organizations are required place on themselves (employee monitoring, etc.). Neat stuff. ;)

Re:Thesis subject

[namespan]

arg! Such a tantalizing subject and you don't give a single link? Please? Pretty Please?

The most depressing bit?

[Fiveeight]

Technology lobbies and companies must focus their energies and resources on candidates who have stuck their neck out for the high-tech industry, said Harris Miller, president of the Information Technology Association of America (ITAA), noting that the industry's campaign "piggy bank is less fat than it was last time around." "Rather than dropping a little bit of money here, dropping a little bit of money there," ITAA is looking to help established "friends" on Capitol Hill, especially those locked in tight races, Miller said.

Aren't you glad to hear the tech industry has upright, honourable people like this to help them in times of need?

Re:The most depressing bit?

[GigsVT]

ITAA... great... just great.

That's all we need is more ??AA's.

www.lemonparty.org

[Anonymous Coward]

This third party will battle for what's right..

Re:CmdrTaco - US Flag desecrator and anti-Delawari

[Cyno01]

damnit, everytime someone posts something under united states this comes up, the icon is slightly cut off, if you look closely you can see a bit of the red delaware stripe

a good thing...

[lyapunov]

Perhaps, now that the large tech leaders do not have the political influence that they once had it will allow for more policy directed towards users rights instead of the industries.

Re:a good thing...

[kadehje]

I don't see how this follows. With the notable exception of Microsoft, most technology firms have come out publicly AGAINST laws attacking users' rights like S. 2048.

Granted, these objections are generally based on pragmatic concerns (e.g. Why should Sun be forced to spend more money on its product line to include DRM, especially if it's solely for the protection of Hollywood?) instead of ideological ones. But the maxim "an enemy of my enemy is a friend" applies here.

Existing laws like the DMCA restrict entry into markets such as DVD players. The licensing fees for technologies like CSS increase the price of making products. Most often, the manufacturers don't have enough pricing power to get away with passing the entire increased cost to customers, so these companies' profit margins are squeezed.

Meanwhile, the importance of the media has not diminished in the past several years, since politicians continue to rely on the media to get or keep themselves in office. If, as you claim, the technology industry's political weight has diminished as a result of the dot-com bust, then that would mean that the media and related industries (movies, music, etc.) will have an even greater influence relative to the tech industry than the media enjoyed a few years ago.

Given the public positions of those like Hilary Rosen and Jack Valenti, if these people now have a greater influence over the U.S. Congress than they've previously had, then it looks like we're heading in the direction of progressively more Draconian laws against "piracy," i.e. one's right to use a device he or she purchased in any way said person sees fit.

I wonder how the petroleum industry or the NRA feels about these issues. If the technology industry isn't going to matter as much as it formerly did in speaking a voice (accidentally)consistent with most Slashdotters' opinions, I think we're going to need a replacement ally as powerful as Big Oil to fight the attack on users' rights mounted by the "content industry." And it looks like we need one ASAP.

Re:a good thing...

[lyapunov]

You are correct, I did not think of the relative strength of the voice of the tech. sector compared to that of the media and microsoft and how it will diminish in the wake bust. I agree that there have been some companies to speak out against crappy legislation and it is a pity that their voices are now the less distinguished.

My hope was that it would make the users interests louder as some of the background noise diminished. But, as you mentioned, it will probably only make the media industries voices even more dominant.

Cheers!

Jobs

[Anonymous Coward]

Does this mean there will finally be "regulation" of the H1B system? Or punitive legislation for those who outsource overseas?

Or does it just mean MS will be slapped with more lawsuits?

Depending on the regulation, this could either totally kill the job market, or maybe ease things a bit for those of us still trying to make a living at something we paid big bucks at college to train for.

Re:Jobs

[DAldredge]

Funny! Very Funny!

The corps that fund most of Congress LIKE the H1B visa system (it saves them money). We, the citizens of the USA, are not the 1st, 2nd or 3rd most important thing on Congress' mind.

Re:Jobs

[spectecjr]

The corps that fund most of Congress LIKE the H1B visa system (it saves them money). We, the citizens of the USA, are not the 1st, 2nd or 3rd most important thing on Congress' mind.

Not really -- if anything, an H1B holder typically costs the parent company more.

What it does give them is a workforce that isn't as mobile -- think of it as enforced company loyalty.

Simon

Re:Jobs

[DAldredge]

Then why are US companies keeping there H1B's while laying of US citizens?

Re:Jobs

[spectecjr]

Then why are US companies keeping there H1B's while laying of US citizens?

They're not all doing that. A lot of H1Bs are being laid off. And guess what? Most recruiters won't even look at people with an H1B these days -- and really haven't since mid-1999 when the first strains of the economy crashing started to be heard.

And guess what? If you're running a company intelligently, you don't always cut for the bottom line. You sometimes cut away the lowest-producing people instead.

And those people aren't always H1B workers.

Simon

The Real Losers

[Alethes]

From the article:
"We were a darling, definitely," said Robert Cresanti, vice president of public policy at the Business Software Alliance. "Some of that impossible-to-maintain perfection has worn off."

The BSA was the "darling" -- not Technology as a whole. The rest of us are in the same political position as always -- if not better, because of the lack of clout the BSA has now. Who's losing ground politically? The BSA. The Post is essentially mourning this fact, but it's actually pretty damn good news, I'd think.

Does the Free Software Movement even have anything resembling a lobby at this point?

Re:The Real Losers

[Anonymous Coward]

Does the Free Software Movement even have anything resembling a lobby at this point?

The EFF?

Really ... no ... not really

[SuperDuG]

Well I find this very hard to believe, we're not on the brink of war with countries that hold long range chemical and nuclear weapons. We didn't within the last year and a half suffer the greatest loss on american soil ever. The economy isn't in a downward spiral. American aren't losing jobs at an enormously large rate. American education and social aid programs and grants aren't being cut because the money just isn't there anymore.

If these things were happening I'd think there would at least be an excuse for politicans to not care about technology.

Re:Really ... no ... not really

[Elbereth]

Well I find this very hard to believe, we're not on the brink of war with countries that hold long range chemical and nuclear weapons.

You mean China? I didn't know we were on the virge of war with China. Ohhh, you mean Iraq. The very same country that took a week to devastate in Desert Storm?

We didn't within the last year and a half suffer the greatest loss on american soil ever.

You mean the Civil War was last year?

The economy isn't in a downward spiral.

Mmmm. That's why everyone on Slashdot is buying Pentium IV 3GHz PCs, SUVs, and 50" digital televisions.

American aren't losing jobs at an enormously large rate.

Right, that's why the dockworkers in California have guaranteed job security lined up. Not to mention all those people recruiters in California who are desperately trying to find (here's the big one, folks) QUALIFIED tech workers. Sorry, if you were part of the dot-com boom, your services are no longer required. Unfortunately, that does, in a round-about way, mean I lost my job, too. But I can get a new one easily enough... I'm just choosy.

American education and social aid programs and grants aren't being cut because the money just isn't there anymore.

Same thing as any other year. More money to build the war machine, less money for science and education.

If these things were happening I'd think there would at least be an excuse for politicans to not care about technology.

Good troll.

Re:Really ... no ... not really

[SuperDuG]

You mean China? I didn't know we were on the virge of war with China. Ohhh, you mean Iraq. The very same country that took a week to devastate in Desert Storm?

Actually, I meant northern korea and china.

You mean the Civil War was last year?

Nope, I meant Sept. 11th attacks. Where we lost more american lives in one day than we have on any other day in all of history. If I meant a moment of time which compared death rates to percentages of population I would have picked the era of the american indian war, in which both native americans as well as immigrants were part of the american population.

Mmmm. That's why everyone on Slashdot is buying Pentium IV 3GHz PCs, SUVs, and 50" digital televisions.

And I'm a troll? I know I sure as hell can't afford an SUV. I'm quite sure there are numerous members of of Slashdot that don't have the funds to buy such things at the drop of a hat.

Right, that's why the dockworkers in California have guaranteed job security lined up. Not to mention all those people recruiters in California who are desperately trying to find (here's the big one, folks) QUALIFIED tech workers. Sorry, if you were part of the dot-com boom, your services are no longer required. Unfortunately, that does, in a round-about way, mean I lost my job, too. But I can get a new one easily enough... I'm just choosy.

The unemployment rate has been going up as the state of the economy has been going down. How many people do you think worked for Martha Stewart or Enron? As well as airline workers and industrial assemblers throughout the midwest losing their jobs.

Same thing as any other year. More money to build the war machine, less money for science and education.

So I suppose the amount of roads developed, the amount of money to private contracts etc are far less troublesome than buying defense contracts?

Good troll.

Takes one to know one?

Re:Really ... no ... not really

[gfreeman]

Nope, I meant Sept. 11th attacks.

Maybe you mean Sept. 17th.

1862.

Gr

Food chain.

[t0qer]

One thing that we all hated about the .com period, poser geeks.

During that time, geek was shiek. Everyone and their sister was trying to be geek, people that had absolutely no idea of what underlying technology was powering their company would run around touting it as something grand, like upper upper class l33t society, gods gift to geekdom society.

So we had a lot of people with money hopping on the technology bandwagon, the politicians want their money (simple so far right?) Just like the CEO's that ran around swindling the savings out of unsuspecting retiree's for their latest .com whatever the fuck.

So basically we have a food chain like this..

Politicians swindle money from CEO's
CEO's swindle money from retiree's
Retiree's are plankton, they just kind of float around.

Now all this money floating around for technology, well it created a need for an IT infrastructure and support personal. People like myself were able to get their foot in the door and get their carreers started because of this. It was awesome because people like me who are sort of antisocial and enjoy solitude with a computer were finally able to fit into the scheme of society to be brought out of our darken CRT lit caves and into the cookie cutter cleanroom of cubicles and flourescent lighting.

Well, at least a few of the companies I worked for, the plankton started asking questions like...

"Is it ready yet?"

After a while, they got sick of being food for the CEO's, and like a food chain, everyone went elsewhere to look for food.

So now it seems everyone from the president on down are sort of being anti technology. I see construction workers still have jobs. Construction hasn't seen nearly the hit technology has. Nor has most of the other pre .com sectors out there. Military is growing steadily which is sort of scary.

Sad thing to see it all go. For once in my life I had found something that people liked about me that just came naturally. But back to the politics.

Right now there is more investment than ever in anything that does not equal technology. America is gearing up for war according to our president. In fact he mentioned something about a draft last thursday. The only thing that comes to my mind when I hear that is my younger brother or cousins. At 29, constant smoker, married and house ownin, they wouldn't want me. 24?? 23? 25? These are the ages of the youngest males in my family.

Politicians don't want to touch technology because it's left a bad taste in our mouths. A lot, and I mean a lot of really hard working people that put their money into these dot coms that dot bombed just would never vote for someone techno related because of it.

Bah, it's saturday, this comment is boring me, Hey post a michael story ok?

--toq

Re:Food chain.

[Fiveeight]

We've just had the 20thC version of Railway Mania. I'm sure there was a short period in the mid 19thC when it was cool to discuss the differences between Bullhead and flat rail, or if 0-6-0 was the best setup for steep hills#. No doubt they had "*, but with a railway" patents too. Sooner or later the net will be as nerdy as trainspotting, and the besuited types will have to find something else to pretend to understand.

# I'm not exactly well informed about railways, so forgive my examples

Re:When politicians care about the high tech secto

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually...as much as you might hate Microsoft, Gates for prez might not be a horrible idea: they're both essentially managers. Shit, if Gates could grow the economy like he did built up Microsoft, he'd violate some laws of thermodynamics or something!

Think of the possibilities...the US would have monopoly exports on wheat and stuff! =)

Simply Enough

[drinkypoo]

This is because every new technology is now tripping over legalities. The possibilities of litigation over every damned little thing (like all these stupid patents) have entangled new technology in years-long battles. Now, to be associated with technology means you're associated with so-called criminals. (Of course, since the RIAA and MPAA have succeeded in having the laws changed to favor them, those people are criminals.)

The delusion that "technology is special..."

[trims]

I'm actually not that unhappy that the tech bubble and its attendent fawning are gone. Sorry about all those without a job right now, but in the long run, it's better...

Somehow, the technology sector was promoted (and believed) to be "different" than any other sector in history, and therefore we couldn't, possibly, no never apply the same logic that we'd used to analyse other sectors at it. Look where that attitude got us.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't look at technology with fresh eyes as to the benefits and possibilities it brings. And I'm definitely not for forcing all technology into previously-defined cubbyholes via direct legal analogy (e.g. it's the Internet folks, not some fucked up mutant telegraph or road system. Look at the new paradigm). However, that doesn't mean we can't learn and use previous analytical and legal tools to help mold the direction of tech.

I'd actually love to see a good chunk more of regulation in the "tech" sector, which actually also includes the "Intellectual Property" sector. We really could use:

• Real Consumer Protection Laws. Just like buying any physical object, whether a vaccuum or car, my software better come with an enforcable warranty of fitness. And I should be able to return defective merchandise, no questions asked (even if I've opened the shrink-wrap).
• Product Liability for Bad Quality. Why the hell don't standard QA laws apply here?
• Real Contract Law. We have 500+ years of Common Law on what constitutes a real contract between two parties. Now, suddenly, the tech and IP sector want to redefine that because the old way simply "doesn't apply" to their paradigm for some reason (primarily because it's not to their liking?)
• Similarly, Application of Traditional IP Standards This whole concept of "licensing" a copy of a problem is bullshit, the same way that "licensing" a copy of a book or music tape was 100 years ago. And we had several hundreds of years without patents on anything other than physical devices. WTF?
• Level Field for Taxation. I see no reason why local sales taxes shouldn't be normalized and then applied to purchases bought on line. There's no real excuse not to tax catalogue and Internet retailers the same as local ones.
• Actual Oversight of Company Finances. This isn't a tech problem per-se, but the biggest egregarious sinners are tech companies, and tech in general doesn't seem to think that the way they did things in the 90s was bad. Another "we're different, so the rules don't apply" delusion.
• Better Labor Law Enforcement. WTF is up with standard 80-hour weeks for tech sector? The enforcable "non-compete" clauses? The "own-your-brain" shit? The royal clusterfuck that is the H1B program (oh, it could be such a great thing, if it wasn't run so badly...)

Tech needs to stop with the "we're special" attitude, and get back into the real world. This includes getting a bunch of regulation and responsibilities. Right now, the tech sector is behaving like a spoiled teenager. The sooner it grows up and realizes it needs to play by the same rules everyone else does the sooner that politicians (and everyone else) takes it seriously again.

-Erik

Re:The delusion that "technology is special..."

[jpt.d]

I am in general very 'supportive' of many of your ideas, but I must consider the little guy (which happens to be me, as I am looking at doing some shareware development).

Real Consumer Protection Laws. Just like buying any physical object, whether a vaccuum or car, my software better come with an enforcable warranty of fitness. And I should be able to return defective merchandise, no questions asked (even if I've opened the shrink-wrap).

In this method, how would I allow them to return their software? My method of allowing purchases would be by serial number. If I give out a serial number, how can I allow them to return the software? I can't block out every single serial number returned, or else the serial numbers couild outnumber the actual software code/data. Then they could of course use that code to activate the software they already have.

I know shareware is supposted to be try before you buy, but it is not always possible to try out every part of the software for suitability.

Product Liability for Bad Quality. Why the hell don't standard QA laws apply here?

How would my software come in here? I would of course strive for the best possible quality I can. But if there is all this liability for bad quality similar to consumer goods, that would mean external oversight. This would only help big companies, and squeeze out the little guys.

Similarly, Application of Traditional IP Standards This whole concept of "licensing" a copy of a problem is bullshit, the same way that "licensing" a copy of a book or music tape was 100 years ago. And we had several hundreds of years without patents on anything other than physical devices. WTF?

I agree with you on this bullshit, but how can sell a copy of something while preventing them from distributing it? Borland's No-Nonsense License of past had a good idea to it - treat it like a book, I could install it on my 100 computers, just as long as I couldn't use it on more than one computer at the same time. If I sell a copy of foobar 1.0, I certainly have no problem with them using the software on any computers they have for personal use. If it was a bigger customer like a school, I would definately make a distinction there. I would want to get more money from them because their number of copies would likely go way beyond what the personal amount would reasonably be. Again - how would I prevent his friend from using his copy of foobar 1.0 on another computer (that is not his).

These are the kind of issues that I feel must be addressed. Solutions are welcome, email or reply. Palladium is not the answer to this either. It might help solve the problems, but would create too much control from 3rd parties of your system.

Re:The delusion that "technology is special..."

[trims]

Last questions first (in reverse order):

1) Laws don't Prevent anything. They assign penalties for certain actions. As such, they serve as stimulus to modify behavior. You shoudn't be looking to prevent someone from doing something using the law. That's the trap we're in now - the only way to prevent a potential "bad-guy" from doing something is to lock up everyone, good and bad. If they're copying your program without buying the appropriate number, they've broken the law, and you're entitled to damages.

2) Quality laws do fine now for both the small guy and big guy. Both have to adhere to the same level for making suring that the quality is there. I'm not going to cut my local store more slack for selling me shoddy merchandise than I would WallMart, simply because the local store is "smaller". Obviously there has to be a certain amount of leeway for QA in software (i.e. it can't be perfect, but...). There has to be a minimal barrier-to-entry for producing software, and QA is it. Everyone is held to the same standard, and if the standard is written correctly, then it won't be too burdensome. However, you might need product-liability insurance, like many traditional manufacturing busineses...

3) This goes back to the original statement: you need to be able to provide them with a method for returning the merchandise, but you generally don't have a guaranteed method of locking out cheaters. As a rough analogy: what prevents me from buying a 42" TV, using it for a party that weekend, then returning it on Monday? I'm cheating the retailer, but that's not really detectible. The vast majority of people will pay for a properly priced product, rather than cheat. And if you do it correctly, someone with an "illegal" copy isn't going to be able to get upgrades, support, documentation, et al. And yes, part of your company will have to deal with maintaining serial number collections. That's part of the business. TANSTAAFL.

Right now, being a software company (both big and small) allows the company to sidestep a huge number of obligations that non-software companies take for granted as a cost-of-business. I see no reason for this, and in fact there is a considerable social cost to absolving the software companies of these responsibilities. If this reduces the number of potential small software companies starting up, then so be it. We have to get out of the mind-set that a software company can just spew random crap at the EU. There has to be some responsibilities with producing a product, and these responsibilities cost money.

-Erik

Re:The delusion that "technology is special..."

[jpt.d]

The most likely model I would go after for business is that somebody buys a product, they get continual upgades (ala getright, mirc, etc.). In this way the serial numbers would have to be perpetual. The cost of the software would not be very much, like 10$ to 15$.

If somebody wanted to return a product that was already evaluated (purpose of shareware), and was not disabled in any meaningful way (such as a reasonable time limit during use, limited number of times running, ultimate length of time of evaluation) (unreasonable disabling would definately include limiting features available) I would deny them the ability to return it.

This obviously won't apply to all products out there.

The overhead of serial numbers can't out way the actual overhead of actually developing software.

Your example of the 42" TV is actually perfect. If that TV is going to be used for that, and you don't like it for that purpose then by all means return it. You can't exactly make copies of that product (... yet ... :p)

Re:The delusion that "technology is special..."

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry about all those without a job right now, but in the long run, it's better...

I'm one of those without a job (over 2 years now, *sigh*) and heck I agree with you. Those here who expect the government to grant their industry special protections (e.g. software licensing and immunity from product liability) just so they can have a job are no better than the RIAA/MPAA types. Shame on them! I'd rather pursue a different career altogether than have my livelihood so dependent on corporate welfare.

I see no reason why local sales taxes shouldn't be normalized and then applied to purchases bought on line.

Have to disagree. Online purchases should be treated no differently from mail-order. States cannot tax interstate commerce. These "use taxes" they have now are just a transparent ploy to circumvent this Constitutional restriction.

Re:The delusion that "technology is special..."

[Anonymous Coward]

Level Field for Taxation. I see no reason why local sales taxes shouldn't be normalized and then applied to purchases bought on line. There's no real excuse not to tax catalogue and Internet retailers the same as local ones.

Internet and catalogue purchases are now and have always been covered by sales tax law. But, the burden of paying the tax is on the party that is a citizen of the state/locality that is collecting the tax---as it should be. Why exactly should a Colorado company be subject to New York laws, for example?

Better Labor Law Enforcement. WTF is up with standard 80-hour weeks for tech sector? The enforcable "non-compete" clauses? The "own-your-brain" shit? The royal clusterfuck that is the H1B program (oh, it could be such a great thing, if it wasn't run so badly...)

My sympathy doesn't really go out to my colleagues who pull in six figure salaries that they have to work 80 hour weeks. Oh no! They could just say no. Maybe they'd have to settle for $80K. Oh no!

If you do not like the terms of the contract, then ammend it before you sign it and if you can't come to an agreement about the terms then go elsewhere. Even in the recession, jobs aren't that hard to come by...

That said, I agree that technology companies should not be exempt from standard liability laws, and do not need much in the way of special legislation. In fact, if the DMCA is any example of technology being successful in getting laws past congress, then I'm ecstatic that they will have a harder time in the future.

Re:The delusion that "technology is special..."

[Anonymous Coward]

Very well said. You give me hope!

Re:The delusion that "technology is special..."

[MrSubtle]

But software is different. If the usual nonsense the government forces on cement companies were heaped on the software world (as it is starting to be) it would be dead. It's possible to know that a simple device with a hundred parts that does one thing "works". What about devices with many billions of highly complex interacting parts which is used for an "open-ended" purpose in conjunction with who knows what other such things? And when it doesn't work "right" (whatever that means) what judge or lawyer would have the foggiest idea of why or who was to blame if anyone? In what sense would having armies of lawyers and congressmen "helping" us make anything any better than it is now?

There's nothing "helpful" they can offer except perhaps to send men with guns to the homes of all spammers, kiddie porn sites, and the RIAA? ;-)

Re:When politicians care about the high tech secto

[firewort]

May I point you to my campaign website: www.VictorMarks.com ?

Re:When politicians care about the high tech secto

[Anonymous Coward]

If Gates was president, you can be sure he'd drop any wars with third-world middle-east nations and bomb the heck out of China, Taiwan, Korea, and any other major piracy center. And possible drop a few bombs on Finland, just out of spite. :)

Of course, unless Congress is 90% pro-GNU (very unlikely), linux, Apple, Sun, and any other competing platforms would be practically outlawed.

What Gore giveth...

[i_want_you_to_throw_]

Gore taketh away....

Re:What Gore giveth...

[frank_adrian314159]

Hey, dummy - last time I checked, Gore wasn't in the government. Why don't you re-read the first thread instead of trying to propogate the falacious, slanderous, and relatively shallow and stupid "I invented the Internet" meme by way of a lame joke.

P.S. The ones of you who modded this funny need to get out more. Sheesh...

Are Greenpeace contributions the same?

[Anonymous Coward]

They're a "special interest group", too.

Please go outside and look at the sky

[Anonymous Coward]

Come back, and tell us what color you see.

Because it sure as shit isn't the blue sky of Earth.

But you're too fucking stupid to realize that in a truly repressive country you'd get a 9mm headache for posting a comment like that.

Re:WHY

[Anonymous Coward]

You nazi bastard - get out of America if you can't treat your president with proper respect.

Re:When politicians care about the high tech secto

[Anonymous Coward]

"Nice place you got here. Lots of space."

Re:CmdrTaco - US Flag desecrator and anti-Delawari

[grofty]

Uh oh.......I once drew a flag with 10 stripes....I'm going to hell aren't I?

Techies vs. Politicians

[Alex711]

I worked in the senate this summer for the Majority leader and his top technology advisor (believe me, when I say we are trying to stick it to ICANN), and I saw first hand WHY politicians don't really work closely with the tech industry.

Techies tend to stick to themselves, taking the attitude of "If you don't bother us, we won't bother you." With a few exceptions (MS is one of them), the technology industry does NOT lobby the Hill much at all.

While it isnt always about the money, one indication of their lack of involvement is money donated to campaigns. The technology industry is HUGE, much bigger in revenues than the TV/Movie/Music industry. But when it comes to money donated to campaigns, the tech industry gives considerably less ($12 million less in the last 3 years 2000-2002).

Techies shouldn't suffer all of the blame, but in an atmosphere like the Hill, when everyone, and I mean EVERYONE, is vying for the attention of politicians, those who scream loudest get heard. The NRA knows it, the financial institutions know it, but the technology industry DOES NOT.

I am an avid /.'er and I really want things to get done. Hell, I even call my old boss now and again and tell him to put the screws to ICANN (working on it, low priority, unforunately). However, the technology industry as a whole needs, and especially those of us who are smaller in #s but are out their trying to champion rights for everyone, to learn HOW to get their voice heard. Hiring lobbyists is not a "sell-out" thing to do, it is often the smart thing to do. MS figured it out, now it is time for us on the other side to figure out how.

Re:Techies vs. Politicians

[MrSubtle]

One thing that's often overlooked here is the time horizon in politics versus technology. A tech company will live or die based on how its next product/IPO/bug fix/whatever does in the next 6-12 months. Politics moves FAR slower. Getting a politician elected takes YEARS. Getting a bill proposed, debated, and voted on takes YEARS. And rather than offering an opportunity to pass laws doesn't really matter in terms of tech companies and their activities. By the time Congress even discovers a new product area it's probably dead or dying already anyway, so as a CEO how could you justify throwing away money on lobbying when you could spend it on something productive?

Besides, it's hard to show a return from giving money to one of them in order to get them to "leave us alone" than it is when the steel industry buys a tarrif increase or the coal miners buy access to new coal fields with their "contributions".

Re:Techies vs. Politicians

[Alphtoo]

Alex, I'm sure you're right... but it's a damn sorry comment on the state of affairs in this country. If the most expedient (if not the only) way to get our legislators to act in the best interests of the US public and the US Constitution is to pay them off, it's time to abolish the whole sorry lobbying system. What happened to the oath of office those lawmakers took when they were sworn in? Doesn't mean shit to most of them, now does it? It's about time to turn the boat over, just to see which ones make it to shore and which ones are pulled under by the weight of their gold.

Re:WHY

[Anonymous Coward]

Who are you to judge me??? A lot of my friends went to vietnam... A lot of guys went there and a lot of guys didn't come back... How many friends have you lost???

I don't get it

[sbwoodside]

"Seems like technology in general is trending towards more regulation as the industry is seen as staid as railroads, coal, or shipping."

Sure, with the microsoft judgement technology is looking more like railroads every day ... railroads circa 1900 that is ...

I don't get it. How do we have a trend towards regulation from a government trending away from antitrust? That doesn't make sense.

Better than any other place on the planet

[Anonymous Coward]

I know it breaks a lot of your liberal bleeding hearts, but white Western European/American civilization imposed the abolition of slavery on the rest of the globe - except, of course, in Africa. Where Islamic whacko Arabs in the Sudan to this day take blacks as slaves.

As for the slaves of several hundred years ago - do you really think whites went into Africa an actually took slaves? Hardly. Most slaves were taken in inter-tribal warfare between blacks, who then sold them to whites slave traders.

All in all, a nasty business that Western Europe and America put an end to.

PS - Western European and America are also pretty much the leaders in given women full rigths, too.

Re:WHY

[Anonymous Coward]

Why don't you understand it?

Because it's not based on "diplomacy" and "understanding"?

Yeah, that's served us really well in stopping North Korea from getting nukes and creating a lasting peace in the Middle East.

Nice legacy, Bill Clinton.

every industry matures

[Raiford]

Every industry goes through growing pains as a part of the maturation process. The IT industry and its associated hi-tech supporting matrix is not unique in terms of the phases of this process, but it is unique in the nature of how it rapidly evolves and mutates.

Early in the auto industry there was a fascination stage, a glitzy new technology (invention) stage followed by the utility stage. The romance with cars continues but the glitz of the industry is gone. The IT industry will follow these stages also. For many of the so-called politicos it's not a matter of the glitz phase being over it's more of a matter of trying to distance yourself from economic sector in a slump. The bandwagon left with many holding the bag or at least that is the picture that gets painted for IT at the moment. Things will change and a health steady-state stability will set in for the industry with a healthy and manageable growth rate.

Bush campaign dirty tricks: Gore told the truth.

[maynard]

Here's a nice summary of the "Gore invented the Internet" bullshit. Note that Gore claimed to have been directly involved in providing NSF funding for ARPANET. This, in fact, he did. More importantly, he NEVER claimed to have invented the technology and engineering behind the Internet. Here's what Robert Kahn and Vint Cerf have to say on the matter. Note that they ARE principal engineers of the original ARPANET. Essentially, they back up Gore and his involvement in providing the necessary funds to keep the ARPANET, and then the Internet alive during tough financial and budgetary times.

You are repeating a political dirty trick the Republican's used to discredit Gore during the 2000 election. That it was completely false and a total misrepresentation of Gore's words and intent didn't matter to Bush and his campaign staff. That people still repeat the slander as though it was God's truth shows how effective negative advertising and media manipulation really is. I note finally that I dod NOT vote for Gore, and was never a Gore supporter. And I won't vote for him in 2004. But that doesn't mean I think it's acceptable to let this untruthful meme perpetuate without refutation.

Cheers,
--Maynard

Tax rates

[Anonymous Coward]

Too bad they hadn't adjusted the tax rates for inflation... middle-class incomes inflated into higher and higher tax brackets, thus building support for dropping the highest rates (which the truely rich wanted) rather than just readjusting the tax brackets. If you look at the economic "golden years (the 50's) the higer tax rates seemed to work pretty damn well..

Worse yet, most of those statistics don't take payroll tax into effect. Since it caps at 80K (or there abouts, didn't it get raised?) it actually turns into a regressive tax. Someone making a million dollars still only pays payroll tax on the first 80K or so dropping their effective tax rate to way less than the 20-30% rate that the working stiff pays...

Flawed logic

[Anonymous Coward]

You're assuming the CEO stole all the man's money, which obviously isn't the case. Maybe he only stole a dime from a million bums like that guy. Apparently in america it is less of a crime to steal a million dollars from a million people than it is to steal a million dollars from one guy (who has the political connections to make sure the cops catch the thief). The thief still makes off with a million dollars. We call one kind of thief a criminal while we call the other kind a CEO....

Not a troll, some truth in the statement

[Brian_Ellenberger]

He did not say he invented the Internet, but he did say "I took the initiative in creating the Internet". From snopes.com:

"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system."

Now sure the "urban legend" uses the word invent instead of create, but the point is the same. Al Gore seemed to be taking credit for something that was *MUCH* larger that he was---even as Vice President. Especially for a project that had been going on since the late 60's. What about Vint Cerf the developer of TCP/IP? Or Tim Berners-Lee, developer of the World Wide Web. Or Ray Tomlinson founder of e-mail? Heck, if we are going to talk about politicans what about LBJ since the DARPA project that became the Internet was started during his administration?

There are a thousand people more deserving to proclaim they "took the initiative in creating the Internet". Sure Al may take credit in helping to promote it, but his statement was way too broad and arrogant. He didn't even acknowledge anyone else. It is everything I dislike about a powerful person taking credit for the work of the "little guy".

Brian Ellenberger

Re:Not a troll, some truth in the statement

[sfwriter]

"...his statement was way too broad and arrogant. "

So here is the greatest political champion technology has ever had on capitol hill, and now that he is gone, we're having a discussion about the lack of a "technology" voice on the hill.

Maybe his statement wasn't as broad or arrogant as you might think... Without Gore, the Internet would have remained an isolated academic afterthought, and all those real productivity gains in the economy that stem from the Internet wouldn't exist.

Did you ever read the interviews with him about technology?

Did you hear about his NASA satellite?

This man is brilliant, broad minded and far thinking.

Arrogance is telling the American people they don't have a right to know who you meet with when deciding policy or claiming you "signed a patient's bill of rights in Texas," when you did no such thing. Actually, that last one is lying, which even you admit Gore didn't do.

-Sandy

Re:American political system...

[hackwrench]

I have yet to see one person who knows how to push buttons to get their agenda pushed forward.

And you're still assuming money...

[hackwrench]

was what got stolen. If you steal a man's freedom or the like, you are still stealing.

Bad call...

[Anonymous Coward]

And possible drop a few bombs on Finland, just out of spite.

Not a good idea, those guys invented the ranger (infiltration type special forces) and more or less held their own against both the russians and the germans in WWII. (although they were only at war with one at a time and more or less allied to the other.)

Anyway, fighting a war in finland is probably a really stupid thing to do.

Re:CmdrTaco: Pissing on the graves of dead soldier

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah yes, the miracle of democracy -- "shoot" someone for flag disrespect. Too bad your pride is more important than your constitution.

Hitler would have probably shot you for disrespecting the swastika. He wouldn't tolerate dissention either. But in the States, we counter criticism with criticism, at least when we're doing our jobs right. Plenty of veterans agree. So-called flag protection statutes were struck down as fast as they were enacted, and the constituional amendment never got traction.

But this is all beyond your understanding as a professional troll. Give our best, the real Amereicans, to Adolph.

Talk to your pol...

[epcraig]

If you're in the US, on Tuesday drop a postcard in the mailbox to your represetative letting him know how the DMCA influenced your vote. Do remember to vote.

OT

[Anonymous Coward]

How many people got that Microsoft add showing some guy on a webcam and recalled AntiTrust?

It's the economy, stupid

[baine]

No matter whether you're democrat or republican (but libertarians, by virtue of their perversely compulsive adherence to an ideology are exempt), there is one immutable rule of politics : money == influence .

For better or worse, be it actual, factual, and true - or not - politicians have the same populistic view of the high-tech secor as the media and every other Joe Schmoe who has lost money (insert another rant here about the fallacy of the 'lost money' arguement here) from their 401k in the past 2 years. The tech sector isn't "hot" right now, and politicians don't want to be seen as meading out what limited special favors they have to lost causes.

That being said; there are a few out there such as Utah Gov. Mike Leavitt, who are at least still paying lip service to the high-tech industry. The Gov. still has his little self-empowerment council running, hell bent on making Utah the next tech hotbed.

The only thing is, I haven't seen anything but hot air for the past two years. This begs the question : is it just a lot harder these days to get tech-anything ventures moving (presumably moving to UT to save money with the dirt cheap labor force - insert other rant here about underpaid techies in Utah -), or has there been a real reduction in effort and money expended to woo tech firms into moving in state?

For my $0.02; I think it's a little of both.

Regulation?

[Anonymous Coward]

Please. Have you been paying attention this week?

Ah well. I pledge allegiance, to the flag, of the Corporate Baronies of Microsoft. And to the License Agreement, for which it stands, one vision, under tyranny, with libery and justice for businessmen.

Political influence?

[alizard]

If high-tech industry wants influence on the Hill to prevent laws which are as bad for them as they are for us, they're going to have to buy it just like Hollywood does or the telcos do.

Personally, I think that it would be cheaper for them to buy a few hundred politicians than to move R&D and production operations outside the USA and to develop separate dumbed down models of both consumer hardware and software for the US market. Doing this would require a far smaller percentage of profits than Hollywood is currently paying.

Apparently, the delusion that they can do business with the content industry and even profit by doing so is still prevalent within the industry, with the sellout led by Intel and AMD.

As someone pointed out on the "La Grande, TCPA, and Palladium" thread, what the public will get out of this will be slower, buggier computers and software that won't allow third-party vendor fixes. I'm sure the public will buy the first few thousand... and the word will get out about them within a few hours.

Hopefully, Via and the new microprocessor company in China will have sense enough to realize that a US "Big Brother Inside" in their chips is a BAD IDEA. Or Phillips or one of the other EU electronics hardware companies will start making DRM-free chips and HDs that happily accept open source software. They'll have to, they won't be able to depend on supply from Intel or AMD anymore. Of course, it won't be legal for US users to import these chips, but they might be available on the black market.

For those of you who haven't gotten this yet, AMD SUPPORTS TCPA JUST LIKE INTEL DOES.

When CEOs suddenly realize that they are personally going to have to move to England or Ireland or Canada or Holland or Beijing to keep their jobs, it's going to be a bit too late for them and for the USA. I mean those who are allowed to keep their jobs.

I don't think the investor community is going to forgive CEOs who don't realize a favorable political climate is just as important to high-tech companies as it is to a telco or a manufacturer of dog chow.

Fuxored.

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's the problem with taxes. Say you're making Y dollars a year. You're in tax bracket Foo. Well, you're not an MSCE, and you have a clue, and after awhile, you get a promotion.

Congratulations! You're now making Z dollars a year! Wait, did we forget to tell you? You've been moved up to tax bracket Fuxor.

Congratulations, you're now bringing less money home per year then you were when you were making Y dollars in the Foo bracket.

This *happens*. And it shouldn't. The rich? Screw the rich. Let them be rich, and let them be more than able to pay most of the taxes. We should be worrying about our own taxes.

Unfortunate, if not terribly surprising�

[Ciel]

The chilly reception that tech sector interests are receiving on Caital Hill is hardly surprising in the wake of Enron, Global Crossing, etc. and the "dot-bomb" fiasco. Even mature representatives are likely to feel slighted by the past industry indifference to the Washington establishment, and when said representatives were being told only a few years ago that it was their "meddling" that was the principle threat to the glorious new economy, they can hardly be expected to race to the industry's side now that the Good Ship Lollypop has run aground and needs a tugboat. Of course, you also have your standard run of stereotypical capital critters: any perceived neglect on their part is simply a mirror of the irrational zeal that they invested in the dot-com phenomenon - it's shabby, but ever so consistent.

Nevertheless, regardless of the motivation behind it, this cold-shoulder routine is ultimately self-defeating. Both the government and high-tech industry have plenty to account for, and the problems facing the economy aren't going to evaporate. These two need to simply acknowledge their respective sins and move forward in a mature partnership.

You're wrong, of course.

[alizard]

It is extremely unlikely that even DC politicians think the telcos invented investment fraud. Enron is NOT a high-tech company. It used high-tech in its operations, just like Texaco or Shell. So much for your poster child. Also note that there are still voices of opposition in Congress to improved securities regulation.

Securities fraud, pump and dump, etc. are not news even to the old-timers on Capitol Hill. Securities fraud has existed as long as there have been securities to sell. It's just another kind of ripoff.

Stock bubbles are not news to anyone who's studied enough history to know what the "Dutch tulip bubble" was, i.e. enough history to get a 4 year degree back when most of the old-timers were in school. It crashed in 1636.

The SEC has been around since 1934. Why was it created? Because investors were ripped off, often in fraud pyramids just as intricate as anything that Enron created or that Andresen signed off on.

The reason for the high-tech companies losing political influence on the Hill has nothing to do with public reaction to the dot.bomb any more than corporations lose influence on The Hill just because their products killed a few people.

Any industry that wants influence on the hill has to buy and pay for it. High tech hasn't done this.

If high-tech companies paid the same miniscule proportion of their profits to DC politicians as the content providers do, we wouldn't have CBDTPA to worry about and the Broadcast Working Group probably wouldn't even exist.

Re:You're wrong, of course.

[Ciel]

Woah there Al... caffeine should be taken in moderation!

"It is extremely unlikely that even DC politicians think the telcos invented investment fraud. Enron is NOT a high-tech company. It used high-tech in its operations, just like Texaco or Shell. So much for your poster child. Also note that there are still voices of opposition in Congress to improved securities regulation."

I haven't invoked Enron as the poster child for anything, other than the sort of corporate irresponsibility that helped to fuel the dot-com crash. Enron is an excellent example of the "don't tread on our business model" attitude that was so typical of the tech sector back in the good old days. The big "E" also had a similar rap sheet - an unclear, nebulous purpose for existing, a business model that was speculation heavy, subsidiary investments to hide losses, etc. etc.

" The reason for the high-tech companies losing political influence on the Hill has nothing to do with public reaction to the dot.bomb any more than corporations lose influence on The Hill just because their products killed a few people."

Funny, I don't recall saying that it has anything to do with the "public reaction" to the dot-com fiasco. Rather, the cold shoulder is a response to the fact of the tech collapse, naturally. Public opinion has little to do with the political support recieved by any given corporation. The big oil and pharmaceutical corps have managed to maintain tremendous influence in spite of a horrendous public image.

"Any industry that wants influence on the hill has to buy and pay for it. High tech hasn't done this.

Or, as the tech boom proved, simply be successful. You can be quite bastardly if you're successful, and the politicians will sing your praises and jump through flaming hoops to gain your favor. However, once you hit rough water, they'll swim for shore and leave you stranded if you haven't formed close ties - after all, they have nothing to lose at that point. I've never disagreed with the conventional wisdom that campaign investment and lobbying is, in general, the only way to gain an inveterate status in Washington. My point, rather, is that the tech industry and the capital need to get together now in a serious way and address these economic problems, which, I'll remind you, are not simply tech industry problems but national problems; the US economy is increasingly based on high technology, IP, etc. If the tech sector continues to decline, everyone loses. We need a cooperative relationship between the technology industry and government now as much as ever.

Re:You're wrong, of course.

[alizard]

It appears that we're in basic agreement, despite my disagreeing with what you originally appear to have said.

I'm merely trying to make the point to the high-level suits who read /. as strongly as possible that the price of staying in business is to spend money on and pay attention to politics.

If they do this, that cooperative relationship is assured.

Re:You're wrong, of course.

[MrSubtle]

OK, if the CEOs were eagerly willing to turn on the money spigot to the politicians who exactly are you saying they should be giving money to? Are any of them even close to having a clue?

Or should we just start paying the most money-grubbing corrupt politicos whose votes are for sale to the highest bidder? Breeding more and more of them and getting them elected? Where do you think that will lead in the long run?

Re:You're wrong, of course.

[alizard]

The answer to your question is... OK, Congressman Boucher deserves money, he writes good technology bills. Senator Leahy's record is pretty mixed despite his reputation. Otherwise, anyone and everyone, starting with the people Hollywood hasn't gotten around to and finishing with the people Hollywood has given most money to if there's budget.

A campaign contribution large enough to matter to politicians buys one the access to give the politician a clue. Fritz "Hollywood" Hollings comes from a state that doesn't have any major movie companies in it. How'd he suddenly get the bad ideas he's pushing? He listened to people who gave him the money. If a coalition of high tech manufacturers gave him a lot more money, he'd listen to them tell him that the country needs him to do something else, especially if he was told that if he "didn't do what our nation needs", the next batch of bucks would go to his most viable opponent, and if necessary, they'd find a public spirited person willing to serve if one didn't appear in the normal course of things.

He'd cooperate. The same would be true if the slashdot community formed a PAC and offered his campaign a comparable amount of money. Or a coalition to legalize raising ferrets.

Not to say there aren't limits, there are causes no candidate can support no matter how much money is raised to persuade him to do it because even Joe Sixpack won't tolerate a candidate who supports them. SO this approach wouldn't help NAMBLA a whole lot. Though one probably could get Congress to legalize certain kinds of child abuse, e.g. child labor laws permitting opening sweatshops if an acceptable way could be found to make the idea look patriotic.

In the case of Hollings, it would probably be a better strategy to find a viable opponent and make sure he wins, taking heads is another great way to get respect on The Hill.

As for what this leads to, at the moment, if the high-tech manufactures do this, a situation no worse than we have now.

If the high-tech user community (that's us) builds a PAC and raises real money, maybe we can get crap like DMCA rolled back.

As for how to replace a Congress for sale with one that is NOT, the answer is... raise enough money to persuade them to approve public campaign financing and close all the loopholes. How much is enough? It might take enough money to replace a working majority of the incumbents... which would in effect, be a peaceful revolution. A lot cheaper than the other kind.

Anybody who thinks that "raising public awareness" will solve the problem of a Congress for sale is talking out of his asshole. The problem here is... the public doesn't give a fuck about how government is run as long as it pays lip service to public concerns. If the public were willing of its own accord to study the issues, get the information needed to make the best possible voting decisions, and act on them, we would have a government that works for us, not the highest bidder.

Re:You're wrong, of course.

[MrSubtle]

My impression is Leahy is occasionally good and occasionally terrible. I don't know Boucher as well, but my impression of him is about the same. Didn't he sponsor some Internet taxation law a while back? Tell me again why I should spend my hard earned after tax income trying to do nice things for such icons of excellence?

As for the idea of public campaign financing, I think that's the worst thing you could EVER do to the political process short of installing a dictator. "Public financing" sound far too benign. Let's call this what it is: welfare for politicians. Giving them the money and hte ability to vote themselves more of it is terribly dangerous. Worse, it removes the only reason they currently bother paying attention to what we say. If they didn't need to pay attention to the world outside of Washington in order to raise money they would lose all interest in what anyone has to say. Their sole interest would be in communicating the other way...telling us what we should think, and doing it with out own money against our will.

Consider too, the fate of people whose views are so unpopular today that they have no political power. The neo-Nazis, the new age cult freaks, and NAMBLA folks would LOVE to get their hands on vast sums of "free" money to promote their views wouldn't they? Or woul the entrenched politicians erect barriers that would keep less powerful political opponents out of the system even more than they do today? Of course they would.

Public campaign financing is more than just unconstitutional (which it is), it's also bound to produce effects contrary to the reasons it is advocated.

Re:You're wrong, of course.

[alizard]

You could have saved yourself a lot of typing by simply saying that you agree with the incumbents in Congress that politicians should be on sale to the highest bidder (which non-Libertarians are going to disagree with) and that our problem at this point is to either become the highest bidder by becoming our own PAC (which would probably do our community the most good, we don't think we have a vested interest in H1B) or that we should find a way to persuade our vendors to aggregate into the highest bidder via industry PAC.

What makes you think they have any interest in what we have to say now unless we can get the numbers to assure them that we can kick their asses out of office regardless of their level of campaign spending? Which we can't by ourselves, there just aren't that many of us. There are enough of us to swing a close election almost anywhere if we vote as a bloc, but nobody's managed to organize us that way, even with our economic survival at stake.

How many dog and pony shows have been given by geek organizations, and how well have they stacked up in terms of delivering results? While there are many more of us than there are employees of content providers and our average income is quite a bit higher, THEY are the ones raising the money, not us. The difference here is... the average employee working in the entertainment sector works at Hollywood Video as a sales clerk. IT pros are paid a lot better even post dot.bomb .

The question propounded on this thread was 'how to remove major corporations as the most important influences on politicians?' Public financing has been tried, and is the major source of campaign money in most of the industrialized world. Do you know if this has produced the results you describe?

Remember, not all of us are members of the Libertarian cult and we prefer proof when available rather than using "does it match Libertarian religious beliefs?" as a reality check.

Re:You're wrong, of course.

[MrSubtle]

I didn't say that what we have today is great (I think it sucks) but letting the politicians pay themselves out of the treasury is CERTAIN to screw things up far worse than they are today. The fact that it is possible to buy legislation is a big problem (best solved as I see it by taking the power to pass such legislation in the first place as the US Constitution does), but it's a lot better than putting the politicians in charge of their own financing and having them just take the money by force. At least now they have to ask nicely.

This has nothing to do with Libertarian ideology (and I'm not a big L libertarian anyway). It is obvious what letting the politicians pay themselves out of the treasure will accomplish and anyone left, right, center, communist, or Nazi should be able to see it just as clearly.

Regarding public financing elsewhere in the world, I know that is how things are done in all dictatorships and they aren't too cool. I also know that in Europe they have people in parliament from communist and fascist parties which we don't have here in the US. Lots of countries have all kinds of stupid policies and practices going on. They have socialism for their companies, their poor, their politicians, and their artists. They are all bad ideas in their own ways. Collectively all of the little things we do better than they do explain why we are a superpower and they aren't. If you want to live in those kinds of countries when why not move to them instead of importing their unwise policies to the US?

A better approach than complaining that "other countries do it" and "you are a cultist" would be to explain why it is that what I predicted isn't the obvious result of welfare for politicians. From a legal point of view you also need to explain how it is that such a system of Congress being its own exclusive special interest group doesn't violate the Constitution both in spirit and the letter of the law.

This whole mess got started when FDR threatened to pack the Supreme Court in order to get the power to do whatever he pleased even if it was unconstitutional. Instead of creating an even bigger problem let's undo the change and start abiding by the Constitution again like we did before WWII. That solution would at least have the virtue of making things better and not worse.

Generally true, specifically irrelevant

[alizard]

I agree with most of what you have to say. You might want to consider pitching it to a business magazine as an article entitled "What high tech must do to win the confidence of the public again" or something like that.

It's irrelevant to the subject under discussion.

Where the hell did anyone here get the idea that political decisions in DC have any discernable relationship to the public interest?

High tech industries would be hugely influential anyway in DC if they paid the same microscopic fraction of their profits as campaign contributions as Hollywood does. Or the telcos do. Or for that matter, dog food manufacturers do.

Any major corporate CEO is supposed to know that paying off politicians is just another cost of doing business.

Vint Cerf says Gore was 'instrumental' too.

[maynard]

There are a thousand people more deserving to proclaim they "took the initiative in creating the Internet". Sure Al may take credit in helping to promote it, but his statement was way too broad and arrogant.

Those "thousand people" weren't in congress promoting and voting on NSF funding for the net, now were they? While a congressman in the House of Representatives from 1976 to 1984, and while in the Senate from 1984 to 1992, he was one of the principal NSF fundraisers for the APRANET project. It's the truth, as much as some folks would like to overlook that fact. Oftentimes he was among the only members of congress who saw the potential of the net once computing became ubiquitous. Again, I point readers (and you) to what Robert Kahn and Vint Cerf have to say on the matter. Al Gore has this to say on the subject as well. He plainly makes clear that he never involved himself in deep technical and engineering aspects of the ARPANET project.

Folks may not like the facts of his involvement, especially considering how contentious this issue has been after the factual misrepresentations by operatives from the Republican party and the press during the 2000 election. However, facts are facts and those misrepresentations and lies don't take away the real good that Gore did in promoting the 'net during almost fifteen years in congress, often in tough financial times. According to Kahn and Cerf, Gore actually was instrumental in providing the necessary funding to keep development alive from the late seventies on through to the early nineties, after which it took off on it's own.

Again, I repeat that I am not a fan of Gore, didn't vote for him in 2000, and would not vote for him if given the chance in 2004. That doesn't make the slander that he misrepresented his involvement in funding the development of the net any less worthy of refutation.

Cheers,
--Maynard

Re:Vint Cerf says Gore was 'instrumental' too.

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh please. Why are you trying to crusade on his behalf? I'm guessing most people *know* this has been blown way out of proportion. It's just fun. If not, they are silling for belieiving it, but you are even sillier for making a point to refute it.

Re:Vint Cerf says Gore was 'instrumental' too.

[runderwo]

Yes, they are quite "silling" for "belieiving it". I agree.

IT, glitzy?

[spanky555]

When was IT ever glitzy? I think you are connecting IT with other things.

IT has always made my eyes want to glaze over.
IT brings to mind people plugging in un-plugged printers, helping people with Word, and resetting people's passwords, at least in the 90's and 00's. And it doesn't get any less glitzy than that. IT is stuff for idiots and liberal arts majors. Maybe for people doing internships that are on their way to better things. But it was never glitzy.

Re:IT, glitzy?

[Raiford]

No, I was referring to the IT image that most people see and the perception of many on the outside of industry. Not many things are glitzy if you on working in a support position in the field. However if you listen to a late night advertisement on TV of how enrolling in your local technical college will set your future path on fire many would think you were walking in Hi-tech Hollywood. This image that the masses were perceiving is a lot of what many politicians were hitching their wagons too.

Nonsense

[Anonymous Coward]

The economic golden years were the eighties.

It may be necessary, but it still sucks

[Goonie]

Call me a dreamer, but wouldn't it be nice if money didn't talk so loud in your politics?

I'm not naive enough to believe that money doesn't talk loudly in other countries' political systems, but, really, the roar seems to be deafening in the states. Even The Economist thinks so, and its editors are well-known fans of America's free enterprise.

Now that it is old hat the...

[Archfeld]

politicians are happy to not know how it works just like they are happy to not know how anything else outside the self created fairyland called Washington DC works.

STOP MODDING TROLLS AS INSIGHTFUL

[Anonymous Coward]

FOR THE FUCKING LOVE OF GOD!
STOP MODDING TROLLS AS INSIGHTFUL!

It is a recession, WAY broader than a couple hundred silly dot coms! They symptom is not the cause.

More people have lost a hell of a lot more money to this recession than to the "dot com bubble burst."

Oh fuck, your crazy modding has me replying to fucking trolls now. Mod parent to -1 Troll.

I'am a Loser baby...

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact that the parent post was not moderated as "+5 Funny" is very indicative of the moderators foul mood's today.

Please study your tax codes

[Anonymous Coward]

The higher rates apply to the money made OVER the lower braket, not to all income... Thus Bill Gates pay the same ammount of taxes on his first $10,000 as the guy working at McDonalds.

You're right

[Anonymous Coward]

The Ernron CEO is a marvelous example of your logic. He deserves to make as much as his does because he makes so much...

Re:Bush campaign dirty tricks: Gore told the truth

[MrSubtle]

If you read Gore's book "Earth In The Balance", he also claims to know a lot about computer architecture and claims that we need to put loads of PCs into elementary schools so that they can work in parallel to solve very hand problems. I don't doubt that there was some seed of truth in Gore's famous gaff, but it is also the case that Gore thinks he's a genius who ought to be calling the shots in all areas of technology and economics, and that is transparently false (not to mention unconstitutional).

Then why was the DMCA passed under his watch?

[Brian_Ellenberger]

If Al Gore is "greatest political champion technology has ever had on capitol hill" then why did the DMCA get passed under his watch? Why didn't he convince Bill to rally against it and veto it? If he is the greatest champion we are in big trouble.

And while Al was a promoter of the Internet, he didn't "make" the Internet. The big event for the Internet was the invention of the WWW and the founding of Netscape. When everyone saw what this new technology could do that's when the boom began.

Brian Ellenberger

Re:Bush campaign dirty tricks: Gore told the truth

[Anonymous Coward]

but it is also the case that Gore thinks he's a genius who ought to be calling the shots in all areas of technology and economics, and that is transparently false (not to mention unconstitutional).

In the kingdom of the Blind, the one-eyed man is king.

It's an information economy, not an oil economy

[NathanSalminen]

The US undeniably has an information economy. The majority of jobs in the US are information jobs, the vast majority of our exports are information and media, that's the only thing that the US does better then the rest of the world. Yet, for some reason I can't understand, we voted for a straight oil ticket.. Bush and Cheny, obviously, are just the appointed representatives of the oil industry, and a HUGE percentage of their staff is made up of former oil company staff, huge shareholders in big oil companies, and boardmembers of Chevron, Haliburton, etc. And it is absolutely undeniable that their oil-origins are dictating policy... What have the republican's big initiatives been lately? They are scheming to attack anti-US-oil-company's-interests dictator Hussein, who is sitting on top of the second largest oil reserves in the world, and prop up a new dictator more friendly to "US interests" (aka oil company's interests). They refused to sign the Kyoto accord, which virtually every other industrialized nation signed, so that industry isn't pressured to cut carbon emissions, and hence reduce their dependancy on guess who, the oil industry. They are pushing to open up Alaska's national parks for drilling by, guess who, the oil industry... The list goes on and on and on. Virtually every major move the republicans have made lately is directly a result of the policy interests of the oil industry. So I'm wondering, why we are letting one industry dictate our domestic and foreign policy to us? Worse still, if we were to pick one industry and give them the power to completely control our government, why the heck have we picked the oil industry? We live in an information economy.. That is our future, not oil. Shoving our country along a path dictated by a dying, amoral, backwards industry like oil is a one way path to collapse. We need to take a long hard look at who is really making the decisions for us and whether or not they are the right people.

Last Post!

[alpg]

The tao that can be tar(1)ed
is not the entire Tao.
The path that can be specified
is not the Full Path.

We declare the names
of all variables and functions.
Yet the Tao has no type specifier.

Dynamically binding, you realize the magic.
Statically binding, you see only the hierarchy.

Yet magic and hierarchy
arise from the same source,
and this source has a null pointer.

Reference the NULL within NULL,
it is the gateway to all wizardry.

- this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...