Slashdot Mirror
The "Techie" Vote?
Ironica writes "This Los Angeles Times article discusses a compelling trend: techies are making their collective voice heard in politics. Quote from the article: "After years as political agnostics, the programmers and engineers who orchestrated the technological revolution of the 1990s are trying to reboot government...They have money, earned during the boom. They have time, found since the bust. And they are using their technological savvy to recruit even casual Internet users to their causes." Perhaps instead of "boxers or briefs," our next presidential candidate will have to answer "POP3 or IMAP?""
This reminds me of a recent article about an internet millionaire who is sueing the government regarding privacy issues while flying. I think it is great that we techies are finally getting a voice in the government. Hopefully some of the issues we have been worried about, (patents, trademark, copyright, privacy, etc.) will begin to change.
Visualize the world of wine
and may god help the candidate who does an interview on Slashdot and voluntarily claims to use a Microsoft product....
Mike
Nothing like being patronised by the mainstream media to make people feel relevant.
Can anyone copy and paste the article text... because I don't want to register to read.... such a pain
This is not a big news story. The internet has given everyone a voice, but those who know how to speak are genreally understood more readily.
So we have this huge inter-connected network which spans the globe, now what do we do with it?
Hey! Let's talk to each other!
About what?
Politics...
The techie votes are/
Emacs or VI
Gnome or KDE
Linux or BSD
Gimp or Photoshop
Slashdot or Fark.
Its good being apart of a group of people who can get in contact with each other alot faster than the non computer user. Allows us to rally, colaberate and plan things quicker better and more effectively.
/. or FARK and the names just roll in. :P
As well if we ever need to get names for a petition we just post in on
"I am a kernel in the linux army"
the average techie, is lazy, speaking as an average techie myself.
Since Al Gore invented the Internet, it is only natural that he get the geek vote, and if there is any chance he might lose, the electronic voting machines must be hacked.
Perhaps instead of "boxers or briefs," our next presidential candidate will have to answer "POP3 or IMAP?"
How about white on black or black on white?
Mother, do you think they'll like this sig?
Perhaps instead of "boxers or briefs," our next presidential candidate will have to answer "POP3 or IMAP?
Considering some of the candidates, perhaps a more appropriate question would be "spit or swallow?"
...might lead us past that LA Times registration screen.
Regarding the pointing out that the next president would need to answer "POP3 or IMAP?" --
I hope that these "requirements" will span out to the judicial and legislative branches as well. It's great to have tech knowledge in the executive area; however, with all the (sorry for the cliche) checks and balances in place, this knowledge is moot without the knowledge in the judicial and legislative branches. For example, we're seeing many IP-related trials right now; while this knowledge could help bring about some of the changes we're hoping for in the TM/patent/IP fields, it will not help unless the knowledge is spanned out into ALL areas. We, as constituents, should not ONLY be lobbying the executive branch. We should be lobbying the others as well.
Without the good of the others, there's really no point in the good of one.
www.sitetronics.com/wordpress
Forget republican or democrat, the next logical step is to form a slasdot party. After all, what else would they use the profits from registration for? Vote /. Vote freedom
This reminds me of a question that a kid popped Al Gore in the last election - Mac or PC. Gore dodged the question. Kinda funny seeing he's now elected to Apple's board
Anyway, as for a techie vote, ha! Trying to get techs to agree on anything is always a challenge. How many flavours of Linux are there? And talking of flavour, how do we spell it again?
-- james
So if I voted for the IMAP candidate... ...does that mean everyone gets to see my vote, until I purge it?
User: regsucks
:-)
Password: regsucks
imho, this is typical upper management incompetence ~ as well, imho, most rich people totally suck and are abusive, arrogant, immoral, lazy parasites
As any large and economically important collective, "Techies" have an influence in politics. As their experience, wealth, and age grows, so does their influence and interest in politics. Those important in Techie industry in the 1990s are now reaching an age where politics becomes atractive.
America: where liberty is a statue and patriotism is trusting the government.
Yes, a little bit here, a little bit there, perhaps. Most techies don't talk directly about politics--they speak in code. Most have the drive to get involved, but when it comes right down to it, they act like mice. But they do monitor current trends, though. And when politicians make them angry, it does get filed in their memory, which is a key point to make here. Political shenanigans are a source of frustration for techies as well. Maybe it's time for techies to compile a list of good candidates that would be compatible with their viewpoints.
There is a school of thought that recognises corporatism as a means of influencing public policy (be careful when googling, this is _NOT_ about the role of corporations but the role of interest groups in public policy) by giving interest groups a role to play in the determination of public policy. An alternative view is the pluralist view that takes interest groups as combatants with the public policy makers trying to "win" concessions to their particular interest.
It is clear that the techie vote will rise as the status quo proceeds to piss us off more and more (the size of the electorate in question is really pretty vast). But whilst that is interesting, it is reactionary, and by that very nature limited in what it can really achieve.
What is interesting is the idea that bodies made up from within the technically educated will form and be _consulted_ about the formulation of public policy. In the US this is made more problematic by the nature of your "democracy" but in places like Europe, more and more more input from more and more credible tech groups (EFF, FSF for example) will only increase the likelihood that when it comes time to look at the next idiot DMCA debacle, these groups will be sounded out _before_ the policy is drafted.
A good day indeed. Probably 5 - 10 years away unless some event occurs to precipitate the problem.
"The first thing to do when you find yourself in a hole is stop digging."
But that would insinuate we care enough to leave our homes and go to the polls! Wait, online voting systems are coming down the pipe!
Err...wait, online polling systems aren't secure. I know! We can hack the polling systems to accomplish our goals!
Pinky, are you thinking what I'm thinking?
I think so Brain, but how you going to get Larry Flynt to strip for you at 2 a.m. on such short notice?
Karma: Chameleon (mostly due to the fact that you come and go).
I'm going to be helping this former IT geek with his campaign:
http://www.EmmonsForCongress.com:81
this guy spent 18 years in the biz, only to have to train his 'less expensive' replacements.
I'm sure I'll be in the same boat sooner than later, however, I refuse train anyone. If upper-manglement wants to replace me with some cheap labor, THEY can figure my code out.
At least that's what our Australian Federal Government is doing.
And our tech minister (Richard Alston) is about as technically advanced as stoneage man. His idea of a reboot, is to kick his press secretary. His latest faux-pas is to deny responsibility for his own official website which cost megabucks.
At least some techie is making money out of him somewhere but chances are, it isn't an Aussie. Dammit.
-- it must be true, it's on the internet.
This makes me think that maybe the techies/geeks SHOULD band together (with groups like the EFF) to shape tech legislation and stop this government from taking away our personal freedoms, like routers, NAT, firewalls, and encryption.
Just a thought I've had for a while now.
> Perhaps instead of "boxers or briefs," our next presidential candidate will have to answer "POP3 or IMAP?"
No, the difference will show up when some sexual indiscretion is discovered, and the usual "Who?" will be replaced by a geeky "How?"
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
No way. We need to resolve the whole "vi" vs "emacs" issue first. After that, "tabs" vs "spaces", then the whole issue of placement of braces (not to mention brace-less languages like Python). After all thats settled then maybe we'll be ready for email transport preferences if the browser wars don't flare up again first.
The tech community is a fractious bunch and thus completely useless as a political group. Why? Because "Speciality in IT" != Any political agenda. The camps of liberal, conservative, and libertarian thinking are wide and diverse. Hell, look at any thread on the RIAA. Probably the only platform all tech folks are for is rational copyright law (i.e. showing SCO who's the daddy). But other than that, there is no cohesion.
There's a reason why police unions, the AFL-CIO, and the Christian Right are all strong forces: they have a complete package of beliefs that they can get a large body of voters to agree on. Religion? Government? Taxes? The tech community could never get such a gestalt.
I think it is one of the great tech-urban legends that IT is a uniformly liberal RMS-style social group or ever was.
What is music when you despise all sound?
The suits trying to steal the internet (after letting it get away from them ) and our computers know full well the people who actually have a grip on this technology are few and far between.
The sheep-like consumer who they are trying to lock into a TV-like, owned by the few, push technology state and who make up all the numbers, won't care.
Things are going to get worst before they get better, if they get better at all.
It's Christmas everyday with BitTorrent.
Then again, it might not.
I'm one of the older generation of techies who did get involved in politics as far back as the 1960s. In the 1970s I joined the now gone L5 Society because I thought space had a real role to play in human affairs. It still could.
But it would be helpful if today's political activists learned a bit from our mistakes. Practically all L5ers were political neophytes. We took up our cause with enthusiasm. For awhile we gathered some attention. So why aren't we all living in space colonies now? Here are some reasons I can think of:
These are just a few thoughts early in the morning. Others will probably be able to think of others.
Summing up, try to learn from our mistakes -- and from our successes. Politics isn't as neat and orderly like technology.
"Beer is proof God loves us and wants us to be happy." -- B. Franklin
what if you just click here
Of course that might have worked because my regsucks cookie was still alive...
-- it must be true, it's on the internet.
It's safe to assume that having millions puts you in a better position to influence government.
Though P2P and GPL seem to be the battle cry, it's worth considering the potential of those systems to generate a new round of millionares who can, in turn, influence government.
Here's what I do: Bitty Browser & Andromeda
But more importantly, techies need to be more aware of politics than they are as well. Politics are about more than just the RIAA.
US slashdotters: Show of hands for everyone who saw the Democratic debate last night. Watch the upcoming forums, and be sure you register to vote.
As a registered voter, it is my right and resposibility to involve myself in the politcal process. I have every right to gripe, moan and complain about my government, my taxes and the Addiction World going up down the steet, two blocks down from...and Addiction World.
Check one, two. I have that right and privilege as long as I protect it. Not with guns and violence, but by electing competent individuals as representatives. Not voting only makes it easier for the person you do not want to be elected. I have no idea how valid a comment that is, but if it gets more people voting, I will scream it from the mountain tops.
Because I may have the right and privilege to complain about my government, but do I have any point of reference if I do not even bother voting?
The cancel button is your friend. Do not hesitate to use it.
The problem with generalizations like that in this article is that techies like most other groups in society don't speak with one voice. For every John Gilmore spending their millions to protest government policies there are others actively spending theirs to support conservative causes. To act like it's a single hidden group now exerting political influence is pure nonsense, IMHO...
Quote from the article: "After years as political agnostics, the programmers and engineers who orchestrated the technological revolution of the 1990s..."
/.'rs been anything of the kind?! When posters go off topic into politics, they have consistently followed every Populist/Socialist bandwagon that came along! They believe with a passion that everything should be taken from everyone they don't like, and given freely to everyone the do like.
Since when have typical
I was trying to figure out the significance of this all. I know ever since I started checking Slashdot every day I've become a bit more vocal and interested in politics. I asked myself why. I've got a little experience with the military, I've got a pretty decent education, but why did I wait?
I don't really think it's an issue of "techies", but more of "techies that care". Not just any clock-punching techie is going to be vocal on Slashdot (or any other "organization") and be interested in how this legislation will affect that privacy, how this bill will help Company A and screw Company B and how it all affects us and our economy. This transcends all groups though, not just techies. Your random worker at Kmart may care about gun laws a bit, but it's the member of the NRA that will follow the bills and legislations and try to have their voices heard. Same with your random citizen watching the war on TV as compared to someone with a family member in service...they've got more interest and thus are more apt to be vocal and take part in politics.
I think the techies are getting more coverage now though because it's finally socially acceptable to be a geek and know how to configure mom's computer after a crash. Computers are such a part of modern society and not just for the geeks anymore. It's easier to let it all out, speak your mind, and not be shunned.
"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lampposts...for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang
We want jobs, dammit! ;-)
If Clinton was still in office, it would be the other way around. It would be a blowjob by the intern that reboots him.
Life is not for the lazy.
Any nitwit sluggish enough to prefer POP mail isn't fit to serve as president of a POS Ford Pinto, nevermind be POTUS & technocrat leader of the free world.
A better question in a similar vein could involve SMTP: does the candidate in question recognize that spam is a legitimate problem to 'net users, and what efforts would she sponsor to address the problem? The answer to such a question could be a fascinating insight into how she feels societal problems should be addressed: should we try to legislate the problem away, knowing that spam transmitted from other jurisdictions (Asia, Africa, etc) would continue regardless of US law, or should we find a way to let the markets correct the problem? If the markets won't fix themselves, as so far they have failed to do, then can we stimulate a technological solution? Would the candidate be willing to invest R&D into coming up to a successor to SMTP & related protocols? Or would the candidate take a more laissez faire approach, and not see spam as a problem in the first place? Any technically savvy candidate could have a wide variety of insightful commentaries in this vein.
POP or IMAP though, that's just dumb. What kind of moron doesn't prefer IMAP? :-)
DO NOT LEAVE IT IS NOT REAL
More importantly, we need Dental Plan! Lisa needs braces!
Your state at least one candidate I really like.
;)
Georgina Russell, who is a software consultant, is running for governor in the recall race. I learned this thanks to this BBC article.
A quick google search found her campaign site here, along with a few Linux mailing list posts.
She appears to be one l33t Linux chick. She has even compiled test kernels before... Now I am all hot and bothered
Even though "Ahhhhnold" supposedly has this election already wrapped up, I can appreciate her efforts!
Buford "Mad Dog" Tannen
The one big thing I can see a large technie presence in the government doing is updating processes. Everything is still based on oration and a verbose written process. A lot of fairly trivial things require an enormous amount of paperwork, and where that paperwork has been replaced by electronic versions, that's literally all it is: a scanned or Word version of the same written document.
An intelligent and powerful technical presence in the government could allow more technical processes to find their way into government processes. On the technical and scientific side, we're already using better voting techniques to allow systems to handle their own little elections autonomously. We have markup languages that could make legislation sensical to machines. We have technologies that could allow representatives to represent their constituents from places other than the congress.
Technology has the potential to streamline processes significantly, and there are fewer processes less streamlined than these fundamental processes within our governments.
My thoughts at least.
I'm one techie who's not voting for *anything* unless there's a CowboyNeal option.
* Please do not read my signature.
In my opinion, it all comes down to what you said, "responsibility" in the political process.
I get into rant-fests with people from time to time about, "The Government is corrupt! Get these bums out of there!", and I can only reply, "the Government is YOU. It starts with YOU, and ENDS WITH YOU."
Typically, I these people I argue with are not voters. The usual response to a question about why they don't vote is, "Because it doesn't matter." or something equally insane.
My prime focus right now is, and I hate to use this, but, "Getting out the vote".
I don't care who a person votes for, that's their business. All I care about is that people VOTE. Vote for Bush, Vote for Gore, vote for your Aunt Milly, I don't care. Just Vote.
That's a good one now... Mod this guy up !
In Soviet Russia, our new overlords are belong to all your base.
"Good question, Mr. Brokaw. I'm glad you asked. I refuse to use either. I've written my own protocol because SCO has claimed rights over POP and Microsoft is in talks to buy IMAP."
- and in Europe it's called EDRi
I think a lot of slashdotters are supporting one of these orgs, at least casually, or through some EDRi member.
Any sufficiently advanced libertarian utopia is indistinguishable from government.
So? First off, what's to keep us from forming several different special interest groups based on our diverse political leanings? Each with a geek focus, of course. Secondly I believe there are more things than 'rational copyright law' which cross the geek political spectrum; for example privacy issues.
/. has also clearly shown, on the balance geeks tend to be socially liberal and fiscally conservative -- with a wide streak of 'leave me the hell alone' onryness. Generally that would describe a Libertarian, except that I think most of us consider the Libertarians idiots who we would rather not associate with.
Besides, as
So what is to keep us from building a geek political coalition around these shared values, while ignoring or compromising on the differences? In many ways existing organizations like the EFF are already doing this. And that is certainly no different than the 'police unions, the AFL-CIO, and the Christian Right' you mention. Do you think they started out as monolithic political blocks? Do you think they really are such now, even if their dollars end up lobbying on single issues?
Our (geeks) biggest problem isn't that we have too diverse a group to reach cohesion, it is that we tend to be individualists who prefer not to act in groups. Overcome that and we geeks are a force to be reckoned with...
- -
Are you an SF Fan? Are you a Tru-Fan?
My views aren't the same as the damn socialist-hippie-techies hippies.
I'm a libertarian like Arnold. I support the US and W.
I have NOTHING in common politically with most techies.
And since the web is worldwide. I despise European Techies and their perverted brand of socialism.
As a proud American, I ABSOLUTLY have NOTHING politically in common with europeans.
--------
get jiggy w/ ayn rand!
If you want someone to represent the little guy, vote for Gary Coleman for governor.
Lock up your cats, and hide the vaseline!
>Perhaps instead of "boxers or briefs," our next >presidential candidate will have to answer "POP3 >or IMAP?"
Please, this will never happen. The majority of the public neither knows about technical details, nor should they need to, nor should an elected official need to. Rediculous. Technology should work for people just like anything else in their life. For example, I nor the President, needs to be schooled on the internal workings of a car. Posts like this seem to only exist to help all the slashdot nerds project their dreams of an acronymed tech-nerd world into the mainstream.
" Please spare us from this Repub generated fib- AG never said that he invented the internet."
It came from CNN, hardly a Republican source. Al Gore said an interview that he "Created" the internet. (He also said that he "took the initative" , which makes him among the first of its inventors). If you look up the meaning of both words, they mean the same thing in this context.
Denying that he said it is like saying "no, she wore a crimson dress, not a red dress you liar!"
And no matter how many times you try to repeat that he did not say it, it is still a matter of public record.
Since the tech community includes about 1.1 H-1B and L-1 visas and abut 3.3 million IT jobs outsourced abroad by 2005, most of these people cant vote in US elections. High-tech US citizens will be a minority soon, if not already.
A friend asked if I had the "Fire in the belly" to be able to have what it takes to run. I replied I did.
The same can be asked of each of you out there. Do you have the fire in the belly needed to work in politics? Do you even vote?
Like so many the answer is no. Too often the majority is silent allowing things to happen when just a few more vocal or active people would have prevented much harm.
As Kennedy said, "Ask not..."
In other words, get off you asterisk and get to work! Look at the candidates, make wise choices and VOTE!
Al Gore on CNN: "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet." (March 9, 1999)
www.thesaurus.com: "Invent" is a synonym for "Create". Defenition for invent: "Create".
It is quite obvious that invent = create.
Therefore, looking at Gore's actual quote and the meaning of the words therein, it is true that he said he invented the Internet. Case closed.
A non vote could be seen as a form of acceptance for either direction either party will take the city/state/country in after the next election.
Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
Ok, I have to complain about something here (big surprise no?)
Has any "techie" in their entire life ever said "Hey, Politics are messed up! lets reboot the system!"?
Is it at all possible for an article to be written about "techies" without trying to sneak in at least one snide comment? I mean, if i write an article about the GOP, i don't ever include an "After they ate some babies and set fire to some poor people" comment.
That is all.
On Wall Street they say "buy low, sell high" On the pad we say, "buy high, sell high" Isn't that somehow better?
question than POP3 or IMAP, you probably shouldn't be voting at all. A candidate's preferred email protocol has absolutely no bearing on the important issues. If you have the chance to ask such an inane question, why not make your question meaningful and ask about social security or welfare.
.. what are some of the "extremist ideas that reek of communism" that are "frequently explored" on Slashdot? From my experience on Slashdot, there are just as many right-wing zealots here as there are left-wing zealots. For every person espousing (for example) a completely public government health care system, there's another person arguing (for example) that we ought to end income taxes and all entitlement programs. It all goes back to the original point: the "tech community" has no coherent political agenda.
We're going down, in a spiral to the ground
There are a couple myths about this stuff that we need to dispel.
The first myth is that the troubles we're having organizing are not the sole province of engineers, who supposedly don't understand people or politics all that well. It's a problem with any group of people you're trying to organize. Even lawyers, who you would think are really excellent at that sort of thing, bicker forever trying to get anything organized.
The second myth is that you have to have complete unanimity of opinion for an activist group to work. No organized group of humans in the world is a monolith. There are factions within everything. Saying that techies could never get their acts together because there are the BSD vs. Linux factions, the vi vs. emacs factions, or the debian vs. suse factions makes about as much sense as saying that the Sierra Club could never exist because there are the back-to-the-land, vegetarian, vegan, organic food, naturalist, and activist anti-corporate factions within it. The thing to remember that all an organization needs to do is capture enough overlap between all the factions in a given area.
The third myth is that we can't make a difference because we're all just average folks without the ear of the government. If we're not billionaires, the thinking goes, then how could we possibly get officials and representatives to listen to us? The answer is, numbers and time and a little effort more than make up for lack of billions of dollars. Do you think that the folks involved in the Civil Rights movement were wealthy? How about all the poor and untouchables marching with Gandhi? Did they have oodles of coin? The truth is, the Civil Rights movement, Feminist Movement, anti-Vietnam War movement, and all the others most of us have been weaned to think were incredibly huge and amazing and all-encompassing were tiny compared to the internet-organized and inspired protests and movements that have sprung up in the past year alone. And we made those happen.
Yes, some might say, but what difference have those really made? Bush is still in office, we're mired in the quagmire of Iraq anyway, the economy still sucks, and the *AA's are still stripping us of civil liberties with impugnity. But under the media pastiche the powers that be are running scared. Why do you think they're doing what they're doing to take away our rights and shackle our minds? Because we are the ones who really have the power, and they know it. They know they're on the brink of being swept aside, and that's why they're fighting like hell to keep us, the rabble, down.
We already forced them to back down over the Total Information Awareness program. We've also started to be heard in congress over what the RIAA's doing. That senator who upbraided them about their scorched earth campaign against internet users spoke up because he got enough heat from you and me.
The conclusion is that we techies can and are making a difference. So don't give up, pitch in!
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
[end of a joke]
The choice of the protocol is not really related anything social. And the role of politician is not to choose between two protocols as such a choice does not change anything in the society. What I would recommend is to ask candidates is something like that:
- open-source vs close source to run in the goverment;
- standard vs proprietary to sponsor by the goverment;
- GPL vs BSDL to develop by the goverment;
Any choice from the above the goverment would make would change something socially meaningful, something important for the further social progress.Less is more !
If you check out www.opensecrets.org, you'll see the big increase in donations from computer companies happened in the mid-late 90's(from something like $4 Million/year to $38/million per year in 2-4 years). It is arguable that much of the increased interest in politics on the part of technical people is because when tech managment used their newfound political muscle in ways that weren't really to the advantage others participating in the industry(i.e. buying the H-1b Visa legislation).
POP or IMAP though, that's just dumb. What kind of moron doesn't prefer IMAP? :-)
I don't know, for my part I run an SMTP server on my machine at home and just grab everything straight off the mail spool... (:
Just look at the puns!
Quoth the Moose: Any job worth doing is worth complaining about.
..but I'm the kind of person who would hear something in an international meeting, say, 'Fuck it.', and nuke France.
:p
On the plus side, I'd likely send troops to Redmond.
Is France worth that? I'd say yes, but I'm sure all of France, and quite a few people in the US wouldn't agree.
This was reflected in the successful effort to stop the censorship provisions of the 2001 Methamphetamine Anti-Proliferation Act, where liberal leaning geeks were able to reach Democratic members of the House Judiciary Committee, while Libertarian/Conservatives pulled in just enough Republican Reps to bury it.
Ben Masel: 51,282 votes for US Senate in the Wisconsin Democratic Primary
I have to admit my interest in politics has been on the rise for a handful of years. As a Network Engineer you probably wouldn't expect it. A former peer at a state university is into state politics. He's one our the state reps for his district and a fellow network engineer. I'm returning to college soon to complete a degree and it's been suggested that I consider taking political science courses while I'm there. Does anyone have any thoughts on what it takes to get into politics as a techie? Is a background in IT as good as a background in business used to be with respect to being qualified for politics? I think it's time techies rose up and met the challenge. Perhaps a representative with an electrical engineering degree will be more useful and provide more insight that a person with a MBA...
Like this techie is doing. "a 26-year-old high-tech programmer from Mountain View", who has already won the unofficial endorsement of Washington Post Writer Howard Kurtz, though this seems to be mostly based on her using cafepress to sell endorsed thong underwear as a fundraising tool. Regardless, she is using the net to propel her campaign to an extent that she is garnering press attention even among the strippers and pornographers and actors.
I think the Dean campaign shows that it is media access that makes the biggest difference in getting an unknown launched, and techs are the media of the 21st century.
Work for Change & GET PAID!
Anyone in the Freemont area should come check him out at a town hall forum at the Freemont main library today at 2pm, and at 6pm on local channel 26.
The CB App. What's your 20?
Choice is good.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
The problem with a half dozen individual groups is that they are then useless for politicians. If you can only count on them voting for you on a single issue and they become fractious everywhere else, they have no powerbase.
If you're only going to support McCaan on his anti-trust agenda and ignore him on everything else (and not vote for him since you only care about one of his fifty issues), he's not going to give two shits about what you think.
The reason why "police unions, the AFL-CIO, and the Christian Right" are strong is that they provide support over a wide swath of things and thus provide an opportunity to gain a huge wad of votes. Police unions are not just about law enforcement, labor unions aren't just about blue-collar rights, and the Christian right isn't just about religion.
And, yes, the Christian Right and police unions have always had political power. The Right formed up in the 80's and was beholden by a powerful evangelist money backers. Politicians are always about appearing pro-law enforcement, therefore Police groups have political power.
The tech community has no such impact. By not gaining their support you don't have to worry about being anti-family, religion, or order.
I'm sorry my friend but geeks lives don't revolve around security and privacy issues. Taxation, military spending, religion all are all more important to geeks and end user voters. They are Big Issues. They are the ones that get politicians elected. Therefore they are the ones of value. Hell, even the EFF doesn't get 100% support around these parts. Again their stance on the RIAA is specific to a subsection.
What is music when you despise all sound?
First let me commend you on the politically astute move of pasting the copyrighted article from the Times so that we don't have to register with fake emails to read the article. It is a good example of a praxis in the social revolution. Vive la revolution.
The article itself is a very interesting example of logically flawed writing.
The tech community has always been politically active. It is just that, until recently, the tech community has been largely Libertarian. The tech community had traditionally opted for smaller government and lower taxes.
Only recently has the tech community started demanding traditional left ideas such as protection of US tech workers jobs from lower paid off shore labor. Also only recently has the tech community started demanding curtailing big companies like Microsoft, and absurd ideas like higher taxes on internet access to pay for free downloaded music. Let's tax everything heavily so that it call all be free.
Contrary to what the article says, the tech community has always been politically active. It is only recently that frustrated tech workers have started leaning toward the dialectics of the left.
The same thing happened in the environmental community. The pioneers of the conservation movement originally came from the Republican side of things. They were people who were profoundly distressed by the environmental destruction by big government and big business.
When the left realized that protecting the environment was kewl, they infiltrated and turned environmentalism into a call for bigger government poised against small business.
The article is flawed in its claim that the tech community has only recently developed political awareness. The tech community has been politically actively all along. Only recently has it started turning to the left.
- Weblogs and blog software are making it easier for both geeks and non-geeks to post online
- Social networks like Friendster, Tribes.net, Ryze, etc... are making it easier to link to thousands of people very quickly. Look at how quickly flashmobs are getting organized
- A number of policies (PATRIOT Act, The Bono Act, etc...) are starting to affect us negatively
I think all those are contributing to geeks thinking a little more about the impact of politics on the net. Now that more people are aware, it's only a matter of time before they start acting.I suspect that we are going to see more and more action from geeks over the 2004 campaign.
Check out http://www.tnl.net/blog
" What is interesting and what scares me is if groups of people like the NRA did not exist, I bet our 2nd amendment rights would be taken away."
It says something about the claim that the ACLU is the group that protects the Bill of Rights. They don't. They only protect rights that they agree with.
" He didn't say he created the Internet, and your comment about him "also" saying he "took the initiative" shows you know that."
He did say this. Create means invent. "The initiative" part was him saying he is first among the inventors (makes him look worse).
"He said that the initiative to create the Internet that the House approved was the one he took to the House."
You are twisting his words to make him look better by saying something he never said. In the process, you make him a liar about something else: the Internet existed for several years before Mr. Gore was ever in the House.
"you'd have to be a complete idiot, or a wingnut - but I repeat myself, to interpret it as Gore claiming he "invented" the Internet."
No interepretation necessary. It is what he said.
Hot on the heels of the tech. community organizing for political purposes, banana-eaters, low-fat milk drinkers and Chevy truck drivers across the USA have all expressed their interest in joining together to lobby for their shared political values. When asked what those values might be... this is a ridiculous article.
There is little difference between socialism and communism. The USSR was ruled by a Communist party, but was made up entirely of Socialist republics. Fidel Castro, a Communist leader, speaks of his fight for socialism.
The only time the difference appears to be great is if the socialist is a National Socialist (Nazi), which are not really communists.
This is the most ambiguous amendment in the U.S. Bill of Rights, and one more subject to interpretation than almost any other section in the U.S. Constitution. Many might agree with your revolutionary interpretation. Including some of the Founding Fathers. But an equally valid (and I believe more socially reasonable) interpretation is this:
The 2nd amendment was designed primarily to ensure the national security of the United States of America. In order to ensure national security, the states must maintain a well-regulated militia. Any such militia must be well-armed. In the citizen-militias most common in the early U.S., militia members will likely keep their arms with them at home, for use whenever needed to ensure the national security of the U.S. (for instance during the British invasion in the War of 1812).
By this interpretation, the following conclusion can be drawn:
I am concerned about any program, any piece of hardware, any treaty, any law that treats me as a consumer, not a citizen
The swedes will tend to disagree with your assertion that socialism = communism. Certainly their brand of socialism is not known for the atrocious human rights of both Communism and Nazism. They might concede that Swedish Socialism can be literally "very taxing" and is something of a "Nanny State".
Phase 1: Take control of US government
Phase 2: Declare war on M$
Phase 3: ????
Phase 4: Balanced budget! (governments don't need profit, only debt reduction)
# Techies are damned good with technology. We tend to have significant problems in dealing with people, though. Some of us are working to overcome that shortcoming.
... welcome to the brave new world of electronic voting machines and internet voting!
Mmhmmm... So you're saying that techies will never win an election, because politics is about interfacing with people? Not any more...
Techies, get out there, take advantage of your newfound political power, and go vote! Vote! Vote! Vote! Count for something!
1... 2... 2... 2... 2... 4... 5... 6...
1... 12... 13... 14... 248... 249...
(okay, I'm just kidding. Don't do that.)
Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
Seriously, I would never vote communist -- I have frequently voted for social democrats. Labour in Ireland, the SDP in Germany, the Socialist party in France... none of them communists, all of them socialists of varying degree.
...band together. I have to say I was a little bit shocked to find out that the EFF only had 8500 members. Is that the best we could do? Are there only 8500 people who care about the fate of the 'Net? And the story for free software is even more sad. How many people here run Linux or Apache or Mozilla or OpenOffice or other free software? I'd bet Slashdot is coming close to having over 50,000 comments on the SCO debacle. And yet the FSF has only ~1,000 associate members. It's almost depressing.
I'd suggest we create our own damn party. Only problem is that it would take us away from all our coding. ;) But seriously, creating a party would be very interesting. We did it for software, why can't we do it for the political process? It's been awhile since we had a grass-roots political party. It takes a couple of dedicated people who believe in the system.
sri
Follow the money trail!!! backwards....
...... well if you don't know you must be living under a rock.. Cept for maybe the the part of where MS got off of punishment of federal criminal guilty findings in what appears to be in exchange for training the government how to lie and mislead the public via media (media that was attacked and threatened with anthrax produced by the US military, in the states)
........ without evidence?
Trillion Dollar Bet
Easy come, easy go! For those that got in early and as such were able to get out in time, needed to put their gains somewhere. Dotcoms were certainly a popular place to do so.
Those who didn't get in soon enough to get out in time resulted in our Enrons and Worldcoms...
And the negative result on S.E. Asia....
For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction..... Here it was likely a second and successful attack on the WTC in addition to targets of military intelligence and political control... leading up to
Soooo, this money that the supposed tech savy have to lobby government..... It's blood money...
Interesting how in the bigger picture it certanly seems that deception begets deception in it's self supported dependancy.
Why is SCO being allowed to continue to promote down Linux and the GPL
With all this in mind, maybe I should read the article...... but even then, should I believe it?
I however refuse to vote unless I have the time to fully research and understand the issues of contention and each side's stand on them (I dont have that kinda time as college student with 2 jobs). Not voting is not always bad, if its being done out of a sense of responsibility and not apathy. Some of us refuse to make uninformed choices on candidates, and simply don't have the time allotment to become informed. However, I also won't get into the rant-fests, for the same reason.
Your encouragement for reckless voting seems contrary to our system's whole intent of giving people the choice, IMO. If someone doesnt care, they shouldnt just vote for a random person...the should stay out of it. Apathy, for better or worse, remains the majority vote-getter in America.
http://thechubbyferret.net - Ferret pictures and informative links.
"This makes me think that maybe the techies/geeks SHOULD band together (with groups like the EFF) to shape tech legislation and stop this government from taking away our personal freedoms, like routers, NAT, firewalls, and encryption.
Just a thought I've had for a while now. "
I'm not disagreeing with you here, but it sounds like you want the "freedom" to exclude others through the use of routers, NAT, firewalls and encryption. Or from another view point, a freedom of privacy.
I do belive that congressmen need to be better informed on technical issues, just like they need to be more informed on medical issues, perhaps with more members, the EFF can do just that.
Bring back the old version of slashdot.
... Or post something stupid. Oh the irony
"Foolish AC, you're mixing continents again. The US seems to me to be on a similar path to 1930s Germany"
No, we are moving away from that direction. This President is moving to reduce racism (see his recommendation on the Michigan college racist admission policy case), unlike the last one. This president sticks up for Jews (unlike the 1930s guy). In his foreign policy, he is more like FDR and Churchill: enemies of Hitler.
""We're all sinners", a recent quote from the head of your esteemed regime, shows that democracy and separation of powers is in a sorry state in the USA."
Huh? There is no connection between that quote and the issues of separation of the judicial, legislative, and execute branches. (or even church-state separation: the concept of sin is not connected specifically to any one church).
You have the continents mixed up.
"If you think that there is no difference between communism and democratic socialism"
The difference is that the communists kill people to take over and justify their fascist state, while the "democratic socialists" justify their oppression by a majority vote.
"you would do a great service by letting the assorted communist parties and socialist parties in Europe know that they have been weakening their hand by dividing their strength, when all along they've wanted the same thing."
History is full of great bloodshed when socialists have little inside squabbles (Hitler and Stalin, Vietnam and Cambodia, China and USSR).
"Seriously, I would never vote communist -- I have frequently voted for social democrats"
You'd do better voting for neither.
The US has only two parties, and they both agree with each other on every issue:
Republican: We need to reduce gun control.
Democrat: Great idea! Let's increase millitary funding, too!
Republican: I love the way you leftists think. We'll take another couple of billion out of education and knock off early for a beer.
Anyone who wants to be politically active should immigrate to Canada. Here are some of the parties that you can choose from:
Canadian Alliance: extreme right wing
Progressive Conservatives: right wing
Liberal: centrists
New Democrats: left wing
Green: extreme left wing
All parties (with the exception of the Progressive Conservatives) support proportional representation, and the current federal government is trying to make it illegal for businesses and unions to fund political parties.
The US Army: promoting democracy through unquestioned obedience
I have that right and privilege as long as I protect it. Not with guns and violence, but by ...
Actually, this is why the right to bear arms exists. So that if the Government becomes too corrupt and evil and starts to self-perpetuate it's own power, growing uncontrollably, the people can rise up and strike the gov't down. That is the beauty of the US constitution/bill of rights. It was a government that was designed to be overthrown.
This could be extrapolated to current times. I can just see it now, a big red button in a glass case in every home with sign that says, "In case of excessive government corrupt, break glass and push button."
-Ab
Nothing fails quite like prayer.
Unfortunalty most of the candidates on the balots seem to be a choice of bad and bad. Democrate or Republican they just do not seem to care. They are only capable of ranting and raving about one or two issues to try and touch some particular segment of the public. There is very little intelegence or though about anything. The patriot act stupidity was purely reactionary and cover you ass legislation.
Money votes because money gets the name out. American citizens need to learn to listen to all the candidates. Not that that often helps but I have often voted for the little guy who seemed to want to do good in public office. They rarely get elected.
I think a general cleaning of house in in order. There is absolutly no reason a person should be in office more than 10 years. They need to get on with thier lives a citizens and come back to some understanding of what it means to work for a living.
Vote out the incumbant!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Wow, you really don't have a clue. Fascism != Communism != Socialism. Who resisted the rise of fascism in Italy the most? The communists. As for your description of majority rule as being "oppressive"... that's democracy. That a majority can elect a capitalist regime is no different to a majority electing a socialist regime. Would you describe the former as oppressive too?
"While Al's claims show that he doesn't really understand the roots of the internet, they aren't inaccurate"
It is not just inaccurate: it is very untrue. From the quote in your very own posting: " I took the initiative in creating the Internet"
The Internet existed before Gore got involved.
"Even Vint Cerf (who did create the Internet) doesn't think Al was lying"
Yet he was. Do something. Check on the year the Internet was created. Then check on the year Gore got into congress. There is a difference there. Probably Cerf did not know the facts or did not care, since he is fond of Gore for how he transformed the existing Internet.
Cerf's quote supports the idea that Gore helped the Internet along. Cerf's quote does not support Gore's claim of inventing it.
"History is full of great bloodshed when capitalism gets angry (Vietnam, Iraq rounds one and two, Grenada, most of latin America at one point or another). What's your point?"
Hmmmm. The Vietnam War was started when the USSR annexed North Vietnam, and then North Vietnam invaded the South. Socialist aggression, clearly. The Ba'ath regime that has caused the bloodshed in Iraq. Also Socialist. The Castro regime which took over Greneda and caused the war there? Yes, Socialist again.
Latin America? The Sandinista war against Nicaragua cost 70,000 lives. There is another high total when the USSR's army (the FMLN) trashed El Salvador.
Next time, come up with examples that help your side.
"Er, as far as we in europe can tell, americans are on the 1930s germany path, not us"
It was France that a couple of years ago had massive protests against Jews. Not the United States.
"One sentence, in isolation, can often be misleading."
Yet, the context, of Gore's work in Congress, only shows Gore to be more wrong.
"As for your invent==create assertion, I quote snopes:"
Why not look at what the words mean, instead of quoting a "source" that gets it wrong in several ways?
Remember, Gore saying he created the Internet makes him look like the same fool/liar.
I did. It's all about perspective. Yours being very different from mine. I don't why I even bothered to respond to a coward to begin with.
I, for one, welcome our new techie masters!
Oh wait, I am a techie. SUFFER, WORMS! MUAHAHAHAAA!
Lately democracy seems to be based on the skybox, the Happy Meal box, the X-box, and the idiot box.
a bunch of political left-wing idealists, who have their asses backwards as much as their right-wing counterparts. Do politics always work in binary? either one way or another? is there no frikkin middle path??
"Also when did Clinton not stick up for Jews. Are you some kind of nut."
In many instances, Clinton supported government policies that punished individuals for having the wrong skin color ("Affirmative Action"). No, he was not antisemitic, but he was racist in other ways. He even appointed a flaming bigot to the civil rights top post.
"When are you going to get it in your head it is all a smoke screen. The man lies to us constantly"
If you are speaking of Clinton, you are correct.
"His education reforms are bull shit because he DID NOT FUND A SINGLE ONE OF THEM"
He has provided billions of dollars for education. That might count for some $$$ somewhere.
"How many terroists have been caught"
Is it hundreds or thousands?
"Despite detaining many people unreasonably we have caught, oh let me see, one. Wow all that money going to Iraq must be paying off. "
We've detained terrorists very reasonably. One? There is 30 or so times that caught of the Iraqi terrorists on the "Card deck".
"Americans are apathetic winers who rely on big business to pick their candidates. "
You obviously don't live here. The voters of the parties pick the candidates.
Gosh, Taco... ...you actually think I'm going to declare my annual household income (amoung other things) to some stinkin' web site, just to read some article you found great ???
:-(
Slashdot is getting worse by the day lately
"Logic dictates that free trade is not in the best interest of the working citizens of the united states"
Just about any poll of workers in the United States shows strong support for free trade, NAFTA, etc. The workers themselves know what is in their best interest.
"Everyone has an interest in politics, whether they realize it or not."
I know many who have no interest in politics. You do not know what you are talking about: you do not know their lives. You might as well be saying "Everybody loves chocolate ice cream, whether they know it or not"
tech jobs go to india
Vote for me.
You mean I have to choose between Slashdot and Fark? I think the only ones on that list that will be mutually exclusive are emacs and vi(m). How many other issues on the list have resulted in t-shirts?
- Speak Out
- Vote
- Write to Your Elected Representatives
- Donate Money to Political Campaigns
- Support Campaign Finance Reform
- Join the Electronic Frontier Foundation
- Practice Civil Disobedience
To which I should probably add:- Run for Elected Office
Thank you for your attention.Request your free CD of my piano music.
When I say that I'm a socialist, I'm saying I work for a nation of social justice, universal access to health care, where the people have the power. I don't believe that all capitalism is bad, nor do I believe that the government should control all aspects of your life. But, I do believe it is wrong for massive transnational corporations to usurp the role of government.
I believe that laws are necessary and that it is right and proper for many aspects of life to be either regulated or provided by the government. You disagree? OK, that's fine. Just don't forget about the police, firefighters, road construction workers, public health officials and facilities, train lines, airlines, telecommunications infrastructure, research funding, arts facilities, armed forces, parks, and water treatment facilities that are provided or heavily subsidized via the public coffers. And that's just in the U.S., a country that for decades has been scared of the term "socialism."
As the scandals in corporate America have so vividly demonstrated, Adam Smith's invisible hand does not guide our economy and our nation into the idealistic self-regulating paradise that proponents of pure capitalism would have us believe. Capitalism is not diametrically opposed to socialism.
Democratic socialism is the check against greed and corruption. It says, "Let the people decide their own destiny." It acknowledges that left unchecked, big businesses will underpay employees, pay little regard to the environment, and give little thought to the public good. We realize that certain aspects of life cannot be adequately provided by the market, and that it is the role of goverment to ensure that those aspects (health care, a safety net against starvation and homelessness, police and fire protection, social services....) are provided to the people who are the very base of that nation.
Communism was an excuse for totalitarians to highjack socialism and gut it of democracy. Capitalism is an excuse for the rich and powerful to replace a democracy with an oligarchy of the elite. The best part is that the capitalists have conned most people into believing that they (the people) are really the beneficiaries of this corporate power-grubbing!
So debate all you like. Just know what those terms mean when you use them.
I am concerned about any program, any piece of hardware, any treaty, any law that treats me as a consumer, not a citizen
It's a lot easier to be reactive than proactive. The upside is, right now is a great time to start paying attention and seeing what ideas are coming out.
In 2004, we all know we're going to have Bush and the incumbent Republicans vs. the Democratic candidate, but today there's still seven options for who that's going to be. Those who haven't been interested in politics are given a great opportunity to get in "on the ground floor" here.
If you post an article, please try and make sure others can read it.
Anyone care to post the entire article here? I cannot read it, because I'm not a subscriber.
I'm involved with the Draft Clark 2004 group, which is largely organized off the Internet in the form of websites, blogs, email lists, etc. It's related with moveon.org, meetup.com, etc. in that it's another grassroots organization using technology to benefit progressive causes.
What this article is talking about really has nothing to do with techies. It has to do with technies using their knowledge of the Internet to help bring people together who have a common interest. This isn't about bringing technology to government, nor is it really about pushing techie politic issues. It simply is an organized reaction to the overwhelming influence of special interest groups in politics.
What is interesting about this, is it's grassroots citizenry pushing for change from below. This is different from the Republican strategy of years past which involved big donors and big corporations running issue ads and subverting the media to push issues down onto the people.
So it is a change, I believe it's a change for the positive. I just don't see that it has much to do with techies other than as a tool to aid the collaboration.
Our Draft Clark meetings have had a wide range of people attending, a large number of military vets, women, people of foreign birth or with extensive world travel experience. There have been some techies, certainly. But a common sentiment has been the concern of the deterioration of Americans civil rights under the Bush administration. This has more to do with the Patriot Act than it does with the DMCA, however.
bush/cheney '04 already have $140 mil in the war chest and they're barely getting started
/. and "united" geeks everywhere think they have (let's remember this is the same group famous for text editor holy wars, how do you think they'll feel about political issues?) in the context of the large voting population, most of which is approaching or in retirement and all for your paying for their perscription drugs with every one of your paychecks; you still have no real voice.
You need old moneyed-illuminati with your interests in mind who are already in power, of course, one interested in YOUR interests doesn't exist but thanks for playing American (and therefore, world) Politics. Game Over, Insert Coin.
basically nothing will ever change as lnog as the same people keep getting re-elected, the senators from my state have been senators for ever and that most likely applies to the majority of states although I haven't checked. Until the rulling elite all die from old age/cholesterol/earth shattering greed that finally makes God take notice nothing will change
remember that as much power as
whatever happened to that geek relocation project that was trying to get 20,000 like-minded geek voters to move to some small state where they would actually have some rael political clout? or Freedom Ship?
oh well, back to the capitalist chain-gang my ankles were starting to feel weird without being fettered...
Anchor: And on to our election coverage. It seems that "Aunt Milly" has won the election with a landslide, despite not having registered to run.
This phenomina seems to be tracable back to a post on a popular website by the name of Slashdot. From there it exploded across the country-side, causing voters to turn out in record numbers.
(Be careful what you wish for)
With my dying breath, I curse Zoidberg!
"Socialism is diametrically opposed to totalitarianism, as one of the fundamental tennets of socialism is to put power in the hands of the people, and to provide essential human services to the people."
No. The more socialist something is, the more totalitarian it is. Socialism takes power away from the people and puts it into the hands of the rulers, the State. I have the terms straight. However, inlike you, I realize that a system that gives the rulers more power is more totalitarian.
" If you want to know what real socialism looks like, read the Acts of the Apostles, not the Communist Manifesto."
What you are referring to in "Acts" was voluntary: nothing like socialism which involves government using force on individuals demanding that they "pay up". The Bible verse most applicable to socialism is the one that includes "Render unto Caesar", because that is what socialism is all about.
"Capitalism is opposed to democracy."
Capitalism says "Let the people decide their own destiny.". This conflicts with democracy, which can have a democratic government force its decisions upon people (the democracy of two wolves voting to eat the sheep). Capitalism conflicts with democracy the same as human rights conflict with democracy.
"Agnostic" does not mean indifferent, lonesome, or disaffected! It does not refer to a program that can run on more than one kind of computer ("platform agnostic")!
I understand that language changes all the time. But this change waters down the word "agnostic" to such an extent, that it goes from being a precise and useful word to a vague and practically meaningless one. The new use is NOT EVEN ANALAGOUS to the original use of the term!
Fuck, this guy is a writer for the LA Times; you'd think he'd own a dictionary.
Sorry, I needed to rant about this.
Remember that money often (not often) leads to other forms of influence that aren't illegal, or even considered immoral.
Since starting our own small consulting business, my business partner and I have the executives for multi-billion dollar companies, we've met the Mayors for Dallas and Ft. Worth, we've met a lot of people who make important decisions.
Even for us (very small company), there have been chances to express opinions that wouldn't have been heard if we weren't business owners, because we never would have met the people in question.
If we were a multi-billion dollar company, then it's much more likely that these desicion makers would be in our peer circle. They would be people that we saw more often, perhaps knew well. Just knowing such people gives you more influence. It doesn't mean buying votes, or even mean that you are trying to take advantage of a friendship.
People talk about stuff with people they know. That's part of how they form opinions. If you are one of the people they talk to, then your opinions help influence the final decision.
Lobbyists seem to be a very intelligent attempt to take advantage of this aspect of human nature. They seem to do their jobs as much by 'being arround' and just expressing opinions as by any other means. And if they are buying lunch of paying for the golf game to do it.... that's a small price to pay.
plus-good, double-plus-good
"He really likes Macs, and is a personal friend of Steve Jobs.",
You know, if Gore announced he was running again, Jobs would shit his pants for sure.
" If create means invent, "to create a car" means "to invent the car". Hardly true as everyone knows."
It is very true, if there is only one car ever (like there is only one Internet at this time). Consider the appropriateness of the analogy next time.
I also noticed that you twisted other words to try to get it to work: "A" and "The", knowing that if you left all other words besides create/invent the same, your analogy looked bad immediately.
is topping my list at the moment.
He scares Lieberman. I like that.
Can't say I'm much for 3rd parties this election. Dems normally win my state (MA) anyways, but this time I'm more worried about Bush holding office to vote 3rd party.
"That is what he meant, though it was twisted by Drudge and Limbaugh and their ilk a",/I>
It might not be what he meant, but it is what he said. There is no twisting by anyone involved: Gore's clear and false words are found on the CNN web site, not at seanhannity.com, rightwing.nut, ggordonliddy.burglary, or any other such place.
Don't try to change the subject. Consider what Gore actually said, not what Drudge or Limbaugh supposedly misquoted him about, which no one knows about anyway since Gore's actual words are the ones typically quoted.
That's about equivalent to boxers vs briefs: completely silly and trivial.
The real question is: SMB vs. AFS? (Or whatever is considered to be better than AFS these days.)
Vote out the incumbant!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Could techies rally around term limits for Congressmen? Maybe two terms for senators and three for reps?
Good question. As a logical person (usually translated as techie) I find most of the politions appaling. Professional ELECTED polition should just plain not happen. I guess I think Ambassadors, Judges and such should not be politions. They should just be doing their jobs.
Anyways, back on track. Terms should be limited to a total of 10 or 12 years however that adds up with maybe Governor and Presidential time being on top of that.
I also think that many of our "elected officials" should be inverstigated for bribery.
I suppose I wouldn't mind seeing one guy serve in the House for 10 years, then move to the senate for 12. That's a long time, but it is a different position. Then after that if they wanted to be President for 8, great. And after that if they wanted to serve on their city council that would be ok too... :)
When I advocate term limits I mean to limit the number of times you can hold a particular elected office not any elected office.
>>kids trying to look k33l
Did you mean l33t or k3wl?
People who misuse leetspeak should be k33lh4ul3d.
All employees must wash hands before seeking equitable relief.
trouble is, no matter how much cash certain rich individuals can pump into government, we aren't a very strong voting base. in order to get elected, you pander to groups that have MANY voters and groups that have LOYAL voters. groups that have both are gold mines. ie seniors are the favorite voter's group, because they rarely change their votes. we the techies have OK numbers, but not great; but we're saddled with genuine political consciousness - that means voter volatility, not reliability. why would they listen to us, when there are more valuable groups to go after?
**** You never REALLY learn to swear until you own a computer. ****
they already monitor that pretty closely
I also think there should be a total time limit. In this case then maybe 14 ro 16 years.
KDE or Gnome?
Debian or Red Hat?
CVS or Subversion?
Clearly, it's going to be a tough campaign!!!
I have to disagree. The word regulated at the time the second ammendment was written was often used to mean armed. Many old guns where from regulating or regulator companies. Meaning companies that made guns. Today we no longer use the word in that way, but back then a well regulated milita was well equipted with guns. Re-read that ammendment was "A milita well equipted with guns being nessicary for a free state, the right of the citicians to own guns shall not be infringed." Seems clearer now: it was intended to protect the right to own guns.
Even if we assume your interpitation, the same founders passed a law making all males between 18 (16?) and 40 (Not sure again, but about that age) members of the milita. So even if you argue that the ammendment was only intended for members of the milita, it applies to just about every adult anyway. (Unless you would argue that today we would still recignise the males only clause of the origional law, personally I consider it better to assume females too)
"MoveOn is more important in this context than the EFF, because MoveOn is more successful at bringing a message to the world outside of geeks and /.ers."
It doesn't go far: the site only reaches hardcore Democrats.
Remember, this is the site that started out at a project of the Democratic Party to help make sure that President Clinton escaped justice for his crimes. It has a reputation such that it will never be mainstream.
The membership and the organizations have more to do with econopolitical stance than with technology. In addition, the ones you mentioned are radical organizations.
For instance, the FSF is a movement. Not everyone supports it (in fact, my impression is that the vast majority don't). So just because someone is into tech doesn't mean they support the underlying philosophy.
Similarly, the EFF has less to do with technology and more to do with their stance. For example, it is very liberatarian (and can even be argued to be liberatarian right, as opposed to liberatarian left (aka anarchism)). There are many people who will not join it. As a matter of fact, I don't think the vast majority of people will join it because most people are centrists/moderates and EFF will be too radical for them. Whether one is into tech or not, most people would just happily let govt infiltrate their lives and strip away their individual freedoms in the name of "freedom", terrorism, copyrights, or whatever else is the popular word that week.
The organizations that will be "successful" (in the sense of having large base) will be those centrist/moderate ones. Needless to say, these are also the ones that support the status quo so it is questionable whether they do anything progressive.
Remember.. the tech crowd is no different than the rest of the population. It will have a distribution similar to to the rest of the population. The only difference is that we know technology. But that isn't going to make one go and join FSF or EFF. The vast majority of people are centrists/moderates. As long as they have a job, live a "happy" life, get all the gadjets they want, etc, they won't do anything. At least, that's my impression based on working in the industry. Some guy might be the biggest geek around but he will not support anything differing from the mainstream. You can even make the observation yourself. Look around: how many of your techie friends or colleagues really care about any of these issues? Probably few...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places
Actually, this is why the right to bear arms exists. So that if the Government becomes too corrupt and evil and starts to self-perpetuate it's own power, growing uncontrollably, the people can rise up and strike the gov't down.
That was actually true at one time but not anymore. The problem is that citizens with guns (say militas) are next to useless when combating governments. At one time, that wasn't the case. A couple of hundread years ago, the difference between a soldier and an armed citizen was very small. They both used the same guns, had similar training, etc. But that isn't the case anymore.
Nowadays, the military (in any country) is just SO MUCH more powerful than armed citizens. Not only do they have better guns (automatic, more powerful, etc) but the emergence of mechanized vehicles renders citizens next to useless. Regardless of what you think, guns can't take down a tank. Forget tanks. How about APCs? You and your heavily armed family won't even scratch an APC!
You just need to look at the history of the world over the past 100 years. Even if cases where citizens are armed, they are next to useless. A good modern example is Afghanistan, where everyone is heavily armed (more so than Americans) yet they couldn't defeat either the Taliban or the US govt.
Having said all this, the emergence of the guerrila movement and asymetric warfare (eg. suicide bombings, truck bombings, sabotage, etc) can take down a govt. But governments generally label guerrila groups as terrorist and shut them down. That's why most armed groups in USA are militias and not guerrilas. Militias, needless to say, are sitting ducks and will be crushed very easily by the govt.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places
I agree wholeheartedly. Econopolitical stance takes precedence over one's love of tech...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places
But that's not to say I've been surprised by the point scoring of the pea brained republicans ever since.
Oh well, in a democracy, you get the political leaders you deserve.
This has nothing to do with Sharon. I was referring to the anti-free-trade protests which included a lot about that good old favorite, the evil Jews that control all the banks in the world.
"he needs settlers to achieve his colonization of Palestine"
There is no Palestine. Not yet, anyway. There might be one in the near future. Right now, the only countries involved are Israel, Egypt (owner of Gaza), and Jordan (owner of West Bank).
I would think more geeks would be pushing to overhaul our voting method. The gross inaccuracy and bias of our current system (the plurality vote) ought to insult the sensibilities of any self-respecting techie. Better alternatives (Condorcet, Borda, Approval, IRV) are available.
Read my keyboard review.
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=4.7 required=4.8
Vote Now for your presidential canidate Cowboy Neil!
Paid for by the spammers association for the advancement of 133t politicians.
The same story is republished at this URL. No registration required and it appears to be republished here legitimately. Enjoy without feeding the LA Times' marketing/hassle department.
Recall we have laws against bribery. Enforcement on the other hand...
We have laws against particular forms of bribery. Other forms are not only allowed, they are expressly permitted and encouraged by the law. These include campaign contributions and soft-money political donations.
Saying we 'have laws against bribery' is telling only half the story, the other half being encapsulated in 'but we also have legalized, institutional bribery.' And no, the two are not mutually exclusive, any more than having laws against killing excludes the possiblity of legalized, institutional killing ('death row' and the military being two such examples).
Unlike killing, however, it is difficult to imagine any circumstance in which legalized bribery is even debatably appropriate.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
I get into rant-fests with people from time to time about, "The Government is corrupt! Get these bums out of there!", and I can only reply, "the Government is YOU. It starts with YOU, and ENDS WITH YOU."
An incredibly important point.
It's a point I have tried to make in arguing with people about our response to 9/11. We had 3,000 innocent people die. So what did we do? Killed other innocent people. Who was more innocent? The other guys. Why? Simply because an overwhelming majority of the people killed in the WTC were US citizens, and therefore have the right to vote for our government (and it's our government that has pissed people off enough that they'll fly jet planes into skyscrapers to get our attention). The people of Afghanistan and Iraq, on the other hand, have no say in what their leaders do, unless they force it with a violent revolution. So we kill them because they're not willing to die to change things.
Don't you wish your girlfriend was a geek like me?
Term limits make sense to folks used to working on projects who have an entire life cycle of less than 10 years, and a dev cycle that is often measured in months. But they've wreaked havoc with local politics, because infrastructure projects frequently take decades to complete. And contrary to popular belief, it's not "government inefficiency" that takes that long. It's the huge amount of preparative work needed to get the project out there, which is all due to legislation fought for by citizens.
/.
Los Angeles is trying to develop a rail system. It's a lot better than it was ten years ago, when the Metro Blue Line first opened up, but it's far from comprehensive. The entire project was originally outlined in the late 1970s - early 1980s, but not a single mile of track opened until 1993. Our current subway was built in three stages, as funding became available... and some of it never got built due to political opposition. As a result, the heavily populated Westside, which contains many job centers, has no rail service at all.
There's a whole lot of things that cause this. The environmental review process is a huge one, especially in California where the requirements are stricter than the federal government's. No matter how quickly you could get the work done (and that is delayed because you can't just close a street in the middle of rush hour to take a soil sample... though you can for a movie premiere) it has to take a certain amount of time so that the public can comment on it. You have to hold not just one public hearing, but several meetings to give people information and get feedback. You have to revise based on this feedback, and try it again. And in the final EIR you have to include and address every single comment you got (there are over 5000 on the Exposition Light Rail Project so far). Sure, there's a lot of duplication which has the same response, but notice that it doesn't even say *valid* comment... there are no judgement calls. Everyone has to be taken with the same degree of seriousness, whether a well-respected and highly educated community leader or a skinny guy in a tinfoil hat who gets all his news from
Then there's the delays. Right now I'm sorting through thousands of pages of invoices tracking how much our contractor billed us each month for a certain project. I have to track the 10 subcontractors separately. And I have to do all of this because the contractor has produced almost no work and keeps raising the cost estimate with no explanation. Guess what? They were on suspension for 45 days. And, depending on what I find here, they may be again. That's time that work grinds to a halt.
What does this have to do with term limits? Well, since the limits went into effect, these long-term projects have suffered a great deal from a lack of continuity. Say you're about to finish preliminary engineering on a project that has a mixed public reception, and a particular official's 8 years is up. The new guy gets elected because he's going to "stop the project." You've spent eight years working with a particular representative to address public concerns, convey the benefits of the project, and get buy-in from the powers that be. Get ready to start all over again, and possibly have years and millions of dollars' worth of work wasted. Now *that's* inefficient.
The other thing term limits do is scare off or use up people with minor political ambition. Only the people who want to keep climbing the power ladder are motivated to get into public office. Those who want to actually *do* something with a local governmental position are discouraged, because they realize they won't have the time to do it. Either that, or they get in anyway, but they still don't have the time to get anything done. So you get city council reps who are young, idealistic, and preoccupied with their presidential campaign. They couldn't care less about your new bikepath.
Now, there are certain politicians in this city I feel have been in the same pl
Don't you wish your girlfriend was a geek like me?
Yeah, you have valid points there. I'll have to rethink my ideas about term limits.
-Craig.
here
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"