Slashdot Mirror
Kerry and Bush Answer Questions on IT Industry
An anonymous reader writes "The questions were submitted by CompTIA (Computing Technology Industry Association) and each candidate's response follows. Read the responses at comptia.org."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
In Soviet Mouseland, the mice elected to the mouse government turn out to be cannibals. Sad, but true.
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
CompTIA asked both candidates about their stances on digital media and legitimate consumer use, and both candidates gave wishy-washy answers that indicated their favorableness to supporting the rights of consumers. But it's fairly obvious that they were both catering to their audience, having been tipped off by the nature of the question.
p x#5
http://www.comptia.org/pressroom/election_2004.as
What should federal policy be toward protecting intellectual property on the Internet - recognizing the harmless role played by mere conduits - and facilitating the free flow of ideas based on those creations?
This just means that yet another opportunity to find out whether either candidate supports limitations on DRM/broadcast flag/DMCA is wasted. Why not ask a more pointed, but less coached, question? "Do you feel the DMCA has provided adequate, insufficient, or excessive protections to copyright holders?" "Do you support or oppose the mandatory compliance of electronic devices with the digital broadcast flag?" "Do you support or oppose the DMCRA?"
What bills has Kerry introduced to impliment his ideas?
Also, What bills has Bush asked the GOP leaders in congress to pass?
They say one thing and do another. Both major parties are full of people who would not know the truth if it hit them in the ass.
The beginning of bush's second response:
"I support innovative communications technologies like Voice Over Internet Protocal (VoIP),"
Now, does anyone really think he knows what VOIP is, or even how to spell internet? His only evidence is that protocol is misspelled.
Seems like easy proof that someone else wrote the answers...
(Sponsored by cheeseSource for President 2012)
I doubt either candidate answered these questions without trained professionals polishing the responses. Neither is as stupid as the other would portray, but campaigns just don't run that way.
Fortunately, we scarcely need Bush's replies to many of these questions... we can already see how well the U.S. IT sector is flourishing under the policies of his administration. I notice he touts CAN-SPAM on the question of unsolicited email, and my inbox shows me how effective that has been. And of course we all witnessed how well effectively the Bush administration was in the Microsoft antitrust case.
Kerry may be no better, but I think it's worth a roll of the dice.
"The fundamental problem with representative government is that the people who would be best for the job least want it, and vice versa."
Never give any object more potential energy than you want it to have.
The GOP doesn't have a good record either. Senator Hatch's name comes to mind.
These were unquestionably great men (and women), people who lead, people who pushed their countries further than they could ever have gone otherwise. They had no "delusions of grandeur", because there was nothing delusional about them.
Nonsense. You can not both have grandeur and be vindictive, at least, not in this way. And I'm quite sure that if Bush was anything like the character you paint him to be, he'd have found something to be vengeful about. The fact is the intelligence agencies are in greater shape than they've ever been before, supported to the hilt by an able President who's not going to stand for any nonsense. And that's the crux of the issue, an issue little people like you fail to understand, great Presidents, great world leaders, lead. I think it's safe to suggest that Suskind doesn't understand what he's on about. Little people rarely do.Personally I'd rather vote for the guy who has intelligent staff who can offer real insight, than someone who simply says me too. Most of the best presidents have been great because of their staff.
Not to be off topic, but certification courses teach you just that -- How to pass a certification. That means you've learned how to pass a test, not how to understand the fundamental concepts of the subjects revelant to the field.
Don't you think a more intelligent person could appoint a more intelligent staff?
W did nothing but drum up a bunch of good ol' boys that were his father's friends.
Those that are questionable:
Rice (playing the obsequious lapdog and ignoring her job so she can go on the campaign trail with W, and lying for him in front of the 9/11 commission ("there were no actionable items on that memo" Hey Condi, it is YOUR job to take those actions)) is obviously just along for the ride.
And I honestly can't figure out Powell. I used to think he would be POTUS some day, but I think W has ruined his career.
Let's face it.. W's staff have screwed up as much as, if not more that W has.
The world was better off when the worse thing the POTUS did was get a BJ in the OO.
I hate my sig.
1) If we wanted to read NRA.org websites, we could visit NRA.org. Link to them if you think it supports your position, but don't copy & paste. Sheer volune is no way to make a credible argument. Some of your copying is actually illegal infringement.
2) Some of those "FACTS" are lies, and none of them contradict my statement: The only guns Kerry voted to ban are guns that President Bush says should be banned as well.
That list is a standard dishonest tactic: Make a strong claim, followed by a huge volume of true facts with at least a peripheral relationship to the claim. Then state that you've proved your position, even though you've done nothing of the sort, and hope that people too lazy to read the whole thing assume you said something sensible.
3) One could make a fairly plausible slippery slope argument: "Kerry's positions are closer to a total gun ban than his opponent, so he will move us closer to an environment where a gun ban might pass". But instead of saying something reasonable like that, you just spit out a tremendous volume of unsubstantiable lies.
It's behavior like that which caused President Bush to publically resign from the NRA. Although he supports gun ownership rights, the NRA goes off on viciously false tangents and pretends they were actually part of the same thing.
I was with you right up to the last sentence, where your non-sequitur lost me completely.
That's the technique: paste in a lot of true facts, so numerous that no one will have the energy to read them all. Then finish with a completely false conclusion unrelated to the previous facts, hoping to trick lazy readers into thinking it's somehow based on the body of the message.
I mean, he decommissioned some hunting land? He wants to tax guns? Stuff like that does NOTHING to support the idea he's a gun-banner.
While both did give wishy-washy answers, that's because they're politicians. But once you get past that, it's interesting to see that the candidate who gave the better answer was Bush.
Bush: "Blaming the technology does not address the issue. We must vigorously enforce intellectual property protections and prosecute the violations, not the technology."
In other words, fight copyright violations, not software. Isn't that what everyone has been saying here for the past half decade?
Kerry: "I am open to examining whether legislative action is necessary to ensure that a person who lawfully obtains or receives a transmission of a digital work may back up a copy of it for archival purposes or transfer it to a digital media device for the purpose of non public performance or display."
In other words, he's examining to see if it's okay for you to have a right that you already possess under Title 17!
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!