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."

Comments

screw both of them

[schnits0r]

The problem is that if everyone elects higher class, they will only look after the higher class anyways. It's clearly defined in this Mousland Speech here: The Story of Mouseland as told by Tommy Douglas, 1944 It's the story of a place called Mouseland. Mouseland was a place where all the little mice lived and played, were born and died. And they lived much the same as you and I do. They even had a Parliament. And every four years they had an election. Used to walk to the polls and cast their ballots. Some of them even got a ride to the polls. And got a ride for the next four years afterwards too. Just like you and me. And every time on election day all the little mice used to go to the ballot box and they used to elect a government. A government made up of big, fat, black cats. Now if you think it strange that mice should elect a government made up of cats, you just look at the history of Canada for last 90 years and maybe you'll see that they weren't any stupider than we are. Now I'm not saying anything against the cats. They were nice fellows. They conducted their government with dignity. They passed good laws that is, laws that were good for cats. But the laws that were good for cats weren't very good for mice. One of the laws said that mouseholes had to be big enough so a cat could get his paw in. Another law said that mice could only travel at certain speeds so that a cat could get his breakfast without too much effort. All the laws were good laws. For cats. But, oh, they were hard on the mice. And life was getting harder and harder. And when the mice couldn't put up with it any more, they decided something had to be done about it. So they went en masse to the polls. They voted the black cats out. They put in the white cats. Now the white cats had put up a terrific campaign. They said: "All that Mouseland needs is more vision." They said: "The trouble with Mouseland is those round mouseholes we got. If you put us in we'll establish square mouseholes." And they did. And the square mouseholes were twice as big as the round mouseholes, and now the cat could get both his paws in. And life was tougher than ever. And when they couldn't take that anymore, they voted the white cats out and put the black ones in again. Then they went back to the white cats. Then to the black cats. They even tried half black cats and half white cats. And they called that coalition. They even got one government made up of cats with spots on them: they were cats that tried to make a noise like a mouse but ate like a cat. You see, my friends, the trouble wasn't with the colour of the cat. The trouble was that they were cats. And because they were cats, they naturally looked after cats instead of mice. Presently there came along one little mouse who had an idea. My friends, watch out for the little fellow with an idea. And he said to the other mice, "Look fellows, why do we keep on electing a government made up of cats? Why don't we elect a government made up of mice?" "Oh," they said, "he's a Bolshevik. Lock him up!" So they put him in jail. But I want to remind you: that you can lock up a mouse or a man but you can't lock up an idea.

Re:screw both of them

[Profane MuthaFucka]

In Soviet Mouseland, the mice elected to the mouse government turn out to be cannibals. Sad, but true.

Re:screw both of them

[Country_hacker]

"The fundamental problem with representative government is that the people who would be best for the job least want it, and vice versa."

Re:screw both of them

[renehollan]

Write-in votes are not permitted in Canada.

A would-be candidate requires (at least this was the number around 1993) 100 nominating signatures from their chosen riding (rather like an electoral district) in order to appear on the ballot there. If a sufficient number of like-minded candidates from a common party meet this qualification in enough ridings, they can be listed under their party name as well, instead of as "Independent".

You'd think this would result in a very large number of candidates on the ballot, what with the low barrier to entry (well, the nominations, and the $1000 fee - almost entirely tax-refundable (you contribute it to your campaign for a $450 tax break, and at least half gets returned to the campaign after you file your paperwork -- all of it if you get 15% of the vote)).

Sadly, Canadians are so apathetic, that rarely do non-mainstream candidatates get enough nominations to appear on the ballot.

Of course, I'm quoting early 90's requirements -- they may have changed since.

Bush Training plan won't work

[Marxist Hacker 42]

A changing workforce requires us to modernize our financial aid programs. I will make loans available to help workers pay for short-term training that leads to an industry-recognized credential or certificate. We must also revise outdated loan restrictions to expand access to competency-based programs, allow students and workers to take courses throughout the year, and eliminate current restrictions to promote distance education.

All this will do is raise the cost on competency-based programs. Already New Horizons charges $17,500 for their suite of certification courses- NOT because this is what it costs, but because this is what can be gotten from a student loan.

Re:Bush Training plan won't work

[Gary Destruction]

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.

Disappointing answers to a disappointing question

[Dachannien]

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.

http://www.comptia.org/pressroom/election_2004.asp x#5

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?"

Kerry is a senator.

[DAldredge]

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.

Did you notice the Bush war on Porn?

[DAldredge]

"My FY 2005 Budget would double funding for Justice Department programs that investigate and prosecute child exploitation and obscenity over the FY 2001 level. "

Notice how obscentiy doesn't have the world child in front of it? That is because the want to restart the 80's war on porn. Bush, like a lot of people on the right (and far left) have a major problem with porn and wish to use the goverment to get rid of it.

Google for "Protection from Pornograpy Week"

Re:Did you notice the Bush war on Porn?

[squiggleslash]

Could be read either way: "prosecute child exploitation and obscenity over the FY 2001 level" could be:

1. prosecute "child exploitation" and "obscenity" over the FY 2001 level.
2. prosecute child "exploitation and obscenity" over the FY 2001 level.

I don't think you can read too much into that. A better solution would be to look at what the Justice Department is doing now. By all accounts, the pornography industry - legitimate and illegitmate both - are extremely concerned about the rhetoric coming out of John Ashcroft's office.

Re:Did you notice the Bush war on Porn?

[DAldredge]

Protection From Pornography Week, 2003
By the President of the United States of America
A Proclamation

Pornography can have debilitating effects on communities, marriages, families, and children. During Protection From Pornography Week, we commit to take steps to confront the dangers of pornography.

The effects of pornography are particularly pernicious with respect to children. The recent enactment of the PROTECT Act of 2003 strengthens child pornography laws, establishes the Federal Government's role in the AMBER Alert System, increases punishment for Federal crimes against children, and authorizes judges to require extended supervision of sex offenders who are released from prison.

We have committed significant resources to the Department of Justice to intensify investigative and prosecutorial efforts to combat obscenity, child pornography, and child sexual exploi-ta-tion on the Internet. We are vigorously prosecuting and severely punishing those who would harm our children. Last July, the Department of Homeland Security launched Operation Predator, an initiative to help identify child predators, rescue children depicted in child pornography, and prosecute those responsible for making and distributing child pornography.

Last year, I signed legislation creating the Dot Kids domain, a child-friendly zone on the Internet. The sites on this domain are monitored for content and safety, offering parents assurances that their children are learning in a healthy environment. Working together with law enforcement officials, parents, and other caregivers, we are making progress in protecting our children from pornography.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim October 26 through November 1, 2003, as Protection From Pornography Week. I call upon public officials, law enforcement officers, parents, and all the people of the United States to observe this week with appropriate programs and activities.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twenty-fourth day of October, in the year of our Lord two thousand three, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and twenty-eighth.

GEORGE W. BUSH

Who makes this up

[cheeseSource]

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...

Re:Who makes this up

[xlv]

Now, does anyone really think he knows what VOIP is, or even how to spell internet?

Which internet are you talking about? If you'd watched the last debate, you would know that Bush is well aware of the internets...

Kerry will ban tech that violates the DMCA.

[DAldredge]

Judging from his gun record (banning tools because of how they are used) Kerry will go full force into banning things that the DMCA make illegal.

goto opensecrets.org and see how much the CA content producers have 'paid forward' into his campaign.

Re:Kerry will ban tech that violates the DMCA.

[max born]

You're probably right about that. The Democrats don't have a good voting record on supportng freedom in technology. It was senior Democrats like Diane Feinstein (CA) who initiated and passed the DMCA

And of the six senators who signed the failed Induce Act, four of them were Democrats.

Re:Kerry will ban tech that violates the DMCA.

[DAldredge]

The GOP doesn't have a good record either. Senator Hatch's name comes to mind.

Re:Kerry will ban tech that violates the DMCA.

[FriedTurkey]

Judging from his gun record (banning tools because of how they are used) Kerry will go full force into banning things that the DMCA make illegal.

Whoa. I think I must have missed a few hundred steps on the logical thinking you are doing.

A more logical conclusion could be drawn from which candidate is getting all the corporate money.

BTW - Kerry only supports assault weapon bans and not other types of guns.

Re:Kerry will ban tech that violates the DMCA.

[Minna Kirai]

Judging from his gun record (banning tools because of how they are used) Kerry will go full force into banning things

What record? Kerry has never voted to ban any gun, except for the Brady Bill, which is something that President Bush claims to support also.

Kerry's got the NRA against him because he supported gun show background checks, and wanted to force manufacturers to include complimentary trigger locks.

Re:Kerry will ban tech that violates the DMCA.

[Minna Kirai]

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.

Re:Kerry will ban tech that violates the DMCA.

[Minna Kirai]

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.

Re:Kerry will ban tech that violates the DMCA.

[FriedTurkey]

Kerry is getting most of the content producers money. Thanks for helping me prove my point.

No problem. You should probably let other people write your posts to slashdot.

BTW - The AWB was largely symbolic

Re:Kerry will ban tech that violates the DMCA.

[Minna Kirai]

The Most Sweeping Gun Ban Ever Introduced in Congress--Clinton Gun Ban "Reenactment" Bans Millions More Guns

For the last time, stop the plagiarism! If you think somebody else made your case better than you could, then link to it. Don't pollute slashdot with copies of NRA propaganda.

And one more time: Bush said he supported that bill! Either Bush was lying about that, or he is just as anti-gun as Kerry.

And one more time: Kerry never voted for that bill.

There is something funny about that bill, though. Of course it's obviously too vague to be effectively implemented. But it also reflects a special fear politicians have: the assasin's rifle. 5 years ago there was an uproar about the availiblity of the Barret 50, which reminded all the Washington people that they're never really safe.

One specific quote:Bans the three centerfire rifles most popular for marksmanship competitions: the Colt AR-15, the Springfield M1A and the M1 "Garand."

That's false. Yes, the AR-15 is banned, as is the M1 Carbine, which is a different, shorter weapon than the actual M1 Garand rifle. I also can't find anything in the text about Springfields. It would be pretty crazy if it actually banned those, because a Springfield is no different than any deer-hunting rifle.

Bush is not 'reality based' that = a problem...

[Anonymous Coward]

He seems to have the same problem my mother had, which is called "narcissistic personality disorder" - It's a common character disorder - and it seriously impairs the judgement of people who have it. Very Seriously. They have an inability to feel empathy with others, they tend to have delusions of grandeur (which is another, more traditional name for this disorder) and all the worst leaders in history have had it. (Nero, Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Kim Il Sung, Kim Jong Il, Pol Pot, etc.) It is uncurable. And people who have it are *always* *pathological* liars.

Don't trust me on this, you should know that this is the opinion of the psychologists who work with intelligence agencies. (on the others, so far, they have been silent on Bush, no doubt because of another tendency of narcissists, the tendency to be incredibly vindictive and vengeful, and to never forget a slight..)

Before you just brush what I am saying off, I strongly recommend that you read Ron Suskind's article "Without a Doubt" in this last Sunday's New York Times Magazine and you will see what I mean.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/magazine/17BUS H. html

This disease is a mental illness.. Seriously.

Do you want someone with a mental illness running this country?

Re:Bush is not 'reality based' that = a problem...

[Creepy Crawler]

I voted for him, and I wish I didnt... then again, Gore wasnt better.

Look here for the 2000 debates, second speech.
http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2000b.html

One excerpt about Iraq:

---start---
MODERATOR: People watching here tonight are very interested in Middle East policy, and they are so interested they want to base their vote on differences between the two of you as president how you would handle Middle East policy. Is there any difference?

GORE: I haven't heard a big difference in the last few exchanges.

BUSH: That's hard to tell. I think that, you know, I would hope to be able to convince people I could handle the Iraqi situation better.

MODERATOR: Saddam Hussein, you mean, get him out of there?

BUSH: I would like to, of course, and I presume this administration would as well. We don't know -- there are no inspectors now in Iraq, the coalition that was in place isn't as strong as it used to be. He is a danger. We don't want him fishing in troubled waters in the Middle East. And it's going to be hard, it's going to be important to rebuild that coalition to keep the pressure on him.

MODERATOR: You feel that is a failure of the Clinton administration?

BUSH: I do.
---end---


The next if military interventions and the beleif that Bush had about the military (and what he'd never use it for).

---start---
MODERATOR: Well, let's stay on the subject for a moment. New question related to this. I figured this out; in the last 20 years there have been eight major actions that involved the introduction of U.S. ground, air or naval forces. Let me name them. Lebanon, Grenada, Panama, the Persian Gulf, Somalia, Bosnia, Haiti, Kosovo. If you had been president for any of those interventions, would any of those interventions not have happened?

GORE: Can you run through the list again?

(line comments by gore/moderator snipped for brevity)

MODERATOR: We talked about that. Want me to do it with you? Lebanon.

BUSH: Make a couple comments.

MODERATOR: Sure, absolutely, sure. Somalia.

BUSH: Started off as a humanitarian mission and it changed into a nation-building mission, and that's where the mission went wrong. The mission was changed. And as a result, our nation paid a price. And so I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building. I think our troops ought to be used to fight and win war. I think our troops ought to be used to help overthrow the dictator when it's in our best interests. But in this case it was a nation-building exercise, and same with Haiti. I wouldn't have supported either.
---end---


There's just 2 examples that are from rock-hard sources, and not swayed in content by me at all. Those things are what Bush said, and what now is done, Bush lied about. Bush said he'd make the coalition strong, yet we invade. And now, our troops are being used to 'nation build', something Bush was against in 2000.

It would be more accurate to say staffers response

[dtolman]

Magazine interviews are commonly filled out by the candidate's staff. It would be more accurate to call this then the candidate's staff's response - probably based off the staffer's knowledge of the candidate's positions, the platform, or some other source. For all we know, the candidate's aren't even aware of this interview - do they even read these over before these things get published in their name?

Kerry got in trouble for this (common) practice a few months back, when a staffer wrote in (incorrectly) that he owned an automatic weapon he grabbed as a war trophy...

Somewhat nice to see

[Brown Eggs]

While only a little offtopic, was it just me or was it nice to read somewhat coherent answers to good questions that were not immediately followed with "And I would do a better job than him" or "He will cause the downfall of your country" or some other such drivel?

I certainly wish the campaigns themselves (and especially the debates) had more of this flavor. While clearly canned answers (Bush knowing what VOIP is????), it is a refreshing thing to see in a race that has become increasingly ugly.

Oh, and was anyone else a bit annoyed that 3rd party candidates (or even Nader) were not included? I am sure the Greens, Libertarians, and especially Nader would have had interesting responses (thought many of those can be dug out of the appropriate campaign website).

Re:The replies...

[MindStalker]

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.

Re:The replies...

[Kevin Stevens]

I am a Kerry supporter and Bush hater, and I have to say that Bush's responses were far better. They were more detailed and contained specific ideas of what he has done, and what he plans to do.

Of course, I do not believe that Bush (or Kerry) actually wrote any of this. But at the same time, his team apparently understands the issues alot better than Kerry's team, and that is important. Do I really think Bush or Kerry have a friggen clue as to what VOIP is? Noooo way. In fact, I am not even sure that if either Bush or Kerry even read the responses, they would fully understand what was being discussed. However, when something like the Can-Spam act comes across their desk, it appears Bush has a much better team working for him to put it in little words he can understand and thus should be able to make better decisions on these types of issues.

ARRRRGG!!!!

[thewickedmystic]

This is SO frustrating!

It is just more of the same!

Kerry doesn't answer the questions at all (I am open to...)

While Bush gives answers I don't like (We need to implement nation-wide morality laws that forbid anything that could effect anybodies children, even if you don't have any!)

Errg!! I think I am going to vote for Cthulu this year. I am tired of trying to figure out the lesser of two evils!

Re:The replies...

[Edax Rarem]

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.

Re:No child left behind act = Draft ACT?

[Poppler]

Yes, I have heard about this. And let me assure you, Bush does NOT want a draft.

This is, of coarse, a sneaky, underhanded way of getting info for military recruiters. But it's just for the junk mail, the phone calls, etc. I took the SATs at age 13 and started getting all their crap in the mail - same system, only this way they get everyone.

Bush & co want an all volunteer army because that way the country is much less reluctant to go to war. If half the soldiers don't believe in the war, things would be a little tougher for those trying to sell it.

Imagine how different public opinion would be if there was a conscripted army fighting in Iraq right now.

Re:No child left behind act = Draft ACT?

[MagicM]

Okay, maybe I should have included the entire paragraph:

"(1) ACCESS TO STUDENT RECRUITING INFORMATION- Notwithstanding section 444(a)(5)(B) of the General Education Provisions Act and except as provided in paragraph (2), each local educational agency receiving assistance under this Act shall provide, on a request made by military recruiters or an institution of higher education, access to secondary school students names, addresses, and telephone listings."

So yes, this contact information is being shared for recruiting purposes. They don't need this info for drafting purposes. That's what Selective Services is for.

The only truly bad thing would be if they are sharing other information (like the test scores and grades you mentioned) with Armed Services. But I can't find evidence that they are.

They Left Out the Most Important Question

[clickster]

Where is the "vi or emacs?" question? What a waste of time.

Bush didn't write those responses

[Guspaz]

I don't know about Kerry, for all I know he might not have (Though his responses where he appears to have no idea what the question is talking about would indicate he did).

Considering his statement in the debate about "I hear there have been rumours on the internets (Yes, notice the plural he used for internets), do you REALLY think he'd then answer the VoIP question like this:

http://www.comptia.org/pressroom/election_2004.a sp x#2

Bush is no idiot, but I'm pretty sure that the question/response was way over his head.

Re:Disappointing answers to a disappointing questi

[Brandybuck]

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!

Re:Disappointing answers to a disappointing questi

[Young Master Ploppy]

"he's examining to see if it's okay for you to have a right that you already possess under Title 17!"

Read it again, calmly this time, and suppress your instinctive knee-jerk reaction:

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.

What he actually said is an implicit acceptance of your right to "fair use". If you don't see that, read it again.

Now compare the emphasis of the two:

Bush: "We must vigorously enforce intellectual property protections"

Kerry: (roughly equivalent to) "I'm open to looking at whether we need more legislation to protect your right to fair use."

NOW which answer do you think was best?