Slashdot Mirror
Presidential Candidates' Science and Tech Policies
gracey1103 writes "Popular Mechanics has put together an easy-to-follow matrix of where the '08 presidential candidates stand on different science, tech and environment issues. Everything is cited and links back directly to each candidate's published policy pages so you can get more info."
They didn't mention Kucinich or Gravel, and allowed more Republicans on the list than Democrats. This seems a bit biased to me.
PM seems to have overlooked Dennis Kuccinich
o Auto
o Digital/Tech
o Climate/Energy
o Environment
o Gun control
o Infrastructure
o Science/Education
o Space
WTF??
It's always a long day... 86400 doesn't fit into a short.
Granted I've only skimmed over the about half of the entries in the writeup but I supported Fred before I read this and support him after I read it. I suspect this will be true (i.e. no change in position) for everyone that looks at this article. It is pretty low on detail and then links back to full proposals but it is not a particularly user friendly format.
--- Liberty in our Lifetime
What's with the spammer with the site? Does slashdot delete those?
In what universe does the topic of gun control belong on a list of issues important to geeks, scientists and environmentalists? I know this is slashdot where many think owning a hand gun will stop the guvment from stealing your tin foil hat but WTF.
- Anonymous because questioning gun-nuts usually results in death threats.
This seems to assume that 1. you only care about "mainstream party" candidates and 2. spending is the primary measure of support.
I don't know how willingness to spend confiscated funds on research became a qualification for office, but I am completely convinced that this point of view is part of the problem, not the solution.
-Peter
on whether the candidate supports PS3 or XBOX360? Or BluRay vs HDDVD? Or KDE vs GNOME?
"Easy to follow matrix"? Not exactly. At first, I thought the matrix indicated endorsements, but it doesn't -- checkmarks simply indicate that they were able to find out where a candidate stands. If you actually want to know what that stance is, you sometimes have to click through many screens to get to it.
Great idea, mediocre execution. (And why is gun control on a list of science and technology issues, but not stem cell research?)
I didn't go through all of them, but it seems the matrix only shows which topics a candidate has an affirmative stance on. If they do, then a checkmark links to an explanation of the stance. If not, no information is given. For example, all of them except Giuliani and Huckabee were "in favor" of digital technology. I assume that Giuliani and Huckabee weren't taking the Amish approach, but rather they hadn't made any clear statements on the matter.
So the chart is a mildly intersting way of presenting a limited amount of information on candidates stances, but not particularly useful for comparing them. A better approach (although still imperfect) would have been to attempt to determine sides of an issue and divide the candidates that way.
For example: Should federal government increase spending on internet infrastructure projects? *
Biden: No
Clinton: Yes
Edwards: No
Obama: Yes
Richardson: No
* (answers randomly assigned)
American Politics: Where "Flamebait, Insightful, Troll, Informative" are all the same thing.
http://www.copyrightreform.us/2008-presidential-candidates has something much better going on. Help out by suggesting IT related questions to ask the candidates. Replies and scans of the letters they send back will be posted as they come in. Help us figure out some good questions.
When your PC becomes self aware and tries to kill humans you will be able to fight back. Every nerd needs gun, just in case!
Iraq billions
Every election year, people get caught up in the candidates' "positions" as if they meant something. Face it: the Presidential election is the world series of lying, and you are not wise enough to detect it. In a political debate, you may safely ignore any sentence that does not begin with "When I faced this problem before, I ..."
Remember, under Jimmy Carter we got deregulation of trucking, airlines, and natural gas. Under Nixon we got actual wage and price controls (!), and the EPA.
Actually they don't want to steal your hat; they just want to make you wear it shiny-side down.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
The check boxes are confusing, too. At first, I thought the check box meant, for example, that they opposed gun control (or whatever). In actuality, it just means that their campaign had given a statement on that issue. Although to a limited extent, it might as well have been support. No campaign was going to give a statement they thought people didn't like. So all the gun comments I saw were pro-gun ownership to some degree, for example. Those opposed or who had no position at all generally did not give statements.
As for gun control, I guess that the Libertarian contingent might weigh on the side of it being a 'geek' issue. Think of ESR, for example.
But given the court ruling recently that the 2nd Amendment only concerns the states' right to keep a "well-regulated" militia, it's just about a non-issue. The gun voters are the only thing standing in the way of total regulation.
Personally, I don't much care. If we ever get to the point where the 'ammo box' is necessary to protect from anything but foreign invaders, we're completely hosed. Who do you shoot? Your neighbors? I'll stick to the soap, ballot & jury box, thanks.
I was interested in the difference between Obama and Hillary. Obama's strategy depends heavily on Cellulosic ethanol. One of the advantages of cellulosic ethanol is that there are a couple of major ways to make it. That makes it a pretty safe bet that the necessary technology will develop. The other advantage is that it can be made from agricultural waste.
Hillary said a bunch of stuff but it was the kind of stuff that a politician would say. I really liked that Obama was specific. That makes his proposals much more likely to happen.
Easy to follow like the Matrix Trilogy.
While some of the links tell me some information about the candidates, I still don't know where they stand on topics like DRM, DMCA and all of the other topics that matter to a consumer and technology minded voter.
"As poll numbers change, we will attempt to expand our selection of candidates to include any who rise into the leading ranks."
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/research/4237333.html?series=46
My Question... What is your stand on pr0n neutrality? Shouldn't we all have free and open access to pr0n?
politicians can change their minds and flip flop on policies at a whim that what they support today will not be what they support after the election...
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
www.myfreepaysite.com + disposable email.
This is the dumbest chart I have ever seen. A check-mark? What does that mean? The candidate is aware/unaware of the issue? Is pro/con with the issue? Just dumb. And where is Kusinich? He'd probably have the most checks (whatever they may stand for).
Or am I not geek enough to just scan over the chart and go: "Aha! Now it all makes sense." Typical dumbed down politics. Everything is so black and white at this point that a fucking check-mark is all you need to see in order to make up your own simplistic black or white opinion on any subject.
Free abortions for all!!!...err...No abortions for anybody!.....er..... Abortions for some and bestbuy vouchers for others.
"Gun Control"? Which Republican picked those categories? What does gun control have to do with science policy? Does _Popular Mechanics_ have a firearms classifieds section or something?
--
make install -not war
>In what universe does the topic of gun control belong on a list of issues important to geeks
It's just a matter of degree. Your regular gun nut wants his Colt Python, full auto M16, and a K-bar knife. Your geek gun nut feels better with a BFG-9000, plasma cannon, chainsaw, and a backup Death Star if at all possible. It's all about who you think is after you.
Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
But how many are going to actually follow through and actually carry out these plans?
Everyone running for office in this election is a cunt, and like bush, whoever wins will be a cunt when he/she is elected.
How true. Even Thomas Jefferson turned into a cunt when he was sworn in.
It's always a long day... 86400 doesn't fit into a short.
Obama definitely had the most thought-out positions of anyone I read (though I didn't read them all, by any means). I'm a little troubled that he thought we needed stronger copyright enforcement, though, even if he was for patent reform. Still, that he thought any kind of reform was needed at all is heartening when compared to the other candidates. I doubt we'll find anyone who is willing to advocate a deep enough reform there to be meaningful, anyhow.
It's good enough that I'll probably cross party lines to vote for him. Not that a Republican registration is even meaningful with the pathetic crop of candidates we have to choose from. Sorry Ron Paul fans, but while I agree with him on a considerable number of points, it's for all the wrong reasons.
But I have to ask: Who, or what, were you replying to? I don't see a "parent", and I certainly didn't see any mention of Walmart in TFA. Maybe I missed it?
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Am I the only one starting to get afraid to follow links posted here (at least at work?)
Not directed at the parent, I just felt noticed myself hestitating before clicking
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21116732
Wait, is this a pro-Ron Paul article or not? Tell me now, before I read it, so I can know whether to bash it or not.
Guns rights are a big thing if people did not have them the king of england can just come in to your house and boss you around.
Is there some reason why Kucinich is regularly left out of all Presidential debates and comparisons? Is there some reason that everyone is afraid of him? Don't tell me a congressman isn't good enough to be a President. Only Senators can become president this time around?
Just because you can, does not mean you should.
Seeing how the DMCA clone was defeated in Canada, (at least for now) this may be the best time to apply some pressure for a DMCA rollback in the US. Sure, money talks but if we can make this into a significant election issue the RIAA and MPAA doesn't really have a lot of friends outside of their home base. Especially if attention is made to some of the really loony effects of this law, and how it affects joe and jane average.
My rights don't need management.
But I noticed there is no column for civil rights or personal liberty. Is freedom that far off the table these days that nobody even talks about it? That sure would explain his absence. Why is gun control there? Since when did that become a "geek" issue? I think IP law would be a bigger one. Sorry, the article is lame.
What?
For instance:
- Current research into Railguns (safer alternative to current naval cannons, far greater range, no need for tons of explosive material)
- Boeing's current chemical laser research
Certainly geek stuff
Give a couple of years and the above *might* be available to your local street ganger...
ZombieEngineer
What "should" be doesn't enter into it. I've heard many people complain about it. But what courts actually tend to say in their rulings is that gun ownership is not a Constitutional right. I'm not saying that's right. I'm not saying that's the most logical reading of the Constitution or the phrase "the People's right" in light of how it was used elsewhere in the Constitution. I am saying that's what's most likely to be upheld in a court of law and it's not prudent to expect otherwise. I don't particularly care one way or the other. Many countries do just fine without guns. I wouldn't mind if this were one of them, but I don't like the thought of actually prying the guns from so many people's cold, dead hands.
That said, IANAL, but I did take exactly one law class on the Supreme Court from a law professor who was best known for his book on figuring out how Supreme Court justices are likely to vote. Long story short? You really don't want the Supreme Court to grant cert on a 2nd Amendment case if you want more gun rights. But I'm not a Libertarian, so you probably won't listen to me because I disagree with it very strongly in principle and not so often in practice (i.e. I think they have some good ideas, but for all the wrong reasons).
Time and time again, I have to agree that FF is the superior browser.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Just make a column whether they KNOW that there's a difference between KDE and Gnome. Or at least what they are. Or at least that they exist.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
And so it goes, militant atheists are the mirror image of the militant Christians they so despise.
The only people with any sense are agnostics and people with moderate religious beliefs.
On the other hand, Kucinich isn't there.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
I'd be interested what they think about patent trolling and whether or not it is a problem. Being not from the US, I kinda doubt my question would be considered important. After all, I couldn't vote for any of the candidates.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
It seems like all the included Republican statements are just short, empty generalities lacking any a clear plan (except for gun control, which was also short but to the point) whereas the Democratic positions are much more defined. Is this due to bias from the editors or are the Republican candidates just that vague?
They just have to say stuff about having "values", whatever that means, and the crazies will calm down.
Remember that Popular Mechanics isn't a political magazine, or a computer techie magazine, it's what's left of a mechanical-techie magazine. So they not only have urban network geeks in their audience (some of whom like guns), they also have NASCAR Geeks (many of whom like guns), and engineering types who are interested in big things that go boom (and most techies I know grew up blowing stuff up even if we didn't also shoot things.)
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
I kind of like Ron Paul, but he would make government so small that programs like NASA, SBIR, NSF, etc. would be eliminated. I like those programs much more than him.
And yeah, they only rated the bigger-name candidates from the bigger-money parties, and they left out issues that many geeks think are critical, like communication privacy and spectrum policy.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Kucinich is the most non-establishment candidate. Not only is he not beholden to the corporate interests that fund the Democratic Party like the others are, he's downright hostile towards them.
Such a person simply cannot be allowed to win. The easiest way to prevent a win is to exclude him from the debates. That's what they did to Perot's party in '96.
You know who else was consistent? That's right. George W. Bush on the existence of WMDs in Iraq.
Agnostics are fools.
People with moderate religious beliefs are one of the prime reasons the extremists get away with murder.
See the recent books "The End of Faith", "The God Delusion" and "God is Not Great" for a clear explanation of the above.
I'm not a "militant atheist" by the way... I'm a realist.
I don't see why it should be impossible. Now, recently it has become "good practice" to meddle into science with religious bullshit, but as long as a candidate declares that he thinks religion and science are two very different matters, he can be as religious as he wants. And that's well possible, even though recently it has appearantly not.
I even know a deeply devout christian physicist, and we recently discussed creationism. The sigh from him was interesting. His stance is that the Bible cannot be taken literally because no man can ever understand it fully. You should not even try, it's the word of God. Want to be like God? Who dares to?
For him, the Bible is more a book to give you an idea how to lead your life. Not how to do science. Science and religion are both important for him, but two separate entities that are to be kept separatly. He would never allow religion to meddle in his science projects, neither does he allow science to interfere with his belief. Yes, science proved some things "wrong" in the book. But that only means that we cannot fully understand it and interpret it wrong, not that the book is wrong.
Well, even though I can hardly agree with that, I can live with it. It's not my prerogative to tell him how to live his religious life, and as long as it does not interfere with his research, I also can't see why I should.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I don't live in the US, but I have an interest in the US politics in the sense that US is in fact the only superpower and in our globalised (and Americanised) world, everything that happens in the US quickly spreads elsewhere as well because of the global interconnectedness and the special position of the US in the world. Of course there is a personal reason for my interest in the US politics as well, as it is a place I would enjoy living if it were run by a sane president (such as Dr Ron Paul).
Of much more relevance to geeks and nerds is to see who well-known free software and open source activists support. RMS, for instance, supports Kucinich (who is off the magazine's matrix, why? and by the way he is a candidate that I do not support, but I think that even those who I disagree with have a right to have their views heard) and the Green Party (on which I have a slightly positive opinion, but I haven't researched it much). However, he also partially supports the one and only candidate that I also support*, Dr Ron Paul , and he explains his reasoning here: "The only Democratic or Republican candidate, aside from Kucinich, that clearly stands for human rights, democracy, and an end to torture, secret prisons and the occupation of Iraq is Ron Paul. I urge Republicans to support him for that party's nomination".
* Saying "support" however must be understood as "support among the available and reasonable options", and I also generally believe that politicians in general are not the most ethical people of the planet, and I know that most of them change their ways after they get elected and don't carry out their programmes, but some are better than others, and I think Ron Paul is the best among all the candidates (albeit I have some disagreements over his positions on the UN), and I actually should also say that I like him as a person, at least based on his writings. Unfortunately I can't vote for him, as I am in EU and not an American, although if he wins and makes the US a reasonable country to live in and removes all stupid laws introduced by Bush et al, I would certainly consider instant relocation, as I regard US among the best places to run a business (especially compared to here in EU where entrepreneurship is many times seen with suspicion)... in fact the presence of Bush was one of the primary objections to me even visiting the US for travel or business, let alone living there. I have a special interest in the 2008 elections because these are the elections that will determine whether the fascist reforms introduced by the Bush administration are going to be repealed as a historical paranoid mistake or kept as the new gospel. Apart from Kucinich and Dr Ron Paul, the other candidates who are well-known and have a chance of winning are most likely going to keep a few or most of Bush policies. Kucinich and Dr Ron Paul are the two only candidates who are most likely to reverse the trends that currently destroy the American culture and civics, and I think the most sane choice among those available is Dr Ron Paul. By the way Dr Ron Paul supports homeschooling, which is the best way to educate gifted future geeks and nerds.
Stem cells are not the key issue, because Huckabee can weasel his way out (like Bush does) by saying that they accept the use of existing stem cell lines. The two questions (which both get to the key point) are:
1. Do you believe in evolution?
2. How old is the world?
If you answer 1 "no" and 2 "6000 years" you have a world view based in the mid 1900s and you are not fit to be president. How can we have a chief executive who has to make decisions about global warming and bio-terrorism who rejects basic scientific principles?
Lack of scientific literacy is a killer, and I mean that literally: people die. For example, the current policy on use of antibiotics is leading to drug resistant strains, which are now starting to threaten our health: drug resistant staph is the current hot button item. I also think that using antibiotics to fatten cattle is idiotic, not because I think it makes the meat less healthy, but because indiscriminate use of antibiotics leads to resistance in wild bacterial populations.
It is both humorous and frightening the one of the leading Republican contenders (Huckabee) does not believe in Darwinian evolution. (You have to qualify this because some closet creationist say that they believe in micro-evolution after god created man, not the evolution of man in the same way that other organisms evolved.) The non-evangelical Republicans want this issue to stay out of the press, because they know it is a key point for the core religious right voters. I want it to be front and center, because it is a wedge issue: either you are pandering to the stupid people, or you accept scientific truth. (Don't start with the "science is just another belief system like religion", it just makes you look foolish. This reminds me of my favorite quote on atheism: "Saying that not believing in god is a religion is like saying that not collecting stamps is a hobby." Science and religion make radically different assumptions about the nature of knowledge.)
Question #3 relates to the current US Patent system. We're just working on formatting it in a polite and simple to understand way.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Some friends of mine were involved in a private launch company back in the mid '80s. (At their request it will remain unnamed.)
One of their major problems was obtaining components for avionics and for handling cryogenic liquids. These were made mainly by the companies who contracted to NASA for various parts of the (very lucrative) shuttle program.
One of their contacts told them that a NASA administrator had let them know that if they supplied any parts to a private rocket company they wouldn't be supplying any more for the shuttle.
The company thus had to make do without components that had been developed with tax money, and (on their shoestring budget) develop their own from scratch or convert stuff intended for other purposes - none of them space-rated.
They did some amazing stuff on that shoestring. But it was the failure of one of those re-purposed parts that ended up trashing their effort and running them out of money.
Now NASA was SUPPOSED to be ENCOURAGING the private development of space capability, as they had air flight. But the government space programs had put them in a position where doing so would undercut the funding for their own programs. So it was in their interest to keep the suppliers on a short leash and kill off any company trying to assemble and operate their own craft.
Pulling the plug on NASA as the government-run space transportation company (and boondoggle) would, IMHO, not just open up the field to private companies, but is a necessary step in getting to affordable private space travel in what remains of my lifetime.
Which is not necessarily to say kill it off completely. But putting it out of the transportation business and back to R&D, with private enterprise actually running the spacelines, seems to me to be a necessary minimum for turning space exploration from a government-funded boondoggle (ala Columbus) to an ongoing enterprise (ala private cargo and passenger ships crossing the Atlantic and Pacific ocean).
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
To: contact@motion-twin.com
...
Please pardon my inability to contact you in your native language. I had a couple of years of French in high school but won't insult you with the small amount I remember. Use it or lose it. I am contacting you about an issue with one of your users of MyMiniCity.
This user's city is fohootville. Said user is spamming multiple discussion groups with bogus posts including links to his minicity. While this might be amusing to some, it is extremely annoying to those of us trying to carry on intelligent discussions. For examples, feel free to visit slashdot.org. Every news item over the last several days has posts linking to fohootville.
I don't know what your policy is regarding this type of juvenile behavior but I would hope that you will nuke their city and ban them from future access to your site.
Sincerely,
I reserve the right to think for myself. Others' opinions are optional. Puppy on lap = typos...not illiteracy.
When you get the answers back, you should indicate which candidates ducked the question in an obvious way, so that they get the hint that ducking the question will be advertised.
Yes, if they had a stance on light saber control instead of gun control they'd get our attention!
I understand why everyone thinks the US would be better if things like the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Labor, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Transportation, Energy, and Education were completely replaced by the free market.
/.'s support for someone to whom Microsoft's "monopoly" would just be a normal, acceptable result of said free market?
What I don't understand is
The rest of the issues are all squarely in the liberal camp, so they probably thought they should include at least one conservative issue. Face it, no conservative wants to be questioned about science, technology, and conservation. Compare the responses in the "science and education" category. Most Democrats have extensive positions consisting of multiple points. Half of the Republicans don't have positions, and the ones that do just say something lame, like Fred Thompson's "encourage students to pursue careers in science, technology, engineering and math."
"Nuke their city". G.W. is that you?
of hearing about ron fucking paul. The paulies' unending, dogmatic jabbering generates the kind of negative publicity for paul that other candidates' money could not possibly buy.
... when I saw that a majority of the candidates listed had a tick under gun control. I was less pleasantly surprised when I realised that the tick meant they opposed gun control.
How counter-intuitive is that? The tick implies approval (not to mention it implies that the candidate made the right choice).
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
Wait I thought Bush was the new Lincoln, both suspended habeas corpus. Lincoln was also the first Republican, go figure.
AFAICT, the nutcases that want to reduce the military budget tend to get assassinated. Stay away from the windows, Den.
The cost of that cleanup, of course, will be borne by taxpayers, not industry.
I am talking about the erruption of the yellowstone supervolcano caldera that can drop volcanic ash on the whole country and wipe out several years' harvests. I am talking about a tidal wave from a collapse of the La Palma volcano that could flood the entire east coast.
I do not expect the government to save people in the immediate vicinity of these disasters--that is probably impossible. I do expect it try to save the rest of the country.
There are some things that clearly could be done. Food could be stockpiled. Masks to protect against volcanic dust could be stockpiled. Essential services like electric, communications could be routed around the flood zone on the east coast. There are many other things that could be done with thoughtfull preparation. Many lives (but not all) could be saved. Our Nation could still exist after one of these disasters with the right preparation.
FEMA is not going to ride to the rescue after these disasters have already occurred! Internal combustion engines will not work when their air filters are clogged with volcanic dust! Air filters is one thing that should be stockpiled. Most vehicles do not work under water.
It is known that these disasters will happen. They are not a maybe or a could be like global warming, or what ever danger President Bush thinks he is fighting in Iraq. These disasters will happen, it is only a question of time.
It is difficult to plan for these disasters on an individual basis. You can try to stockpile food for your family, but you also have to plan a defense to keep the starving hoards from taking that food from you. Government could temporarily end the pay farmers not to grow food program, and use the money to stockpile food. In this way, the whole nation could provided for.
Until we have a national plan to deal with huge disasters it is irrational to spend one single dollar on either Iraq or Global Warming. Because those problems are only could be or maybes. But the disasters I mention are known to be will bes!
The national media (with the exception of the History channel) are saying absolutely nothing about this issue. I can not figure out why, but it is not right! Perhaps it is because these disasters can not be used as a pretext for further regulation of economic activity like global warming, and because every dollar used on these important problems can not be used to buy votes!
That may not have been a nice comment, but it could have started some great "you know how I know you're gay" posts. Darn them all to heck.
Maybe we need a "Setup" modifier!?
Just -1, Troll talking to another.
Almost all of the engineers I know are republicans. I think you are confusing people who think they "have extensive positions consisting of multiple points" with people who actually have them. In reality you are just making the same old us vs. them argument. We liberals are really smart and enlightened, and those conservatives are all stupid apes who do whatever their religious leaders say. There are very many followers across the spectrum, and it is really naive for you to think that one political party has more mindless followers than the other. I feel sorry for you and whoever modded you insightful. Your kind of thinking is the reason there is so much hate and lack of understanding in the world.
Emacs Or VIM...
vi vs emacs
Under recently proposed treaties (which the current US administration has no intention of signing), it would be illegal for governments to own orbital weapons platforms, but perfectly legal for private individuals to do so. Now that's what I call putting power back into the hands of the people...
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Oh, it's compact, but it doesn't tell you anything useful. Is Fred Thompson's auto, technology and energy policies the same as John Edwards? Is Ron Paul anything like Bill Richardson on environmental policy? All it tells you is that the writer was able to dig out some sound bits on a particular topic.
Do the work and find out, as far a is possible, what a candidate proposes. It's easier than ever, you just go to the candidate's web page and look for the issues whitepapers and speeches. It takes less than an hour to get the gist of a candidate's position, and then an hour or so on any single issue to get a pretty good grasp of where the candidate stands -- although all too often the candidate stances consist of empty lip service. If an issue is important to you, and the candidate doesn't have clear proposals, then you can assume it's not a priority for them. If they have clear proposals, you look for assumptions you think are questionable.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
A state planned economy doesn't work very well. The commies tried it and the result is there for all to see. On the other hand we have learned that laissez faire also doesn't work. Consider the great depression and the 1930s. It took WW2 to pull us out of that one.
The capitalist idea is that the economy is a self-regulating system. The feedback mechanism was described by Adam Smith as the "invisible hand" of market forces. The trouble is that the system can settle in a number of stable states. Some of those states create great prosperity and some create great misery. The reason for the rise in Keynesian economics is the realization (after the disaster of the 1930s) that the government has a place in the economy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_economics There are things that private industry won't do and, if we wait for private industry to do those things, we are doomed.
Sorry,but only comparing candidates from two parties is weak.
It insinuates that other parties don't have better ideas to compare and hold the others to.
Unpopular Mechanics needs to write about Mechanical wonders and leave politics alone.
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
Kucinich is our best hope of growing weed in our back yards in the near future. I'm sure there are fists full of dollars being passed around to keep his views in the sock drawer.
a backup Death Star
One " Holy fuck that's not a moon! " should be enough for anyone.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
They thought since gold was wealth, importing vast quantities of gold from their American colonies would make Spain vastly wealthy.
Instead it created massive price inflation.
More gold did not create more food nor any other useful products. These products are the true measure of wealth in an economy. Money is just a convenient measure of accounts.
If your children ever found out how lame you are, they'd murder you in your sleep
This big list, and they leave off intelligent design? A complete waste of time, just like Popular Mechanics itself.
It is explicitly mentioned in the constitution (not the bill of rights or any amendments) as a privilage that can be revoked.
Freedom of Speech - First Amendment
Gun Control - Second Amendment
Civil Rights - Encompasses our rights
habeas corpus - revokable privilage
It's amazing how many arguments people have about "rights" they don't even have.
"men" at the time the constitution was written was a gender and racially neutral term. Only because of sexists and racists did "men" come to mean "white males" and only in the context of the constitution. As a result, we have amendments which forces "men" to be defined the same in the constitution as it was in every other context in that time period. So in essence we tacked on a lot more words to the constitution and added zero meaning.
We wasted years because no one wanted to just pick up a dictionary.
And now, we're wasting more time arguing about "habeas corpus" rather than focusing on ensuring that the rights we actually have, are enforced.
People would rather try to twist well defined terms to try to support their own agenda.
Work Safe Porn
Fuck NASA!! We will never go to mars if I am elected!
Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
Geeks who have had to debug their planetary-sized death lasers know this is not the case.
The only thing holding it back is that dumb 1960's treaty that says no one can own property in space. We need a better treaty that allows land ownership as long as you keep a permanent settlement on wherever you plant your flag and a rough XXXX km radius around said area.
I wish we had a candidate that would propse a change to thsi treaty to help space settlements boom into a new "Manifest Destiny" of the stars, of course a lot of PC type people are friggen scared to death of the phrase "Manifest Destiny" these days.
Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
I just don't understand how there are so many people who support both Kucinich and Paul. They have nothing in common besides having no chance at being elected. Maybe they have one more thing in common, they are both in the wrong party. Kucinich claims to be a democrat, but he should really be in the socialist party, and Ron Paul claims to be a republican but is in every sense of the word a libertarian. So I guess they were both smart enough to use the legitimacy they gained from the main parties to get elected in the first place.
From there the similarities end.
Kucinich is a socialist, he want's single payer health insurance(ie. government), pump government money into securing private pensions, increased funding to the department of education, and to top it off end world poverty as an encore.
Paul is a libertarian, he wants to cut funding to anything he can get his hands on. He thinks the department of education should be dissolved. Nationalized healthcare...not on his watch, and who needs the FDA anyhow?
Personally I think they are both nuts, but for such different reasons that I don't understand how one person can support both. Unless you just like to support the underdog no matter who it is. I guess there is one more similarity, they both are vehemently opposed to the war in Iraq...could that be it?
1. Do you believe in evolution? 2. How old is the world? -- Seriously what is with the massive erection people get over the views evolution and the age of the world held by their politician. Its really about are relevant as their favorite color or boxers vs briefs. I don't care if the believe in evolution or not and I don't care if they think the world was rebooted yesterday. Religious litmus test are insane stupidity. There are dumb when Atheist are excluded and they are dumb when Theist are excluded. Does their view on evolution matter: - If they are for developing better of energy/conservation does their view earths age matter? - If they are for repealing corporate crap like the DCMA does their faith matter? - If they are for position X does their view on evolution matter? There are people out their against fetal stem cell research / abortion who believe in evolution so its a craptacular litmus test to hold up. The only people I see using it are ones who have some sort of springer mentality ( they're so stupid, thus I'm so 1337)
1. Denounce abstinence-only education?
2. Support for Evolution?
Any long term politician panders for money and votes. The brutally honest ones who have no chance of getting either of these are often attractive.
Give everyone two votes. One vote, and one anti-vote.
With the way the 2-party system works now, people usually don't vote for who they like - They vote against who they hate.
Republicans can tell you why they hate democratic candidates, and vice versa, but they're much more hard pressed to (accurately) tell you why they like candidates of their preferred party.
If we gave everyone 2 (normal) votes, democrats would vote a +2 to the democratic candidate, and republicans would vote a +2 to the republican candidate. Some people may split between a third party and a republican/democrat, but it would balance out. (People who normally vote republican/democrat and decide to split would be balanced with people who normally vote independent and decide to split.)
Percentages among candidates would stay essentially the same.
A lot of people would like to vote independent, but feel that they're just throwing their vote away.
They feel it's throwing their vote away because, as mentioned above, they don't want to vote for who they like, they want to vote against who they hate.
If I vote independent, then I'm not really doing anything to stop the party I hate from winning, because independents never win.
If I vote for the republican/democratic party (whichever I don't hate), my vote does more to ensure that the party I do hate loses.
Giving someone an anti-vote in addition to a regular vote would encourage people to vote independent.
You can vote for who you like, and still, separately, do your damage to the candidate you hate.
You'd see a lot of anti votes going to the republicans and democrats, and more regular votes going to independent parties.
But until we can get that going, vote Ron Paul!
I'm afraid that the main negative effect of RP's ideas would come from paring down the empire-building machinery that has taken root in the government. This would probably cause a drastic decrease in quality of life, as prices of imported resources and goods go up. There is a good reason that we want to be "over there," as RP puts it-- it lets us steal resources, blowback be damned.
Tsunami -- You can't bring a good wave down!
The constitutional view supports a strong national defense, so if anything DoD's budget should increase.
Tsunami -- You can't bring a good wave down!
Obama's entire qualifications are 1) he's not GWB, and 2) he's not Hillary.
Even if you parse some particular meanings of (1) and (2) -- that he's likely to be considerably more thoughtful and effective than the current president, and he doesn't have a 16 years of culture war political baggage which Clinton has -- this doesn't seem like an apt summary to me.
Once you get past those admittedly great points in his favor, all you have left is an utterly conventional politician.
If nothing else, one reason people are already attracted to him is that his politicking is already notably different:
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200712/obama
But there are some indications his positions, say, on a number of technical issues are hardly Washington DC business as usual:
http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/11/26/qa-with-senator-barack-obama-on-key-technology-issues/
Tweet, tweet.
So is John Edwards still claiming he can sure Christopher Reeve?
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
People interested in this thread should take note of Science Debate 2008. It's an effort to encourage a presidential debate on matters of science and technology. I'm pleased to note that my humble blog was a charter member. At present many influential scientists have signed on.
mt