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."
Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
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.
The inclusion of Gun Control in this matrix is as peculiar as the absence of trade and labor issues.
Leave the gun, take the cannolis.
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.
Yeah, Ron Paul likely would, but probably largely because of his economic stance. "Against stem cell research" and "against federally-funded stem cell research" (your link) are different statements, with different drivers for evaluation involved.
Good point, though.
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
No, because he opposes reproductive rights.
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.
Well he's had at least one proposal that no-one else in Congress has had the guts to initiate. You've gotta give some credit there.
Xenon, where's my money? -Borno
Really? There's a big article this month about video surveillance - what's possible and what's wrong with it.
In other issues in recent months/years I've seen editorials and articles explaining the problems with DRM and the like.
Those don't sound pro-corporate to me.
Ah, my friend, you should pay more attention. It's not that he supports making abortion illegal across the board, it's that he believes it ought to be decided on a per-state basis. Indeed, this might be best for the "fetuses aren't human" side of the argument: if your legality is federal, then the feds (under a government run, for instance, by a former baptist minister) could make a sweeping decision that it's illegal. In fact, Ron Paul voted against a bill which would have forbidden minors from crossing state lines to get abortions without parental consent. This earned him no friends in pro-unwanted-life circles. The point is this: he votes in accordance with an accurate interpretation of the law, not according to what is popular.
I used to carry a bottle of whiskey for snake bite. And two snakes. -Nefarious Wheel
The list tells us plenty, because Ron Paul is the only one for which the distinction matters (and he does make the distinction for Ron Paul).
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
You do realize that before his somewhat half-hearted about-face, Kucinich was strongly against "reproductive rights" too, right?
All the techniques ever used to make men moral have been themselves thoroughly immoral... (Nietzsche)
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
If there was ever an argument for instant runoff elections, that's it right there. I like candidate A, but if he/she doesn't get enough votes, then I go for candidate B. That way you don't completely lose just 'cause your first vote didn't win.
man, I feel like mold.
Ron Paul wrote a book when he was on the U. S. Gold Commission, which was appointed by Reagan the last time that the dollar crashed against gold. He deals with how to transition back to lawful money in some detail in that book, but in a nutshell, to get off the fiat money you would first repeal the legal tender laws and allow people to transact business with whatever currency they choose, while requiring that the government continue to accept the fiat currency for payment of taxes and levies (that is, it remains good for something).
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
I'm afraid he could never carry Megachurch America.
I'm voting for him just because any funny looking little guy who's not rich and can get a hot piece of ass wife like Kucinich's got who actually seems to be in love with him must have some serious Mojo. I know this sounds funny, but that's exactly the kind of guy we need to deal with the Iranians and Chinese.
You are welcome on my lawn.
I'm not sure that's what 200 proved. More it proved that poorly designed ballots can confuse people (note that I've never seen a butterfly ballot, so I could be talking out my ass (an amazing feat that I'm beginning to master!)).
I'm also not sure that "many people won't understand" is a valid reason to not use a better system. It's a matter of presentation. A well-designed ballot that clearly states what the voter is to do should be easily handled by most people. And if you go electronic (ignoring for the moment all the problems with the current electronic implementations) it gets really easy: Screen 1 "Please select your top choice for this office" Screen 2 "If your top choice doesn't win, please select who you'd like instead". Dead simple.
And the backend mechanism: IRV, Condorcet, whatever, can be changed as needed once you get people into a mode of selecting more than one candidate.
man, I feel like mold.