Slashdot Mirror
Mitt Romney Answers Tech Questions
DesScorp sends a link to a TechCrunch interview in which GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney answers questions of interest to techies. Included are questions on H-1B visas, Internet taxation, venture capital taxation, alternative energy, and carbon emissions. Finally, we learn that Romney is a PC guy, and get a summary of what's on his iPod.
"Who Let The Dogs Out" ...and whatever else he thinks might be popular with the electorate.
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
Who cares if he uses a PC? Mitt Romney may be well organized, smart, and have a great telepresence...but middle America will never get around his being a Mormon. Of course, Middle America is never going to vote for Hillary or Barack for that matter, so whomever gets the Republican nod will be a shoe-in for the Presidency. God/Allah/Buddha/RMS help us all.
http://www.htcherocentral.com
What's on his iPod: "Who Let The Dogs Out" ...and whatever else he thinks might be popular with the electorate.
That's not what's on his ipod. That's a question he really wants the answer to. Mitt Romney wants to know who let the dogs out, because Mitt Romney believes the dog(s) should be firmly locked on top of his station wagon, and covered in feces.
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
He's basically saying that *if* there are skill shortages, then H1B's are fine. But the problem is that there is no real burden for companies to show a skills shortage: the loopholes are huge. Government inspectors (the very few of them that exist) don't know a software engineer from locomotive engineer.
A more relevant question would be: "Are you for more stringent verification by employers of alleged skills shortages before H1B's are brought in?"
Table-ized A.I.
I still can't figure out why slashdot never posted my submission for Ron Paul's article at http://www.news.com/Technology-Voters-Guide-Ron-Paul/2100-1028_3-6224161.html?tag=st.num which is much more interesting.
At least we would get a democratic filter between McMobileDisneySoft and questions of war and peace. As it is, the corporate world drafts a Project for the New American Century and it gets implemented regardless of public opinion. Romney's answers gave no indication of any departure from that scheme. Instead all the worst of the Bush administration would go on at top speed: H1Bs slavery instead of real immigration help, "Open" markets that are bound by US Patent and Copyright ownership, corporate bail outs and other predatory policies designed to make the US "Powerful" instead of Free.
Wealth, influence and power come from freedom and justice not the other way around. Countries that waste their efforts on raw power end up like North Korea.
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
Romney is the greatest USA Presidential candidate ever. Think about it.
...he'll still hold an opposing stance.
Look at someone like Ron Paul. What if you don't agree with Ron Paul about something? Bad news...
Mitt Romney, though, is the true candidate of hope. He likely agrees with you. He might not now, but he probably has at some point in the past and might again in the future.
In this political season where the candidates are talking about change, the change involves growing the size and roll of government (which isn't change at all). The REAL candidate of change is Mitt Romney. Sure, he'll expand government too, but his positions change often. And change is change.
Vote change. Vote Mitt Romney!
As an automaton yourself, what rights do you think our constitution grants to humanoid robots?
We were not able to cover net neutrality, the digital divide, mobile spectrum allocation issues, identity theft, China censorship or intellectual property issues on this call. They missed the really good ones! If the congress vote on internet tax was 402-0 I think it's pretty obvious where that issue is going to go, and is a pretty dumb question. Net Neutrality, IP, censorship - those are all things that are very easy to feel one way or the other, or the myriad ways in between, especially since he already hinted at imposing trade sanctions or the like on China for IP problems. Poor choices on the editors, IMHO, but H1B was a good question as were the follow-ups. Here's hoping for round two!
I live in constant fear of the Coming of the Red Spiders.
It's impressive how slow those pitches were. There wasn't a single hard question among them, and the interviewer clearly spelled out the answers he wanted to hear (and knew Romney was going to give).
On another note, his idea of alternate and sustainable energy seems to be coal liquefaction and "maybe even" nuclear. Forward thinking guy much?
Mitt Romney runs attack ad about self
Because people hate Ron Paul supporters?
That is all.
Loosely related to this political thread, here is Obama's technology policy page which is very exciting because it is reasonably in line with general nerd opinion. So here I am, shilling for Obama during a Romney thread. I might be Offtopic but I hope I'm Informative! Here are some exceprts:
Barack Obama strongly supports the principle of network neutrality to preserve the benefits of open competition on the Internet. Users must be free to access content, to use applications, and to attach personal devices. They have a right to receive accurate and honest information about service plans.
Unfortunately, over the past several years, the Federal Communications Commission has promoted the concept of consolidation over diversity. As president, he will encourage diversity in the ownership of broadcast media, promote the development of new media outlets for expression of diverse viewpoints, and clarify the public interest obligations of broadcasters who occupy the nation's spectrum.
Obama supports updating surveillance laws and ensuring that law enforcement investigations and intelligence-gathering relating to U.S. citizens are done only under the rule of law.
Making government data available online in universally accessible formats to allow citizens to make use of that data to comment, derive value, and take action in their own communities.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Woo! Go USA! Thousand year empire!
I hope you notice that candidates in other countries just don't talk in such belligerent terms about their nations position in the world.
If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
Where are the questions on copyright and patent reform, open standards and open source software, investment into maths and sciences, net neutrality and telecoms industry regulation, etc...
Really? I'm trying real hard, but I don't see how "freedom requires religion" could in any way be considered secular.
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
Could it be that he *gasp* ripped one of his CDs and loaded the songs onto his iPod?
Creative Demolition
Opinion poll leadership has more than its fair share of additional faults:
1) Who is conducting these polls? Who is collecting the numbers to call? Who does the calling? Who gets to design the questions?
2) Do we really want people who are too lazy to get off the couch every 2 years and vote to have that much of a say in government?
3) How are we to know if the people polled are of eligible voting age? Or that they are even permitted by law to vote (they could be convicted felons, incompetent, etc.)? Or even citizens of the U.S.?
4) How much public policy do we want to actually entrust in the hands of a highly opinionated but entirely ignorant populace? Should foreign affairs with Burkina Faso be a subject of polling? Or how about complex economic matters? Again, who decides on what issues we poll on? Does the public's knowledge - or complete lack thereof - play a role in what we ask? How do we determine public knowledge? I can't go a day without hearing a Ron Paul supporter, for example, inventing from whole cloth some magical constitutional requirement for this or that. (All while inexplicably shouting "THE CONSTITUTION!")
5) As to questions of "war and peace", do keep in mind that public opinion polls tend to support war at the moment - and it's not all because the evil corporations you demonize so much are responsible for it, either.
6) Countries need to depend on each other in the long-run: how will this work if a country is commanded at its core by a very, very fickle public?
Clearly, the present republican form of government suffers from all of the above to lesser degrees.
As to the rest of your fascinating arguments, *YAWN*. If you honestly believe - as you clearly imply - that the U.S. is heading down the path to becoming like North Korea, then you either lack knowledge of the U.S., North Korea, or both - or you choose to engage in the same sort of hyperbolic, poorly-reasoned thinking that steers me away from rule by public opinion poll in the first place.
As for wealth and power coming from freedom, I couldn't agree more. I'm an American. My wife and I both come from lower-class to very lower-class backgrounds. My mom (single divorced parent, 4 kids) was a frequently unemployed elementary school teacher. My wife's father has held a variety of odd jobs. We both worked hard, and we're both now in law school. Within a few years - practically upon graduation - our combined income will be well over six times what either of our parents brings home right now. There are very, very few places in the world where a person can make that kind of socioeconomic jump in one generation without criminal/political connections. America is one of those places.
If you're unhappy where you're at, here's a tip - work harder and work smarter. Whining will get you nowhere.
94% to 79% - Willing to vote for an African American
92% to 72% - Willing to vote for a woman
72% to 38% - Willing to vote for a Morman
Aside from the usual "don't believe a politician", you might as well just ask this guy. They seem to care very little about national sovereignty, and would gladly hand the whole nation over to hostile countries such as China and India.
No thank you, we have enough as it is from environmentalists wanting to batter the Midwest into compliance. Now if he were to ditch Mankiw the Ivy, and put in someone who has an actual idea of re-establishing our national sovereignty (yes, that means pulling hostile country SWF money in line as well) where Reagan killed it in the 1980s.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
And 45% willing to vote for an atheist...
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
Yey popular opinion, down with educated decisions!
Not to mention principles, or the constitution...
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
From where I am outside the USA the media really only gives me a view of Mormons that is as simplistic as cartoon parody which makes it look as if there is no chance - but there has to be more to it. It really doesn't help that the small colony of Mormons in the small Australian city I live in is a very ornate and expensive building with a very large gilded angel on top that can be seen from a long distance, looking like a temple to wealth more than anything else. Are Mormons portayed in a better way once you get away from the exported media like CNN? Are there Mormon charities that help the homeless etc like the Christian and Hindu charities do?
You mean like China, Russia, Cuba or Venezuela?
Some folks in the US prize economic and political self-determination over having things run by an 'enlightened' few. That's a principle of the Federal system, believe it or not. A little idealistic? Maybe. But that's how we roll.
The opposite of progress is congress
Romney is just another rich guy looking for the cheapest labor no matter what. This guy is no friend to the United States' tech industry. No thank you.
Some folks in the US prize economic and political self-determination over having things run by an 'enlightened' few.
Hmm, I would not necessarily call them "enlightened", mostly demigogs or illuminatis.
As "Boss" Tweed said so many years ago, "I don't care who does the electing, so long as I get to do the nominating."
Sounds like the current state of affairs to me.
As a Mormon, one of the worst political possibilities I can think of is voting for someone just because he is Mormon.
I understand your confusion, but I'm afraid if we slide any further toward theocracy, those of us who are not believers are going to learn exactly what "freedom requires religion" means.
You are welcome on my lawn.
About 200,000, actually.
but they don't seem to *do* anything but wander around in suits on hot days (when everyone else is in t-shirts), carrying bibles the size of house bricks and shouting at the tops of their voices at anyone who wanders too close. I can't imagine anyone actually giving them money, but then someone has to pay for all those suits...You're talking about missionaries, not regular members of the church, and they are unpaid volunteers who pay all of their own travel and living expenses -- including buying their own suits.
And as for what the church does, it does quite a bit to help people who need assistance, but doesn't advertise the fact. There was a time about 10-15 years ago where the LDS church began issuing press releases about some of the larger welfare projects, but accusations of self-aggrandizement made that short-lived. Now, some highlights are on the church web sites for those who care to look (I notice on lds.org.uk that the church apparently did quite a bit to help with some flooding last fall in Sheffield).
Some numbers for you: the church welfare program collects about $50M per *month* in charitable donations and distributes about $60M per month to needy people around the world. They can distribute more than they collect because much of the food they distribute is grown on church-owned farms worked by volunteers and packaged in church-owned factories worked by volunteers. There is zero administrative overhead, because most of the administration is done by volunteers (many of whom are full-time "welfare missionaries") and the small paid staff is funded from other sources. I know people who are not Mormon but donate to the LDS Church because it's one of the most effective charities in existence.
This, of course, is in addition to all the church does for members, who tend to live longer, happier lives than average and be more educated and wealthier than average. Then there's also the whole issue of salvation which is the real point, but probably of less interest to you.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
He's likely changed at least half of these positions since then...
"Now gluttony and exploitation serves eight!" - TV's Frank
So he downloads music, but he doesn't mention paying for it. Is he a dirty, rotten music pirate? Perhaps the RIAA should sue him to find out!
Just kidding, of course, though I'd love to see one of the Presidential candidates wind up somehow accidentally involved in a RIAA lawsuit just to see the RIAA squirm.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
I don't think thats the ideal moderation for your first post. I'd of picked "Horrible grammatical structure with ambiguous statements", but since that doesn't exist, troll is the closest.
You refer to the war. But there are two wars, the war on terror and the war on drugs. I'm unable to work out which your talking about.
"One affects hundreds of millions of people, the other affects very few people"
Another vague expression, both wars affect millions, as does marijuana.
Finally, you end your post with what i can only call trollbait
"Who is your candidate that meets your standard? I can find something inhuman about them if I really wanna."
You've willingly or otherwise, started fishing for a response which will inherently lead to negative feedback. Thats the definition of trolling.
I'll also add about this post of yours...
"Romney's embracing of technology is seen as an invitation to attack"
No, its just that a discussion of a politician, for whatever reason, is reason to gossip, because it seems gossip is human nature.
If you want official information about a politician, go to some informative website. Not very many people care about researching what a politician stands for and don't find it interesting. Gossip can go everywhere else however
You can rebuke this post and its author all you want, but keep in mind this post is to point out why you got troll, and preferably, to stop mods voting up your original post out of sympathy.
To avoid criticism; Say nothing, Do nothing, Be nothing.
"I hope you notice that candidates in other countries just don't talk in such belligerent terms about their nations position in the world."
He is talking about science and innovation, while acknowledging the obvious - the US is the most powerful nation in the world. Wouldn't call that "belligerent". In the Republican race, I much prefer him over "100 years in Iraq" McCain.
Mandatory preemptive strike: And no, Ron Paul won't get the Repub nomination.
Mormons are just regular people. One of my good friends in high school was a Mormon, and aside from us teasing him occasionally, it never came up. Some of my in-laws have converted and they are pretty much the same as they were before becoming Mormon, minus the alcohol and caffine. I would not characterize it as a cult.
I'll grant you that the origin of the religion is pretty hokey, but is that really such a big difference between that and other major religions? Christianity involves a woman getting knocked-up by an angel, Hindu involves gods with multiple limbs and faces incorporating animal features, etc. Give it 2000 years and it won't seem much stranger than Christianity.
As an aside, I like those Mormon missionaries - I can always count on an American being around to talk to when I'm homesick and in a strange country. They tend to be glad to have an American to talk to as well.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
That's just an inefficient bonding ritual, rather like walk-a-thons. It would be far more efficient for them to go out working their normal jobs on overtime during the time they would have spent farming. Considering that Mormons are, statistically speaking, richer than the general population, the overtime pay could pay for the wages of 3 or 4 full-time agricultural workers.
These workers would not only be more efficient, but they would raise far more food.
But sorry, the Volunteers wouldn't feel as good about themselves.
The grandparent used the existence of the farm as proof of the charity's efficiency, as opposed to the recruitment gimmick that it actually is. I'm pointing out that it is not efficient, and that if helping people is their main priority, then they should go in another direction.
"If it is okay for people to sit on their ass and play X-Box, why is it wrong for a bunch of like-minded people to get together and help others out in their spare time. God forbid people have fun or feel good while helping others..."
If these people think that their cause is so important, then they should realize that people die because of their insistence on having fun. Having participated in a lot of these things myself(My school forced me to, now I resort to strict donations), it seems to me that most people look at this thing as an opportunity to have fun with friends, and gain some respect or community service hours from their community for "helping out". From my experience, most of them couldn't care less what is actually done with the money.
I guess it's fine that we managed to co-opt this narcissism toward charity, but it's not a personal virtue.
"Life is not about efficiency."
With all due respect, tell that to the people who starved to death because the LDS volunteers needed to "have fun" to contribute.
It's not a marketing gimmick at all -- there's no intent to "sell" the charity to anyone. The church doesn't solicit donations outside of its membership, though it does get them, nor does it use its charitable programs as a method for gaining membership, or good PR. It also does nothing to increase the dollar donations flowing in.
I think it's very funny that I've repeated in a microcosm here exactly what the church as a whole has experienced: When we keep our good works to ourselves, we are accused of doing nothing. When we explain what we do, and how well it works, we're accused of all sorts of manipulative skullduggery by people who refuse to believe that the real purpose is exactly what it's stated to be.
I should mention that this method of "enhancing" the effectiveness of charitable donations through volunteer administrative and manual labor is not a new thing; it's been a normal practice for 150 years, including during the years that the church was isolated in the mountain west with no one to market to.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Indeed it was...a BIG deal!!
Hehehe...but, with this election season, it almost seems like they're trying to set up a joke:
"Ok, so a mormon, a black guy, and a woman all walk into a bar....err...debate...and...."
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
But seriously... putting "PC Guy" and "iPod" in the same sentence... Finally, we learn that Romney is a PC guy, and get a summary of what's on his iPod.
If you firmly believed in the original principles held by the founders, and you were running for office, and you wanted to proclaim that you would abide by those principles.. would saying "If you want to go to war, declare war" make you a lunatic? Or a liar? Or even ignorant of the current legal climate?
The same founders who prosecuted the First and Second Barbary wars? You know, those guys, Jefferson and Madison? I seem to recall those two having something to do with the constitution...
The "current legal climate" you allude to has been the "current legal climate" for more than TWO CENTURIES of this county's history. I know, you didn't learn history in school and you feel blindsided by this, but these are not new legal concepts, and no one is using crazy lawyer talk to pull the wool over anyone's eyes. It's a shame that approximately 4% of the people in this country woke up one day and decided to read the constitution without paying any attention whatsoever to either the history of the document or how the Supreme Court has interpreted it. It is also supremely funny to see the same people practically demanding the courts step in to stop wars (as you do above) when the constitution does not grant them that power, nor does it even explicitly grant the court the power of judicial review, the underlying power you want the court to use to act in this manner. You cannot have your cake and eat it too.
As for poll numbers, he has come in second in both Nevada and Louisiana. Those numbers speak for themselves.
Now this is where it goes from funny to sad. Wow. Paul got second place - (Wow, second! That matters so much in American elections!) where NO ONE BUT THE FRONT RUNNER BOTHERED TO CAMPAIGN. And in Nevada, he managed to take a whopping 14% - less than 1/3 of the front runner and only 1% ahead of McCain, who never bothered with the state to begin with! He picked up an astounding four - yes, count 'em, 4 - delegates - One NINTH of what any of the serious candidates has! Clearly, his campaign is a steamroller, filled with such power that it cannot be stopped! Oh, no, wait - he's dead in the water and hanging on to make himself feel important, as he hasn't a chance to win any appreciable and significant number of delegates come Super Tuesday. You're right on one matter, though: those numbers do speak for themselves, and they do not speak in favor of Ron Paul. A bunch of people voting over and over again on internet polls does not a viable candidate make.
Also, I love how you claim a vote for Paul is against common sense. The media has done well to brainwash those of you unable to perform independent analysis (and don't call me a conspiracy theorist - it takes but one google search to find heaps of evidence of media bias against Ron Paul).
"Now I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but you're an idiot and you've been brainwashed by the vast media bias against this man." Oh, but it is to laugh. You're right - I've done no independent analysis. Just posted rebuttals to his main points. With sources. Nope, no research or thought here, no siree Bob. Oh, and conspiracy theorists totally don't believe things like The Man brainwashing the ignorant masses - because all reasonable people must believe what Ron Paul says, this means that everyone is either too stupid or too brainwashed to vote for him!
Here's a quick hint - it's not media bias. It's not that everyone but you can't figure out the grand gnosis of Ron Paul. It's not that you're the only ones defending the Constitution. It's that you have no idea what the hell you are talking about and the vast majority of the population has more than enough reason to both disbelieve and disregard your arguments. Now, if you get warm fuzzies being a martyr for a wacko, then by all means do so.
He's the only Republican claiming