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;
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.
At least Romney hasn't advertised he'll put Steve Ballmer on his cabinet like McCain has. Gak! You think we have it bad NOW?
Most of the stuff on
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?
Fair enough. I'm not a big Mitt fan, but he's a economic genius and an experienced leader. And fixing this economy and handling the war are much more important that medical marijuana, though I agree with a prescription there is no reason not to permit its use. One affects hundreds of millions of people, the other affects very few people (if you use this kid as your argument).
I don't think it's sensible to pick one issue and judge everyone who disagrees with you a monster. Of course, I also don't have that kid's disease so it's easy for me to feel this way. Still, single issue voters miss the boat these days. Who is your candidate that meets your standard? I can find something inhuman about them if I really wanna.
Mitt Romney runs attack ad about self
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
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
You didn't answer my question: who is your candidate?
We are in a representative republic and do not vote on issues, but rather people.
300 million people are not affected by this. That's absurd. I say fewer than one thousand people really have a legit need for medical marijuana, at least to the severe degree the example needs it. I agree his rights are violated.
Also, 300 million people do not pay their share of taxes, or even near their share, so you can't say this kid's money is being stolen, when he probably pays no federal income tax. You're just trying to goad and troll, I guess. I'm very sympathetic to this kid, but your lack pf perspective is very high.
Pot does ruin lives. It makes people paranoid and stupid and is linked to paranoid schizophrenia. It should not be legalized. Those who have severe medical problems that a doctor says mandate smoking pot have a right that the rest of us 300 million people do not have.
You think this issue compares with the war on terror? Whether you are pro-war or anti, thousands of people's lives hang in the balance. Thousands were killed on 9/11, and Saddam killed millions of people, while our effort has probably killed over 100k people. That's somewhat more important, right? You claim I dismiss "basic human rights" with no idea what basic human rights are. I wish banned smoking pot was the biggest problem in human rights in this country. While the war on drugs is very wasteful and destructive, it doesn't register at all when compared with the destructive potential of the bankruptcy of social security. Then the elderly may go without food and restorative medicine. Millions of people will actually suffer, as opposed to hundreds at most (I imagine in many cases, Romney is right and other drugs can take pot's place).
You're extremely judgmental. And compared to you, I do have it easy because I understand that other people can disagree with me and not be morally inferior. You live in a simplistic jingoistic world and must hate the vast majority of Americans (who would ban a lot of drugs and repeatedly support candidates that do). I don't have to hate them, even if I disagree with them and wish doctors could prescribe pot.
Ha! Romney is legitimately successful in business. Lots of folks inhereit and cheat their way into success, but Romney has proven some skill in business and economics. I should note that I don't support the guy, but he's certainly the most accomplished business person of both major parties tickets.
And I don't understand the relevance of the war on drugs to anything discussed here. The wheelchair ambush kid was not asking Mitt to cancel the war on drugs, he was asking Mitt to permit the medical use of marijuana. And I don't think Hillary, Barack, Mccain, Rudy, or Huckabee would end the war on drugs either. It's a moot point.
and probably not a significant drain on the economy compared with social security, the war on terror, or katrina relief. No issue exists in a vacuum. This kid is not a reason to legalize pot for everyone's use, and doing so would probably be a major drain on the economy. Potheads are less productive in normal jobs, much more prone to schizophrenia with its attendant expenses, and etc etc. The war on drugs is wayyyyyy too aggressive in dealing with mere users of drugs who only harm themselves, but is that the issue being discussed Mr. Strawman?
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.
Someone says I have dismissed the rights of hundreds of millions of people, and I'm the troll? How can someone troll when there are simply replying to a personal attack? And the fella who demagogues in the most ridiculous terms possible is insightful?
Moderator: go fuck yourself, please. You're what's wrong with this society where both political factions think the other is 100% inhuman.
You should use your moderator points to determine if comments are interesting, etc. Not to upvote crap you agree with in the most childish digg-style possible. By validating the parent poster's simplistic and stupid attacks, you're fueling the fire.
Mitt Romney isn't being attacked for his view on drugs: he's being attacked for being a republican. Everyone knows it. Hillary's view on the War on Drugs is identical. Obama actually talks about ramping up the War on Drugs. But they aren't republicans so they aren't subject to the same level of attack.
Romney is showing some awareness of technology that people like Bush "uses the google" fundamentally lack. It's refreshing. Idiot trolls crawl out of the woodwork to attack Romney's entire moral system for reasons utterly irrelevant, I call them on being single-issue-selfish.
I'm not even a republican, and I'm getting sick of this crap. Every election year I have to listen to trolls validate each other's existence while hating huge segments of society. For whatever reason (likely Bush's fumbling presidency), Slashdot leans left, so Romney's embracing of technology is seen as an invitation to attack.
Well mods, if you really want to, go ahead and moderate down every single thing I have ever said. Because I disagree with you. Call me a troll for issuing obvious and relatively polite self-defense. slashdot can be another digg.com.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
As I have patiently explained many times, America does not lead the world in most areas of science and technology. Or free speech. Or social mobility. Or even per capita wealth. The only thing the US leads the world in is military power, and as Iraq has shown that doesn't seem to help you much anyway.
If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?