Slashdot Mirror
Best Super Tuesday Candidate for Technology?
Petey_Alchemist writes "With Super Tuesday coming up and the political field somewhat winnowed down, the process of picking the nominees for the next American President is well underway. At the same time, the Internet is bustling through a period of legal questions like Copyright infringement, net neutrality, wireless spectrum, content filtering, broadband deployment. All of these are just a few of the host of issues that the next President will be pressured to weigh in on during his or her tenure. Who do you think would be the best (or worst) candidate on Internet issues?"
Popular Mechanics' Geek The Vote '08 has a nice rundown of each candidate's tech policies.
Airplane Photos, Airline News, Planespotting Guides
I hope to be wrong, but apparently it's impossible to run for president without the support of the same people and companies that are damaging the development of internet.
If you need funding from companies that would shut down internet if they could, how can you possibly do anything that actually helps internet development?
Any candidate that has received money (directly or indirectly) from a RIAA/MPAA affiliate or a telco (for example) is out of the question when it comes to internet matters.
Well, the only one who understands economics and business is Romney. Since technology companies and their employees are what makes "technology" happen, Romney is the best.
The others primarily think that business (including the technology business) exists to produce goods and wealth for them to tax so they can redistribute it to politically-connected unproductive folks.
I was impressed by Obama's technology issues page:
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/technology/
The summary points are:
* Ensure an open Internet.
* Create a transparent and connected democracy.
* Encourage a modern communications infrastructure.
* Employ technology to solve our nation's most pressing problems.
* Improve America's competitiveness.
The list is pretty much "policy speak" but the detailed initiatives indicate a good grasp of the issues and a reasonable stance on the direction we need to move.
If Obama is good enough for xkcd then he's good enough for me.
I imagine Huckabee is the worst on technology issues unless of course they were mentioned in the bible.
Don't blame me, I voted for Cowboy Neil.
Check out the Technology section of his website. He knows what's up with net neutrality and privacy laws, and vows to change it (although that's what everyone says, I think he could really help the tech world)
Hillary Clinton, however, could possibly crash the global economy. She wants to crack down on violent video games, which, due to the pins and needles the economy is on right now, could devastate the economy if a major sector of the gaming industry would collapse. She even supports "media literacy" in the United States (aka censorship).
In my opinion Obama could do a lot of good for America. He is not a conservative, so he would be more likely to reform and change stuff that is in dire need of it.
Ron Paul thinks anything the government does is socialism. He would never have let the government invest in the Internet the way that it did, and we wouldn't have one now (certainly not the equal-access Internet that's getting everyone online). He wouldn't do anything to stop telcos from blocking or slowing traffic that competes with theirs, or doublecharging servers and consumers (quadruplecharging, really) who already pay for bandwidth, but must pay extra for "on-time" bandwidth ("Network Neutrality").
Ron Paul would let corporations do whatever they want with the Internet, which includes AT&T's plans to violate Net Neutrality and snoop on content (to police for "piracy"), avoid equal access for competition, and every other dirty trick they invent in what passes for their "innovation".
The Internet is one of the most obvious places where the people need the government as our collective representative to protect ourselves from the powerful exploiters of the people. There aren't a lot of monarchs in a position to hurt the American people anymore, but we've got plenty of dictatorial, aggressive, imperial corporations. And Ron Paul's government would stay out of the business of protecting us from them.
--
make install -not war
An excerpt:
It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
- Only person running that voted against the Patriot Act(s)
- Only person running that voted against Sarbanes-Oxley
- Opposes the DMCA
- Opposes the national ID card
- Has never voted to raise taxes
- Returns a portion of his congressional budget to the treasury every year
- He is a Republican who opposes the Iraq War on moral and economic grounds
There's a lot of FUD out there about Ron Paul, and there are a lot of fanatics on the internet who work against him sometimes, but if you look at his voting record over the last 20 years it speaks for itself.
This is a good guy who opposes the big government mentality that so many here on Slashdot rail against.
at this point, we need as much transparency as we can get for most of the tech issues: Intellectual Property, RIAA, MPEG, copyright, frequency, Cable regulation, bandwidth prioritizing. Obama has flatly stated that he supports maximum transparency at all levels of government. That makes him more libertarian than the other candidates by a long shot. so, based on that, i would say obama.
I'm going to plug my little non-partisan politics page that features substantial interviews with each of the candidates. There is an interesting crop of people to choose from this time, moreso than in the past couple elections, it seems. Or maybe it's just because the stakes seem so much higher now?
I'll refrain from my opinion.
Cheers.
Paul understands economics better than any of the other candidates, in my estimation. While I'm sure Romney knows all about microeconomics and running a business, the debates have not shown that he knows anything of economics on a national or global scale.
Paul does not look at business in the way you describe either. He detests taxes that redistribute wealth to anybody - be it the lobbyists that are in bed with congress or through nanny programs that sustain a welfare state. He believes that free markets are the best thing for technology. While it's nice to think that the government spends money on research, you have to remember a few things: a) they have to get that money from somewhere (taxes) and b) by subsidizing technological research, unsubsidized programs suffer. As you mention, the government is likely to favor subsidies for politically-connected unproductive folks, so Paul would say: don't subsidize it at all.
The best candidate from the perspective of technology (or any private sector-driven sector) is the one who intrudes the least in the market, economically speaking. Of the candidates who are electable, I don't see a clear winner based on that single (but important) criterion.
Well, I admit it's tangental, but the fight to fully legitimize Internet poker is a tech issue, of a sort.
To that end, the Poker Players Alliance has put together a guide to the presidential candidates' stances on the issue.
It seems terribly shortsighted, in a time where foreign policy is so critical and calls for changes in domestic arrangements (particularly health care) are powerful, to be voting on such narrow issues as technology positions. I won't say these things are unimportant (and would love as much as anyone else here to see someone who would have us withdraw from WIPO and end most IP protection), but by comparison there are far more important things to focus on.
For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
I was on the fence last summer and fall as to whether Obama was "the real deal." That is, I was until I saw the Q&A portion of his November 2007 talk at the Google campus. This was my true turning point.
It is a typical question and answer session with some pretty advanced questions lobbed by the Googlers and moderated by Eric Schmidt. It is, beyond any combative debate or stump speech, a truly (+5) insightful conversation about his views on technology.
(As others have mentioned, Senator Obama's Technology page is also a helpful peek at what he stands for in case you don't have the patience for the ~20 min. video)
A while back i remeber seeing a survy of what webservers each canidate was running. You can find it here
but to summerise:
Democrats
Hillary Clinton - Windows Server 2003, Microsoft-IIS/6.0 by Paul Holcomb
Barack Obama - FreeBSD, Apache by pair Networks
Republicans
Mike Huckabee - Windows Server 2003, Microsoft-IIS/6.0 by LNH Inc.
John McCain - Windows Server 2003, Microsoft-IIS/6.0 by Smartech Corporation
Ron Paul - Linux, Apache by Rackspace
Mitt Romney - Linux, Apache by Rackspace
Worth Mentioning:
Al Gore (Democrat) - Linux, Apache by Rackspace
Dennis Kucinich (Democrat) - Linux, Apache by New Age Consulting
Rudy Giuliani (Republican) - Linux, Apache by RackSpace
John Edwards (Democrat) - Linux, Apache by Plus Three
To summerise, the probably winners of the nominations are both running winblows. Damn no penguins or devils in the white house, just evil butterfiles!
It's Ron Paul. But his supporters are so commonly demonized that people are afraid to say publicly now that they support him. Well, he is. Like it or not. He is the only one with hands off approach to government. And the best technologies emerge and evolve just so.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
The mormons I know are very friendly, caring, family oriented, smart, and law abiding. I'm paying close attention to Romney this election because I think it will be good for America to have someone with those qualities in office. Running a country isn't that much different from running a business. It all boils down to doing cost/benefit analysis on a bunch of huge multivariable problems. I think Romney has the best brain for that compared to the other candidates. He has already proven he can do successfully with his own business (Bain & Company).
That's true. I was planning on voting for Edwards all along but when he dropped out I switched to Obama. The more I've learned about him in the past few days the more I like him.
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
You do not understand Libertarianism. You are confusing it with anarchy. They are very different things.
Others here have confused Fascism with anarchy ("corporate anarchy"). They are very different things.
Libertarians support the FREE MARKET. Free markets do not operate where monopoly or oligopoly exist. Libertarians do not support a corporate-run, completely unregulated economy! That is simply not a free market.
Also, a truly free market accounts for real costs as part of its operation. Therefore, in a real free market, producers bear the cost of the societal problems they cause (pollution, etc.), rather than that burden being borne by the taxpayers. Is there anything wrong with that? And the reason things are not done that way NOW, is because of corporate interests being too involved in government and thereby subverting the free market process. Contrary to what many people are saying, Libertarianism addresses and strives to solve that issue. It is the current corporate-state that preserves and worsens it.
I could go on for quite a while... but I strongly urge you to do some real research about a topic -- especially if it is a major political party -- before you go around spouting such nonsense as the above. I am not trying to say you are an idiot, but it sure makes you look like one.
To clarify what I wrote above: Ron Paul is running as a Republican candidate. But if you know anything at all about him, you know that the vast majority of his principles (the exception being the abortion thing) are very strongly Libertarian. Just so there is no confusion as to what I was stating...
It's disturbing to me that anyone would even think of basing their vote in this presidential election on tech issues. My god, we're involved in a ruinous war, and when it comes to civil liberties we're sliding down the slippery slope into fascism.
Find free books.
Before he was running for president, Ron Paul impressed me with his arguments against banning online gambling: http://youtube.com/watch?v=6b7_h_OyTI0
In the context of the interview, he was really referring to the internet as more of a government project. Replace "the Internet" with something like "new police stations" and you get the idea. That doesn't mean he was laying bricks or training officers, but that he supported it as a government initiative.
Larry Lessig, founder of the Creative Commons, made a very cogent endorsement of Obama last fall. It makes for a good read. "Clearly on the big issues -- the war and corruption. Obama has made his career fighting both. But also on the issues closest to me. As the technology document released today reveals, to anyone who reads it closely, Obama has committed himself to important and importantly balanced positions."
I want to lead my own life and my own endeavors. I don't want to be spied on by the Government,
and I don't want to give it a 3rd of my income so it can redistribute it however someone in
Washington sees fit. Redistributing my wealth is my own damn business. Not the Governments.
Money is the root of all evil?
Ron Paul will never be president - amusing to see you embellishing his name as such. As for the bit about rules, when someone decides on the rules, it's not particularly interesting to me to see them following them. "The rules" have to be worthwhile, and I believe the libertarian concept of government is harmful and broken - a focus on "the rules" is more of a way for people who believe those rules to be good to give each other high-fives than a way to convince others of virtue.
Note that many of these particular issues are concerns that wide parts of the American political spectrum has - you can't claim them as being unique to
Ron Paul's camp. BushJr's handling of the balance of powers has been an issue for everyone, as has wiretapping, abuse of habeus corpous, the secret prisons, etc. Very few of our presidents have so openly grabbed power. I believe most people running, from McCain to Obama, would reverse many of the particularly contentious changes in the last 8 years.
Personally, I'm not worried about pardoning non-violent drug users, especially those using marijuana (which seems more benign than alcohol, used in moderation). I'm not uncomfortable banning recreational drugs that are much harder, but such bans should be based on health and larger societal matters, not prudishness.
For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
As in, among the only politicians with a realistic chance for success (Ron Paul would actually be better served running as a Libertarian...there's no way the Republican party would ever make him their nominee, even if it meant losing the election. To them it is about a core set of ideals, and Paul challenges those ideals).
Obama is pro-Net Neutrality, has stated that he plans to roll out legislation to build up the US's network infrastructure (especially in regards to rural areas and isolated towns), and has sponsored legislation to create a federal website that allows taxpayers to actually see where their tax dollars are going. Ignore all the sloganeering and emotional stuff, clear all the marketing jargon away, and look at Obama's Illinois legislative record and his platform, and you'll see a lot of sponsored bills and goals that a lot of us geeks can agree with. (I'm partial to the 233 health care related bills...as a software development contractor, we just don't make as much as we used to. But when you take 3-4 month projects, getting your boss to pony up for health care is a rare thing).
Forget what a candidate says he supports on his web site. Look at his voting record. Ron Paul is so far and away superior to Barack Obama, it's hardly a real comparison. During his 10 terms in Congress, he has consistently voted according to a strict pro-freedom Constitutional framework. He voted against the Patriot Act, and against the war (and it's continued funding), and he has taken stronger more firm views against excessive government regulation over technology. No wonder he drew a larger crowd when he spoke at Google. He also came in first in fund raising last quarter, beating out every other candidate in both parties. But the media ignores him, and creates this air of unelectability, that becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy -- because no one wants to waste his vote. We should have Range Voting or Approval Voting so that wouldn't be a problem. But until we do, we've got to vote our conscience. The odds your vote will break a tie are so tiny anyway, that you might as well cast a vote for your favorite candidate.
Ron would've most likely allowed the Internet to develop if he were president at the time. Think back to your history - it was a distributed network so that in case of nuclear war there would be a way to communicate. In other words it was a necessary defensive measure.
The one thing Ron won't let happen however is to let the government start regulating the Internet. That would be bad.
Libertas in infinitum
Not only does Lawrence Lessig endorse Obama, he's actually advising him on copyright policy. This could bring about the single biggest policy shift in Washington on copyright, IP, and free culture that we've seen in years.
Yes, Ron Paul does not want the government to control or regulate the Internet.
Libertas in infinitum
Prisoners always grow an affinity towards their Captors.
Money is the root of all evil?
First, let's look at Obama (he's the magical negro, the man not from Hope but offering hope to America, the ethical campaigner compared to ruthless Clinton):
(Obviously going for the "Fabulous" vote there...)
Saavis -- expensive. No game playing here. Says Apache, but doesn't say what the OS is. Smart move.
Now, McCain (the Hero, the maverick republican who shares a platform more like Clinton than other Republicans, he's the anti-establishment establishmentarian):
(Going for the "home vote" and GoDaddy.com, while it sucks ass, is indigenous to AZ)
Never heard of them... Bold move, Mr. McCain -- using a web host no one's heard of.
Now, Romney, the Northeastern governor (the Mormon who was, until recently, pro-choice; son of a one time popular Republican; good-looking but flip-flopping candidate):
(He's Mormon so perhaps UT has not registrars so he's pandering to the regional vote by using AZ-based GoDaddy?)
Rackspace! Heavy advertiser on Slashdot, employer of more RHCEs than Red Hat, ... tech savvy move! And running on LAMP. Nice.
Now, Clinton (the Senator who offers 8 more years of old-time change-- huh? A return to the future that was 1992-2000. Another opportunity for Bill to get some intern love in the Oval Office; a chance to catch Osama Bin Laden and correct a mistake from the last Clinton presidency):
The establishment candidate using the establishment registrar, I see. (Change is ... hard to find with HRC).
So, also Rackspace, but made to look like Paul Holcomb...kind like a lot of the positions HRC takes -- looks like this but really is that. no surprise. Oh, even though at Rackspace using a Microsoft solution. Always playing both sides doesn't she?
And, of course, what about Ron Paul (he's the Libertarian that is really, really a Republican this time, Ok?; the pro-legalizing drugs, anti-war on terror candidate; the one who says things worth cheering and jeering in the same debate)?
Awesome. Using a Germany/EU registrar. How...Godwin of him...
Also at Rackspace! And, obfuscating the netblock owner like Hillary. Interesting...but boldly announcing Apache and Red Hat as the platform.
Let's not forget Huckabee...(oh that we could, though, forget this Kevin Spacey look-a-like)
Sounds populist. I wonder if DOMAINPEOPLE are evangelicals?
Sounds...like a $5/mo web host. Huh. And running on IIS. Wonder if its a s
-- @rjamestaylor on Ello
Asking about technology policy with all this other stuff going on is like asking:
"But other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?"
+1 Insightful. That's explains why we all love Bush so much after being stuck with him for 7 years.
Piss off paultard.
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
gah; typo; see subject.
You know damn well Paul only chose that registrar because AG is the symbol for silver.
--
WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
The "wasted vote" is a problem, but there is a demographic that needs to be targeted for this attitude. Those that don't vote at all because they don't think their vote counts. If you know someone who isn't going to vote, or is randomly picking a candidate because the know that they don't know who the candidates are, push them to vote for anyone but the front runners. These people are already PLANNING to 'waste their votes'. Explain to them that the candidate they are voting for doesn't have a chance, but that by them voting for a third party, they can help scare whoever does win into behaving more responsibly. Since their vote wasn't going to be used anyways, they are not losing anything by voting for a candidate that won't win.
Really, if a third pary candidate could get even 10% of the votes, it would push the front runners to look at his platform and consider it in an attempt to woo his constituency.
They may be running Linux and Apache, but it is not LAMP. I don't know what DB they are using, but they are not using PHP. They are using Java (and it was written by a slashdotter).
Climate Progress - Hell and High Water
I'm just trying to imagine someone raising this in a debate with the candidate.
"Hillary, how can you continue to support the death penalty? Also, are you aware that... [intake of breath] your website's host is running Microsoft IIS as a web server?"
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
I see myself voting for Obama because I *like* him over any other likely candidate. I can only see myself voting for the 'lesser of two evils' with anyone else getting the nomination. Maybe it's a very-outdated 'R' on my voter registration card talking, but it'll be hard to see her as the lesser evil, even with some of the prospective matches out there. Possible, perhaps, but hard.
I feel like Obama understands (or tries to understand) the issues. Like you, I feel like Hillary just wants to win at any cost, all other considerations be damned. I mean look at Michigan, which she "won", probably because she thought that it would give "momentum" and get people to report her as the victor of a one-woman race which everyone with more principle dropped out of. Then Nevada where you have the rules set months in advance, but the second it looks like she'll be at any kind of disadvantage, up pops an "unaffiliated" group with a lawsuit.
The sad thing is that I fear she might win thanks to those things, but it's too close to call. I feel like this will only lead to the kind of 'us vs. them' nonsense we had after Bush got elected that keeps us from moving forward on anything important because people are too busy fighting. I know that Hillary is good at fighting. But that's why I don't think I can vote for her. Heck, I may just put him in as a write-in even if he doesn't win the nomination. There's no one else out there that I can muster any enthusiasm for, not even a little. And that includes Ron Paul, where I love half of his positions and hate the other half.
You seem to be confusing libertarianism with anarchy.
Your comment talked about how the lack of government ended up being a bad thing... well of course it was! The markets that libertarians embrace rely on a functional legal system and other services of government to provide the foundation on which they operate. Then, libertarians spend all this time talking about the enforcement of rights, enforcement that would be provided by governments.
The solution to bad government is not no government, but a fixed government, one that keeps people from screwing with each other but largely stands out of their way, allowing people the freedom to make of themselves what they want.
Libertarians recognize this. The lack of a government is often as bad a failure as a bad one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4yVlPqeZwo&NR
Elderly liberals and white women are the majority of the D primary voters. So, it would appear, game set match.
Here's a hint. He's been an elected official a long time. LOOK AT WHAT HE DOES, NOT WHAT HE TELLS YOU STUPID CRACKERS.
Hey, even minor abuses should not be tolerated. If you ever get it in writing, or in an email you can print out discretely, I would direct you here.
No, IRV does not eliminate spoilers. The spoiler effect exists in IRV. With IRV there are still wasted votes, except it's much harder to tell which votes will be wasted and what effect your ballot will have; the behaviour of IRV is much more complicated, often pathological, and thus arguably even worse than the current system.
Range or approval voting would be a better option. They truly eliminate the spoiler effect, they are easy to implement using unaltered existing equipment, and have simple, easily understandable behaviour.
See I Want the Earth plus 5% for a fictionalized history of central banking. Note how you never hear Ron Paul "succeeded" in doing anything. That was my point. No one can hold Ron Paul responsible for any of his accomplishments, because that would require accomplishments. Who else holds Bill Clinton responsible for sticking the final dagger through the American Prosperity Machine? Is that an accomplishment? A super-recession is now inevitable - if only we'd had a congress full of Kucinich- and Paul-types to actively debate what's best for the whole of the country's population...
Ignaz Semmelweiss campaigned for years to get maternity doctors to wash their hands before entering the maternity suite. He eventually ended up in an asylum, iirc. Years later, after the germ theory of disease became accepted, hand-washing became routine. But Semmelweiss was ignored, and many women and children died needlessly.
The developing recession was preventable, just like all those deaths. If only we had a few more good people in Congress...
Learn the rules so you know how to break them properly.
www.teslabox.com
Why is this moderated as Flame Bait? This is the truth. We are supposed to be the enterprising free. We can't be that if the government tells us how much milk to drink, how to live and who we can marry. On top of that, we get to pay them 30% or more of our paycheck for them to say things like "Hmm, where DID we put that 9 billion dollars?" Say what you want about the current crop of Republicans. All but one of them are pandering old school politicians. Hillary and Obama (yes, him too) are both part of the political machine. Check out his record. He is about changing the guard, but not the message. Wow, the stormtroopers get new uniforms, but they are still building the death star, folks.
Concur wholeheartedly.
She is certainly lowering her contribution footprint among tech companies, which will help the economy:
http://fakesteveballmer.blogspot.com/2008/02/hellary-comes-courtin.html
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
Registered at GoDaddy, hosted by Pair, running Server: Apache/1.3.37 to redirect http://barackobama.com/ to http://www.barakobamaa.com/ which is running Server: PWS/1.2.18.
PWS is supposedly Win98's Personal Web Server... which probably means Barack's web admins have a rich sense of humor.
-- @rjamestaylor on Ello
BTW, the "Magic Negro" reference to Obama in my post above is a reference to the original LA Times article on Obama's early campaign.
-- @rjamestaylor on Ello
At some point slashdot is going to become just another crap-fest of left-wing circle jerks where people with other opinions are unwelcome regardless. So much for the party of tolerance.
So, you base this grand observation of yours on a poorly worded post about Romney that sounds more like a talking point than anything else (the post does nothing to back up the assertions it makes), and a +5 funny post referencing the tired old joke that stemmed from taking a statement from Al Gore out of context?
Putting our political beliefs aside, don't you think we are fast becoming prisoners with very little choices in our voting options? I watched almost all of the debates and these politicians for the most part agreed with each other on mainly everything and just squabbled over technicalities and their record. I hope this isn't an indication of the consensus with in the party system, other wise we already have railroad of a future already laid out before us by the parties. And that is what truly saddens me. The fact that no one will pay attention to any thing not considered the 'norm' is dogma. Is that what you want?
Money is the root of all evil?
Obama didn't carry Nevada in more than common-delegates not because of his race, but because Clinton was more recognized and Obama didn't have the time to meet and inspire every single Nevada voter. He didn't lose because he was a "divisive person." He lost--that is, lost the popular vote--because he didn't convince enough Nevadians that he was better than Clinton. Note that the state was a virtual tie, and both Obama and Clinton have a fair share of delegates from NV.
More pressing, though, is that you're simply holding up "past performance at the polls" with "best for the nation." Both Obama and Clinton are excellent candidates, and if the other wasn't in the race either one would have cinched up the party by now.
Oh, I absolutely agree our voting system is beyond fucked. My ideal candidates would actually be Kucinich or Dodd but none of them had a chance. Before we have a chance of some real change in our government our voting system needs to see some real change:
1) IRV. Our first across the line voting system does not work for more than two candidates.
2) Public funding of campaigns. Candidates should compete in something other than fund raising.
3) Get rid of the broken electoral system. It hasn't been anything like what the founding fathers intended for a very long time so we need to stop pretending there is some use to something that amounts to just a popular vote where some citizens count more than others.
Those are the big three. There are other things that would help too, such as debates being run by independent groups instead of these joke debates run by the big networks.
That said while Obama isn't my ideal candidate, and the media love fest early on was a huge turnoff for me, he is a strong and well qualified candidate from what I've seen. There are some important differences between him and Hillary. First of course is his continuous opposition to the War in Iraq. His mostly opposes capital punishment. He hasn't gone in detail but he also doesn't seem to be a big supporter of the War on Drugs as Hillary is. And from what I know he's never wasted his time worrying about flag burning or video games.
I also get the impression that he's intellectually honest, he seems to really care about facts and reason. He even firmly believes in evolution, unlike Dr. Paul. It actually surprised me quite a bit that Ron Paul doesn't oppose ID in the classroom.
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
And as the system burns to the ground, or as the lemmings are falling en masse off the cliff, leaders like Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich will be around to salvage what we can, and to help us build something better for the future.
Learn the rules so you know how to break them properly.
www.teslabox.com
Is it me or is Ron Paul a lot like the Professor from Futurama?
"Where am I now?"
The professor would be for technology, especially anything involving radioactive supermen or doomsday devices.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
I think what Dr. Paul would oppose is a federal mandate that ID or Evolution be taught or not taught in a public school. Why take the decision out of your hands and the hands of parents in the community and put it in the hands of 535 people who don't know you or your school? One last thing that you maybe didn't think about: (doesn't oppose ID in the classroom) != (doesn't believe in Evolution)
But I agree on most of the Obama's other points that you have put forth. I just can't agree with Universal Health Care through the government. The price will bloat because it is subsidized instead of market force working upon it. And guess who will pay for it in the long run? Middle Class Me, That's who.
Take away that and add a sensible foreign policy(which he already has), and control of the Federal Reserve(which no one besides Dr. Paul talks about), and I might have Caucused for Obama.
Money is the root of all evil?
I don't think it's so far out. Tech issues underly quite a few other issues of economics and liberty, and those are certainly as important as foreign policy.
But I think there's an even bigger reason why tech workers *definitely* should be looking at how candidates understand and address issues they understand. Because this is the arena where *you* may actually know enough, as a professional, to really gauge a candidates policy acumen. I doubt most slashdotters are experts in military tactics or nation building. Most of us have a shallow grasp of economics -- yes, even most of you Austrian school autodidacts. Same goes for health care, education, criminology, etc -- Slashdot readers may be smart laymen, but that's all most of us are in those fields.
But lots of us are IT pros. And if a candidate seems to really get it in the area where you can tell buzzspeak and platitudes from real knowledge, that tells you quite a bit about their ability to reach into an issue, understand it, and formulate a plan to do something about it.
So, yeah. I think slashdotters should be concerned about tech issues.
Tweet, tweet.
I want to lead my own life, too. I would like to start a business. Unfortunately, I can't do that because America's health care system doesn't make it possible for someone with a pre-existing condition to independently purchase health insurance.
Clinton and Obama both support health care reform. None of the Republicans do. This vote is easy.
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
We should change to Instant Runoff voting, or one of the other proven more-superior voting schemes, which address that very point. They are arguably more "fair" in that the winner is unarguably the "favorite" of more people.
... Can you connect the dots between starting your own business and having health care for me?
Money is the root of all evil?
The solution to bad government is not no government, but a fixed government, one that keeps people from screwing with each other but largely stands out of their way, allowing people the freedom to make of themselves what they want.
Libertarians recognize this. The lack of a government is often as bad a failure as a bad one.
When trying to explain the difference between libertarians and anarchists, it is helpful to point out that many libertarians consider government to be a necessary evil. Just as healthy people must eat but don't overeat, a healthy society must have some government but not too much. Governments almost always end up serving themselves first and merely maintain a pretense of serving the People. The explanation is cliche: power corrupts -- absolute power corrupts absolutely. Most of us want to feel financially secure and for goverment workers, especially those in policy-making positions, security can often be had most easily by entrenching themselves and their little section of government even when doing so works against the best interests of the citizenry.
In the U.S., governments at all levels tend to play the divide and conquer game very well. Whether it is pitting senior citizens against people still in the workforce when it comes to keeping the Ponzi scheme known as Medicare going for a few more years (raise income taxes or cut benefits or just phase out the entire scam?), the wealthy against the poor, people opposed to racial discrimination versus those against sexual discrimination (see the feud amongst many of those those who support one of the two leading contenders for the Democrat presidential candidate nomination), or those who want their children to enjoy quality education in private (often non-secular) schools versus those who think that the First Amendment precludes government funding of any school with religious affiliations and who think that kids have some sort of right to an education at the taxpayers' expense.
Anyone who doesn't believe the above should consider how much interaction the average family had with federal government in 1858, just 150 years ago. Can you say "little or none"? Nowadays, things which were once considered strictly local matters are being dragged up to the state and federal level. Individuals, cities, and entire states are becoming increasingly dependent on Big Government at the federal level because they've become addicted to handouts from federal government agencies -- which the federal government funds via income and Social (in)Security taxes.
Then lets look at things like the War on Some Drugs, the War Against Terror, etc. Whenever the government wants more money or power, it simply fabricates a major crisis to justify its increased intrusion into our daily lives and higher taxes to pay for some Big Government solution which never seems to work but always requires more sacrifice from the citizens via higher taxes and decreased freedom.
"You're young, you're drunk, you're in bed, you have knives; shit happens." -- Angelina Jolie
I actually do realize that not opposing ID in the classroom doesn't necessarily mean he doesn't believe in Evolution, but it does at least mean that he's taken a queue from Fox News on the definition of "Fair and Balanced". The simple fact is that ID is not science and were it not for political pressure from creationists it would never have made it into a single school on its merits alone. There is really no excuse for not being aware of that fact. If the Bush appointed judge in the Dover school case didn't even buy it then please forgive me for assuming that if you say you support teaching ID in the classroom it is coded language for your support of the ID movement and the Wedge Document and all that goes along with it. Sure I could be wrong, but the burden of proof is on you to convince me. If Ron Paul also supports teaching about the FSM in science class then maybe I'll give him a second look.
Now regarding health care, from everything I've heard (caveat: I'm no expert on the subject) the US spends more money than any other developed nation for its health care and yet our health care is far from the best. For instance, we are 29th in life expectancy. Andora beats us by 5.5 years in average life span. Now it is true that we have many excellent medical facilities, maybe even the best, but that is all irrelevant when nobody but the wealthiest percentile have access to it. I think the evidence shows that a well designed government program can be at least as good as our private system.
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
You're kidding, right? I would have thought the connection is obvious:
1. Have health insurance under current employer
2. Cannot afford own health insurance
3. Therefore if starting own business, lose health insurance
How are we video game players even considering supporting Hillary Clinton. Has anyone forgot her suggestion that Congress start censoring video games that are too sexual or violent? The government isn't even responsible for movie ratings, but there's Clinton, suggesting that the legislature keep inappropriate content out of children's hands.
Ummm, don't laws for the age for purchasing pornography already accomplish what we need? Anything beyond that makes the laws more restrictive for video games than for movies!
Can you imagine if the government stepped in and said that 15-year-olds couldn't watch Terminator 2 because it's rated R? Because that's what Hillary is suggesting, except for video games.
I'll ask again: why the FUCK are we even considering her?
Sorry, but I linked the wrong thing. This is the correct link.
maybe some people (like me) are avoid gamers but aren't too upset by this. When people start talking about console games aimed at kids where you use the motion sensor controller to imitate stabbing people to death, then frankly, yes I would like to see less games like that.
Any media where you are the protagonist and is interactive will have a far stronger effect on your actions than a passive media such as a book or movie.
I'm sick of violent games where the hero is a flipping gang member or a drug addict.
It seems that most gamers cannot get their head around the fact that you can be pro-gaming but anti-stupidly violent games or games with blatant sexual stereotyping everywhere you look.
DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
So I trust you're now an ex-Ron Paul supporter?
Currently I am supportive of Barack Obama, because whether or not you like him you hve to admit his speeches are nothing short of inspiring. However the more I read into Obama's positions and his voting records the more I see how Anti-Constitution he is, and how inconsitant he really is.
Example:
1) He spoke out against the Iraq war and voted against it. (Good for him!)
2) He originally voted against the Patriot Act, then later voted for re-authorizing it. His statement was "Let me be clear: this compromise is not as good as the Senate version of the bill, nor is it as good as the SAFE Act that I have cosponsored. I suspect the vast majority of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle feel the same way. But, it's still better than what the House originally proposed. This compromise does modestly improve the PATRIOT Act by strengthening civil liberties protections without sacrificing the tools that law enforcement needs to keep us safe." --February 16, 2006 Source.
Note: He was admit against the Iraq war bill and voted against it depsite it getting passed. But when it came to the Patriot Act he changed his mind and supported it. This is anti 4th amendment (The Patriot Act took away our 4th amendment rights and expands taking away our civil liberties).
3) He is Pro-Gun Control (anti 2nd Amendment)
So right now 2 out of 3 is bad news!
Obama's social policies are pretty good I must admit - although I'm still not sure 100% on all of them.
Ron Paul on the otehr hand:
1) Voted against the Iraq War (Good for him!)
2) Voted against and is against the Patriot Act. (Good for him!)
3) Is anti-gun control (Good for him!)
Hey 3 out of 3!
Paul's social policies - yes leave a little to be desired.
In all I think I would rather have a candidate that is more pro-constituion than pro-social issues. This country needs to get back to to a solid foundation, one that this country was built on. The current administration and the last 2 congresses have put huge holes in our countries foundation and it's crumbeling out from under us. It's the fault of BOTH Republicans AND Democrats - they both have gone out of their way to destroy this country for their own benefit! If Obama truly taught constitutional law he should darn well know some of his policy's and voting record VIOLATE what he taught. I don't know if I can support someone like that.
The Truth is a Virus!!!
I found something VERY interesting. It looks like UHG's Executive Vice President and Chief Legal Officer came out in support of Obama for President. Now by UHG's own ethics and integrity rules he had to make the disclaimer that his views were his and not of the company (which he did not do) - unless the company had requested and approved it. So if UHG requested and approved of his endorsement, that must mean UHG endorses Obama. Now UHG is a FOR profit health care company and Obama is for semi-Universal Health Care. So why would a for profit company "endorse" a political candidate that is pro semi-universal health care? More than likely they are not endorsing him - unless they plan on Obama driving business towards them. So then this must mean that Strickland -didn't- have the approval of the company - which means he violated the company's ethics and integrity rules. He may also be violating the company's policy on "Former government employees". (See my references below)
Endorsement:
http://www.denverpost.com/politics/ci_8003428
http://www.politicswest.com/17596/strickland_amon_3_endorse_obama
Bill Richardson's Colorado supporters are moving in different directions, as former Senate candidate and U.S. Attorney Tom Strickland announced his support for Barack Obama's presidential bid this afternoon. Here are the details:
"I am very excited to be supporting Senator Barack Obama for President," said Strickland in a release. "Barack Obama's record of change is something that Americans can believe in."
UHG References:
Tom Strickland is an Executive Vice President and Chief Legal Officer of UnitedHealth Group
http://www.unitedhealthgroup.com/about/exe.htm#strickland
http://unitedhealthgroup.mondosearch.com/cgi-bin/MsmGo.exe?grab_id=0&EXTRA_ARG=SUBMIT%3DSearch&CFGNAME=MssFind.cfg&host_id=42&page_id=557&query=strickland&hiword=strickland%20
http://unitedhealthgroup.mondosearch.com/cgi-bin/MsmGo.exe?grab_id=0&EXTRA_ARG=SUBMIT%3DSearch&CFGNAME=MssFind.cfg&host_id=42&page_id=165&query=strickland&hiword=strickland%20
Ethics and Integity Brochure:
https://kbpweb2.mercerhrs.com/kblink/UHG/ER/Principles_Ethics_Integrity_brochure.pdf
Page 24
POLITICAL ACTIVITIES
If you take part in political activities or committees, you must make it clear that your views and actions are your own and not those of the company, unless the company has requested and approved your participation.
Page 21
FORMER GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
Former U.S. government employees generally are not allowed to represent the company in matters where the government has substantial interest and where the employee had prior
responsibility.
Requirement to Report:
https://kbp4web2.mercerhrs.com/profile_uhg/cgi-bin/athcgi.exe
As a UnitedHealth Group employee, you are required to comply with all laws, contractual obligations and company policies, including the Principles of Ethics and Integrity. Employees are also required to report any suspected misconduct by another employee or one of the company's contractors to their manager, someone else in management or by contacting the Ethics & Compliance HelpCenter. Ethics & Compliance H
The Truth is a Virus!!!
Their plans would turn it from bad to worse — from the business-chosen insurance plans to the government chosen. It has to be individual-chosen instead. You'd be able to keep your insurer (who will remain stuck with your "pre-existing condition") regardless of your place of employment (or lack thereof).
That's a lie. Matt Romney — a Republican — created a workable health-insurance system in Massachusetts and is not averse to implementing the same nation-wide. He would not be my top-choice among Republicans, but your claims are false nonetheless.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
"Bullocks"? Baby bulls? Is that anything like the Baby Bells, whose lobbyists could have written your post?
Without the Feds stopping the telcos like AT&T and Verizon, those monopolies will run unchecked over any privacy we've got. The state governments are even more susceptible to lobbyists, with cheaper bribes and cozier crony networks, and less media attention (media which favor their crony telcos, and often own their own networks they'd love to abuse).
Sure Paul hasn't said much about crushing the government in each state, because he's just a Federal official. If he were president, those states would find their own "libertarian" corporate anarchists with the major battle won, and move on to getting state government out of the way on the same basis.
Paul preaches "NO GOVERNMENT" (except what's necessary to protect defense contractors, especially Texan ones). That's what ideology does: it applies universally. A universal power vacuum where government used to stand, and corporate (and church) policy moved into its place.
A little bull, indeed. A little papal bull.
--
make install -not war
Actually, you've lied -- twice (actually, call you a liar seems awfully harsh, perhaps you're just misinformed). Clinton's plan is actually very similar to Flopping Mitt's Massachusetts plan. And, Flopping Mitt has disavowed many aspects of his statewide plan for fear of alienating his "fuck the poor" conservative base.
Of course here's Flopping Mitt's current stance:
Source: Reuters
Waltz, nymph, for quick jigs vex Bud.
So, I'm supposed to pay for your health care so you can start a business? The healthcare system is currently a mess, but getting the gov. even more involved is not the solution.
Romney and Hillary are in the same boat on this one. Unless Obama, McCain, or Paul wins prepare to rely on the Supreme Court to be the only possible hope in maintaining games as a protected form of speech.
As comical as it may seem, I'm sure Ron Paul would have no problem what so ever if your school came to a consensus that FSM should be taught for what ever reason. He would still have a problem with a Federal mandate saying yay or nay to it though. And you are looking at the problem from the wrong perspective. He doesn't give a hoot what one locality does with its local laws, or what it mandates as education from its public schools. He just doesn't want the Federal government telling people yes or no, because under the Constitution it's completely within the local government's authority to do what they want as long as the rights of the individual aren't Infringed. So being a concerned citizen I could vote in my own locality yay or nay, and have a real impact. And a lasting solution instead of these huge, large schisms that we have in national politics. I mean think about if each state government could decide things like Abortion, Gay Marriage, Drinking Age, etc. it would kinda work out better wouldn't it? About health care:
Maybe our government can provide awesome health care. Maybe it could be cheap and affordable. That still doesn't make me feel easy that the fate of my health care and my ability to care for my own well being would be explicitly tied to our Government. I'd rather I paid for it so I can call the shots.
Also why can only the wealthiest percentile have access to the most expensive cars? This is just a hunch but, I think it has something to do with supply and demand. I don't think it should be any different across the board. To do other wise is to ignore another science in my opinion.
Money is the root of all evil?
I just didn't want to make any assumptions about your problem or the way you thought about it.
And so this preexisting health condition is so large a problem that if you didn't have health insurance you would die, or be severely limited?
So you have this job at a company that takes care of your health insurance, and you complain that you can't start your own business?
Not really counting your blessings there in my opinion.
Money is the root of all evil?
Fixed that for you.
Simple moving money doesn't necessarily lead to economic growth, especially considering international trade where plenty of the money can end up moving overseas.
I was going to say the same thing about investment. Capital crosses borders as easily as goods.
Lending markets provide a great deal of the capital required for economic expansion, and if as you say lower/middle class spending doesn't drop as much then it makes even more sense to move to prop up the lending markets.
Focus on keeping money moving and you'll be doing it at the expense of encouraging further growth. At best the moving money approach largely maintains the current state while in reality it lends itself to "leaks". Instead let's look to the future, restoring growth by encouraging investment.
This *is* about encouraging investment. This idea seems funny if you think of investment as essentially a function of the amount of spare cash around, but while that's certainly a variable, it's just not the whole story. Estimated return on investment is more important than available capital.
And so here's the thing. If customers don't buy in, there is no real business growth. And in a recession, lower/middle class spending drops in large part because they just don't have the cash to buy in. Investor confidence is hammered by sales drops and other indications that a potential market just doesn't have the cash to spend, and investors become more cautious, even if they have more to invest.
Conversely, even if you were to cut the available pool of capital by 10% via gains taxes, if you have an economy where customers are buying, investment where they're buying will be attractive. And by letting sales lead capital, you also gain something of a benefit of stronger market forces driving the allocation of funds. Capital markets have their own market forces, but they're simply more speculative and therefore less efficient by nature.
Obviously, this breaks if you cut the pool of capital too drastically, and a better situation is one where the pool of capital is larger AND investment is attractive because of spending. But there's no action that can be taken to do both that doesn't have its own set of drawbacks inside a larger set of considerations.
And all that's not even considering that the current problem is centered in the lending markets... let's fix it at the source.
The lending market obviously really needs help, but its problems has have far less to do with capital gains taxes than they have to do with some seriously screwed up valuation and risk assessments driven by greed and formula over the last 10 years. No tax adjustment is going to change the fact that when the music stopped, not only did some of the players not have chairs (as they knew was part of the game), the players had lied to each other and themselves about the number of chairs. Nobody's gonna enthusiastically play the next round until they figure out how many chairs there really are -- even if people are willing to lend one or two more.
Tweet, tweet.
Ron Paul fools aside (Kucinich had more of a chance), and so-called 2nd Amendment bs'ers aside(1), the questions that I don't have the answers to are:
a) who will INCREASE federal funding for basic research, including the funding for
NASA(2), Fermilab, and Aricibo?
b) who will INCREASE federal funding for CIVILIAN R&D?
c) who will INCREASE tech infrastructure spending(3)?
It certainly WON'T be any Republican, they cut that ever time they have the chance, and only do military research. (4)
mark
1)If any of the so-called 2nd Amendment hotties actually meant what they said, they'd
have shot Bush & Cheney, instead of continuing to blame the current state of the
Union, including the national ID, the utterly unnecessary war, and, oh, yes,
giving the Chinese our spy plane - all the things they're supposedly for the 2nd Amendment to protect us from, on Clinton.
2) After flattening the management structure, preferably with a 9lb hammer.
3) Y'know, like the way Al Gore helped provide *FUNDING* for the Internet as we
know it now?
4) Don't tell me about corporate funding for research, esp. basic research. That's
dropped massively - "not a profit center", and "doesn't add to this quarter's
revenues.
Schuland Partner AG is more popularly known as 1and1.com
"The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
If politicians stopped worrying about the average voter, they'd quickly discover that the average voter doesn't exist - especially on issues that polarize people. And non-issues that don't polarize people also don't get out the vote for any one particular candidate, so who cares about them?
They're too much like the "leader" who looks to see which way people are going, then quickly runs to the head of the pack. What am I saying? That's exactly what they do!
I've got a better solution - make me your benevolent ruler. I even promise to steal less than the others, since I won't be beholden to any special interests.
1and1.com -- even worse!
... one füherer!
One web host and
(Godwin'ed myself!)
-- @rjamestaylor on Ello
There can be such a thing as bad technology. I think that the best candidate would be one that embraces a technology that is used for good purposes. The last thing we want is a Technotalitarian dictatorship. "Beware the floating head, it only speaks the truth."
BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING!
Ron Paul wasn't asked if he though ID should be allowed to be taught in schools, he was asked if he though it should be taught in schools. There is a difference and if he didn't support the ID movements attempt to get religion into schools under the guise of science he had the chance to say so.
For health care, I don't think the comparison between cars and health care is an appropriate one since expensive cars are a luxury. A cheap car does everything a car needs to do. You know, I sometimes wonder if there are any real libertarians who live in poverty. To me it seems an ideology that is only held by people who don't have any real financial worries. Would they reject any government assistance if something happened and they found themselves suddenly unable to support their families (illness, disability, etc...), or are they more like those people who fight so hard to make abortion illegal for everyone else but who still take their daughter to the clinic when she "makes a mistake".
Now obviously not everyone can access the best medical care and the wealthy will always have some advantage, I'm not advocating pure socialism, but we should look to the medical systems in Europe that are far more efficient and where everyone is covered. I can afford my health care just fine at the moment so this is not a personal matter for me, it's more of a moral issue.
(PS, sorry if this isn't the most clearly worded response. I'm trying to watch my Pats as I type this)
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
The government being involved use to mean one had more freedom. If you haven't noticed the corporations are more powerful than the government now. The government involvement isn't to restrict your freedom, it is to save you from having the corporations define what your freedom is. Since the corporations are not elected and not accountable to you in anyway you might want to think a little bit about that stance. At least the government (in theory) is suppose to be accountable to you. The corporations are accountable to their shareholders interests.
If having the government involved was such a bad thing to do these countries would probably not have gone that route:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c5/WORLDHEALTH2.png
You will notice on that map Iraq and Afghanistan have Universal Government run coverage provided by the tax payers of the United States.
Hold on a second. Why should taxpayers have to pay for activities that they feel are not in the best interest of the country and that don't fall within the Constitutionally-defined powers of the Federal government? That's not greed, that's responsibility. As others have pointed out, you are morally responsible for what you pay for and I (and many other taxpayers) do not believe that our government is acting in a way that reflects well on us as a nation.
Of course, Clinton's plan is similar — because Mitt's was good. Hillary's own (a.k.a. "Hillarycare") was a disaster. Mitt does not like his own not because he is "flopping", but because it is a (good) plan to a wrong end — in his, mine, and the conservative base's opinion.
You can call me (and them) "fuck the poor", but that's all meaningless namecalling, until you can explain to me, how a born-and-raised citizen of this country manages to stay poor, despite the immense head-start he has compared to the immigrants, who need to learn the language and the culture before becoming successful. Oh, and many of them need to shed the "illegal alien" status too.
In some small countries remittances from America are a big part of GDP — these people manage to not only support themselves, but also their extended families abroad. I'd rather send $100 to Darfur, than give $1 to an American beggar. And so should you...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
...have you ever actually met? My guess is that you're either lying, or you don't know any. I am a Libertarian, and I have been heavily involved in non-profit and charity work for over 8 years (I'm 22 and lower-middle class), not for personal gain or status, but because I feel a strong sense of responsibility for the well-being of the less-fortunate.
Of all the Libertarians that I know well enough to make an accurate assessment, I personally don't know ANY who are primarily motivated by selfishness, stinginess, or greed (though I'm sure there are some). There are uncharitable and selfish people who subscribe to all categories of political thought, but if you honestly think Libertarians are any more selfish than any other group, I think you might be mistaking somebody saying "I don't believe we should be taxed to do this because the government is inefficient and corrupt" as saying "I don't want to pay for this."
So, either you're a douche for lying, or you're a douche for not understanding the most basic tenets of the political belief system you are attacking. In either case, there's no need to apologize, I know you don't know any better, and I forgive you anyway.
This site has already become a circle jerk site for left wing haters from the party of tolerance. I come and read for a laugh at the stupidity but no longer use the site to gather opinions on technological issues.
Telecommuting! What about socialization?
Perhaps:
Pluggable WebServer
http://www.cc.gatech.edu/fac/mark.guzdial/squeak/pws/
Still quite obscure..
IMO - "semi-automatic" is most of the non-military firearms produced today. Full-automatic is self explanitory, and what I consider Assault Weapons. Lever, bolt, or pump action are all manual. Some people have nonstandard definitions for types of firearms, so I was really interested in exactly what Obama meant.