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 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.
This will be quite the political discussion if everyone who doesn't say they love socialism and hate corporations (and hate the rich, religious people, the military, etc, etc, etc) gets modded to -1 Flamebait.
Why even ask the question if there's not going to be a serious discussion? Just make it a poll so the "moderators" can say "Ron Paul" or one of the socialists instead of voting to censor other perspectives with their mod points.
The talent of a political candidate is proportional to the strength of the reality-distortion field s/he can maintain during the whole campaign. An genuinely idealist with a clear line of action that never ever bends facts or his/her opinions is sure to never get elected.
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
However, there's a different between being unbending in one's ideals and being unbending in one's understanding of the world; the latter leads to an inability or unwillingness to understand or empathize with the motivations of one's opponents, and that leads to the political environment we have today. Much of what makes Obama appealing is his willingness to think things over from perspectives other than his own and strike considered compromises that still accomplish his intended goals while making people who disagreed feel like they weren't completely steamrolled. Hillary strikes me as the win-at-any-cost type -- but winning at any cost means making the other side lose, and that leads to still more division and partisan hatred.
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.
For every problem, there's a solution that's simple, neat, and wrong. That's Ron Paul, who would dismantle vital institutions of our society.
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)
If Paul has no chance, it will be precisely because of all the otherwise well-meaning people who keep saying "Paul has no chance".
The "wasted vote" is a myth, or at best a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you do not vote for who you WANT to win, then someone you do not want will win. Period. It is as simple as that. Thinking about it any other way is nothing more than second-guessing, or mental jerking off.
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).
Support IRV and there really will be no such thing as a wasted vote. Right now, however, the spoiler effect is very very real.
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.
Don't you think it's telling that the one sector of the economy on which you have the most knowledge and interest is, for you and many libertarians, the one place where you conceive of an "exception" to the presumption of the optimality of non-intervention?
Perhaps if you had as abiding an interest in agriculture, manufacturing, and transportation, for example, you would see more "exceptions" to the idea that regulation is bad.
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.
I'm still not persuaded. For maximum persuasiveness in communications, can you please try using more all-caps text and putting in a lot swear words and additional information-free accusations? Everyone loves that stuff.
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.
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?
Its entirely fair - the magic phrase "transparency in government" isn't going to fix the housing bubble, the deficit, the lack of universal medical care - heck, it avoids every single concrete issue the article blurb mentions.
Take the issue of net neutrality ... those who care can find out everything they need to know. We don't need "transparency" in government - we need some common sense.
A good example is software patents. Making the process completely transparent won't fix that - only a change of law will.
Ditto for health care. Only a change of law will fix that - not transparency.
The housing bubble bust? Only house prices deflating to their historic norms (2.5 to 3x local income) will fix that. "Transparency" won't. And if it means that a couple of big banks fail because they got too greedy, that's their shareholders' problem, not the government, nor the taxpayer. Throwing a trillion bux at it won't fix the underlying problem - overly inflated housing values. "Transparency" sure won't fix it.
I'm sick and tired of politicians who don't tell it like it is and think we're stupid, which I guess means pretty much all main-stream politicians.
Transparency is a good thing, but it will not solve any of the problems currently facng the US and the rest of the world. Only concrete actions. For example, odon't just say you're in favour of net neutrality - tell us how you're going to achieve it. Specifically, what laws you intend to pass. Ditto for health care, the deficit, etc. Not "policy" - which can change, but LAW. That would be real transparency.
For example, if its the intention of the government to inflate its way out of the current bubble bust and deficit, tell us. (7 years of 10% inflation per annum should about do it - but you'll end up with a US dollar worth < $0.20 on world markets).
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.
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
Software patents are a good example: Of course only a change of law will fix that situation, but without the transparency to see who is lobbying who on the issue, where the money flows, it won't even be debated.
"For example, odon't just say you're in favour of net neutrality - tell us how you're going to achieve it."
Please respond to the point I made earlier about S&T not being about who knows the right answers (or who can spout the most convincing ones at the time), but who can create the environment where the right answer can be determined.
I look at the present election as-if it's already November: who could possibly beat Hillary or Obama? Based on the numbers, 'dark horse' candidate Ron Paul is the only Republican candidate with a snowball's chance in Phoenix. In comparison to Clinton and Obama, McCain has no money and no support for his "100 years in Iraq" platform, and Romney is just spending his own money to try to buy the nomination.
So, if you're registered as a Republican, a vote for Romney or McCain is a vote for Obama or Clinton. A vote for Paul counts for something.
Ron Paul is the best candidate because he tried to prevent the housing bubble, by introducing bills to abolish the Federal Reserve system. He gets no coverage from the Media-Political Complex because his platform is to take their toys away.
As for the Democrats, Hillary Clinton has done nothing to distance herself from Bill Clinton's 'free trade' policies (NAFTA, GATT, WTO), which made the housing bubble much worse than it otherwise would have been. Clinton's recession arrived the first time in March, 2001, which was too late for him to get credit, and too early for it to be Bush's fault. Bush tried the standard Keynesian "stimulus" recession remedy, but all the stimulus flowed into Chinese factories and non-productive units of housing. Now the economy's goose is cooked, so we should be thinking about who best to lead the country's reindustrialization. Obama may lack experience, but he's not evil.
Learn the rules so you know how to break them properly.
www.teslabox.com
Paul has no chance because the majority of Americans disagree with him on major substantive issues like his foreign and monetary policies.
Libertarian philosophy is in large part responsible for the failure in Iraq. After all, if the solution to bad government is no government, all we have to do is get rid of Saddam and the economy will take off and society will flourish, right? And we can have Halliburton coordinate the rebuilding instead of the State Department and have Blackwater mercenaries do jobs in place of the U.S. Army. But it didn't work out that way. Halliburton overcharged and underperformed. And the Blackwater guys stumbled into an ambush in Fallujah and got strung up from a bridge, which led to two major battles in the city. And as awful as Saddam's Stalinist regime was, the power vacuum that followed was filled by militias, organized crime, religious zealots, and terrorists, so that life is, unbelievably, worse than it was under Saddam. Bush and his Neocon buddies thought that Iraq would be the perfect little place to test out their neat Libertarian ideas and show how well they worked; instead they got thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed and have left the place a wreck.
What Iraq shows is that a functioning free market needs good government. You need security so you and your customers don't get killed, infrastructure so you can run your store, courts so that you can resolve disputes. Without an effective police force, reliable power and water, and a functioning justice system, it's hard to run your shop at a profit.
Bush and his neocon buddies are completely opposed to Libertarianism. They've hijacked the Republican party, and they'd rather have Hillary Clinton than a libertarian like Ron Paul.
Iraq is a contractor's wet dream. Big government contracts are awarded to US companies, while soldiers die to protect American assets. This is exactly what libertarians oppose, and it pisses me off that you've tied the one group of people who've consistently opposed this war with the mess that is Iraq.
Iraq doesn't show that a free market needs government(*). It only shows that under a civil war and illegal occupation nothing works.
(*) Besides, libertarians aren't anarchists. Libertarians favor SMALL government.
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.
You know what they say: "Lead, follow or get out of the way." Ron Paul isn't a leader or a follower... I believe Ron Paul and for the same reason, Dennis Kucinich aren't ever fit to be President for what you said. They both have never accomplished anything. I was talking to a state level Democrat in Ohio earlier this week about Kucinich, and what she said was something to the extent: "Dennis is a great man, and has never compromised himself, yet he hasn't ever accomplished anything. To me it is more important to make some progress than none. I'd rather go 75% towards my goal and be only 25% away than have gotten nowhere." I think that applies directly to Ron Paul, he may have never voted to raise taxes, but he hasn't ever accomplished anything. Politics is accomplishing your goals and improving your country, but it is also requires a great art of compromising, not to the extent that it compromised your character, but far enough that it will accomplish most of your goals. The President of the United States needs to be someone who can reach a compromise.
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.
You know, I'll bite on your cointelpro bullshit.
Nothing that Ron Paul has ever said or done is in anyway supportive of racism. He has for many decades supported individual Freedoms and Liberty which are concepts that are diametrically opposed to racism. Racism cannot exist when you have Freedom ideals that treat individuals as such and not as part of a group. Racism comes from creating groups of people and judging likewise.
Furthermore, Ron Paul is the republican candidate with the most support from minorities. It has been pointed out time and time again and unless you start accusing non-caucasians of throwing their support behind a racist candidate in some uninformed way (yeah right) you have no argument.
Everything that Dr. Paul has ever done and all the ideals he stands for seek the end of racism. The entire accusation was constructed by professional counterintelligence personel. The same types who run scenarios on stealing elections and what would happen if they were to assassinate Ron Paul.
Unfortunately for them anyone who actually looks into it or even just hears his side of the story will realize it's a joke.
Also, calling a respectable candidate who's served in congress for 20 years and has a respectable record a "batshit crazy racist loon" is quite possibly the worst ad hominem attack I have ever heard in my life. It shows you have no ground to stand on to debate his views without distorting them and have to focus on attacking the man.
But it's ok, the vast majority of people see through your games little cointelpro agent and we'll be knocking on your door soon demanding you pay your dues to our society.
Liberty.
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