Slashdot Mirror
McCain vs. Obama on Tech Issues
eldavojohn writes "Ars is running a brief article that looks at stances from Chuck Fish of McCain's campaign and Daniel Weitzner from Obama's in regards to technical issues that may cause us geeks to vote one way or the other. From openness vs. bandwidth in the net neutrality issue to those pesky National Security Letters, there's some key differences that just might play at least a small part in your vote. You may also remember our discussions on who is best for geeks."
Jack Johnson: It's time someone had the courage to stand up and say: "I'm against those things that everybody hates".
John Jackson: Now I respect my opponent. I think he's a good man but, quite frankly, I agree with everything he just said!
Fry: These are the candidates? They sound like clones. [He looks a little harder.] Wait a minute. They are clones!
Leela: Don't let their identical DNA fool you. They differ on some key issues.
Jack Johnson: I say your three cent titanium tax goes too far.
John Jackson: And I say your three cent titanium tax doesn't go too far enough!
Fry: If I were registered to vote, I'd send these clowns a message by staying home on election day and dressing up like a clown.
My work here is dung.
I thought the Dems haven't selected a candidate yet.
I doubt either one of these guys has the background or passion for tech to really have well thought out, firm ideas on any tech issues. They likely had aides poll and give them pat answers on tech. In other words, don't expect them to stick to any positions they might articulate now. Then again, that probably applies to all issues, not just tech.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
One candidate has a lawyer/media executive as technical adviser, the other has a MIT computer scientist. Guess which is which
"Chuck Fish, an attorney for the McCain campaign and former Time Warner executive"
"Daniel Weitzner, an MIT computer scientist"
Who are you going to place more faith in there?
As usual republicans == corporate interests over technical or popular interests.
(BTW, before you accuse me of being a shill or a partisan or an idiot democrat, I'm not even USian and don't get to vote on this. I'm just calling it like I see it)
vociferous critics, and one of the Iraq wars biggest cheerleaders...nuff said.
Monstar L
"Go Fish."
If you have time there are some interesting points here:
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/technology/
What can a candidate do about overloaded sites?
I'm not voting for Obama and I'm not voting for McCain. Despite the hot air coming from both their mouths to the contrary, they are both deeply in the corporate pockets. They have taken their corporate bribes and the corporations own them.
Obama and McCain want to put potsmokers in prison. A vote for someone who wants you in prison isn't just a wasted vote, it's a stupid vote. "Vote for me, I want you incarcerated! A gambler in every prison, a pothead in every institution, a hooker or a john in every cell!"
I want to know what the Green and Libertarian candidates stances are on tech issues. Why these two parties are not mentioned in the corporate-owned media is obvious; the question is why they are being ignored by slashdot?
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
Barak Obama consistently evaluates situations and sets goals in a dynamic and networked way. This is how his campaign has generated such a huge response from mostly small donors. John McCain has been labeled a maverick, but has closely associated himself with conservative players and the mindset that an authoritative leader can best set goals for others.
Virginia Postrel explores the differences between these approaches in detail in The Future and Its Enemies. Al Gore, for example, appears to be future oriented because of the many apparently progressive stands he takes on issues, but Al Gore uses a top-down evaluation strategy that locks in a particular view with little input before or after. As such the future is at odds with Al Gore, and will tend always to surprise him and chafe at the positions he takes which are based on a mostly static model of the world and the options for progress it presents us.
not their campaign promises or who is working for them currently.
Granted Obama doesn't have as much time in the Senate as McCain, and Clinton doesn't compare favorably for time either but still beats out Obaman, but what does their voting record say?
Considering the fact we can look at how these people voted on many issues why would you believe their promises without comparing the two? Turning over a new leaf is more fairy tale than anything
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
And what you've said, that they aren't tech fanboys, is a good thing. Or do you imagine that, amazingly enough, they'd be fans of exactly the same tech you are, and see all the Correct Solutions exactly the way you do? Ha ha, huh? Do you really want a President who not only has the power of the Chief Executive but also the arrogance to think he knows what's best for your industry?
What you want from these guys is the wisdom to see that letting folks alone to work out stuff for themselves is the best default option, and government should step in only as the utter last resort. You want them to know their own limits, to realize they're not only not experts in tech stuff, but also not experts in farming, or energy exploration and transportation, or medicine, or housing, or education, or any of the other million and a half things people do to keep the wheels humming. They're just lawyers, and if they confine themselves to drafting (or if President promoting the drafting of) well-written, focussed, modest laws that address the relatively few issues that actually can be helped with a good law...well, they'll do a lot more good than any number of demagogues and wannabe Caesars.
Stuff White People Like says white people like Obama.
He's against trade, so if you want any equipment from overseas, you might have trouble. (On the other hand, some on his campaign say he's only pretending to be against trade to fool stupid voters.) If you want packets from overseas, he may be your guy.
I can't support any of the major party candidates or Ralph Nader because I care about freedom and liberty and all of them are anti-freedom. I can't support Bob Barr either because he has no effective foreign policy plan.
I anticipate that the online political discourse this year will be even more unreadable than usual.
Technical skill is not even close to being on my radar of what I want in a president, nor necessarily even in his/her closest advisers. In fact, I worry when the ones at the top, be it a corporation or a government, think they know more than the underlings and specialists as regards any subject, including technology. In my mind, vision, scruples and the ability to see through BS are the leadership skills I look for in candidates. And as it happens, these are actually pretty easy to discern by simply examining their track records. The hardest way to determine these things is to listen to what they say.
The more you regulate a company, the worse its products become.
Politics can get pretty shallow, but there's more to it than being a bitch for the polls. I think this little Q&A is a case in point. Not the answers themselves, but the people chosen to deliver them. McCain chose a lawyer with strong connections to a major media conglomerate that many of us have reason to loathe. Obama chose a computer scientist with connections to a university that played a big role in creating the Internet. That, by itself, should tell you where there respective priorities are.
Er...who, exactly, do you think gets technical stuff done? Martians? NGOs? Neighborhood watch associations?
Nope. Corporations. You know, like Amazon.com, Cisco, Google, Sun, and a thousand tiny tech start-ups you won't hear about until the day you sure wish you'd bought stock early in 'em.
So I'm pretty mystified by how you see it as conceivable that "corporate interests" are opposed to "technical interests." Seems to me the only way to really advance technical interests is to advance the corporate interests of technical corporations. Or are you thinking you still live in some quaint 18th century world where the individual inventor can do it all himself, and there is no real need to form large cooperating teams of technical folks and provide them with good support staff and plenty of capital investment -- i.e. found "a corporation"?
As for "popular" interests: the "popular" interests are what the vast seething market of consumers want, and, guess what, they don't give a flying fsck about technical interests at all, because they're not techies. They want their tech stuff to Just Work and be incredibly cheap, if not free. They're not the least bit interested in coolness, or advancing the art in amazing ways, or any of those other geeky kinds of goals you might find among people who seek each other out and associate into a corporation so that they can spend the productive part of their lives advancing those technical interests.
Sheesh, get a clue. Or a job. Find out how the world actually works instead of regurgitating mindless slogans from the 19th century.
What that means in practice is that tech jobs in the US will be largely filled by foreigners because is is cheaper for companies to pay employees with green cards than with cash.
That particularly cliche is arrogant, bigoted, and not even applicable here. For one thing, there are a lot of dedicated teachers out there who don't deserve to be lumped in with the clueless hacks. For another, this guy is not just a "teacher" (though I do hope he makes it to a classroom now and then), he's a scientist at a leading university, one where a lot of the technology we love so much originated.
The main-stream candidates are also more committed to maintaining the status quo. This may sound like a bad thing, but changing a lot of things all at once is much, much worse. It is a testimant to the supreme arrogance of man that almost everyone on this message-board believes they are intellegent enough to make radical, sweeping changes to the government and the economy without killing everyone.
No one in their right mind should vote for somone who advocates that kind of change, no matter how much they think it's a good idea. The only approach that works it making small changes over time and working toward your eventual goal. Libertarians should vote for the republican candidate, since he advocates deregulation and reliance on markets. This is not the same as making drugs and porn legal, but it's a step in the right direction.
Let's face it, Obama is the current cause-celeb so he's going to get a lot of bank from young techies if for no other reason than no one wants to be the guy who doesn't like him. I think it will come down to Obama possibly embracing more content freedom and McCain embracing more general freedom of the Internet itself. The two probably won't be far apart in tech in general.
Obama won't get my vote due to a myriad of other issues that no technology stance is likely to sway.
Both are pro rigged-trade globalists. Their loyalty is to the elite. To Joe Workingman American, it's tweedledee vs. tweedledum. Middle class has choice between
A) Lower Standard of Living and huge defecits (mccain)
and
B) Lower Standard of Living and huge taxes (obama).
Whatever.
The bigger question is who has the best health care plan.
Why is everyone ignoring Hillary?
Bush #1, economy in the gutter. Clinton, economy booming. Bush #2, economy in the gutter. Is there a pattern here?
McCain/Palin '08. Now THAT's hope and change!
Net Neutrality is very important and critical to preserving a free and open internet and we do badly need to make this a part of law. Barack Obama is more likely to do this. I am definitely a Obama supporter not only due to this but due to a wide spectrum of other issues as well.
The claims made by telcos are mostly lies and deception. The telcos always have been able to tier service based on overall speed, what they have not been allowed to do is effectively censor content by slowing down some sites or blocking access to them. They dont need any capability to censor content or to discriminate against certain content. The corporations agenda is simply a vieled attempt to control information flow over the internet and to block access to things they dont like and dont agree with.
Measures lesser than Net Nuetrality wont be enough to address this. Blocking access or making access more difficult to certain content is innately bad and has no place on what should be an open and democratic form of communication where everyone has equal opportunity to be heard, where things are not biased towards corporations and their content. There is no way to make discriminating against content an acceptable practice or tilting it in favour of powerful corporate interests.
It is little different from what is being done in china, It is different in name only, here we have corporations do the censorship, In china it is government, The US has a composite government consisting of corporations and the republican government which they elect and which represents their interests. The corporations are the republican constituents. When you here a republican talk about their constituents, they are usually referring to the wealthy corporate donors who got them elected and paid for their campaigns. Democrats while not always perfect are certainly have a greater propensity to represent the people and do what is in the best interests of the general population rather than of big corporations.
We complain about what China has done in censoring the internet however we would have the same situation here unless we do something to bolster the internet as a free and open medium where everyone which is open to everyone with no discrimination. The same sort of mentality and insidious objective behinds Chinas censorship and the desire of corporations to censor the internet springs from the same mindset. The corporations have been able to control the flow of information for so long, they have had a monopoly on the media and were the gatekeepers, they could control what people could see and hear and it was very difficult to reach a large number of people, very expensive, though traditional mediums, so it excluded many from being able to express their views. the internet is a democratic form of communication, it is the first time we have had anything approaching true positive free speech where anyone could broadcast their views to anyone else and everyone is on an equal footing, no matter if you are poor or are a millionaire. And if a you re a rich megalomaniac you just cant have a situation where the little people can express themselves and actually make their voice heard to millions, and where there is nothing you can do to stop this and where they basically are on an equally footing, yhou no longer have your built in advantage of traditional media which allows you to more effectively distribute your views. Thje rich hate this because they have been so long accustomed to setting the agenda and manipulating society for their own benefit. So the openness and democracy of the net scared them because they are losing power and the internet has moved us more in the direction of a democratic society, so they are now trying to find a way to desperately shut it down and turn it into some sort of corporate controlled outlet one way sort of medium just like television is, where only the corporations have any rights to express themselves and everyone else is a mindless consumer who pays their monthly satellite subscription bill to be brainwashed by c
What's up with his seeing dead people in crowds at his speeches? I know the dead vote in his town of Chicago, but I've never heard of them showing up at political rallies.
"On this Memorial Day, as our nation honors its unbroken line of fallen heroes -- and I see many of them in the audience here today -- our sense of patriotism is particularly strong." Barack Oboma, May 26, 2008, New Mexico
I'm italian, I just wanted to let you know how luky you are to have such candidates...
:,(
here we don't even have an opposition for the government
well, sctually we have one, but the goals are just_the_same, and they said they won't oppose any decision of the government...
uhm... can anyone invade us? pleeeeeasee!!!
while short, he has accomplished something amazing. Just point your browser to:
www.usaspending.gov
This is what sold me on him. Radical transparency. Our money, indexed and tracked. They even have an API for chrissakes. This is something that everyone can be behind, liberals and conservatives alike.
Obama wants to stop the manned space program for five years and give the money to education. .01% of the each of our tax bill. Yes I will pay that much more in taxes for the manned space program. Any money saved will be spent on the back side when they try and restart the program.
Well stopping it for five years will effectivly kill it. Anybody that is any good will leave for a new job. The total amount for education if any of it gets to education will be something like
All in all a REALLY BAD PLAN.
It will put thousands of people out of work in Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, and California and provide little to no help with education. The whole thing reminds me of a town near where I lived. They had a huge problem with drugs and prostitution. There solution was to close the strip clubs. Well that solved.... nothing but sure sounded good.
At this point I am hoping Clinton does get the nomination.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Ubama pledged to cancel the VSE/delay it 5 years, whatever. If U think the VSE was ever going to happen, then it just means U need to get your moon fix in Chinese instead of Hindi.
McCain aughta be pretty good with morse code or the rotary dial phone. Obama, hmmm, dunno.
privacy should not be conceived as absolute control over personal information, but rather as protection from harms accruing from the use or disclosure of information.
Very elegant phrase that simultaneously defines the elite groupthink for the last 20+ years. Noted principals underlying this type of thinking.
-Your personal information is not yours.
-Others can (and do) do whatever they like with the evidence of your legal, financial, economic and social activities.
-Of course we mean you no harm when collecting, storing and reselling the evidence of your activities. But that doesn't mean there's any liability assumed in our activities.
It should explain the ease and speed with which the NSA/telco domestic surveilance program was established. With that kind of groupthink, it stands to reason it is the tip of an iceberg. Probably meaningless to most because they don't see the environment this kind of permissive groupthink inspires in their government.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
On every point the "last word" is either left to Obama's side, or questioned/rebuffed by the author himself. Bleah...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
I would like to clarify my message a bit. When I said rich elite I was referring to certain wealthy or powerful corporations and individuals who want to control everything. I do not mean to say all wealthy are like that, some do have good intentions and have tried to do positive things, one example is Google and their attempts to keep the 700 Mhz spectrum open.
We need to have a government that that respects the freedoms and rights of everyone, not disporportionally that of some rather than others. Obama will make our priorities once again making this country better for everyone, investing in its infrastructure, in science and education, and so on, rather than getting our resources tied up in oil wars that benefit of a few wealthy corporate sponsors of Bush. We need to fund science and education so we can have the capability to develop renewable and clean sources of energy to power the future. Drilling for oil isnt the long term solution to that, and is so environmentally harmful, along with oil, we need to stop using it as quickly as possible and find a clean green source of abundant energy. This is essential for maintaining our computer tech inertia which is also energy dependant. Obama seems when it comes to energy issues and the internet seems to have a good understanding of what we need to do and should not do.
And this how is this different than another group of Americans who will walk up and say "ok, who was the black guy again? oh yeah" and vote for the latest idiot from the democrats?
As a white guy, I just want to vote for somebody who looks like me. Is that so hard to understand?
Dark Reflection
I doubt either one of these guys has the background or passion for tech to really have well thought out, firm ideas on any tech issues.
McCain was a graduate of the US Naval Academy so he has a bit of an engineering background. Also, as a Naval Aviator (pilot) math, science and engineering were a part of his day to day life, not in a distant sense but in a practical usage sense.
Obama is a lawyer.
I'm more concerned about knowing there aren't 57 states in the US, or that you're not seeing dead people in the audience. Get that right first, then we can talk tech...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
FTA: METHODOLOGY: The totals on these charts are calculated from PAC contributions and contributions from individuals giving more than $200, as reported to the Federal Election Commission. Individual contributions are generally categorized based on the donor's occupation/employer, although individuals may be classified instead as ideological donors if they've given more than $200 to an ideological PAC. Lobbyists barely contributed to Barack, compared to other candidates. The real question is more along the lines of "What cross-section of the IT world is supporting Barack?"
If they're like me, they may be included in that number. No corporation is buying my vote. I just call it like I see it.
"Little is much when little you need."
As far as who stands up for the constitution though, I would trust Obama much more than McCain (Bush Lite). Just look at how George W. Bush violates the constitution.
http://www.academychicago.com/GeorgeWBush.html
George W. Bush looks like he stands for freedom. The truth is that he has done more than any other president to subvert the constitution he is sworn to defend. GWB is a lot closer to being like Hitler than BO is to being like Stalin. (In defense of GWB, he has caused nowhere near the human misery that either Hitler or Stalin caused. Both Hitler and Stalin, as a matter of deliberate policy, tried to exterminate tens of millions of people. The worst we can say about GWB is that his war in Iraq has caused around 100,000 civilian deaths: that is nowhere near the same as ordering them to be killed, which is what Hitler and Stalin did).
The right question is:
"Why do we have to give a crap what the grizzled old fossil, the newly-minted career politician, or the shrieking banshee have to say about technology?"
The President of the US (as well as the Congress) should have zero effect on it. He or she has one main duty: to defend the borders of the US from foreign invasion. Everything else this government does is simply meddling in the private consensual affairs of citizens or usurping the powers of local governments to set policies best suited to local culture and tradition.
That said, practically speaking, if you vote your goal should be either (a) to elect the candidate who will do the least damage to your civil liberties, on the premise that the system is salvageable; or (b) to elect the candidate who will do the most damage, on the premise that the citizen-led equivalent of a reboot (aka a "revolution") is the only way to fix the system.
Until enough people figure out that trying to ram their own preferences down the throats of people living thousands of miles away is a bad idea, we will continue to be presented with nothing but bad choices.
[ home ]
I have no idea what Chuck Fish's interests are but if you want to change the market, it might be best to do it with someone who knows the market--or even has the ability to change it from the inside.
In other words, he's a real go-getter -- it doesn't matter what he decides to get done, just that he's got the connections, the can-do attitude, and the shark skills to get it done!
Look, I can take the point that execution skills matter. The problem with this is that what we're talking about here are policy advisors, and when it comes to understanding the potential of technology, Mr. Fish is quite likely going to be limited at *best* to its value as a corporate asset. And there's little evidence McCain has the ability to pick anybody better.
By contrast, Obama's selection shows that he knows where to start for picking people who understand the underlying knowledge domain. And there's definitely evidence to suggest that Obama has the ability to pick people and build an organization that can get things done to supplement to work of policy advisor that knows what's up.
Tweet, tweet.
I whined about him stealing Florida thanks to badly designed ballots
Given that a democrat designed the ballot and that a democratic election board approved the ballot I think it would be far more accurate to say that the democrats gave away Florida.
This is somewhat of a tangent but you should realize that the "stole the election" theme is a political strategy of the democrats, not a historical fact. To be fair, the republicans would have done the exact same thing had the situation been reversed. However according to PBS, a somewhat left leaning organization:
"In the first full study of Florida's ballots since the election ended, The Miami Herald and USA Today reported George W. Bush would have widened his 537-vote victory to a 1,665-vote margin if the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court would have been allowed to continue, using standards that would have allowed even faintly dimpled "undervotes" -- ballots the voter has noticeably indented but had not punched all the way through -- to be counted."
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/media/media_watch/jan-june01/recount_4-3.html
So... you look like Mc Cain ?
Wow, you're concerned about things far more important than actual issues. That's real citizenship!
But, I wanted socialized health insurance!
The simple fact is, if you kill off manned missions we'll pretty much never send a man to Mars, or colonize much (or at all) beyond the planet.
Obama has po-pohed the idea that any kind of problem can kill off everyone on earth. That I think in the long term, is a grave mistake.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Nothing like judging a message by the messenger...
I prefer to analyze what they actually have to say.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Look, a candidate who can write code obviously may not have an edge over one who can't -- in fact, given the aptness of Philip Greenspun's comparison of pilots vs programmers (see here: http://philip.greenspun.com/materialism/early-retirement/aviation ), it's entirely possible programming skill isn't a great test of broad intellectual ability. :)
But tech issues absolutely underly quite a few other issues of economics and liberty, and those are certainly have a weight equal to other big issues like 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.
It's worth paying attention to.
Tweet, tweet.
...shall go by the bullet.
....
Lincoln.
Kennedy.
Martin Luther King.
gitmo, abu ghraib, poland, afghanistan,
Sen. Obama, don't try to do too many good things too fast, even mistakenly.
These goons make no mistakes.
Hackers have long memories. It works both ways.
Since you bring up Futurama, am I the only one who gets a Professor Farnsworth vibe from John McCain?
...and all politicians are liars so why not pick the new color option being offered in 2008?
Blar.
See DRM, the multiple court cases over DeCSS, the whole DMCA and its restrictions over discussion of security, the massive abuse of the patent system (effectively cutting out or severely crippling many of your "thousand tiny tech start-ups you won't hear about".
I'm pretty mystified that you could have missed out on these themes over the past few years.
All of those things have been promoted by large corporations. And all of them, have been opposed by large corporations (Apple against DRM, various large companies calling for an overhaul on software patents, etc). So why again is it you are singling out corporations specifically as being evil with no distinction?
Oh that's right, you're a loon who cannot see anything but villainy in any group of people beyond ten where money is involved. Realize that money is a tool. Realize that corporations are just another form of tool. And think to look at who wields the tools, instead of cursing the tools themselves for what the smiths hath wrought.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
are on the CFP wiki page
It was probably an amoral, dishonest and unethical 'republican' sleeper agent who registered as D in order to screw them over from the inside.
Very honorable.
Blar.
Oh really? Wow no mention of that on spaceref.com.
In fact, it seems he wants to explicitly *continue* the important programs.
But don't let a little thing like facts get in the way of your FUD campaign.
Hillary is a lying sh*thead. Obama is a well reasoned smart guy. Get over it.
vociferous critics, and one of the Iraq wars biggest cheerleaders...nuff said.
I've not followed him on Amtrack. But it's funny you should mention trains, since McCain was an early critic of Iraq and a backer of a plan (the surge) that actually put it back on the right track, after terrible initial mismanagement.
There were plenty of Republicans against the surge too you know. McCain is interesting because he's gone against what were considered pure Republican interests a number of times on different issues, which is why a lot of the far right have troubles with him and may or may not support him. On Iraq, you seem to be unable to distinguish between helpful and unhelpful actions there - something McCain has shown better judgement for.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Wow, you're unconcerned about your chosen candidate's intellect, honesty, and judgement. That's real progressivism!
There's also this story.
It's embarrassing to see McCain suddenly pretend to be an environmentalist, then ducking all the actual, technical questions.
It would be nice if he were actually against telecom amnesty, but McCain is for it, he just wants some "radical transparency" (the Microsoft gimmick?) to let us know exactly how they're spying on us.
well, let's assume I represent the majority voter who's probably not even bothered about foreign policy as long as his son is not fighting in iraq.
Who does he get as choices?
1. mccain, white, war veteran, can protect america from "'em fuckin jihadis"
2. a woman! to hell with color, size, shape, brains, personality, ethics, whatever else....
3. a goddamn black with a different middle name.
who do you think I'll vote for?
this election is one long drama being played out to perfection.
The choices decide the result much before the actual vote.
Two-party is an illusion.
The last one was stolen, this one is predecided.
Wake up guys, we have a huge problem.
[/conspiracytheory]
Hackers have long memories. It works both ways.
Ask Jesse Jackson.
Two of the supposed three candidates are gunning for war, war, war. We may not even have a tech industry to care about.
There was a poll done on black americans and the large majority said they didn't know anything that Obama stood for, except that he was black. I don't see how this is any different than the white bigot who votes against him only because he is black.
Now what would have been interesting is if someone like a Powell or Rice had run. Would black Americans have blindly voted for a black republican?
I think your spelling just jellomized my brain :(
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Best choice for geeks is a socialist who wants to fund technology that improves the citizens' lot. This would essentially mean unfathomable resources for the innovative mind. It's the kind of nurturing of talent that brought the (early) USSR and China forward so quickly - although China will, of course, have to drop the former's fascist streak to avoid the same fate.
Of course, most people who classify themselves as "geeks" these days are more failed Bill Gates clones, who style themselves as passionate about technology but just use it as a tool for personal wealth creation. A true geek has no interest in a well-paid job, a comfortable house, a partner, a family, or the latest pre-built gadgets. He will be surrounded by books on mathematics, on science, on electronics, and his favo(u)rite tools are pencil, paper and a soldering iron.
And don't counter by telling me you contribute to the Free software community unless your CV and list of professional contacts are devoid of mention and knowledge.
So... you look like Hillary?
Why can't I have both? The computer guy for what can physically be done and the legal guy for what can legally be done.
Florida is basically just where old people go to retire, play golf, eat early bird specials, and then eventually die with their turn signal still blinking.
I say they shouldn't ever be allowed to vote: why should those bitter old clods be influencing the rules for the rest of my life?
Um, I think the important thing to know here is: RON PAUL is still in the running!!!
Don't buy what the other two "candidates" are selling. Go for a dose of real founding father gusto with the only real candidate standing on the media-imposed sidelines.
This video is a few months old, but for what it's worth, Larry Lessig has been an Obama champion since the days where everyone thought Clinton would win in a walk; here's his written endorsement from back in November of 2007 talking about why Obama is a superior choice on the issues that matter to most copyright and technology geeks.
While some may look at long-standing policy and think things are just the way they should be, there are always others who see it as long-standing ideological oppression. Technology is not causing a re-opening of closed issues. The issues are always open and technology is just providing new battlegrounds.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
I agree with Obama that open access trumps bandwidth. What's more, the loads of free content that open access naturally creates provide huge incentive to upgrade the network. Let's take the cell phone network vs. the Internet. The internet has gone from 2800 baud dial-up service on $2K+ 286 PCs accessing BBSs to Mbps service on sub $1000 computers with processing, graphics, and multi-media capabilities that far exceed what was available in professional video-editing houses just a few decades back. BBSs (much to some of our dismay) gave way to streaming video and interactive GUI applications. And not only have the prices of the devices dropped by huge amounts even in inflation-adjusted dollars, but I don't pay much more for broadband than I once did for dial-up. And today I can sign up without a contract and switch my service provider if I'm unhappy with the service (because we have competing technologies/infrastructure, cable modem and DSL, we have true competition). As for additional infrastructure upgrades, I predict people will start to ditch cable for on-demand TV via the internet. Content provides will innovate with interactive TV and targeted ads. Advertisers will get more for their money because consumers will be more willing to watch ads that they're actually interested in. These efficiencies will motivate and pay for infrastructure upgrades.
The cell phone network on the other hand started as basically your land line sans the wires and hasn't really come very far. Features added include caller ID, call waiting, text messaging, an address book and calendar on your phone that your forced to edit using the horrible UI of the phone itself. You're locked in to a contract, sometimes a multi-year contract. And your devices is tied to the service provider, so you can't take it with you. Where's the simple to implement and obvious features like being able to edit/sync/backup your address book, calendar, etc on a real computer with a full keyboard. Sure, there are better devices like the iPhone and crackberry, but they cost an arm and a leg. And you're still locked into a service provider, so why would I pay so much more for a better device when I have no control over the most important feature, namely coverage area and bandwidth. The cell-phone network is actually bunch of closed-access monopolies and though coverage area has become somewhat better, bandwidth and devices still suck eggs.
Imagine if you could just sign up for wireless access and connect any device you want to the network and switch providers any time you want to get the best performance. I think there would be a huge innovation in devices. Once more useful devices were available, content would follow. (Honestly, how many of you web developers bother with versions of your sites for mobile devices.) Once the content and devices where there, consumers would demand (and be willing to pay for) a better network.
I'm not saying the we shouldn't take caution on the legal definition of NN (I like the Limited Discrimination and Tiering one), but I think it's pretty clear that ensuring open access is the market-centric approach to this issue and letting ISPs get away with trying to exercise monopoly power by exploiting control of the infrastructure would be a huge step backwards.
Excellent point.
And then you get guys like me. I could personally care LESS about Barack Obama's skin color. Really. His ancestry is of no interest to me.
What is of interest are his positions defined by his voting record. Barack Obama's voting record is the single MOST LIBERAL of anyone in the Senate. More liberal than Ted Kennedy, more liberal than anyone. Even the redoutable Maxine Water of the House, who recently (and infamously) threatened to "socialize" all the American oil companies, isn't as liberal as Obama (and has endorsed Hillary Clinton).
So my vote goes to McCain. Not because I particularly like him, but because he is, by far and away, the LEAST vile and frightening of the available choices.
Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
There are about 1 Million H1-b's in the U.S. Some estimate more. See some of the Time, Newsweek, Business Week and other major articles. Each H1-b visa lasts for 6 years, and can even be renewed longer. So that's about 80,000+ * 6 = 480,000. Plus a few hundred thousand more for the years 2002 and 2003.
This happens to be on par with the unemployment rate in the US for IT workers.
And this is probably a low estimate, because it turns out that many former H1-b's have decided to stay in the U.S. illegally.
If you want to get a real idea about the real numbers involved, per company, go to h1bfacts.com.
How'd you get modified informative, with so many wrong statements
With no disrespect intended, I think your support of net neutrality legislation is a bit naive. Granted, I, as many here, feel net neutrality is very important, but legislating it is not the way to go.
NN legislation is basically giving the federal government the power to regulate the internet, and while it seems good now to let them protect us consumers, it may not always be that way. All it would take would be one court case to set presidence for the entire country that not only could the government say what couldn't be censored, but also what could be. Think I'm being unrealistic? Take a look at eminent domain and Kelo v. City of New London as an example. Sure politicians will publicly denounce such misuses, but they would certainly take advantage them behind close doors.
The point is, as much as you distrust corporations, you must realize giving the government more power is not the best solution, because, guess what, the government as a whole panders to corporate interests.
As a smart guy...
I used to work for NetQoS. I no longer do, but want to keep the excellent karma attached to this account.
The enumerated duties of the federal government (including the executive) are:
- Form a more perfect Union
- establish Justice
- insure domestic Tranquility
- provide for the common defence
- promote the general Welfare
- secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity
I would say that tech policy satisfies at least one of those. Note that the common defense is only one among several--not the sole duty as you claimed.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Since this election is pretty much a Republican given, vote for Huckabee! :-)
The parent post should not be moderated as troll. It states a position that many truly hold in earnest.
Great Idea, Lets choose our leaders based on who would be the most fun at the Superbowl party!
I mean what could go wrong?
We have the best government that money can buy.
But how many white Republicans would have voted for a black person? Carrying 13% of the national vote won't cut it (and that's assuming that every black person is eligible to vote (not true, esp. in Florida) and actually votes).
Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it. --Mark Twain
If voting could change anything, they would make it illegal.
Why does problems voting and Florida have to be a recurring theme? I'm losing faith in the state. Seriously. And it always happens when it is most important.
Once you start despising the jerks, you become one.
You can't be sure whether a politician is really religious or not. They all have to keep up the image of being church-going Christians or they stand no chance in hell of being elected. I'd tell you my guesses but I'm in karma conservation mode right now.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
For the benefit of the 99.9% of us who have never been on Amtrak, please explain why that's a bad thing.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
"Most liberal"? What does that even mean?
Hey, isn't National Journal the same magazine that rated John Kerry as the most liberal senator in 2004? Gee, what a coincidence!
No he DID NOT say that, the senator says he would delay NASAâ(TM)s controversial moon-to-Mars program five years in order to fund education initiatives. An initiative many people at NASA are unhappy with. A typical Bush initiative."Make this thing happen, btw no real budget to help."
This is about delay the manned MARS mission, not manned space flight.
It's better to delay it and know where that money is going then to slowly strangle it and watch the money go who knows where.
There are a lot of problems that need to be solved before manned flight to Mars is even doable.
They can be solved, but the program needs a huge budget, like the Apollo programs did to get that stuff done, and I don't see anybody doing that right now.
However, lay the foundation with better science and critical thinking and it will happen.
Does Clinton have come magic recipe for solving the problems to make it happen?
This is just one issue, an issue that would be a hard sell, please look at ALL the tech. issues and not make a decision based on 1 point.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
This is the democrats way of shaming people into voting for Obama.
"Oh no, we're losing! Blame racism!"
My vote goes to the one with the least government involvement.
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
Unfortunately, the larger problem is that most Americans vote nearly blindly in any case.
A voter is either voting for a particular candidate or against one or more candidates. There's nothing wrong with either approach; there are times when it is as important to keep a "bad" candidate from public office as it is to get a "good" candidate in. But how does the voter define good and bad, and determine at which point it is better to make a negative vote than a positive one?
And there's the rub. With the artificial polarization of the bipartisan system, the massive campaigning system and PR/media manipulation, there really is no way to define the candidates in such a way as to make a solidly informed vote. Candidates change their message to suit the target audience, and avoid giving concrete and unambiguous answers when they can. Promises are made which can't be backed up, mud is thrown in order to garner negative votes, and the media spins everything possible.
So in the end, how can a voter not vote blindly? I personally don't vote based on skin color, gender or age, but I can see why people do -- they are among the few facts which can't be changed as the political winds suit. And all of the candidates' personal attributes have the potential to affect decision-making. Whether or not they allow this to happen, and to what extent, is an important question.
Now, voting strictly along party lines? That's intentionally blinding yourself. And this applies equally to the candidates as to the voters.
This really bothers me.
It seems every election Slashdot has an article on which candidate is better "for the geeks." This is along with hundreds of articles about which candidate is better for X Y Z group.
This is a symptom of the sickness in our society today. Everyone thinks in terms of, "what's best for me," rather than, "what's best for our country." It is exactly the kind of thinking that led us into our current mess of endless war, deficit spending, a falling dollar and the housing crash. People voted for the candidate who said the right thing on a narrow issue rather than looking at the broad profile and thinking about how position and policy statements would affect us in the large.
It's easy to campaign to individual desires. It's much harder to campaign on the idea that together we are much stronger than we are as individuals. We've had some examples of this: Both Roosevelts, Kennedy, Lincoln. But ever since Goldwater, individualistic politics has ruled the day.
I see this attitude starting to change, but it's slow. I, along with other politically-minded people I know, have pledged to contribute our stimulus checks to funding a fall public event in St. Paul, MN that will bring this conversation to a larger group of people. The stimulus checks themselves are another symptom of the rampant hyper-individualism of our society. They send the message that you, as an individual, are more important to the economy than our combined efforts. Well, I reject that notion and what better way to make a point of it than using that money to collectively support an effort that works to restore balance among the needs of the individual and the needs of the community?
Does Hilary, being an old woman, look like you?
Obama looks almost like me, except he's black.
But why is the color so important to you, more important than age and sex?
And then you get guys like me. I could personally care LESS about Barack Obama's skin color. Really. His ancestry is of no interest to me.
While skin color is not anywhere near the top of my list for qualifiers, the fact that Obama is black is a non-negligible factor in my voting for him. No, it's not morally equivalent to the opposite situation, of voting against him because of his skin color.
Gary Kamiya wrote an interesting essay on the issue.
Because there are more people in the former group than the latter.
A vote for Hillary means we're putting a Clinton back in office again.
... but I'm also deeply concerned that he'd just opt for "stay the course" politics that continued in Bush's footsteps, only under a new name.)
Our country has been 4 years of Bush, 8 years of Clinton, and 8 years of Bush already. That means anyone younger than 21 can't even remember a time when one of those two families wasn't in power in our nation!
Given that realization, I'd have to give the nod to Obama over Clinton - just for the sake of "breaking the cycle", if nothing else! (Of course, a vote for McCain would accomplish that too
Only Edgar Winter is that white.
I drank what? -- Socrates
I'm not an American, so I'm not voting in this anyhow, but one of the things I saw as a possible issue was:
a) Hillary is voted in. A bunch of male bigots disrespect her because of her gender, and generally make it more difficult to get things done. To prove she's big and tough, she makes dumb decisions while at the same time pandering to the female voters for supporting "woman power"
b) Obama is voted in. From what I can tell, he hasn't really played the race card very heavily. He acknowledges his ethnic origins, but doesn't push the "not voting for me is racism" button. Various people still will not have as much respect for a president who isn't a WCM (White Christian Male), but my biggest concern is that some nutcase will come gunning for him... literally.
Obama seems like a good candidate and a decent person, I'm hoping some racist nutcase with a gun doesn't end his political career prematurely. But regardless of the risks, winning the election (hopefully) will show what his potential really is.
are any of them planing to fix the NMCI?
How is that any more relevant to the "who was the black guy again?" version as to the "who was the white guy again" version?
Barack has an amusing statement on the importance of preserving the open nature of the internet. Among other things, he states that "users must be free to access content."
Ironically, you need Flash to access all the content on this page.
So ignorance is the best solution? Personally, I'd rather have leadership that had an "interest" in the topic, and with that would seek an informed opinion, but be smart enough about many things on their own to sort through the chaff.
Keep in mind that while there will be many available advisors and experts, there will also be a shitload of propaganda spewing lobbyists and self-supporting hypocrites offering their opinions and professional "advice" or more. Having a candidate that knows at least enough to cut through the BS and figure out who has something beneficial/interesting to add, and whom is just looking for handouts.
Shortly before the California primary I watched a couple of video interviews at Google with both Hillary and Obama. At the time I was still debating between the two. This video cinched it for me and showed that Obama clearly understands technology.
This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
Was it just me, or did anyone else get the vibe that this article seemed slightly slanted toward Obama?
Actually, the whole pot-smoking issue has always amazed me. With all the shit that's going on, and all the major issues, I still see some of the most interest (posters, campaigns, marches, etc) going to wards getting weed legalized.
Yes, it has links to bigger issues, but it seems pretty damn sad to me that a lot of people find that the biggest political issue today is whether they can smoke a joint on the front porch of the local Starbucks. And unlike the US, enforcement is pretty low, so unless you're doing something stupid you're not likely to get tossed in jail for smoking a joint (even in public it's most likely to just get confiscated).
Ever made a mistake? No? Good. You get to bash people who make mistakes. If you have, don't. If you show me a follow-up where someone calls him on both statements, and he maintains his position, we can talk. In the meantime, understand that a 15 second video snippet means nothing.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Looks to me like Obama is pretty tech friendly in a 'gets it' kind of way.
I was certainly leaning Democratic anyway (I suppose I can't call myself an independent this year since I voted in the Primary), but it's good to know that Obama doesn't have any positions there that are going to give me hives.
McCain seems to be trying to be a Ted Stevens technologist, without admitting to it. Just because Net neutrality might inconvenience a company in some way doesn't mean it's a bad thing, and the neat theory of "We're going to hold the telecoms responsible - we just don't have any plans to investigate them" *does* give me hives.
Pug
An Invisible Entity of Vast Power whose existence must be taken on faith alone: Liberal Media
This does not seem like a big plus for McCain, but maybe people like what she did for HP. Or what she did to HP.
I was hoping to see some sort of table on what each side says on each issue, but this sounds more like some paragraphs naming what some advisor said. I am thinking things like religion and race are given a lot more focus than these issues and I think that's at the least, a bummer.
Copyright infringement is "piracy" in the same way DRM is "consumer rape"
LOL, the scale has been pulled so far to the right we're calling politicians "liberal" when they are not even close from a historical or global perspective. If this trend continues, your "conservative" politician today will be a "liberal" by future standards. Life needs balance. Ying and Yang. With too much on either side it becomes a recipe for disaster.
Supreme Court Justice John Stevens is considered one of the more "liberal" justices today. But when he was appointed, he was considered a "conservative" member back then.
"In terms of the candidates' broader philosophies on tech issues, Weitzner primarily relied on Obama's lengthy white paper."
:)
Did he just tell us to RTFM? Now, *there's* a candidate that understands technology
Citizens Against Plate Tectonics
I'll tell you in Ohio the african-american Democrats certainly didn't blindly vote for Ken Blackwell, an african-american Republican! He only garnered 20% of the african-american vote, which while high for a Republican is only 4% higher than Bush received in Ohio during his second election.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
http://www.bls.gov/eag/eag.us.htm
A useful place for statistics-
Unemployment is BAD right now...you are correct its not as bad as right after 9/11 but its still fairly ugly compared to Clinton's time in office.
Inflation 4%? While it appears that US currency no longer reacts strongly to the market(something about Shock theory) if Gas is $4 a gallon and food prices have leapt 100-300%, other countries no longer buy our currency in huge ammounts we got a pretty serious problem on our hands.
Truly I think we are looking the same data and getting very different predictive outcomes.
The Fish-McCane-Bush strategy with respect to tech privacy and policies are come down to little more than "We will decide what we plan to do to you, we will determine what constitutes your privacy, and what of your on-line lives we will pry into or manipulate for our political adgenda. If you are part of our team, we will share the spoils with you. If you aren't well, you are s___ out of luck."
Such a policy is essential for these folks, as this has been their big lever on power for a long time now. Take that away and what is left? They must support spying on their political opponents and Americans in general just to keep up with developments taking place elsewhere. It is the only tool they have to deal with the fallout of failing policies, so its not suprising they feel they can't live without it. They offer no leadership, just pablum and empty promises they have no intention of keeping.
Until we get rid of the current republican poliltical paternal mentality of "we know best what you need to do and think", technological innovation will either continue to be stuck in a rut, dragged down by failed economic and foreign policies, or likely to take place elsewhere. Todays backtracking on Telecom immunity is just symptomatic of what we can expect in a McCane administration, just more of the McSameOLD.
Its gotten so bad that now, we even outsource extremely sensitive military technology.
Four more years of Bush/McCane and whatever technological leadership we once have had, will be hard to get back, if it will be possible to get it back at all. Its better to remove the cancer now rather than let it ravage the body politic for another four years. Who want's gas prices at $25/gal anyway, besides these guys and thier Saudi puppet masters?
soo, you're voting for Hillary, then?
Average unemployment during the Bush administration is lower (better) than average unemployment during the Clinton administration.
Source data: http://www.miseryindex.us/urbymonth.asp
accc
Some of you may say that it is ridiculous to vote for someone who hasn't been born yet. I ask those people, "Why do you discriminate against the unborn?"
The truth is, the voted for him, because he is black, AND there is a zeitgeist which surrounds him saying, "I'll change things for the better"...
I doubt that same sort of left-minded zeitgeist could form around someone as NEO-conservative as Condy Rice. Perhaps Powell, but I doubt it.
Anyways, what are the white trash from West Virginia blindly voting for Hilary representing?
I say nothing should be censored. ISPs are a common carrier and should be prohibited from surveillance and as well as preventing from censoring anything they are carrying, just as the postal service cannot open your letters and censor them. This does not mean we give the power to the government corporations or to anyone else as to what can be censored, we need to deny the government and corporations the right to censor anything.
You say liberal like it's a bad thing.
Actually, compared to the rest of the world's politicians, Obama and the other democratic candidates actually lean towards the moderate-conservative side. Personally, whether the candidates are liberal are conservative is not important to me at this point. The important thing is the direction that the U.S. is heading. If you like the direction, vote for McCain because he has the most similar policies as the current president.
By the way, just because one small magazine said that Obama had the most liberal votes for ONE YEAR doesn't mean he is the most liberal Senator. Also, your attempt to smear Obama is pretty pathetic. It's almost Jack Thompsonesque. You might as well have said "Obama is more liberal than Pol Pot, who is responsible for massacring millions of people." It doesn't mean hes going to do something similar or worse. Your divisive attitude is quite disgusting.
Abaddon: An Xbox 360 Indie game
I can't speak for how black America would vote but Powell is one of the few Republicans that would have my vote in a heartbeat.
My political wet dream is him as Obama's veep for a unity ticket. It won't happen but we can dream, right?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
"Obama spokesman Bill Burton replied: âoeSenator Obama thinks Memorial Day is a day to honor our nation's veterans, not a day for political posturing."
It looks like Obama stands by his statement and it is NOT a mistake. Neither he nor his staff know what Memorial Day is about. Aparently they think it is Veterans Day.
Wow, if that's the best dirt anyone has on Obama, he's cleaner than I thought!
:(
But I can't believe someone buys into that. Oh no! He can't find a magazine article that influenced him 20 years ago! What HORROR are we voting for!? He's trying to TRICK US! About ancient _MAGAZINE ARTICLES_! The EVIL DEMAGOGUE must be stopped! Won't someone PLEASE think of the MAGAZINE ARTICLES!?
Oh crap. I just hope there aren't any sarcasm terrorists to go with the cynical ones
We need a -1 ignorant option.
// The fastest Alt-Tab in the West
I did a comparison a week prior that looks at Obama and McCain's positions (and actual voting patterns) on a variety of tech positions, following Obama's quite impressive outline of tech he gave at a presentation at Google and posted to his website. Of course, I also had to string in Apple and Microsoft, and how US corporations have taken an increasing role in subverting democracy in government:
While the United States prepares to elect a new president, candidates on both sides have made interesting comments about their affiliations with tech companies and their perspective on issues facing the tech industry.
Here's a look at Senator Barack Obama and Senator John McCain compare, looking first at how each relates to Apple and Microsoft, how corporations are leveraging money and political power to shape public policy to fit their own interests, and followed by a look at each candidate's stance on issues related to technology.
Obama's Apple, McCain's Microsoft: the Politics of Tech
>Unfortunately, the larger problem is that most Americans vote nearly blindly in any case.
I'm legally blind, you insensitive clod!
Well, if we were putting together an engine or a rifle, I'd choose McCain. I don't think he's stupid, I just don't think he knows computers.
And I'm not basing this on them or their surrogates, I'm basing this on what I've read from their tech plans. McCain's plan is "do nothing" except for giving the telecoms amnesty for warrantless wiretapping. We've been falling behind in broadband for at least the last 8 years. Al Gore did not invent the internet, but he did a hell of a lot to keep us near the top of the pack, most of which we're only appreciating now.
Obama has a lengthy plan involving things like patent reform, net neutrality and open access. He has, by far, the best internet campaign yet that is out-organizing even established political machines like the Clinton campaign on every level.
So I can't even begin to compare the two, because it's absolutely, unambiguously clear that Obama is doing better with respect to technology than McCain. McCain has Steve Ballmer and Carly Fiorina as advisors, for crying out loud. He got the PHBs and lobbyists instead of the actual techies! And that's not all
Is "Obama is a lawyer!" the only crack you can give in reply? Well, NYCL is a lawyer, too. SOME of them actually fight the good fight, you know...
Here, you can read his stance on the issues directly. I disagree on some points, but Obama is still head & shoulders above the rest.
Randall of XKCD had a post on his blog that first got me excited about Obama.
Here: http://blag.xkcd.com/2008/01/28/obama/
nt == "no text"
"UNGH DECISION TOO HARD, USE IRRELEVANT FACTORS TO ADD WEIGHT RATHER THAN DOING MORE RESEARCH!"
Support my political activism on Patreon.
When benchmarking, speed is the measure. My follow up question is, "Which candidate will get the U.S. to the Hydrogen Dollar faster?"
His point is that there is little difference between white people (of any party) refusing the vote for a black man and black people blindly voting for a black man. They are both making judgments solely on race.
That's quite simple to understand, but still stupid nevertheless...
Slashdot really need a way to prevent idiots from getting mod points.
The Invisible Hand of the Free Market is what punches workers in the nuts.
(To be fair, I did start listening to him again when he stood against his party on torture -- but you don't hear him talking too much about that lately, do you?)
I'm embarrassed to say I voted for McCain in 2000. Fool me once and all that.
McCain is good on two things: that the government spends too much money and that it shouldn't torture. However, he's the biggest socialist in the race, with plans to enslave all high school graduates for a period of one year in service of the government (. He's also against the first amendment, and has stated that he'd rather have a 'clean government' than the first amendment. Rah!, rah!, um, no, that's f-ing, Red China, not the USA.
Obama is only slightly to the right of McCain, hoping to engage in mass redistribution of wealth under threat of violence (paramilitary raids, imprisonment, possible death) for citizens who fair to offer up their dictated share of their personal property to the government and its 'mandatory charity' programs.
Who would have guessed a year ago that Hillary "Goldwater Girl" Clinton would be the rightmost candidate in '08?
None of the major candidates considers "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" a noble goal for a government. At least I can write in Ron Paul, but the odds are strong we'll have a real Socialist at the helm in 2009, which is astonishing. And deeply saddening to those who thought we might be able to undo some of Bush's policies in this go-around.
But to get back on topic, if anybody thinks the tech/internet sector has thrived based on government regulation, boy, there's gonna be some serious thriving ringing in the next decade.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
> She has not lost.
Yet.
Can you name any realistic scenario in which she gets the nomination or the presidency in 2008?
Tenacity can be admirable, but I'm afraid I see her as a Don Quixote. Sometimes, you need the wisdom to know when to give up and look for a better way. She would be better served to look ahead to 2012 or 2016 at this point.
you're unconcerned about your chosen candidate's intellect, honesty, and judgement
Hardly. I chose my candidate based on exactly those factors. It was OP who has a stated preference for focusing on slips of the tongue.
But, I wanted socialized health insurance!
FTA: "He [Fish] noted that misregulation can impede innovation, and invoked what he called the "futility principle": There are some genuine problems that are only made worse by attempts to meliorate them." ...like the Iraq war?
Not even sure what they were attempting to "meliorate" on that one aside from phantom WMDs. To their defense; the best intelligence they chose to pay attention to did indicate their existence.
McCain = 4 more years of Bush..only a little smarter but beholden to the same corporate interests and the same wrong-minded national security/diplomatic policy. Why don't we just skip the middle-man and elect Rupert Murdoch?
> I think it will come down to Obama possibly embracing more content freedom and McCain embracing more general freedom of the Internet itself.
That's not at all what I see from all the information here. Would you care to give me any citations? Because McCain is anti-Net Neutrality (he accepted the telecoms' definition of it and is in favor of letting Comcast & co. do as they please), and pro-telecom immunity for warrantless wiretapping (but he'd give them a stern lecture! or something). His technical advisers are Carly "Chainsaw" Fiorina who destroyed HP, Steve "Chair Man" Ballmer of Microsoft, and an anti-Net Neutrality lawyer from Comcast. Wait, actually, I think Fiorina is his economic adviser. That makes it so much better, considering how she nearly destroyed HP's business. Hope she doesn't try running the US economy like that!
Obama is pro-Net Neutrality (the meaningful kind) and anti-telecom immunity. He also has a lot of great technical advisers, including Laurence Lessig. He gave a talk at Google. He has the strongest internet campaign yet.
> Obama won't get my vote due to a myriad of other issues that no technology stance is likely to sway.
So, you don't care about the domestic surveillance? Or whether US broadband falls further behind? You must either care a lot about something like abortion, or else you've bought into the fear mongering over the war, Muslims, racism, etc.
I'm a Republican myself, but I can't possibly support the party in its current state. I can't read the news without them doing stupider and stupider things. And McCain has been drinking the Republican Kool-Aid on the war and everything else lately, so I can't trust him as the same reformer he once was.
"UNGH DECISION TOO HARD, USE IRRELEVANT FACTORS TO ADD WEIGHT RATHER THAN DOING MORE RESEARCH!"
Awww, are you weeping because I didn't swallow the usual slashdot groupthink? I'm sorry I made you so sad.
The National Journal, the szame rag that ranked John Kerry as the "most liberal" senator back around the previous presidental election? It seems pretty obvious to anyone who pokes around in their methodology that they only reason they publish these lists is to give the right some talking points. For example, there were only two votes they scored where Barack Obama took the "liberal" side, whereas Hilary Clinton took the "conservative" side, thus earning Obama two more "liberal" points than Hilary, On one of these votes, John McCain voted with Obama, so take that as you will. Here's a source: http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/02/what_the_national_journal_libe.html.
And here's the methodology: http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/votes.htm. Some of those are quite head scratchers, for example, voting for "94/SConRes21: Raise the tax rate on income over $1 million and use the revenue to increase funding for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. March 22. (38-58)" earns you conservative points. Who knew?
Anyone who thinks Obama's voting record is more liberal than Russ Feingold (the only Senator to vote against the PATRIOT Act) has an agenda. Oh, wait. "Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., was the most liberal senator in 2007, according to National Journal's 27th annual vote ratings. The insurgent presidential candidate shifted further to the left last year in the run-up to the primaries, after ranking as the 16th- and 10th-most-liberal during his first two years in the Senate." So when he wasn't running for president, they ranked him 10th and 16th; but when he announced his run they ranked him first. Yeah. I'm sure he really voted that much further to the left than the other Dems and the National Journal isn't just pushing an anti-Obama agenda. Give me a break. This is /., people are supposed to be smart here.
Care about privacy? Read this!
...is that they need to cut unprofitable lines so they can make money and get off government subsidies. But the senators from the states with unprofitable lines insist that they remain open as a condition of funding. So Amtrak is unprofitable, and needs subsidies to keep running, and....
It would be nice to have a serious candidate in the US that could be honestly called a liberal.
No, I just think you're a retard without a working rationalization process. Good people come in black, white, red, azn, and latina; unfortunately, so do bad people. This is the WRONG factor to use when deciding on who to put in charge of an entire country, in any weight.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
oh my. i wasn't going to say anything. - Jeffrey Mina
What poll is this?
I do that set up now...I have a high deductible policy, that has reasonable montly premiums. I stuff the limit of money I can annually in a HSA, pre-tax...and I pay my Dr. and meds with that as needed. I find that with the Dr's and tests...when I tell them it isn't going to be paid by insurance....they cut the rate they charge me.
YOu can get a much better deal this way...and I can do to any damned Dr. I want to...without consulting any HMO books, etc...
The trouble with insurance is, it is being treated as a payment plan...not insurance against disaster...
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
democrat/republican... black/white... I still can't tell the difference.
What?
Oh no.. not the evil liberals...
How about giving this mindless liberal Vs conservative garbage a break and actually point out something he voted for that you disagree with.. and why.
You know.. an actual reason for a change... instead of these silly scare tactics.
No.
Insurance should cover what every one needs (the cheap stuff).
No insurance can reasonably cover the expensive stuff (so they cut you as fast as they can).
Random unexpected catastrophic health care- okay maybe. But chronic catastrophic health care is impossible.
Under private industry, those poeple just die.
Even under government plans, those people just die. But not before breaking the system.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Even when third party candidates loose, the vote whores of the major parties pay close attention to try to get that last few percent. It's probably the biggest influence your vote can have.
"Obama Says He Will Control Your Thermostat"
:)
He says no such thing in that clip, he just says polluting makes us look bad. The oft-repeated claim that this statement is proof that he intends to micromanage our personal lives is disingenuous at best.
I guess I should just shut up and be thankful you didn't rickroll me.
And what the heck does it mean, anyway, to be the "most liberal?" Can you point out a conservative, so I can have a basis for comparison?
I want to: stop torturing, restore habeus corpus, get us out of Iraq, balance the budget, invest in alternative fuels, and invest some in our own infastructure. If advocating those things makes you "liberal" then sign me up for Obama. He isn't nearly liberal enough.
When "conservative" means torture, gutting habeus corpus, endless war, warrantless wiretaps, secret prisons, the largest deficit in US history, censoring scientific findings to meet political agendas, etc, then you guys don't have much to sell anymore.
If Obama actually advocated legislation regarding the things you complained about, please provide a link for our edification.
I used to put some credence in these "the sky is falling" predictions of jackbooted thuggery, back when B. Clinton was in office, but once I found that conservatives generally become okey-dokey with, say, warrantless wiretapping, gutting habeus corpus, torture, secret prisons, etc, as long as it's a Republican in office, then I've come to doubt their intellectual integrity a bit. Thus, I'll need a source. Thanks in advance.
So yes, to support Obama only because he's black is morally no different than opposing him only because he's black. The problem here is that you have to choose your poison, and I've chosen (I hope) the lesser of the evils.
I can look at a minority with hundreds of years of slavery, oppression, lynching, and discrimination stacked against them and basically give them a pass, on a personal level, for frantically supporting one of their own. A smug good-old-boy saying "well now, isn't that racism?" may be semantically correct, but I'm not going to entertain his arguments because I strongly suspect that he is not motivated, shall we say, be an aversion to discrimination qua discrimination.
The real world wreaks havoc with philosophical arguments.
How is voting for a person entirely because of his race any less racist than voting against a person entirely because of his race?
He doesn't say he will mandate anything. Got anything else?
As everybody has already observed, the two parties are almost identical - there is certainly little difference in ideology as far as I can tell, so why vote at all? well, I suppose McCain is a bit more isolationist than Obama, perhaps - who knows, really? But the differences are only skin deep, if that. Where have the big issues gone? Isn't it because you simply can't become a serious contender in politics unless you have massive financial backing? And you only get that if you appeal to the people with lots of money: the big corporations, the big churches etc. So it matters little whether 95% (or whatever) of the American population is irreligious and socialist, because only the candidates that the rich like will ever get a chance. (Yes, yes, I know, the proportion of socialists in America is perhaps not quite 95%; it was just an example).
And that is not democracy. It may look a lot like it, but it isn't; ideally, in democracy more or less all candidates have equal access to the public's attention, so people can make up their own minds about them. And of course there would be proportional representation as well. The political process might be less efficient, but experience from the rest of the world shows that it works well enough.
I make about half that, but I have no kids and no SO, so life is relatively cheap. In Orange County, what I make is barely enough to get by. 100k sounds like a lot, but if you live anywhere where earning 100k is possible, it is not.
McCain doesn't need to spend money on a Halloween mask - he just smiles when they open the door.
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
But if I understand correctly, he's just as white as he is black.
Oh, it isn't. nomadic is simply under the popular delusion that only racism AGAINST blacks is "real racism". According to that philosophy it's just fine to be racist against everyone except blacks. Just evening out the historical karma, don'tcha know.
Personally, I think that making decisions based on skin color or ancestry is stupid and vile in any context, whether for or against. Just pick the best person for the job, and pay no attention to what shade they happen to come in. It's not really all that hard.
Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
Good question. Possibly, if Senator Foo called a press conference to announce his change of mind, he would win respect. Usually the politician bellows his opinion in a way that suggests he's always held it.
There's another side to it. In foreign policy, we elect politicians to combat our adversaries. Unlike atoms and molecules, these adversaries have a mental model of said politician which affects their actions.
If Senator Foo advertises the open mind of a scientist, he may be telling adversaries, "attack us hard enough and I'll change my mind."
I think a nation led by scientists would be doomed, for numerous reasons.
But on domestic issues, it seems like a more scientific approach would work better. Maybe the problem is that voters have strong ideologies. So many are voting to punish the perceived villains of national life that they wouldn't welcome a "scientific" re-evaluation of the worldview they endorsed.
You know, here's the thing that always gets left out of these debates. Yes, it'll cost a bloody fortune. Yes, it'll probably be mismanaged and poorly done. But leaving aside all that for a minute... Where in the Constitution is the "provide universal health care" clause?
I was raised on the command line, bitch
"Nemo me impune lacesset"
You can make up any reason to call any candidate vile and frightening. McCain scares me because he is old, has serious temper issues, and says disrespectful things to women (including his wife). He has totally flipped all his views in the past 5 years to pander to the religious right. "Conservatives" are spending more than Dems and reducing taxes causing us to go in to a deficit that is destroying our economy. "Liberals" allow for social rights and are not trying to push the Bible in to the government. And you are worried about the word liberal? Grow up. It is just a label that morons like Rush or Savage like to place on people to scare slow witted people who are too lazy to actually pay attention to the issues. I guess it works on even the supposedly intelligent people that read Slashdot.
Support a great indie game: http://www.abaddon360.com
And Mormons were the same for Romney. Why does it matter?
Support a great indie game: http://www.abaddon360.com
In voting for a black man, he's voting for a minority that also happened to be enslaved for half of the country's history, and couldn't vote for half of the time they've been free. He's voting against the social structure, not against the white race.
The social structure that he's voting against is racist towards black people (in varying degrees at different times, but this point is indisputable). If the guy voting for the white guy makes the "it's about social structure" argument, that's fine, but he's voting FOR a racist social structure. Ergo, they are not equally racist.
That doesn't make anyone right, however. But voting your conscience doesn't make you right, either.
Please stop stalking me, bro.
you just got nominated for pedant of the year.
By me, The Galactic Pedantry Society
FWIW, GHWB was also head of the CIA. It's creeeeepy. We've had the same motherfuckers crawling in and out out of our asses since the 60's, really.
Please stop stalking me, bro.
They're insuring against sickness because it can be a disaster, even if it's cured. Say you're the breadwinner for a family, and one paycheck away from losing your house. Then your kid gets sick. If it's treated early, it can keep from being pneumonia - but if you leave it alone, it could become pneumonia and potentially kill your kid. You can't afford to pay the treatment and keep your house - so your kid lives, and now you're homeless? So you get insurance - but your insurance charges you out the @$$, and dumps you as soon as you start to cut into their profit margin with your pesky wanting-to-live-and-keep-your-house needs. Happens all the time in the US. Doesn't happen in Europe or Canada.
The Invisible Hand of the Free Market is what punches workers in the nuts.
There's also no "provide public education" clause, or "provide police departments", or "provide roads", etc. We do those things because it's in our best interest, whether we're poor *or* wealthy. As for costing a bloody fortune - more than we're spending now, on insurance companies? Who are gouging all sides - patients, doctors *and* hospitals? Other nations spend half or less what we do, and their citizens live longer and healthier lives. I see no logical reason why can't do just as well as those nations, or better.
The Invisible Hand of the Free Market is what punches workers in the nuts.
Lowering the voting age would encourage more young voters to participate. Voters who get started earlier in life are more likely to vote throughout their lifetimes. Political affiliations vary with time. Younger voters add balance to the current majority of voters who are over the age of 50 (think moral majority and what has been happening for the last 8 years). Educating young adults about the voting process encourages debate about which candidates take which stance. Debate, in case some people have forgotten, is never a bad thing. Lowering the voting age is really a win/win for everyone IMHO.
To those that would argue that lowering the age would open the door for elections to become a popularity contest (think concert appearances, candidates with MySpace pages, appearing on MTV, saying things that the young voters want to hear but don't really plan to do what they say, etc), I would argue that the current election is a popularity contest for people who don't keep track of the issues.
Whether individual States wish to "provide public education" or "provide police departments" is up to them. There is however nothing in the Constitution granting such a power to the Federal government. Most such programs/agencies have been created by abusing the Commerce Clause or the "Welfare" Clause.
As to the argument of money spent vice health of the population I don't think it is entirely a fair comparison without factoring in other variables. Do the populaces of the other countries eat substantially the same diet? Do they exercise more or less? Is their environment generally more or less healthy? What is the ratio of those who have wealth to those who don't? These are all just as important, if not more important, than how much money is spent on care.
Yes, it would likely cost most people more than they are spending on health insurance. The worst coverage I've ever had cost around $600/month. At that time that amount yearly was less than 10% of my income. A non-trivial number to be sure. However, given that would make me likely one of the "rich", according to proponents of such plans, I imagine I would end up getting soaked for more than that in extra taxes. Because nothing says fun like 40% to 50% income taxes.
I was raised on the command line, bitch
"Nemo me impune lacesset"
Because we all share in the cost of these and other services, everyone in this country is *individually* healthier *and* wealthier *and* safer, *AND* the economy as a whole better off, *AND* the nation as a whole is more secure, both internally and externally.
Or do you just not believe that public education, police, a military, etc. etc. improve things for the whole nation? I can show you facts that disprove that belief, if facts will sway your opinion.
The Invisible Hand of the Free Market is what punches workers in the nuts.
You use this word "liberal" as if it were a bad thing. Have you actually looked up the meaning of the word, or did you just conveniently file it under "see: Evil" and pat yourself on the head for not having a speck of it in your upbringing?
Wake up - the future is arriving faster than you think.
Speaking of technology and campaign suggestion boxes check this out:
http://hillaryshould.com/
and I think soon to come and join the user gen generation are obamashould and McCainshould sites...
The problem is that Obama isn't really a black man in that sense. He didn't grow up in that social structure. He's not really part of the minority that was enslaved and then disenfranchised. If that's the reasoning, it's faulty.
Not that people didn't get called names or get beaten up because of their skin color in Hawaii during the 1970s. I can testify to that.
I agree with that. I was just arguing that voting for a black man because of blackness is not necessarily equally racist as voting for a white person because the other guy is black. :)
Please stop stalking me, bro.