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."
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
"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
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.
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.
With regards to Senator Obama, do you have a citation for that? Everything that I've seen suggests that he is open to the idea of decriminalization. Every quote that I've heard suggests that he realizes the folly of putting people behind bars for non-violent drug offenses.
Obviously that's not as good as Gravel or Paul's positions on the issue, but I'm not going to base my vote on the single issue of pot smoking. Not when we have an ongoing war, climate change, a failing economy, nuclear proliferation and the rise of China, India and Russia to deal with. And yes, I am a regular pot smoker.
Besides which, even if you got Gravel or Paul in office what about the state laws against marijuana? Those are the ones that actually impact pot-smokers on a day to day basis. Other than the bullshit Federal raids against medical marijuana dispensaries I'm hard pressed to think of any meaningful impact that the Feds make against pot-smokers.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
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
Actually, I work for one of the world's biggest tech firms.
"So I'm pretty mystified by how you see it as conceivable that "corporate interests" are opposed to "technical interests."
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.
"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"?"
I'm sorry if my use of the word "corporation" set off your hippie and/or student radar. Neither is the case here and I'm quite capable of backing up my previous comments without resorting to impugning the intelligence of those I argue against. I suggest you try the same, nice ad hominem though.
As for "popular" interests: the "popular" interests are what the vast seething market of consumers want
In other words the people of the United States of America, those that the POTUS is supposed to represent and to serve, right?
they don't give a flying fsck about technical interests at all, because they're not techies.
Didn't say they were, I said the likes of the republican's apparent tech spokesperson was against their interests.
"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."
Do you live in a fantasy world? Tech advances are a means to an end for some companies, not all, and not the only means. Large companies exist to make money. In fact for public companies that's a legal requirement or the board can face charges. Yes, a lot of tech comes from large corps, they are good for that, but please don't pretend that corporate influence, especially on politicians, is always a good thing. Especially given this person's prior record.
In the arena of copyright law, the likes of Time Warner are clearly directly opposed to what the people of the country want and are arguably going well beyond what's best for society and business in general. They don't respect privacy, they engage in campaigns of scaring the population into compliance with their take on IP...
Sheesh, get a clue. Or a job. Find out how the world actually works instead of regurgitating mindless slogans from the 19th century.
Back at you. You've swallowed the "money is always" right line a little too far there. Tell me, in your world, do companies always act in the best interests of the whole population?
Or are there no incidences of monopolistic behaviour, unethical behaviour, exploitation of cheap foreign child labour etc etc?
I think people need to be careful about falling in love with politicians. To his credit, Obama is an excellent orator, but this can be dangerous as well. Just because he says things you want to here in such a way that makes you feel hopeful don't really mean much. You have to look at what people have done. Quite frankly, it worries me that he is running for the presidency at such a young age with such little experience on both a national and executive level. Ambition can be a good trait when kept in check, but dangerous when it is not.
That was my primary worry about Clinton since it appeared that she thought she deserved the nomination. I thought that Obama wouldn't be as bad, but at this point, I think that you can't afford to let your guard down.
The manned space program is a boondoggle. We've learned much more from unmanned missions, and they cost 10% as much. Since we don't need to compete with the USSR anymore and I don't think Al Qaeda will pull off a manned space flight any time soon, we don't need the prestige associated with it either.
If the John McCain from 2000 was running he'd had a serious shot at my vote in spite of my support for Senator Obama.
The John McCain that we all know and loved seemed to have been replaced somewhere around the 2004 election. I stopped listening to him when he started kissing Jerry Falwell's ass and went on the campaign trail for the man that accused him of fathering an illegitimate black child to torpedo his chances in South Carolina.
(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 want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
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.
Request a Linux Shockwave player here: http://www.macromedia.com/support/email/wishform/
Well -- identical twins have idential DNA -- or close to it. They aren't identical in their character, however.
The thing to remember is that while we might not have as much difference between candidates as we'd like, small differences make a big difference, if they're over something that's important enough. Lots of people have been complaining for a long time that the Democrats and Republicans are too much alike. They're probably right. It doesn't mean that things wouldn't have been different, for better or worse, if Al Gore had beeng granted Florida's electoral votes in 2000.
Many Democrats don't see much difference between McCain and Bush; many Republicans don't see much difference between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Some don't see much differnce between McCain and Obama. None of these people are wrong, except to the degree that they think the "small" differences between those individuals won't have big practical impacts on the life of the country.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
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?
because the current administration either is unwilling or unable to capture him. plus, if we off OBL, who would the bogeyman be then?
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
It's bad enough when people mix their metaphors, but you're mixing your cliches. Neither spokesman is a "messenger" in the sense you mean. Neither is reading a script; each is considered by his boss to be an expert on technology. So it makes perfect sense to consider why they're considered experts.
All too true. What scares me is that the "maverick" label of McCain has stuck. He's no maverick. Look at how he accepted the endorsement of nutcase pastor Hagee until he was finally called out on it. And even then, he didn't actually address the comments Hagee made.
McCain scares me because people actually believe he will be different than Bush. Remember how Bush put forth the image of his "common man" lifestyle and "compassionate conservatism." Hmm...how well does that hold up against the track record of the corporate corruption and lawlessness actively supported by his administration?
McCain has one of the most conservative voting records of anyone in the Senate but somehow people think he's a moderate.
The point? Sometimes it ain't about the immediate scientific benefits. Sometimes it's about the long-term. We (the US) screwed ourselves royally in the 1970's literally throwing out a shitload of research and knowledge (e.g. Saturn V propulsion, etc) - all in the name of politics. We really need to stop doing that if we are to have any hope of eventually getting a sizeable portion of mankind off of this one fragile pandemic-and-asteroid-prone rock.
I agree, we (as in humanity overall) need a manned space program. The spin-off tech alone has historically paid for the entire space program, manned and unmanned, many many times over. There isn't nearly as much of a technical challenge (and thus rewards in spin-off tech) in sending some hardware flying off somewhere on a one-way trip than there is in keeping a living human crew alive, deliver them to their destination, and return them safely.
Never mind the advantages in scientific information gathering and on the spot evaluation and adaptability to changing information and situations possible with a human crew that's completely impossible for a machine to duplicate. This can be important even in relatively simple matters, for example the Mars probes can be crippled if too much dust accumulates on the solar panels, where a human crew could simply brush the dust off.
There's also the inspirational factor for all of humanity. How many kids in the '60s and '70s said "I wanna be an astronaut when I grow up!", and were inspired to behave and try hard in school, even if they never actually became astronauts? Anyone who grew up during the manned spaceflight heydays understands what an enormous benefit it was in research, engineering, medicine, and in giving inspiration and hope to all people for the future of mankind. Hopes and dreams are powerful things that can inspire leaps and gains in both technology and in the social fabric impossible by any other means, and without which there is little hope for humanities' future.
Of course, politicians will increasingly see it differently over time, especially as the possibility of people moving off this planet gains more feasibility. How do they exert their power and control over people increasingly scattered across multiple planets/bodies/self-sustaining habitats? That this would vastly increase the chances of humanities' survival means little to them, as they could not care less if humanity survives long-term if it means they might lose power and control.
If they allowed large groups of people to colonize, these people might get some crazy idea that they should govern themselves or something! I think that this is one factor playing into the disinterest for manned spaceflight among those who desire more government control in peoples' lives. Even just the hopes and dreams of one day peoples' children or even great-great-grandchildren might be able to slip the yoke of government control can be enough to seriously impede their plans to increase their grip over the populace.
I must put in a plug here for a long-time favorite book; "The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress" by Robert A. Heinlein. If you've never read it, put it on your "must read" list.
Cheers!
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
My tin foil hat has been telling me that this is actually why there is such a push for "every one to vote". When people have no idea who the candidates are, they will randomly pick from the names they have heard of. This will result in pretty much a wash for the two primary candidates, but will push the required number of votes up to make things more difficult for third party candidates. So, they are convincing the ignorant masses that they are doing something good, and helping democracy, when all they are really doing is acting as a spoiler for third party candidates.
This is why I try to convince people that don't have an opinion, or who are thinking of not voting out of protest, to vote third party. It doesn't matter who they are because they won't win anyway. BUT, if enough of the people who don't like either candidate where to vote 3rd party to even show up on the radar, whoever wins will behave in their interest.
Consider this. If you were running for president, would you try to woo the people that you knew would vote for you no matter what you do, or would you try to woo the people that are not mindlessly voting the party line, who also happen to be showing disdain for your primary opponent?
It's even worse than that -- don't forget GHW Bush was vice president for Reagan from 1980-88. Unless you're over 35, chances are you can't remember a country that didn't have a Bush or Clinton in the White House. And I agree, all other things being equal, I'll always vote against a political dynasty. Considering the next president could be in office for 8 years, Hillary would have to make an amazing argument for why only people considering early retirement should remember a non-bush/clinton America by the time she leaves office.
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
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
1. It has been proven over and over again that reduced tax rates equal greater tax revenue. Less shackles equals more work.
2. Most of what McCain wants to do is keep the current tax rates the same.
3. Think progress is not an independent website.
The "thriving free market" of insurance co's is raping us. Much like the "thriving free market" of multiple private highways, police departments, fire departments, armies etc. was also raping us, before we centralized them within state, local and fed governments. History itself contradicts the notion of free markets = always automatically awesome. That's because it's simply wrong, even if it's comfortable.
The Invisible Hand of the Free Market is what punches workers in the nuts.
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.