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."
One candidate has a lawyer/media executive as technical adviser, the other has a MIT computer scientist. Guess which is which
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.
I don't know about McCain but I suggest you investigate Obama further on this, because he definitely seems to know what he is talking about in general. There's an excellent interview with him at Google on YouTube. He even answers a jokingly-asked programming question semi-right ("what's the best way to sort an array of random 32-bit integers?" to which Obama laughingly answered "well, I wouldn't go with the bubblesort.")
Scorta futuere amo!
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?
Probably because they have no realistic chance of winning.
(Yes, I know that's a self-fulfilling prophecy.)
In all seriousness, I feel like a third party candidate would now need to be part of the "national conversation" on the election a lot earlier than now to win in November -- assuming that's even still really possible.
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.
Not to mention the behind the scenes stuff that most people don't see. They use that website (they call it MBO) for everything -- coordinating volunteers and logistics, calling voters, fund-raising, voter outreach, etc, etc, etc.
I've worked on a fair number of political campaigns in recent years and I've never seen one that leveraged technology quite as effectively as the Obama campaign. It was probably the margin of victory over Hillary -- especially in the beginning when nobody else had a clue how well organized Obama was.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
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.
I love the villianization companies such as Time Warner, who has the fiduciary responsibility to protect their assets, which in turn protects their employees and shareholders.
They have a wider view of what constitutes an asset and the lengths to which they should be able to go to protect them than a lot of people think is good for society. Is it ok for us to become a police state in order to protect their assets? Or do we draw the line somewhere?
I'd have to assume you reference their music and film divisions and how they "criminalise" people who illegally copy copyrighted material.
There's that. Then there's the legislation like the DMCA which criminalises things like DVD decoding on unlicensed devices.
If upholding copyright law and defending their property is "suppressive", "anti-progress", "anti-freedom", and "anti-privacy", then what do you expect from them?
They do more than uphold, they try everything they can to extend copyright and other law in ways that are detrimental to society. See the treaty discussed on slashdot earlier today which would allow border guards to take copies of people's private data stores in order to check for noncompliance. I would like some ethics from them. But this isn't about what I expect from them, it's about giving your electoral mandate to someone who aligns with their interests.
Close a up shop because you deem their business model to be "obsolete"?
Straw man, and not one of my opinions.
It's to make sure that people know that they will be backed up, which in turn encourages innovation. If the pharmaceutical companies didn't have patent protection from the government, they would not be able to stay in business. Although this isn't quite the same as protection of things like music and film, the idea is similar.
Thanks, I have a good understanding of IP law, perhaps you ought to check up on it yourself if you feel the need to illustrate a copyright example by using patents.
Why should a company spend all of the time promoting an artist, who are mutually bound by contracts, if you can just go download the music?
Another straw man.
Do I like how big business operates with regard to art? Not particularly, but artists need to make the change. Don't blame the companies for doing what they have the fiduciary responsibility of doing.
They have a fiduciary responsibility to try to change the law? And to abuse the court system by presenting weak cases? And try a scatter-gun scare tactic approach 0on universities and other folks? This is news to me.
So I think I can blame them for their lack of ethics if nothing else.
And who should I blame for legislation favouring specific business sectors over and above the interests of the populace and the technical crowd?
Oh right, politicians who are in the pockets of the same media companies and hol,d their intrerests above those of society as a whole, or at least are quite prepared to hear a one-sided story. Which is, coincidentally, what we're talking about here, which politician should get your mandate. The one in bed with the coporations that are taking actions I disagree with wouldn't get my vote, were I a US voter.
I'm all for free market capitalism, but I'm not so laissez-faire that I think anarchy is the way to go. Let the market decide if Time Warner's media component is the right business model going forward. Things tend to not change overnight, so don't be impatient.
The market is not perfect, consumers are not always enlightened and competition is not always free and fair. That said it's not the business model I argue with, it's the ethics and the politics.
Some of the worst decisions are made with haste.
This is releveant to what, how?
I'm not asking for radical overnight change, I'm looking for politicians and political parties that will stop us going even further in the wrong direction, then consider what to do from there.
You realize there's a big difference between saying we eat too much and drive too much to saying that it's acceptable to legislate food and fuel rationing in non-emergency situations... right?
One of those is a civil liberties issue; the other one is just speaking the truth.
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
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.
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
-A Fine, we'll leave the other 99.999999999999999% of it alone. After all, ANWR is about the size of North Carolina. We only want about the size of Dulles Airport to drill on. Is that REALLY too much to ask?
I understand your point about leaving it there as an savings type of investment, but I have a better idea. Drill it! It would cost about $30/barrel to extract the oil that sells for about $135 today. Remember, that's a billion barrels, or $135,000,000,000 profit. Take that "profit" and dump it into research towards alternative energy. By the time we run out of ANWR oil, we won't need it anymore. Or, if $135,000,000,000 in research can't find an acceptable renewable, then it can't be found!
I'm curious if that idea would be acceptable to either candidate.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
1. It has been proven over and over again that reduced tax rates equal greater tax revenue. Less shackles equals more work.
Therefore, if we reduce the tax rate to 0 we should have infinite revenue. GREATNESS!!!11!!
On the other hand, maybe some research on the Laffer Curve, which is usually the basis for the "reduced tax rates = greater revenue" argument, is in order. I do not think that it means what you say it means.
What I'm attempting to highlight is the idea that the Republican party would "naturally" tend toward this behaviour. 30 years ago? No, more like 20 AT THE MOST. Sure, the Regan and Bush I administrations were a betrayal of limited government conservatism, but they absolutely pale in comparison to the current incumbent. He makes them look like libertarians.
No, you're wrong. Bush has yet to surpass Reagan as the leader of the largest growth of the US government in history.
His war on drugs destroyed the 4th amendment. His corporate welfare programs haven't been matched by Bush. Bush's crimes against this nation are just the next step in the progression that Reagan pushed. He does not make them look like Libertarians, he makes them look just like he does. The problem isn't that Bush is worse than Reagan, it's that the Reagan cultists refuse to look deeper into the issue and spout nonsense like "Bush isn't a Republican". He's exactly what a Republican is. The rejection of the real Republican Barry Goldwater in favor of the fascist Ronald Reagan was the turning point at which Republicans completely rejected their stated platform in favor of the biggest government that they could get. Ron Paul was a last ditch effort at bringing that party back to its stated ideals and it turned out the same.
So, because I believe in a smaller federal government I'm a "wingnut extremist"? Wow. I suppose the other "wingnut extremists" include Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, John Quincy Adams, and a host of others of similar reputation?
No, *if* you believe in a smaller federal government *and* you support the Republicans, then you're a fool. You're a fool in that situation because there is no evidence backing up that link and all evidence points to the contrary.
I believe in a smaller federal government, but I'm not stupid enough to believe that supporting the (current) party of biggest, most invasive government is a rational choice. Thomas Jefferson is spinning in his grave at the idea of religious extremists (hell any religious people) destroying his careful construction. That you would dare to invoke the man who said "I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies.", in defense of unrestrained military spending at the benefit of said banking institutions *often in other countries*, demonstrates nothing but contempt for yourself, Thomas Jefferson, and everyone around you who's stuck footing the bill for your willful ignorance.
20 years wasn't that long ago. That's my point. It's not ancient history or something.
Like I said, 1980 was 28 years ago, and that's discounting the excesses of Nixon and Eisenhower. I'll ignore them in favor of simple rounding.
30 years is a long time. People born 30 years ago could vote for 12 years. That's 3 presidential election cycles. It's been a progression, and it started long before Reagan.
So, repeating nonsense that was already nonsense 30 years ago is ignorant, and it doesn't require the history to be ancient, recent, or modern. All it requires is for you to put a little thought and research into the matter rather than repeating old lies as if the mere repeating of them could make them true.