Slashdot Mirror
Obama Campaign Seeks LAMP Developers
kgamiel writes "The Obama campaign's CTO is hiring LAMP-biased geeks for the Boston office to help elect the Senator in the fall. This got me to wondering, what if he instead announced a SourceForge project toward the same end? What would such a project look like? Tools that both sides could use 'equally' would not achieve the desired end. And philosophically, could the Open Source community support one side in a competition such as this? What other issues does this raise?" Another reader notes that the Obama campaign is also searching for a security expert to plug the holes that allowed a hacker to redirect Obama's site (Linux/Apache hosted by GoDaddy) to Hillary Clinton's (Windows/IIS hosted by Rackspace).
Jeebus, he wants to get things done, and not spend forever arguing about schematics, philosophy, languages, and what color the bikeshed is.
Uh, no, no. Some modern interpretations of Christianity hold only murder to be wrong, while many historical strains (and certainly the text!) argue for the stricter interpretation. Christian "just war" theory is a hotly disputed topic amongst even modern Christians, and for good reason: there is barely if any scriptural support for it, and many see it as simply a pragmatic concession to the fact that living as a Christian in a cruel, cruel world is rather difficult. I would point you, for example, to Martin Luther King, Jr.'s early writings, where he explains the man reasons why he rejected the Just War theory that he held in his youth as he found it inconsistent with the Christianity he studied and believed in.
All the techniques ever used to make men moral have been themselves thoroughly immoral... (Nietzsche)
Is slashdot going to turn into Obama propaganda like digg and other sites too? The Obama campaign is looking for people with server and programming experience. Big deal.
No, it would be silly to put up a sourceforge project for a candidate. Better concentrate on how best to use existing tools.
--
Have USB will travel - http://www.faunos.com/
yea, our generation. this guy is practically 10 years older than me. and many years younger than many of you here.
despite im 33 years old and many of you are over 40, and many of you below 25 even, we belong to a single generation - information age generation. this super generation is people who got influenced with the advent of information technology, from 60s and on. at those decades, the impact was limited to whomever worked in the i.t. field. but with the spread of the ibm personal computer compatibles, it reached a broader segment of the society (and internationally too) and with the internet it reached the masses. however, up to this point, the world has been ruled by representatives who had little to do with those changes. either because they are too old, and information revolution did not affect them (because they werent in field of i.t. in 60s and on) or because they were much older, derelict of cold war era.
clinton is an example of the former - despite she was young at the onset of 60s and 70s, the real start of this information revolution, she had nothing to do with i.t., wasnt working in an i.t. field, and henceforth remained out of these changes.
im not even talking about mccain.
obama is different. he is young enough to have lived his youth at the time when information revolution was reaching masses, and he had enough exposure to i.t. (and very probably to open source ideals) during his time working in community service.
he is an example of how the future will be. as the older generation of (i say dinosaurs) phase out, this new generation - practically 'our' generation, because internet causing people to do everything together regardless of nation and location - is going to take over the world step by step. rightly so, because that is the nature of life.
and things will change. see this difference in approach in between those 2 candidates (one seeking lamp developer, not even asking a college degree, and hosting their stuff on lamp servers, the other is going all old big buck style, hosting their stuff on microsoft iis) signifies the difference in understanding in between them.
change will come faster in europe, because europe did not experience mccarthyism of america, that killed the potential change a few generations would be able to bring in 50s and 60s. therefore the transition there is smoother, because there didnt happen a lost generation that was not able to take positions of government, power due to scaremongering.
in u.s. it will be a bit harder. because mccarthyism scaremongering in between 50-60s caused that period to be one of stale progress up until the end of 60s. big corporations are going to fight back in u.s., whereas in europe they are already kept in check with Eu institutions.
im turkish, i live in turkey, irrelevant to many stuff that is happening in u.s., and im an obama supporter. that is because he is one of the spearheads of our broad information-age/new generation to bring change, regardless of where that change happens, we all should support each other.
Read radical news here
The "unintentional" killing you're referring to is closer to the American concept of "negligent homicide" - it was crimes for which the punishment was exile to once of the cities of refuge.
lo tirtzah in the Ten Commandments is a little bit broader than "don't murder," but it's a long distance away from "don't kill." Attempts to interpret it to mean "don't kill" are well-intentioned, but are not faithful to the actual meaning or historical interpretation of the text. If "don't kill" had been intended, lo ya'areg would have been used instead.
This is the standard Rabbinic interpretation of the phrase in the Ten Commandments - all of them refer to crimes for which one can receive the death penalty, so "don't steal" is limited to "don't kidnap [i.e. "don't steal people"]" - one cannot receive the death penalty for homicide which is not murder in Jewish law, so the that's another data point supporting the interpretation of the word as "murder."
Need Geek Rock? Try The Franchise!
Second should Obama win both the Democratic nomination and the presidency, Hillary Clinton will never have a shot at the presidency. Her and her supporters feel she is entitled to that position. In their minds, she was supposed to be the first woman President of the U.S. In addition to the Clintons' feelings of entitlement and the gender politics involved, lets throw in racial politics (possible first black president), a failed presidency (Bush, Jr), a faltering economy, the expensive quagmire in Iraq, and fear of losing control by a generation entitled Baby Boomers. In point of fact, the whole thing is about the future of freedom - specifically who will set the tone and policies of the next generation of U.S. politics. If you spent half the effort on real problems that you spend electing a leader for your arrogant little country, the world be be such a better place. Go ahead throw your stones. We can take it. We have enough real problems to deal with (like fixing our economy, ending a stupid war & bringing our troops home, repairing our standing in the world, replacing our aging infrastructure, competing with the rising new economic superpowers, and healing the internal wounds from the corrosive Culture War in-fighting of the aging Boomers). We really appreciate your constructive suggestions on how to run our political selection process. Christ, _just get along_. We're trying. You're not helping.
-IV
"These laws they're passing won't even compile anymore, let alone execute." - anon
Yes and no.
Obama is intelligent as well as charismatic (yes, I'm from Chicago and I have met him). When asked -- jokingly -- a question about sorting at some university function, he replied, "well, I wouldn't use the bubblesort" which is pretty damn good for a lawyer, especially a constitutional lawyer.
I also find it telling that his technical advisor is an MIT professor. (Contrast with McCain, who I have not met but IMO is basically a stand-up guy embedded in a free-spending, anti-freedom party. McCain has an ex entertainment industry exec as HIS technical advisor).
It's not really a work of fiction, either (true or not). It is partly historically, partly mythological, and somewhat akin to a docudrama with a purpose, trying to answer the question "Why?".
One should expect contradiction within it, since it is a collection of a number of books written by different authors at different times for different purposes. That does not make it irrelevant or unhelpful.
Actually, the terrorist cell responsible for 9-11 came from Saudi Arabia. 7 years later we STILL can not question other Saudi suspects, including some with high placement in the Saudi government and the Saudi 'royal' family..
You still think it was an accident we invaded Iraq?? I don't.
The most important skill for a politician at this level is the ability to pick the right people. People who are more competent at their specializations that he is. People he can trust to deliver worthwhile information and opinions to him, including "No!" as needed. It could be said that this has been both Carter's and GWB's failing, the former for not building and trusting a sufficiently competent team, the latter for building a team of "True Believers" without enough dissent.
While the subject of the article is in no way sufficient to say that Obama is a good candidate or would be a good President, it is a necessary part of that. He is seeking competent assistance, and I didn't see "true belief" in the list of qualifications, as it was in building the Emerald City.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
Why would *anyone* politicize software and platform preference? So now, I'm a liberal because I use Linux, or I'm a conservative because I use Windows? The last thing we need is more division and resentment among us. I like the software (programming) world because as computer nerds we are happily removed from the greater social issues that give everyone else so much consternation. Why would anyone want to ruin this?
That was 2,000 years ago. What's he done for me lately?
Obama isn't a Baby Boomer. He's in the post-boomer generation variously called Generation-X, Generation-13, Post-Boomers, etc. Basically those born between 1961 and 1981 (read GENERATIONS by Howe & Strauss for a profile of American generations for the last three centuries).
Also, Obama is a reformist leader who has based his campaign on changing how American government works. He is literally the voice crying "STOP" for the two frustrated generations (Gen-X & Millenials) who follow the Boomers.
Clinton is a machine Democrat with 35 years invested in keeping Washington working the way it does now (aka lobbyist rule). So your "same side" argument lacks any basic understanding of current American presidential politics. As such, I have to devalue your criticisms of our system.
So you prefer your nastiness to go on behind closed doors? I guess tastes differ. I prefer openness even if it is messier. Sunlight and fresh air will kill lots of nasty things that live in the dark places.
What the hell are you talking about with my supposed "sit back until they die" approach? I said that we are in the initial stages of shoving the fractious Boomers out of power. We certainly aren't waiting for them to die. Heck, it may require copious amounts of holy water and wooden stakes through their hearts just to get them to back down.
As to the Boomer children being taught to act like their parents, the Millennials are a largely a civic and cooperative generation unlike the Boomers, who are individualistic and rhetorically idealistic. The Millenials do not show the narcissistic sense of "we're right, everyone else is wrong" ego that the Boomers enjoy. As a group the Millennials seem to be naturally cooperative and conscientious, if somewhat immature and naive. Like most civic generations, they were sheltered and cherished so it will take them a while to mature. But when they do, America will change as it has not since the last great civic generation: the G.I. (aka "The Greatest Generation").
In the interim it is the Gen-X folks that will be taking the reigns for a while. This is the truly galling part for the Boomers. They HATE the Gen-X generation (its a long story. read GENERATIONS). So the Boomers will renew their grip and force everyone to drive them out of power inch by bloody inch. Their entire generational ego is predicated on the notion that they know better than anyone else. They won't go easily. This fight is going to take years. The 2008 election is just the first battle in a long war.
Your logic on tying the War on Drugs to the campaign rhetoric is flawed. Certainly that is one of the many stupidities we have to address, it is NOT however one of the problems with the functioning of the primary campaign (your original point). It may be an issue not addressed by the campaigns, but it isn't an issue WITH the campaigns' operations. Nice try at a redirect, but a failed one.
Finally your statement that no one over here seems to be doing anything either is specious and insulting. Of course we are doing something about it. Why do you think so many people are actively working to elect their favored candidate? Its a fight. It is ugly and it will get uglier still. We who are actively engaged in that fight know this. We aren't disheartened that it is ugly. We know things will get better. That is what we are fighting for; not just to fix some of our problems but to fix the system so that it doesn't create these catastrophes in the first place. So bear with us while we try to sort this out.
Of course you wouldn't know what it is like to have to dig in and try to fix the basics of a broken govenment, since you rely on it all being nicely sorted out in a comfortable back room some where.
"These laws they're passing won't even compile anymore, let alone execute." - anon
No my analysis isn't wrong, it just didn't include that aspect of the larger election. Of course the general election will be the final repudiation of the Reagan revolution and the neocon insanities. Not one of the candidates is a champion for that camp, including the Republican candidate (which is why their base hates McCain so much. he's not "one of them".)
There is more going on in this election than a excoriation of GWB, the Reagan revolution and the Neocon philosophy. Specifically the fight between Clinton and Obama is a generational struggle for control. Yes there is more than that going on in the entire race, but it is a large component driving the contention between those two candidates supporters.
How do I really feel? Yeah, I resent the Boomers as a group. I'm one of the Gen-X generation that has been uniformly crapped on by the Boomers since we committed the ultimate sin of not worshiping them.
My rhetoric applies to both the Boomer fueled neocons (look at the neocon philosophical heavyweights - all Boomers) and the machine Democrats (they aren't cohesive enough to have their own group name), like the Clintons.
"These laws they're passing won't even compile anymore, let alone execute." - anon