Slashdot Mirror
How Tech-Savvy Will the Next President Be?
CorinneI writes "We've got our candidates. We know their positions on the major issues of the day — healthcare, the Iraq war, the economy, yada, yada, yada. But Senators McCain and Obama will also have to be concerned with tech issues. Where do they stand on Net neutrality, patent protection, piracy, broadband, privacy, and H1B visas? Do their campaign positions match up with their voting records and public statements? Here's how they stack up on the big five tech issues of the day."
I think McCain has first-hand experience with a Babbage computer
mod me funny
Also, don't forget that McCain inexplicably supports telecom immunity..
In my eyes, the most important issue is the preservation of the 2nd ammendment.
Yep, I never spell check.
More incorrect spellings can be found he
I'd much rather have a President who surrounds himself with well-informed advisors, than a President who weighs his own opinions on specialized topics more heavily than a specialist's opinion. Leadership is delegation.
Cretin - a powerful and flexible CD reencoder
Either one will be a lot more savvy in general than the current president. I bet both can even SPELL Technology.
+1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
Totally inadequate.
Let us not become the evil that we deplore.
I don't even think it's on their radar, and the sad part is that it is becoming a huge issue, especially with the stupid hacking war between various countries, and the amount of control corporations want over software and data. The candidates are a lot older and have to know about a lot more things, and they try to take in the greater picture. How can they deal with the minutia of details that involve this fledgling of a political and human rights issue? How can they know about the implications? Even a lot of people that are deep in the tech industry don't even care about a lot of things, mostly because they work for corporations that are trying to steer the industry towards gobbling up all rights so they can secure revenue streams.
Twinstiq, game news
This is like the NRA saying I wander how familiar the new president will be with regards to the barrel modification on my new Desert Eagle.
That's why he has advisor's, who typically are leaders in their field. With all due respect in the light of the state of the economy, housing, petroleum, national security this stuff matters not. The new president will be so busy trying to clean up more important stuff that things like net neutrality will probably never come up as an issue until term two if that happens.
For the most part, the question should be, do they even care? if most of the mass has no idea what Net neutrality even is... thats the big question what is it good for the general public, if they can still access myspace / porn sites, some might even say, Think of the kids! Protect the USA lets filter everything!
WulframII - Free Online Mutiplayer 3D Tank Shooting Game
thank goodness Hillary wasn't elected. she sounds totally in the pocket of hollywood.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Net neutrality:
McCain - let the markets handle it
Obama - legislate it
Broadband Availability:
McCain - increased access via competition
Obama - re-define 'broadband', move toward universal service, increase availability at schools & libraries
H1B visas:
McCain - increase the number of them
Obama - full immigration overhaul, produce more American-born tech workers, make workers less dependent on their employers
Intellectual Property Protection:
McCain - gov't handles blatant abuses, works against protectionism
Obama - increase cooperation on international standards
Privacy:
McCain - immunity for companies that cooperated with warrentless wiretapping
Obama - expand the FTC to cooperate with international agencies to track cyber-criminals
Without reading the article, I can guess it tracks this format pretty closely:
Q: What would {Obama,McCain} do about $TECH_ISSUE?
Obama: Emphasises coming up with solution that works for ALL Americans by making impossible tradeoff. Says soundbite taken from Lawrence Lessig.
McCain: Emphasises coming up with solution that works for ALL Americans by making impossible tradeoff. Says soundbite taken from corporate lobbyist.
Does that about sum it up?
Information theory is life. The rest is just the KL divergence.
How many blonde jokes involving computers would each candidate laugh at vs how many would they respond to with "What a coincidence--I do that, too".
True, but surrounding yourself with well-informed advisors requires the ability to recognize someone that is well-informed. This is difficult to do without having some level of knowledge yourself.
This question makes no sense to me. How "tech savvy" will the president be? The internet is basically just a series of tubes. How hard could it to be to understand? What could possibly go wrong?
Because that worked so well with the last guy.
No Longer a Menace to Society.
Alexandria Morrigan born 2/22/01 l. 20.5in wt. 7 lbs. 5 oz.
I believe The Simpsons tackled this very subject in They Saved Lisa's Brain--an episode in which Mensa gains control of Springfield. Horrible legislation ensues.
The president should represent the average person of the United States of America. Someone who compiles Linux is not your average person.
We should really pay attention to how they vote, who their delegate these issues to, who they listen to and--most importantly--how willing they are to bow to the companies for an extra buck.
My work here is dung.
I agree with your basis, but it does help if they have at least a working knowledge of the topic they are making decisions on. In short, a "Jack of all trades, Ace of none" style of president would be ideal. They could support their short comings with experts in the field, yet still understand it enough to make informed, logical decision on the matter.
"I only know 2 things: The love for me, and the fear of me."
for whom "tech-savvy" isn't another term for "knows what order the crayons go back in the box".
No Longer a Menace to Society.
Alexandria Morrigan born 2/22/01 l. 20.5in wt. 7 lbs. 5 oz.
This argument would be better if it wasn't one of the major arguments I heard repeatedly back in 2000 for George W. Bush.
I read the internet for the articles.
But at that point it's more about reading people than knowing the subject material. Having a strong ethical foundation will also factor in.
Cretin - a powerful and flexible CD reencoder
It costs $10,000 to run a cable or fiber to my house. If we're waiting for "market competition" to make it happen, then it will NEVER happen, because there is no way Comcast or Verizon would ever recoupe their investment. "Whiz to Coho" says they can't get a wireless signal at my house 'cause of all the trees, and HughesNet satellite internet sucks! My only hope is some sort of universal access initiative. But then, I was going to vote for Obama anyway.
You tend to rely on information more from your friends then you do from the guy trying to push money your way.
Physics is imagination in a straight jacket. ~John Moffat
If the president is to have so much power, shouldn't he be knowledgeable about what he has power over? I don't want some average Joe coding my software. A president should be someone "special", if he is to be elected, he should be the role model of the average person, not the average person himself.
Disclaimer: I am not god.
We may not be created equal
But we can be treated equal.
I'll be grateful if we get a president that knows how to work the seatbelt in Spaceball One's escape pods.
I write sci-fi for metalheads
Bush/Cheney value loyalty far, far more than intelligence, expertise, or performance. They appointed a plague of loyal idiots.
One knows that the big red button makes big boom boom! The other knows how to read Internet Polls. Guess which one is which.
Well, Obamas people went directly to Lawrence Lessig for discussing tech policies. I think that says a lot.
However it is, let's hope his specialists are of the "Blue Genie" variety instead of the "Grand Vizer" variety.
McCain has already laid bare his position. You don't get any. However, the subject of Obama's name will rule the day. Please help make civil liberties the issue it needs to be. It is a given that McCain is a big loser in that department and they will steadily lose out to his special interests he so vehemently denies. Obama's choices for VP and a cabinet will indicate how serious he is. There is only one choice if you care at all about your rights, even though the choice might not amount to anything. But it is clear that McCain is not interested in the subject. It will be to his detriment any time it ever comes up.
What?
That was the argument for why Bush was an acceptable President. "It doesn't matter that he has no foreign policy knowledge, is not intelligent, and cannot string two sentences together. As long as he has good advisors, everything will be fine."
We see how that turned out.
Having excellent advisors is an absolute requirement. It is necessary, but not sufficient, for a good presidency. You definitely need someone at the top who is able to digest all the inputs and provide the guidance and accountability.
Here are his income tax returns for the last two years. Maybe you can do the analysis yourself and see if there's something that would support your wild and baseless accusation. You know, because claiming McCain is just trading votes for cash and being corrupt does require a bit of evidence and proof.
I'm waiting...
JFK's advisors didn't suggest putting a man on the moon. They were quite resistant to the idea. On the other hand, Iraq was a "slam dunk" according to Bush's advisors...
How can you identify a "well informed" advisor if you have no knowledge on the subject yourself?
Wow... this is a 5 page promo for the obama campaign. For those who don't want to read, let me summarize, each page reads the same.
Issue:
Clinton - has a liberal idea, lets write a short sentence about it.
McCain - Has a conservative idea, lets write another short sentence.
Obama - Obama is the darling of all media and can do no wrong even if he has belonged to an anti-american church for the last 20 years. Lets talk about his GREAT idea, how it's going to feed the hungry, house the homeless and generally promote world peace. Then we'll talk about how his idea is the best, why everyone else is ignoring the issue and oh yeah, CHANGE! Lets talk about CHANGE! It doesn't have to be change for the better, in fact, it'll probably be worse, but as long as WE'RE GETTING SOME CHANGE!!!
Oh, and continue that for about 12 paragraphs, and throw in some links to back it up. Don't forget, all big corps are evil.
Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins, for they are subtle, and quick to anger.
Ubama's plan for NASA is boring. Back to low Earth orbit, basic science, divert the latest moon program to yet more entitlement programs. More of the same. Not very creative.
But they'll appear perfectly sincere and trustworthy.And they can fake that as easily as they can fake technical knowledge. It's even EASIER.
There is NO substitute for personal knowledge.
After reading your issue all I have to say is
You people suck.
Specifically, its people like you that give reason for this government to run us all over.
So, since you won't or cannot pay 10 grand its okay to let to government expend that money to connect your residence?
worse, you probably don't see the problem with it from the wording of your post.
The corporations are right not doing it, the government would be wrong to do so. When people put themselves into situations they should be responsible to get themselves out.
Selfish. Let me guess, I should pay for other people being fat, lazy, and drinking too?
Karma is good when you have so much to burn, but damn your type really pisses me off.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Just because the media and political talking heads want to count delagates doesn't mean it's a done deal.
Never, never, NEVER, N*E*V*E*R count your delagates before they vote...!
Same principal (it ain't over 'til it's really over) applies to eggs, bug fixes, love, the Mars Rovers, and NASCAR races.
Sorry, I should have said "well-informed advisors who deserve to live."
Cretin - a powerful and flexible CD reencoder
The only real issue missed the important part of that question.
"Issue: Intellectual Property Protection"
asks "how can corporations protect their treasure?"
The missing issue:
"Issue: Intellectual Property Reform"
asks the opposite question.
"How can the public domain and fair use be protected against corporate efforts to limit and extinguish them?"
Really, how many centuries of protection does a corporation need?
But are Bush's advisers really that good? Someone else pointed out that Bush is all about loyalty, not necessarily the right person for the job.
Bush picked cronies and yes-men above all else. Haven't we heard a number of stories of Bush refusing to listen to those who disagree, simply because they disagree?
Why would more intelligent politicians pass worse laws than less intelligent politicians?
I believe that more intelligent politicians would pass more intelligent laws (all other factors being equal).
A president should be someone "special", if he is to be elected, he should be the role model of the average person, not the average person himself.
Well... the US has elected some 43 of them so far. How many count as the 'role model of the average person'?
Don't get me wrong, I'm a strong supporter of second amendment rights, but that's not the topic here.
Since when The Simpsons is an authority in politics?, don't try smart people in goverment because in They Saved Lisa's Brain the results were disastrous?.
I completely disagree. Leadership requires specialization in its own areas of knowledge, most of which can be summed up under the label of metacognition. Surrounding oneself with well-informed advisors only requires you be able to reliably gauge other people's metacognitive ability. If you're not the best at x, you need to know someone who's the best at x, and if you don't, all you need to know is someone who can tell you who the best at x is. If you're wrong, the process has a very fast feedback loop because your critics will quickly illuminate you on how routinely poor your decisions and appointees are.
Of course that assumes you don't insulate yourself with sycophants which makes the entire process a moot point because an egotistical person who's only interested in hearing good things about himself really has no interest in being a good leader anyway, only in hearing that he's a good leader.
Anecdotal evidence is one thing, but basing your opinion on a cartoon portrayal of what "might" happen is extreme even for /.
Well Obama is good friends with Lawrence Lessig.
On the other hand, I think McCain grew up with Alan Turing's Dad so...
I mean, is there really any doubt on which one is more "tech savvy"? If their ages don't make it completely obvious, look at Obama's website, his government transparency (available online), and his simple familiarity with the issues.
A 47 year old recent Constitutional law professor (universities tend to have a couple uses for the inter-tubes) whose campaign uses the Internet as its central tool vs a 72 year old guy who has been in the Legislature since 640K was enough for anyone?
At the very least the President should be able to read an Atlas, or as First Lady Bunny refers to it as, that little picture book, so as he can find all those countries he needs to Nuke .. :)
davecb5620@gmail.com
That's not necessarily true. If two politicians felt they needed an expert on, say, managing the development of a large piece of code, one candidate might pick Linus Torvalds while another might pick Bill Gates. Both would certainly be qualified, but the one that would be selected is the one that lines up with your ideals on what the development should be like. If the candidate doesn't have an opinion on an issue that they're to be in charge of, that's especially dangerous, as they'll simply pick whoever exudes "qualified" the most, whether or not they're actually the best choice.
All executive power stems from the president, and all cabinet members serve at their discretion. The president's views are ultimately what matter.
"Lock and load, Brides of Christ!"
An idiot cannot tell an expert from a charlatan. So the idiot chooses based upon criteria that he CAN evaluate. Whether those criteria have anything to do with the knowledge or not.
Yeah, see my statement above.
These are not very difficult issues to understand.
Is it fair to have different speeds for different sites based if they paid _your_ ISP for faster speed.
How do we get faster internet connections to the rural comunites.
Should software be patented if so should there be different rules.
Is outsourcing tech workers best for America.
The issues are really people and policy issue (stuff that a president should be able to make decisions on themselfs) It is not as much on the details like what routers they should use or how to setup something.
That is the problem with IT today in america IT People think they are so smart that the average joe has no understanding on what is going on. The average joe knows more then you think, and is able to make good decisions without a tech guy going to them Hey try this it is really 7337 or hey man don't be a n00b and go that way.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
I'd say our next president (and any other government official for that matter) will be about as tech-savvy as the board of directors at any tech company. (Hint: not at all.)
Your ad here.
You mean like this?
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
That BIG RED BUTTON is not the any key. Please, please, just hit the space bar or something.
Like arts? Like cheesy little Indie mags? Check out www.artwerkmag.com, and don't laugh at the bad coding please.
I hear Bush gets his advice straight from Jesus... I would imagine that he would be informed, seeing as how he intelligently designed the universe -- but look where that's gotten us! /ducks.
I have people skills! I deal with the god damn voters so the experts don't have to!
From our point of view -- as technical folk -- the decision would be about selecting "the one that lines up with your ideals on what the development should be like." As informed people on this subject, we can do that.
But I'd prefer the President make the selection based on real world factors over his technical tastes; in your example, he might consider that Linus Torvalds has mobilized and reigned as consensus leader over tens of thousands of hackers for over a decade, and that Bill Gates made his fortune by ramming his company's products down consumer's throats, and use information like that in his decision.
Cretin - a powerful and flexible CD reencoder
Well, some of the idiots only stayed loyal as long as Bush had none-lame power. So maybe they weren't loyal idiots after all, just amoral opportunists.
For many things, it is up to POTUS to represent the interests of the country as a whole. But for many others (like with the Civil Rights Movement) it should be the President leading the country to do what's right, even if it's not popular immediately.
Sadly, that's gotten us into some trouble recently, but when we're led by an intelligent, ethical person, it works out well.
are a congressional matter. Contact your congress persons.
Contrary to what are current president thinks, the president is not a king.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
less than half, give or take a handful.
true for everyone, although the set wont necessarily be the same.
turn up the jukebox and tell me a lie
Nope, this is generally done with head-hunters and other suitable recruiters.
The problem with that is that, if you employ people who is good on whatever non-political issue, but is by itself non political, your government adversaries will screw him because the poor guy won't know how to "defend".
This is in part what happened to the people Vicente Fox put as secretaries when he entered (I know first hand account of the tourism and environment delegates cases).
Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
People are much more average than you seem to think.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
Unfortunately, what Harry Truman said is true: people with median skills and intelligence are more likely to be elected than geniuses. The median voter is afraid of geniuses.
However, this doesn't mean a person with average intelligence would make a better president than someone more intelligent. The ideal president would be intelligent, well informed, and have good advisors. After all, if the president isn't intelligent and well informed, how will he know which advice to follow?
The problem comes when you start saying that having LESS knowledge is acceptable because, somehow, this person will be able to identify real experts from charlatans. That is your mistake."Personal" skills? What? Like being toilet trained? Having adequate hygiene?
All the "political skills" in the world won't matter if the individual is using them to pass stupid laws or engage us in useless wars.
There is no substitute for personal knowledge.
Seriously, of those examples listed, the only valid one that rational people should factor in for their presidential choice is privacy; and yet, when you limit it to Tech-Savvy-ness, you are vastly undermining the meaning of privacy.
Regarding tech-savvy-ness, I would have listed off the usuals: NASA, NOAA, and federal grants for both private and public research towards both current and future societal problems and dangers.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The president should represent the average person of the United States of America. Someone who compiles Linux is not your average person.
So you're saying GWB was a good representative?
I'm being serious. If the President should represent the average person, I'd say Bush was a good candidate. I don't happen to think he has done this country any service, much less good service, but he does qualify as "average" in most aspects other than wealth.
"Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
Point taken.
No Longer a Menace to Society.
Alexandria Morrigan born 2/22/01 l. 20.5in wt. 7 lbs. 5 oz.
Here are some quotes from Ralph about technology...
http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Ralph_Nader_Technology.htm
TV immersion deprives children of exposure to nature. (Jan 2007)
FCC is hapless agent in media regulation. (May 2003)
The media needs more diversity and competition. (May 2003)
FCC gave away $70B in airwave licenses to large corporations. (Oct 2000)
Domain name registration needs openness to replace monopoly. (Oct 2000)
Put all Congressional voting records on Internet. (Jun 2000)
More free info from govt via computers & airwaves. (Feb 2000)
Ruling against Microsoft bodes well for competition. (Nov 1999)
Bold investment needed for public transportation. (Jul 1999)
Microsoft is anticompetitive and anticonsumer. (Nov 1998)
Microsoft must be stopped. (Nov 1998)
The public owns the airwaves; express our rights. (Apr 1996)
Check the link for more detailed quotes.
Come on folks. These are politicians. The only thing they actually know about is getting elected.
On top of that, I noticed some things.
First, on most topics the candidates follow party lines.
Second, I notice that McCain support increasing the cap, but Obama doesn't say if he supports that or not. He talks about a complete overhaul and some goals of that overhaul, but not what the overhaul would be.
Third,for IP protection, the article spells out the positions of Clinton and McCain. But, then it soft-peddles Obama's response which boils down to "Obama promised in his technology white paper to "ensure intellectual property is protected in foreign markets, and promote greater cooperation on international standards that allow our technologies to compete everywhere." The summary of positions focuses not on the part where he supports IP protection , but rather on the standards part. That is dishonest reporting.
Fourth, in the privacy part, the article writer(s) chooses a different sub-issue for each candidate. For Clinton, the Privacy Bill of Rights, which protects consumer and medical records is chosen.
For Obama, the issue of cyber-criminals, malware, and ID theft. But for McCain, the issue is warrantless wiretaps. That is cherry-picking issues and answers to bias opinion.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
Well, apparently Obama knows enough not to use a Bubble Sort:
;)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4RRi_ntQc8
Now, if he could just get some decent web developers.
http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/05/31/2341201&from=rss
Sanity is a sandbox. I prefer the swings.
I loved Jon Stewart's comments on allegations of elitism. To paraphrase:
"Doesn't "elite" mean "the best"? You applying for a position that, if you do a good enough job, people may carve your face into the side of a mountain. If you don't think you're better than us, why are you running?"
"Lock and load, Brides of Christ!"
Fortunately there will be many opportunities for Barak and McCain to debate head-to-head (McCain has already called for 10 town halls in 10 weeks) before I have to make a decision on this issue.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Hopefully only Clinton leaves lipstick on the joystick.
;)
No wait! That's Lewinsky...
Seeing as how most people don't like the Mac guy in those commercials, you might want to be careful what you wish for.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
I suspect the original poster is trying to imply an illegal link between the candidate and industry. I can't comment if one exists. But what I recommend is you go to Center for Responsive Politics which will tell you where the source of campaign contributions of all presidential candidates.
The Web site aggregates company donations by industrial sector. Thus to see which candidate gets the most money from "Telephone Utilities" you can try clicking on this link: Telephone Utility Totals to Candidates As you can see Sen. McCain has received $345,945 from said utilities while Sen. Obama has received $203,546.
Feel free to draw your own conclusions.
N.B. I should note that the last election fund-raising report was due on 20-May-2008 and that was for donations received in April, so the information on this Web site is usually two months old.
Someone who "compiles Linux" is average. Just as average as someone who rebuilds their car's engine, or does their own carpentry, or grows their own garden, or .... Most Americans have a few things they have at least a good amateur's expertise in, if not professional qualifications. And some of us have even mastered the arcane "./compile;make;make install".
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
Really. They left one out. I just hope the next president will be able to retail email records and not bypass WH email systems via party email.
The decisions the President makes SHAPE the economy.
... what? Increased mail order purchases? Increased education? Does it help the economy grow? Does it hamper it?
If he says that it is okay for telco's to maintain their monopoly, then that business stagnates.
If he says that the telco's MUST allow competition, then we have change (and improvements in theory) in that business.
The more intelligent the President, the more he will see (and understand) how the various segments are tied together. And how one decision affecting one segment will resonate throughout the other segments. High speed Internet access for rural communities means
No you don't. You know what their 'spokespeople' have paraded in front of an increasingly ignorant electorate. The money that supports these people's bids for office has no interest in changing anything. 'Buzzwords', 'soundbites', and slogans are designed to excite emotion, not to provoke thoughtful discourse to provide real world, workable solutions. Cheering crowds and crappy songs performed by some fat-assed bimbo, aren't going to change anything. Just remember all the promises that are made to reform things like the healthcare system will cost money. Who's money? Yours and mine. So if there isn't enough of it to go around, we'll all suffer with less than we have now. You will have only your own stupidity to thank for that when it comes about. Just keep that in mind when you're casting your ballot in November, if you even bother to vote.
Sig this!
didn't.
What you are laying at their feet is the definition of Washington DC
It is the Democratic and Republican parties.
Do you really think Obama or McCain gets full choice of their cabinet or aides after the coming election? I seriously doubt it. What are people going to do if Clinton gets on the ticket? Its not like she can't force the issue then it comes down to the same things you attributed to Bush/Cheney.
Government isn't about intelligence or performance, its about pay offs and pay backs.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
The issues listed are so far down the list they should not be a factor. The Federal Governments job is to provide security for the country, not dabble in things that should be left to the states to decide. To much power has been given to the Federal Government. Why should the Feds have anything to do with anyone having access to broadband?
I think we are getting very close to the time when the government as it has become will need to be reset. Right now we have a two party system where we get pretty much the same no matter who is in power. They treat the population as a huge wallet that they extract money from. Then that money is paid to the lobbies and others that paid to get the officials elected. Sure there is some it spent to placate the masses, but bread and circuses only last so long.
The problem is we have no one to blame but ourselves. We created a system that has systematically evolved politicians into the sub-species that they have become. They are able to spew sound bites without ever doing anything concrete and are able to promise everyone exactly what they want to hear. At this point we are unable to elect someone that has the actual skills that are needed to lead this country the way it should be led. Once in power they will tax and spend just like they always have no matter who is in power.
Personally I think our only hope at the moment is to keep any single party from getting both congress and the White House at the same time. At least when they are held by different parties it prevents massive sweeping changes from being enacted. If a single party does control everything then it will be a sign that things are going to get really bad. There will be no stopping them from doing whatever they hell they want.
Regardless get ready for $10.00 a gallon gasoline and rampant inflation over the next four years. And I suspect we will start to see massive famines across the world and possibly in this country. And the endless debate that the other party caused all this.
He prefers his his mail like he prefers his victories.
So slow they seemingly never arrive.
They're using their grammar skills there.
Do you really think that John McCain even reads email on a screen? Or isn't he just one of thousands of decrepit old guys who have their emails printed out for someone to read to them.
Which of McCain or Obama is more likely to say "newfangled"?
To which of these two people, the guy who remembers silent movies in theaters firsthand, or the guy who went to Columbia University while the kermit terminal app was being developed there, is going to recognize technology opportunities and pitfalls? And which is the guy who's letting an AT&T lobbyist run his campaign, because he doesn't know (or care, really) the first thing about technology?
--
make install -not war
If the president is to have so much power, shouldn't he be knowledgeable about what he has power over? I don't want some average Joe coding my software. A president should be someone "special", if he is to be elected, he should be the role model of the average person, not the average person himself. This is exactly what Obama is! Go Socialism!
I'm pretty sure he's the same model as Saul Tigh.
No. He is saying that the president should be a representative of average person, not representative of average person. He means that the president should address issues and concerns of the average person more than those of specialists because specialists are minority. addressing concerns of the average will address concerns of a vast majority of the populace.
It is obvious that if a person is representing the entire nation, he should be well above average. even a kid could figure that out. not that it happens all the time in real life, but real world is not ideal anyways. is it?
Yeah, but where are his wife's returns (and not a 2-page summary), if you're going that route? As we all know, they file separately.
Now, I wouldn't say he's trading votes for cash, but I would say that his stance on telecom immunity is wrong.
Judging from the crew of lobbyists directing his campaign to provide him leadership, we can expect:
1) more war in Iraq at the expense of investment in broadband and other technologies here at home
2) more funds for various dictators around the world, such as Jonas Sabimbi, who hacked off children's arms if they didn't accept forced recruitment into his children's army
3) more support for bankers, like Charles Keating, who are interested in gaming the system. Note that he actually supports Bernake's move at the Fed to allow Morgan Stanley to take out essentially no-interest loans, so that they can buy up oil futures contracts, making them now the number one holder of heating oil in New England, since the Fed opened the spigot (but not the window of transparency) for investment banks to essentially get all the cash they need printed on demand, while the dollar continues to tank.
4) allow the broadband companies to tier their service and put on caps to allow them to surcharge for downloads above size limits they set for themselves.
5) support massive H1B visa allowances so that jobs can continue to flow to foreign nationals
6) support for a continuance of the "Enron regulatory loophole" allowinng unregulated entry into investment banking by foreign controled hedge-funds and commodity traders (paid attention to the hearings on US energy regulations and their role in spurring speculation in the energy markets?). McCane actuallyfighting change to exisitng Bush/Grahm (his advisors) law that allows energy traders in Dubai can regulate US energy market exchange, without any other regulations, except imposed by Dubai regulators. If you feel comforatable with Dubai regulators making sure your gasoline prices are low, McCane is your guy. We all know how well this is working.
7) further support of his lobbyists among homland security firms to insure that all internet phone conversations, emails, and survailance at all public places, will be fully monitored but the full force and trust of the US government (and likely be sold to those who might be able to make use of this information in new secondary information markets, leading to the development of an entire new growth area in our economy, KGB-style oversight of citizens 24/7.
If you like leadership by delegation to corporate insiders, McCane is definitely your man. Its the Bush policies on steroids.
Vote McCane for a strong, well-corporate regulated Internet/America, where profit is for some is assurred and were alll who might complain can be closely monitored!
Hold on a second. In light of the big picture, I'd rather take a dimwit president over an intelligent one. In fact, I reckon the best possible scenario is for the president to sit and do absolutely nothing for four years, along with the rest of his administration.
What's that, you say? I'm nuts? Hear me out.
If you think Bush is a dimwit president (for example), I invite you to analyze both (1) his level of power, and (2) his net worth -- at the beginning of his reign vs. the end of his reign. By those two measures -- the two most important measures for a man who desires power -- he is an incredible success.
Nearly every administration since Lincoln has succeeded in expanding the power and revenue of the federal government during their reign. The US federal government of today absolutely dwarfs the US federal government of only 100 years ago, both in revenue and power over the people. Today, power is heavily consolidated in the hands of the elite few, rather than decentralized and strictly limited as the government of a free country should work.
The US government is now the most powerful, most expensive government AND world empire that has ever existed, with military bases in some 150 countries around the world.
Call me a nutcase, but I reckon we've either had a long line of dimwits in office, or a long line of very clever, very power-hungry, self-interested career politicians.
Now imagine we had Anna Nicole (for example) as president for the past 8 years, doing nothing but kicking back and partying in the oval office. Even if she partied on the taxpayer's dime, at the end of her reign we'd all be a hell of a lot better off. We'd be more or less at the same level of freedom as before, putting a kink in the steady downward spiral into oppression we've been experiencing for the past 200 years. Sure, we've seen the odd advancement or two over that period (eliminating slavery comes to mind) -- but the vast majority of what government has done over that period was intended to benefit the ruling class, not you and me.
Why isn't Bob Barr mentioned in the summary? I expect this from Fox (who did actually mention Barr last Saturday) but considering so many libertarian leaning comments by lots of slashdotters, I'm surprised and disappointed.
If all the newspapers said McCain was going to lose and a vote for him was wasted, would he have a chance of winning? The Libertarians are on the ballot in 49 states. Their views are as important as the Republicrats, if not more so.
Are the Greens even running a Presidential candidate this year? If so their candidate's stance on tech should be covered as well.
Saame on you.
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
Not everyone likes Obama :)
Why does it matter how familiar they are with "tech" issues? The position of President is an executive position. His job is to execute the laws that he deems Constitutional, not dabble in legislation. That anyone is asking such questions speaks to the fact that the US is in a state of prolonged decline, with a war of all against all.
Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
A combination of age and cynicism combine to make me question anything I consider to be "extraordinary claims" without accompanying extraordinary evidence.
And claiming that better-than-average "soft" skills can compensate for a deficiency of "hard" skills is an extraordinary claim in my book.
Particularly when the issue is governance and the opportunity for massive profits.
We see how that turned out.
I never thought I would see a worse President than Jimmy Carter. But I did. Now I fear that it may even be possible to have someone worse.
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
So Obama visits Google campus and meets with Eric Schmidt to garner support for his nomination last year.
."
Eric goes, "So I'm going to treat this as a regular interview and ask you a few questions. First off, if you had an array of 1 million+ values how would you go about sorting it?"
Obama replies, "Well I definitely wouldn't be using a bubble sort . .
*heard from a friend who interned at Google, take it for what it's worth.
The solution for an economic issue is almost always free market. Finding ways for multiple ISPs to compete will create better service and better performance. Government regulation is almost never the answer, Socialism just doesn't work.
Geology - it's not rocket science; it's rock science
If their ages don't make it completely obvious
Spoken like a truly ignorant kid. Guys in their twenties come to me for advice on computers, kid. Can you write a battle tanks game in assembly and then hand-assemble it (without an assembler) and have it run, bug-free? I did.
And there are guys twenty and thirty years my senior, now retired, who used hollerith cards in their programming and make me look ignorant about computers.
You need to educate yourself. Your hatred of those with more experience than you limits your horizons and should be a great personal embarrassment to you.
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
From your logic, any "old guy" doesn't know beans about computers and is still stuck in the technological stone age. Granted McCain may not be in an industry that directly relies on cutting edge technology but to solely use his age as a measuring stick for his technological competency is ridiculous.
Even as a person who makes his living in the "tech industry" I would much prefer my candidates to focus on what I consider the most important issues. For me its the economy and reducing gov't spending/power. Granted neither are going to reduce gov't power/spending that much, but that is what I want my president to do.
Just to throw my political $.02 in about the Middle East, since that always gets brought up. Bottom line is its complex. Doesn't matter what either one says, we aren't "getting out" but we may reduce and refocus...but if anyone promises to be completely out by [timeframe] just go ahead and start up your list of failed campaign promises right there...and both sides will probably have a long list of those.
In closing, I'm not really happy with either candidate. I've got an idea of who I may vote for but it seems as thought I will (yet again) be voting for the lesser of two evils.
When I have a kid, I want to put him in one of those strollers for twins and then run around the mall looking frantic.
How "tech-savvy" the next president is really does not matter. You can distill this all down to the two basic platforms:
Laissez-Faire vs. government regulation and intervention.
What matters more is who controls the majority in Congress.
there are 3 kinds of people:
* those who can count
* those who can't
6-10 tops.
There is a war going on for your mind.
A president should be someone "special"
No thanks, we already have a president who apparently rode the short bus to school.
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
Pick Bill Gates to maintain code... Really???
I hear Bush gets his advice straight from Jesus.
That's not what I heard. I heard he gets his advice straight from Lucifer, who told him "pretend to be a Christain so you can be elected and destabilize the middle east with a bloody, meaningless war that costs thousands of lives, untold suffering, and drains the US treasury. As an oil man you'll become rich beyond the dreams of avarice, and there's nothing more important than personal power."
Jesus, otoh, said that the love of money is the root of all evil, that if a man asks for your coat give him your cloak as well, if a man hits you turn the other cheek and let him hit you again. If Jesus spoke to Bush, Bush was obviously not paying attention.
IHBT. HAND.
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
Based on what I read in the article, Hillary seems pretty solid, Obama is strong in places (like his stand on net neutrality), but a little vague in others, and McCain, surprisingly enough, is not as bad as I assumed going in.
/. crowd the best, but based on this article Hillary seems the most solid.
The big holes for McCain (in my opinion) are on broadband access, and immunity for TelCos. But I don't really see Obama or Clinton proposing anything innovative or new re: Broadband access, so McCain's "leave it to competition in the private sector" is not so bad in comparison. As far as immunity for Telcos I don't know what McCain is thinking other than trying to be the toughest candidate out there on "National Security" issues.
All things being equal, my gut believes that Obama will serve the interests of the
This article list their positions, which I assume they arrived at by surrounding themselves with well informed advisers and considering their input.
So following what I assume is the very same sort of process they will use in office, they have arrived at different positions on these topics, and my conclusion is that one of them has reached good conclusions and the other has not.
That's ridiculous. Specialist or not, a President without good judgment on important issues doesn't know enough to delegate to the right person. I substitute no one else's judgments for my own, and I hope for the same in a President. Asking for information from specialists one thing. But over-reliance is dangerous, as demonstrated by the current idiot residing in the White House.
On the other extreme, Jimmy Carter didn't listen to anybody who advised him and we saw how great that turned out too.
I would say that most of them were, even the ones I don't happen to agree with. In recent history, I don't think George W Bush was, I don't think Nixon was, but all the others showed themselves to be far above average in terms of being model citezens. Even Reagan, whom I absolutely hate, presented himself as being more than your average Joe. Probably the pinnicle of these was Clinton, though, who is quite possibly the most intelligent leader we've had in this century, with MAYBE the exception of FDR. I still don't want him ANYWHERE near the white house now, but the man knew his shit, and knew how to attract very knowledgable people (which is even more important, IMO).
I don't think Obama has had a chance to prove that he is as intelligent as Bill Clinton, but I think he's shown that he has about as much ability to attract intelligent advisors (just look at his campaign). And he's far more inspirational than Bill, which is another absolutely neccessary skill. He's up there with Steve Jobs as far as I'm concerned.
John McCain deffinitely is far more than the average joe, and... for a republican... I think wouldn't be too bad of a president, when I really think about it. But he has a history of being very chaotic in whether he decides to play along with other leaders, or defy them. The ability to decent against party and other leaders is a good thing, however, I've never been able to figure out exactly WHEN McCain will and when he won't, and that makes me very nervous. Sometimes he's gone against party leaders when it doesn't feel appropriate, and other times he "stands by the man" when it's like, "you dumb shit... this is the time for decent!" But that said, I at least respect his ability to do so.
Both are model citizens, though... and would at least end the trend of the last 8 years of having someone who wasn't. Whether their POLICIES would be much different, on the other hand, is a different issue all together.
Multiplayer Gaming (defined): Sitting around, discussing single-player games with my friends, at the bar.
Representing someone does not mean being the same as them. I don't want someone running the show as ill informed as the mythical "Average US Citizen."
It's sad that "elite" and "intellectual" are now epithets. I want the best and the brightest in charge. The current president got elected, to some extent, on how much fun the "Average US Citizen" thought it would be to drink beer with him.
OMFG. What a perfect statement as to why a Republican like myself might choose to vote for Obama!
;)
I would dearly love to see an Agile candidate. One who would look at lawmaking, lawyering, and leadership as an iterative process. One who would clearly demark the deliverables his or her aides must provide and the timeline for it. One who would take seriously their power to replace this or that cabinet member or aide. One who would consider the American People as partners in this endeavor.
How could they fail? If the process is successful then, by definition, the People are content. This almost guarantees a new product cycle (re-election for those not following along too closely
One who was good at getting people to DO not so much as getting people to AGREE.
I've participated in more far left rallies than you have ever seen or heard about, and I can say with authority that you are a liar. I've been stomped on by police for trying to peacefully hand out free food to the homeless. We aren't the ones that start the violence against other people.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
nope, I'd rather have an evil genius, he will at least have enemies to stall him and in turn getting stalled fighting with them. With an idiot, the average man's enemies will collude with one another in order to extract the most they can out of the moron. For instance, I believe Bush has been exactly this sort of moron.
He is also good friends with Ayers, Tony Rezko, Nadhmi Auchi, Jeremiah Wright, Michael Pfleger
McCain has had the Republican nomination for months. Obama has been fighting tooth and nail against Clinton during that same time period. Between Obama and McCain, guess which one it makes more sense to provide funding for prior to the primaries finishing up?
How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
This is the same Obama who didn't think his campaign had the technical ability to create a youtube video.
Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
Can anyone explain? This is a serious question, believe it or not.
Heh... took me a while to sort it out... 'decent' shoud be 'dissent'. You make some good points though.
While I don't diminish in anyway the importance of the tech field and subjects [I'm at this site, aren't I?], I personally think there are way more important topics to focus on than this. Good thing to check out, but not a grab-your-vote taker.
That, in fact, was one of Bush's alleged selling points in 2000. They forgot the key ingredient: a leader who doesn't have his head up his arse and can recognize good advice.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
I would go one further. I want to vote for a president who's smarter than I am.
Forget 'average joe.' Average Joe doesn't have to make decisions that are life and death for millions (health care for the poor), hundreds of thousands (war in Iraq), or the entire nation (educate the masses). Give me someone bright enough to understand the topic he's discussing AND hire someone bright enough to handle most of the issues that come up.
In mouseland, all the mice vote. The problem is, each election, the only candidates to choose from, are cats!
Please carefully use the word ignorant. The GP stated that a 47 year old is probably more savvy than a 72 year old. Like all generalizations, there are exceptions, such as you, but for the most part he is probably right on. This is more true when you consider career, and other factors (as he did).
So for you to claim that he is ignorant for pointing out what is conceded by most 70+ year olds... seems obtuse and/or ignorant.
I finally updated my sig, but now it's lame.
Oh, and the rest of us still use the old "./configure && make && make install"...
Just sayin'.
Look at this photo of Obama using a phone and you'll know how tech savvy he is loll
India's New Cheap Fuel-less Bike
Damn youngsters with the gyrating pelvis and long hair and hippy polio vaccine!
Cry me a river geezer. Your age issues are your problem. For someone so wise and learned, you'd think you'd know that ENIAC (the remnants of which I've touched) wasn't the first electronic programmable computer. Educate yourself
Did the guys who worked on the Model T know more about computers than mechanics today? Your own bias towards "the good old days" is BS. I can (and have) program in assembly. I can and have programmed in punch cards. Its a stupid thing to do in 99% of situations for the former and 100% for the latter. Having used old computers doesn't mean you know more about computers.
If you had used the creaky mass of matter in your skull instead of knee jerked based on your own age insecurities you'd realize that there is a strong inverse correlation between age and familiarity with technology, especially . Most five year olds know more about surfing the web than more 70 year olds. John McCain is older than concept of the Universal Turing Machine. If you don't think that informs his tech knowledge, I have a series of tubes to sell you.
People of the older generation who are tech-savvy are especially tech-savvy because they worked in the industry all their lives; I don't think he was trying to denigrate McCain simply because he was old. If you take two individuals who have not worked in the tech industry, chances are that the one who went to college during the dawn of the age of the personal computer will be a bit more tech-savvy than the guy who was an adult when the transistor was invented.
It's not ageism, it's just a simple fact that people who have grown up surrounded by technology will have a better understanding of it than those who didn't. If John McCain had been a FORTRAN programmer, obviously things would be different, but he wasn't. I bet Jimmy Carter (who studied nuclear engineering at one point in his life) is more knowledgeable about technology than McCain is, despite being older.
No, the implication was that all one had to do was to look at age. That's just ignorant.
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
Yes he was.
I do want Obama to be President. However, I don't vote entirely on tech issues (its way down the line for me). If the question was who knew more about Vietnam or Arizona or who new the most about life as a sailor, McCain would be the obvious answer. That wouldn't mean I'd vote for him.
For the most part, a gun is much more likely to kill someone that knows or is related to the owner of the gun.
So now your slogan becomes "If guns are criminal, more criminals will keep shoot themselves then others. Plus, the accidental firing of a gun that injures its owners or others would decrease. Also perhaps after a few generations of guns being outlawed the actual amount of guns would reduce to a point making them much more expensive to purchase, this reduces the amount of guns available in the low income areas where they have become commonplace. And......"
Its hard to put the effects of an individual action (outlawing guns) on a bumper sticker.
And some of us have even mastered the arcane "./compile;make;make install".
./configure, not ./compile
Apparently not you, since it's
i kid, i kid
The "Bush is an idiot" meme is well played out, and as someone (Jon Stewart?) has said, his speeches generally sound like a book report.
But....
On NPR once I heard them covering a speech GWB gave somewhere in South America. While nowhere near the eloquence of Obama, that speech was also far better than his usual book-report style. I wonder if for some reason he's being dumbed-down by his handlers for the US audience, or was it just a different speech writer for the South American trip? If the former, I wonder what the reason is.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
The problem is that people take what Bush said too literally. When he said that God told him to go to war with Iraq, he meant it in the way that way too many so-called Christians use it. That is, he had an idea, wanted to do that idea, and decided that since he wants to do it, obviously God wanted him to do it too.
Bush used religion as an excuse to beat the war drum. Most of the Christians I know felt he was full of shit back then, and they sure as hell know he's full of shit now. But then, I don't believe Bush is really religious at all.
There is no problem with the government building and maintaining a comprehensive and effective infrastructure. To wit they already have.
Its the extreme cases like this that need to be held to a real standard. Look, just like schools, its easy to throw money at it irresponsibly.
So someone makes a lifestyle choice and expects others to pay for it.
You took a wonderful tack in order to deflect the issue but I can play the game.
No one builds a home off the road and expects the government to move the road, no, they pay to have a driveway to connect them to the road. As such if this AC wants a connection but not pay for it then he is being selfish. Don't play trite games, examine the issue properly. Use a valid comparison.
Your argument is no better than "its for the children" In fact its pretty much childish too.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
It's "something that we have to look at from time to time," thus implying it's not an immediate threat. But, "I don't want to see the wealthiest and most powerful [companies] crowd out the independents."
So he pays lip service to understanding that the Internet's strength is in its diversity; in those independent companies. What's confusing is that he somehow thinks that regulation is a threat to that, rather than a necessity for that.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
So given the choice of a bunch of stupid corporate cock sucking lawyers looking for money and power, I'm supposed to choose the one who is slightly less of an idiot? Sorry. I'm not playing that game. Voting for *any* of the major party candidates is just voting for more of the same fascism. Which one of you *wouldn't* hold to the corporate line when presented with a suitcase with 1,000,000 pounds sterling (equal to one shipping container of dollars). Campaign promises or "positions" mean less than nothing. The kinds of folks who can't be persuaded by a suitcase full of cash are not the ones who run for office and especially not as a democrat or republican.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
Not an American. Just would like to know why politics there is binary. On/Off, Good/Bad, Black/White.
Seems amazingly simplistic to me.
Deleted
Oh yeah, thats right. That was one of Fox News' lame-ass "top 10 lies told by Osama^H^H^H^Hbama". It would be a lame attempt even if it were technically correct, as you suggest. However, you are wrong. He technically was a profressor:
http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html
"He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track."
Ok, I'll buy that. But you presented it as an absolute, which (and I think you'll agree) had to be challenged.
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
The finest citizen of the United States of America should be president. Failing that (and wow are we failing it), the presidential candidate who most resembles the finest American should be president. Most Americans would agree that the finest American does not represent the views of the average American, because most Americans disagree with the average American for varying reasons, and they disagree even more about what qualifies the finest citizen. But I think almost everyone would agree that whatever makes a person excellent, the president ought to possess it.
This space reserved for administrative use.
As with all things meta, metacognition is based on a strong foundation of cognition. Pure cognition without hard knowledge has led us to conclude at various times that the Earth was shaped by the hands of giants, that the heavens that dance above trace the footsteps of the gods, and that man is the product of a whisper unto mud. It is dangerous, and can be dangerously wrong without the guidance of observation, careful analysis, and evidence.
Like it or not, all the power of the Presidency rests in the hands of the President, and the President must accordingly take responsibility for the uses of that power, no matter what proxy exercised it. In advocating the division of power, you advocate the dissolution of responsibility, and the rise of the irresponsibility that is the mark of all tyrannical governments. So I ask you- where, if not from the responsibility of the powerful to the people, does a free society derive?
I haven't read it yet, but I imagine they'll go whole hog for Obama in it, as they usually have a pretty much Democrat stance. Their two cartoons are from Ted Rall and Tom Tommorrow. Any way, I'll quote its first sentense:It's no mystery to me that they wouldn't mention Barr.
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
So, this is a current article -- why even mention Clinton's position? Who cares?
Clinton: Supports tax incentives to encourage broadband deployment in underserved areas, as well as financial support for state and local broadband initiatives.
Translation: Supports giving lots of money to Verizon and Comcast by cutting their taxes and instead raising yours.
McCain: Supports increased broadband access via competition rather than government regulation.
Translation: Supports letting the ILECs do whatever the heck they please. Naturally, anyone else who wants to spend the money deploying new wire can do so and compete (wink wink).
Obama: Supports re-defining broadband definition, reforming universal service, increased resources to bring broadband to schools and libraries.
Translation: Supports increasing the "universal service fee" portion of your telephone bill so that every schoolchild can have a laptop. Because that's what "broadband" really means.
I'm wrong am I? Tell me that in four years after you see what they actually do.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
We had a chance for a very tech savvy president back in 2000, but we blew it. Instead of the geek, America voted for the guy they'd rather have a beer with. And, it ends up the bastard doesn't even drink beer.
My question to the candidate: Can you explain the difference between "awk" and "grep"? While you're at it. Compare and contrast nawk and egrep vs. awk and grep.
Don't forget the rest of that quote, which I also tend to agree with:
"Not only do I want an elite President, I want one who is embarassingly superior to me!"
next president of?
Except we're not talking about Bush/Cheney. Remeber, McCain has been screwed hard personally by both multiple times as well.
And is the transdimensional messiah. He has no need of puny human devices like 'technology'.
AFAIK it's still there, still working.
I looked through the big window into the computer room and said "Look, it's a DEC PDP-11 with the original purple racks! It must be an 11/34 or 11/24, probably runs RSX or TSX11!" and all the flyboys looked at me like I'd suddenly grown an extra head.
That was my first real computer, though - a unibus PDP-11 with switches on the front panel to enter your program in binary, and a flashing red light to indicate the processor completed a cycle.
Last year Obama gave a talk at the Google campus which Google made available for download. I found this video to be very informative and helped in my decision on who to vote for in the primary. There is also an interview with Hillary Clinton. It is clear that Obama understands technology quite well and the stakes involved with things like net neutrality and making information available. Hell, he even knows bubble sort is generally not a good method of sorting.
I'm posting anonymously because Slashdot apparently has a bug where it says it will undo moderation but in fact does not and instead refuses to post.
Bush started out with pretty good advisors. But his cabinet has turned over at least two or three times over the past seven years. Only the real losers are left now.
Yes, that was my own argument for why Bush "might be OK" when he was running against Gore. That and I lost a lot of respect for Gore when he picked Lieberman as his running mate. Lieberman is probably one of my least favorite senators of my lifetime. Not that I voted for Bush, but I figured he might be more of a Calvin Coolidge or Herbert Hoover than the biggest presidential disaster in American history.
> Gee, I wonder who's going to be listening harder to what the RIAA, telcos and other technology sector players have to say...
Well, McCain has a Comcast lawyer as his tech adviser & supports telecom immunity (and voted for it).
Obama has Lessig as his tech adviser & is against telecom immunity (and voted against it).
Obama's price must've been higher than they were expecting, given that he isn't voting their way.
Hold on a second. In light of the big picture, I'd rather take a dimwit president over an intelligent one.
Sorry, Dr. Evil. I know you've been frozen in the ice since the 60's....but we already tried your "dimwit president" and it hasn't worked out too well for us.
Nearly every administration since Lincoln has succeeded in expanding the power and revenue of the federal government during their reign. The US federal government of today absolutely dwarfs the US federal government of only 100 years ago, both in revenue and power over the people.
But of course there's nothing inherently wrong with that. It's not a question of "big" government or "no" government, but the right amount of government. Thanks, but I like being able to drink municipal water without checking it for ammonia or mercury first. I like being able to buy ground beef a grocery store and be reasonably confident that a little poisoned rat isn't mixed in.
Our leaders should be role models, and better than the average Joe. They should not be the lowest common denominator. Unfortunately, that's effectively what The System(tm) has given us for decades. Look at the result.
Their ages don't make it "completely obvious". I have a great-uncle who's somewhere in his upper 80s who's more tech-savvy than some 20-year olds. Maybe that means I should vote for McCain.
The problem with generalizations is they're mostly useless when dealing with individuals rather than groups.
But I'd prefer the President make the selection based on real world factors over his technical tastes; in your example, he might consider that Linus Torvalds has mobilized and reigned as consensus leader over tens of thousands of hackers for over a decade, and that Bill Gates made his fortune by ramming his company's products down consumer's throats, and use information like that in his decision.
So one has managed to make his ideas work in a business environment, and the other has some cult-like following but didn't turn that into a business success. One works well within the system in the US, and the other is something like a socialist. One invents operating systems, and the other just coppied UNIX, possibly re-using code illegaly, as has been asserted in court.
You have to have some knowledge or someone could frame the comparison in a manner to make the choice obvious, and not the obvious you think it is.
Learn to love Alaska
Every time he clicks on his email the Whitey Video gets launched showing his wife ranting away.
He was heard by aides saying to the effect, ``Oh look! Windows installed that feature I requested.''
Ok, so you linked to McCain's tax returns, that proves nothing of substance...the general point from the parent was that McCain is at the beck and call of the big service providers.
Whether it's hard money or soft money contributions, McCain record of service and public statements indicate he will do whatever the companies want.
Thank you Dave Raggett
Awesome! All those 20 year old kids probably have to keep coming to you with questions b/c you force them to use outdated software/processes.
Sure there are many 50+ people who are pillars of computer knowledge, but they are in the strict minority in their age group. It's true. Why does that fact bother you?
I'm 29, and of course people assume I'm kinda lazy b/c that's the stereotype of people my age. I'm not lazy, but I can understand the stereotype. Sometimes I have to go out of my way to counter that stereotype, but after a short time, older people who assume I'm a lazy pothead see that I'm not and everything is fine.
Quit whining and grow up old man!
Thank you Dave Raggett
You may be right that old programmers are best, but there aren't many of you because there weren't many to begin with. I've spent my days teaching basic computing to people double my age or more.
And as for the battle tanks bit, yes. We did that very exercise in university during the class on assembly. Assembling without an assembler was on the test, in fact. I still have my tiny pink Motorola 86HC11 assembly language reference sheet and know what 0x20FE does without looking.
I've also written bug-free C without a computer handy and turned that in. It's not such a big deal, but it is difficult and tedious.
Can you write a battle tanks game in assembly and then hand-assemble it (in snow over your head) and have it run, bug-free? I did, uphill, both ways.
Although you make it easy for people to parody you, it is better to point out that your complete lack of skills in logic makes me think you are just making everything up. Re-read what was actually written. More holes in the logic than in any Hollerith card I ever saw. And I used to be able to read paper tape, you whelp.
And I mean, uphill both ways? What kind of lead paint licking semi-sentient lower life form do you take us for?
And, let's be realistic. There is the occasional technologically clueful toothless old crank (present company excepted) but most say "duh" when confronted with a flashing 12:00.
Income tax records are naturally the first place to look, but often the wrong place. His millionaire wife's records are not available, for example, nor are little perks like "fact-finding junkets" or preferred treatment.
There are so many ways a lobbyist could scratch the back of a legislator that direct bribery is rather gauche. Senator McCain is so deep into the lobbying culture that the bulk of his campaign staff is made up of lobbyists. For all of his talk of reform, he's made quite a nice living at their trough...
Unfortunately when you have Nixon era criminals polluting the pool of advisors you end up increasing corruption even more.
He may just be placating the crowd, but he makes a bubble sort joke. Not to mention the rest of the talk. So, eh, on tech I think it's probably pretty clearly Obama.
George Bush has average intelligence (giving him the benefit of the doubt there), but he grew up filthy rich. He's hardly average.
This country has kind of a funny definition of 'elite'.
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
Seeing as you admitted to being stupid in this post
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=573885&cid=23680343
In all seriousness, why would anyone give a fuck what you thought when you freely admit you're stupid?
Why should the Feds have anything to do with anyone having access to broadband?
Well, if you like bending over and paying $50+ a month for 3 Mbps connections from Qwest and Comcast, go nuts. Me, I'd rather pay $30 a month for a 50 Mpbs duplex connections like some Asians and Europeans.
Regardless get ready for $10.00 a gallon gasoline and rampant inflation over the next four years. And I suspect we will start to see massive famines across the world and possibly in this country. And the endless debate that the other party caused all this.
Too bad we have this thing called a historical record, and we'll know full well which side ignored climate change and dwindling fuel supplies.