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."
Also, don't forget that McCain inexplicably supports telecom immunity..
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
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.
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.
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."
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.
Bush/Cheney value loyalty far, far more than intelligence, expertise, or performance. They appointed a plague of loyal idiots.
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.
I see... You want ME to pay for YOUR broadband. No thanks dude. You want to live in the woods? Great -- sometimes I want to as well. But I don't expect to get 3 megabits down out there, and I certainly don't expect other people to have to pay to make that happen.
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.
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?
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.
Which is a pretty hypocritical attitude, considering that one way or the other, taxpayers and shareholders (ie. other people) have paid for your broadband.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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?
One, that's hardly a geek issue. Two, I've asked on slashdot a bunch of times, but never gotten an answer: Why is the 2nd amendment more important than the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 13th, 14th, 15th, 19th let alone them combined? Third, other than showing respect for the Constitution, why is the 2nd useful? In other words, why not overturn it (assuming you read the preamble to it in the manner the NRA prefers.)? Your handguns aren't really going to allow you to compete with the US military, and every idiot cannot be trusted with a tank, so any forced overthrow arguement is crap. And while I believe in guns for hunting and home protection, there are a lot of restrictions that you can place on weapons that people seem to think violate the 2nd amendement without getting close to either one of those.
I'm really trying to figure out why anyone cares about this issue.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
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!"
The general rationale is that the 2nd amendment is the ultimate protection of all the others. You have a decent agreement that we're not really going to overthrow the government with civilian-held firearms, but that entire scenario is a bit of a stretch. However, I CAN defend certain aspects of some of my freedoms with my guns.
The other side of the argument is the bumper-sticker slogan "If guns are criminal, only criminals will have guns" which bears a certain amount of truth - criminals aren't going to disarm in America, and disarming those of us who are law-abiding only makes us more vulnerable to attacks on our life, liberty, and property.
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?
You're right, he did it of his own free will- that should scare you.
Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
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!"
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
His personal income (as reflected in his tax returns) does not reflect campaign contributions. But then, if you had half a clue about such things, you wouldn't be defending Republicans who are the telecom industry's bought-and-paid-for toadies. The "bank records" might better be interpreted as those records that indicate who paid what to whom and when in exchange for what no-bid contracts, etc., but the point is valid, nonetheless.
When we have a disagreement with one group of people, why don't we grab a gun and run off to the middle east to start a war with an entirely different group of people?
Duh. Because we're smarter than you.
An isolated instance. Correlation != causation. So one thing happened and another thing happened, but that doesn't necessarily mean one caused the other. In some parts of the world, restricted gun ownership has 'reduced' crime by your logic. (Note there's no proof, it's all correlation.)
On the other hand, I am a firm believer that Doom caused violent crime rates to drop in the United States. See, if you graph the release of several major First Person Shooters and the violent crime rate, you find that there's definitely a drop in crime. By your logic, that's proof right? Doom causes fewer crimes. So if we want to reduce crime, just re-release Doom! (It's GPL licensed now so you can go ahead and do that.)
Remember: CORRELATION IS NOT CAUSATION.
Repeat after me: CORRELATION IS NOT CAUSATION.
P.S.: CORRELATION IS NOT CAUSATION.
Hmmm...taking up arms was the only solution to several problems - Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, and fascist Italy, the Afghanis kicking the Soviets out, getting the Brits to leave us the heck alone TWICE, defeating Napoleon, etc....
I get your argument, I really do, but I get a bit frustrated when vehement opponents of the war in Iraq who try and attach a "chickenhawk" label and claim it's such an injustice don't think that their cause is worth the ultimate sacrifice.
The whole purpose of the 2nd amendment is to ensure military-grade weapons (flint-lock muskets at the time) remain in the hands of ordinary citizens. Today, that would include a lot more than just hunting rifles. It may seem scary to have such powerful weapons in the hands of ordinary citizens, but to me the opposite is much scarier: a disarmed, helpless society unable to defend itself from its government. Much is made of the growing trend of government intrusion into our privacy, warrantless arrests, et al, using quotes like, "When they came for___, I said nothing." Well, when they come for you, what are you going to do?
Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
No, instead we should be defending Democrats bought by the Hollywood community who put draconian copyright restrictions into place.
Yeah, they're all scum. Even the ones you like.
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
Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
Indeed it should frighten advocates of big government to learn that their opponents act on their ideas, not just because 'they are in the pockets of The Rich (tm).'
If you were accepting bribes, would you list them on your tax return?
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
"Try England's crime rate as an example."
OK, I did. I expected the case would be ambiguous, but WOW, get a new example buddy! Based on the first figures I could find, the UKs per-capita murder rate is about one fifth that of the US, and the majority of the murders in the US used guns, whereas almost none in th UK did.
"Quit trying to pick and choose which ones you agree with."
For Gods sake why? This isn't holy scripture, it was written by men who did their best, and did by-and-large a damn fine job. The Second Amendment was muddily written, and is badly obsolete.
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
ISPs are a natural monopoly, so your options are basically government regulation, a government-run monopoly, or the situation you currently have in the US.
And modern socialism works a lot better than you might think. Just look at Europe.
Jesus Christ, do you have any other tired, worn out, bullshit stereotypes to throw out?
Seriously. I'm a liberal. I know a lot of liberals. But I can't think of anyone I know who wants to ban guns. Hell, I'm a supporter of strong 2nd Amendment rights, and a lot of my friends are, also.
Newsflash: different people are different. You'll find anti-gun conservatives and you'll find pro-gun liberals, and vice-versa. If you insist on attempting to group together everyone left-of-center and claim we're all this-and-that-and-the-other, I reserve the right to call everyone right-of-center a violent hate-fulled homophobic racist backwards inbred uneducated dipshit redneck. I know that's not true, but hey, what's good for the goose, right?
You think a shareholder or taxpayer is paying for your fiber? I think you need to do some research on economics. A company wouldn't run a line to your neighborhood in hopes that taxpayers or shareholders would pay them back. They run it to the neighborhood so that they can gain marketshare, INCREASE the stock price, and gain monthly contracts which end up paying for that fiber. If you choose to live in an area where it isn't viable to run fiber since they will never recoup the costs, then I shouldn't have to pay for it through taxes. We are already taxed somewhere around 40% a year through income, state, local, property, etc...
Please reread the GP post. He was asking why the 'far left' do not go to Iraq and fight America, seeing as how they don't agree with US policy. Get that? He was advocating that peace activists use war to achieve peace, and stating that it was 'funny' that we don't. Yes, it's fucking hilarious. I mean, why doesn't the fire department just burn down buildings, that would certainly solve the fire problem.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Amen. I am in the same boat - fairly liberal (as far as personal rights are concerned) AND a gun owner and 2nd rights supporter. I also am vehemently opposed to all these ridiculous smoking bans too, unlike most other "liberals" (I am a non-smoker, so less biased). Can someone tell me how banning things is a "liberal" attitude?
"But this one goes to 11!"
it should frighten *everyone* that Government took it upon its self to grant special powers to those who would and do threaten our civil liberties in favor of perceived safety. It shouldn't surprise anyone though and that is sad,
Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
Actually there is no defense against a brutal cop. You are still breaking the law if you resist a cop whos breaking the law against you. You never have a legal right to resist a cop. You do however have a birthright to resist but that doesn't mean the courts wont throw your ass in jail.
unzip; strip; touch; finger; mount; fsck; more; yes; unmount; sleep
Well, if you look at the statistics from Australia, Canada, and other countries who have enacted strict gun control laws, you'll see crime stays the same or even slightly declines, and in some rare cases, slightly increases. However, digging into the details of "armed robbery" you'll see that once the gun control came into play, although armed robbery stayed consistent, the percentage involving guns actually dropped dramatically, with the difference being replaced by knives and bats, etc.
Deperaate people commit crimes, some of them with guns. Removing guns does NOT precipitate more deperate people, therefore, there is no logical support for increases in gun crime. Wether yopu have a gun or not in your house or business, you're still likely 1) to have other weapons at hand, 2) alarms or a hpne for 911 to call cops, who have guns, 3) won't be home when being robbed, and 4) won;t be killed by your robber (less than 1 % of roberies involve a victim being killed by the crook).
What you WILL get, that is STRONGLY supported by statistics, is a sharp drop in sposes shooting each other, kids shooting people accidentally, suicides, and more. In fact, even where gun crime has increased by as much as 20%, the number of deaths from guns dropped as much as 300% at the same time, simply by limiting who can own a gun.
Look into the numbers. There are links in my other posts, or simply use Google.
This is not an argument, FACT: gun control saves an order of magnitude more lives than it places at risk.
This is also not an arguement: It is NOT against the constitution for them to limit guns. The constitution clearly reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." It is clearly laid out not as a right to bear arms for all citizens, but as a MEANS to a WELL REGULATED MILITIA. In other words, if you are not PART OF a WELL REGULATED MILITIA, then you DO NOT have a right to bear arms.
There is no contest in life for which the unprepared have the advantage.
This is 100% misleading.
All of Obama's money comes from individual donators. When you donate you are forced to include your employer, and are limited to $2300. So what you're seeing is the aggregate of all people that work for AT&T. Guess what? They're a big fucking company. That figure includes everyone from people on the board, to bottom level accountants and janitors.
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
He can only hide behind the "I'm a hero because I crashed my plane in the jungle and then made videos for the Viet Cong" angle for so long.
Hey now. Go ahead and question how heroic getting shot down really is, at least so far as whether you can base an entire Presidency upon the fact. But "made videos for the VC" is going exactly contrary to that kind of thoughtful analysis. Because in reality he was tortured until he made videos for the VC, and eventually cracking under torture does not in any way diminish his hero status (to whatever extent that may be) because any hero would crack, eventually. The human brain is simply not designed to withstand unlimited pain, and it's a relatively simple matter to inflict enough of it that anyone will say whatever you want.
Which, by the way, is why torture is really not that useful for interrogation, because that's ultimately the result you get: Them saying whatever you want them to say.
Which does bring me to a real issue I have with McCain, and that's that while I have much respect and sympathy for his time spent in the Hanoi Hilton, he lost nearly all of that the moment he allowed the door to be opened even a tiny bit for sanctioned torture by U.S. forces. There's no practical and no moral justification, and he of all people should know that. Seemed to know that and say as much. That he would sacrifice that principle just to fit in with his party and to boost his "tough on terror" cred (as if he needs to) is very, very disappointing.
But that's been the trend since the last election cycle, everything I liked about McCain has been slipping away.
The enemies of Democracy are