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
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
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.
Yes, it does matter, and no, its not like 'barrel mod's...'; I have relatives that don't have high speed internet. And there is no plans to provide it in there area. There is no competition, and to make matters worse, state (and fed) rules prohibit competition, much less new growth.
To be closer to your analogy, one might say "Look at my new Desert Eagle", and McCain would say: "naw, I'm going to the beach today."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Sorry, I should have said "well-informed advisors who deserve to live."
Cretin - a powerful and flexible CD reencoder
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?
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?
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!"
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 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.
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 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."
The general reason is because more intelligent people tend to think they know more and are better qualified to determine "what's best", whether that's true or not.
Intelligence has absolutely nothing to do with the quality of laws we create. Common sense sometimes has something to do with the quality of laws and, unfortunately, common sense isn't.
"Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
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!"
Hopefully only Clinton leaves lipstick on the joystick.
;)
No wait! That's Lewinsky...
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
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.
I'm pretty sure he's the same model as Saul Tigh.
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
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
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.
I suspect you're one of those "both parties are exactly the same" types, but I'll bite anyways.
This administration is historically notable for the value it has placed upon loyalty of political appointees. Appointees in the Clinton administration, for example, were able to disagree with the President and Vice President without fear. Compare Madeline Albright and Condolezza Rice, for example. Or even better: Anthony Zinni and David Petraeus. Zinni, for example, frequently alluded to the wide latitude he was given at Centcom. Petraeus, on the other hand, is a leashed dog.
Do you really think Obama or McCain gets full choice of their cabinet or aides after the coming election?
Yes. It's called "being President." But if, as I suspect, you define choice as something completely unfettered by the opinions of others, then of course not. But that's a stupid definition.
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
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.
Yes he was.
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.
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
And is the transdimensional messiah. He has no need of puny human devices like 'technology'.