McCain Releases Technology Platform

I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "John McCain has finally released a technology platform. Most of it is the same old stuff; lower corporate taxes, protect children from porn, and avoid Internet regulation unless 'necessary.' Alas, in his view, helping the RIAA's War on Sharing is necessary to stop the 'global epidemic' of piracy, while Net Neutrality is something he 'does not believe in.' Ars Technica has a review of McCain's platform." A brief analysis is also available from Federal Computer Week. In addition to the technology policy, McCain has also released a paper describing his stance on security and privacy. We've previously contrasted his views with those of Barack Obama. Obama's technology policies are also available online.

Comments

RE: McCain Releases Technology Platform

[thomasdz]

Oh great. Yet another Linux distribution that www.distrowatch.org is going to have to track. "McCain-ix"
Probably needs 1GB just to load. I'll stick with Obama-mama-ix thanks.

Worthless ...

[ScrewMaster]

Sounds to me like McCain's "platform" is centered around trying save a sinking ship. That's too bad. He's lost my vote on that issue alone.

Re:Worthless ...

[Anonymous Coward]

If you are basing your vote solely on technological issues in a presidential election, you really need to get out more. There are much more important issues that the President should be considered about (economy, jobs, defense, etc).

Re:Worthless ...

[iminplaya]

And McCain is a big loser on all those fronts also. The economy is not his bag, man. Said so himself. Be ready to bail out another Lincoln Savings and Loan or three. And He's a warmonger. Not that the other guy is actually any better. Time to vote the party out.

Re:Worthless ...

[crmarvin42]

Maybe I'm just reading different posts than you are but I can't recall the last time I saw a post supporting a conservative view point that didn't get flamed.

I'm a registered Republican, so maybe I'm just focusing on the posts I agree with that get tarred and feathered, and the ones I strongly disagree with that keep getting modded +5 insightful.

Re:Worthless ...

[Dr.Dubious DDQ]

It's worth remembering that technology is a huge factor in the US economy, jobs, defence, (privacy/spying, civil rights, scientific progress...) etc. - so the topic is quite important.

Re:Worthless ...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll reply to this as an AC rather than moderating you then. The average political post seems to center around a few things...

1. Protection of the little guy - stop allowing big corporations to use the law/lobbying to create an unfair environment. See DRM, Patent trolls, subsidies given without stipulation and no-bid contracts. Most think it's ridiculous you can patent a seed to which you found in a government vault, which they obtained from the wild. You can.

Enforcing a free market is a conservative value.

2. Government staying out of our personal lives. This would fall under the small government category/give us personal freedoms. These are views in keeping with the constitution/bill of rights. I'd say that the constitution has a Libertarian feel to it. This isn't the viewpoint of the Republican party, so you have us there.

3. Most of us don't seem to be for most welfare in it's current state, view SS and medicade as a fiscal disaster in need of much revamping, etc. Conservative/Libertarian.

I think in general we're all for a competent government, whatever form that may be, so long as it will stay competent/for the people. As a Republican you do realize that in the past 20 years, your party has changed drastically. Government debt goes up the most during your terms, often setting new records. Not fiscally conservative.

In terms of the past 8 years, we're tired of the government being very competent at taking away the rights we're guaranteed to have in that "goddamned piece of paper". We're tired of how competent they are at lying, but incompetent they are at leading. They're experts at returning favors for those who gave them money or ran their political party, but they fail horribly of their ONLY responsibility, which is to uphold and defend that piece of paper. They spit on the hundreds of thousands who have died to defend this country and its ideals and the people who have given them the power in the first place.

Maybe that's why we appear liberal. We cannot stand the current adminstration, and if your quote is any indication, you are a traditional republican. I suggest you check out the Libertarian party's main points, http://www.lp.org/platform, as they are more in line with traditional Republican viewpoints. The one main area you might disagree on is the US's role in the world.

Re:Worthless ...

[ScentCone]

He needs to be in a retirement home, not the Whitehouse

Yes, we're much better off with a president who thinks we should have the UN Security Council issue Very Stern Words towards Russia over their actions in Georgia... you know, a president who doesn't understand that Russia has a veto-enabled seat there, and can simply shut such things down. It's that sort of clueless grasp on foreign relations and international issues that makes an inexperienced smoke-blower like Obama a non-starter. Compare their initial reactions to that turn of events. McCain spoke his mind immediately, and has not changed it. Obama started out with a "why can't we all just get along - they need to show restraint" comment, and complained that McCain was "shooting from the hip" and being too aggressive in criticizing Russia. A day later? Obama had "refined" his position to echo exactly what McCain (who actually understands what's going on and who the players are) had already articulated.

Doesn't matter, right? Change! All we need is Change! Doesn't matter from what, or to what, of course. Just CHANGE! Change we can "believe in!" What a bunch of vague, useless, pandering crap. When forced to actually talk detailed substance, Obama has to give in face real issues realistically, and it annoys his leftist supporters who like him most when he's a blank slate that they think will do what they tell him to. If he actually gets the job, they're in for a real shock, because even though he's going to fall on is face learning as he goes, by the time he actually gets around to doing the job of C-in-C, he's going to have to do a lot of back pedaling on his vaporous campaign semi-promises.

Being old enough to know how things work and what's actually at stake is bad as far as you're concerned? I'm sure you'd rather the office of president was available to college freshmen.

the technology they are about to regulate

Do you actually even understand what Congress does, and which party is running it? Maybe if you weren't so old, your mind would be clearer.

Re:Worthless ...

[Das Modell]

Slashdot is generally pretty right-libertarian leaning. Hardly 80% strongly liberal.

I want to have whatever it is that you're smoking/injecting/snorting. If you say anything on Slashdot that does not strictly adhere to liberal-leftist religious dogma, you get modded down. Simple as that.

Re:Worthless ...

[smidget2k4]

You're right, we need a President who is very concerned about the Iraq/Pakistan border. I'd also like him confuse Sudan and Somalia, after all, they are like the same thing, right?

McCain, at one point, may have known his stuff. But he has lost it. There is already a very long list of these gaffes. Is this the kind of face you want America to have?

Re:Worthless ...

[fugue]

Why is it not OK for a presidential candidate to admit that he doesn't know something? I'm sick to death of people who think they have to pretend to know everything all the time.

Not that McCain is worth the electrons I just encoded his name with, but in my book he scored one point for being aware of his ignorance. Seems a nice change from Republican policy. And Democratic policy, for that matter, although they are on average approximately 23% less ignorant than Republicans...

Re:Worthless ...

[Wildclaw]

There is a huge presence of people on slashdot who value personal freedom and expression. These range mostly from economical libertarians to free thinking liberals.

Slashdot libertarians will often find a very nice support when it comes to issues of personal freedom but will be surprised when they don't get the same support on their economical ideas.

Democrats can do fine as long as they stay away from authoritarian baby sitting. Sure, libertarians will call any income redistribution authoritarian, but you can't please everyone.

Republicans can do ok, as long as they actually strive for a smaller goverment and don't promote war and other actions that are seen as authoritarian.

You can probably even get modded up promoting far left economics as long as you actually talk intelligently, like including suggestions on how to exploit the best part of the free market (scarce resource distribution efficency). However, if you want to promote authoritarian ruling you will get modded down pretty quickly. Which is why neither communism nor facism is popular here as both have come to symbolise authoritarian rule.

Re:Worthless ...

[kaiser423]

Because he knows so little that he hired Carly Fiorna as one of his chief economic advisers? Does not bode well...

Doesn't need to be an expert on everything, but it would help if he could actually identify proper experts to hire.

Re:Worthless ...

[ScentCone]

Is this the kind of face you want America to have?

Actually, I want that "face" to be driven by actual principles. Obama avoids showing his at all costs, and when they do show, they're contradictory, or imply a very shaky house-of-cards case of mixed premises. Whatever intellectual horsepower or rhetorical elegance he posesses is being applied to and is in the service of a very patch-work, self-defeating, confused set of principles. THAT is not the face I want America to have. He doesn't know himself, and is very careful to hide how he actually feels about a lot of things, because he knows that he has to tap-dance around issues like his crazy, race-baiting friend the preacher and what tolerating/encouraging him for 20 years (including his children's formative years, listening to him blather every week) says about his world view.

Are you really looking for a gotcha contest on mispoken names or recollections? Is that how you'll evaluate the deliberative decision-making perspective that a person brings to being the C-in-C? We're not hiring a spokesmodel (though that seems to be what a lot of people think the job is about - how embarassing). People don't need an inspirational president, they need a competent one who actually knows who he is and what he stands for. Leave it to the lefties to imply that it's the government's job to be the source of inspiration and cultural guidance lacking in homes that use their Wii and the Cartoon Network to raise their children. No, I'd rather leave the cultural polishing to the people IN the culture, and have them hire someone as president because he's been around the block enough to do the job right.

Someone like Obama, who claims to be "post partisan" while in the same breath saying that his political counterparts are idealogically unseparable from "failed ideas" is just plain funny. He's far MORE partisan than his opponent, and utterly slavish to a very loud, far left minority. Is THAT the face you want for America? A poll-following pretty boy who hates to be asked what he really thinks lest he have to actually get pinned down on specifics? No thanks.

Re:Worthless ...

[ScentCone]

Ask yourself this, if California voted to seperate from the US how do you think your government should respond?

You seem to be something of a student of history. How is it that you missed what happened when separtists in numerous states in the US tried seceding? Why ask about just a hypothetical California case when you can look up what actually happened last time that issue really came up? Essentially, the US did exactly what Georgia just did... they went after the violent sepratists to put them out of business. We had a years-long civil war over just that issue, and the separists that tried to pry the country apart lost in their efforts.

Re:Worthless ...

[KGIII]

I have been having this discussion with people older and wiser than I IRL for a while now.

When I was younger I was able to vote FOR something or FOR someone, that seems to have gone away but it is likely that my blinders have been removed.

I'd vote Libertarian or Green Party but, well, those people are often pretty insane. I'd vote Democratic because that was better, I thought, that Republican. In the last election I actually voted (not presidential) for Olympia Snowe because of what she has done and what she continues to do to work for the State of Maine.

Here we are with a new election and I'm not seeing anyone worth voting for. I could, and would, vote for a third party but that is akin to throwing my vote away in the current environment. That's an unfortunate reality but it is real regardless.

I would abstain but that, to me, is tantamount to treasonous behavior. It is my duty to vote, it is my job, it is a requirement for me personally. As a side note, it pisses me off when I hear people complain about the current government and they tell me that they didn't vote.

We have had some decent percentages for turn out lately and it would be nice if there were more. The Australian's have to vote or they risk varied penalties I understand. Our situation isn't quite like that but I think it would be good if it were to mimic that. I think, and this is just a guess, that if more people were actually voting (and a broader exposure was a given) that we might actually be able to come up with a third party system where we would get results. Maybe...

A lot of it is just getting to the point where I'm disheartened. It makes me unhappy that I'm ashamed because of my choice in the next election. I shouldn't be ashamed but this election is a case of me voting for the least likely to ruin my country. For me, because I don't want more regulations and I don't think I need a nanny state, I'm likely to vote Republican because I suspect McCain will be busy with "more important things" and not doing stuff like regulating fatty foods or kowtowing to PeTA.

That I have to be ashamed of my vote, that I have to hold my nose and vote, that I have to vote against something - which is not the same as voting for something, is bothersome to me.

When I was younger I was voting for something and, perhaps I'm just seeing more now - age does that they tell me, this time I'm unable to actually do that. I don't like McCain, I don't want him to be president. I sure as hell don't want the alternative.

Sometimes I wonder if it has reached the point where I need to move and I actually research it but I can't find anything better so I haven't.

Re:Worthless ...

[cduffy]

Whatever intellectual horsepower or rhetorical elegance he posesses is being applied to and is in the service of a very patch-work, self-defeating, confused set of principles.

Try "nuanced"; read his second book for a better understanding -- not only of the principals in question, but of the importance of considering multiple points of view (as opposed to only a single, black-and-white view of the world based on one particular set of partisan principals) in making positions.

Can viewing the world in shades of gray lead to a charge that one must have a (presumptively black-and-white) view which is inconsistent, constantly shifting, "patch-work" or "self-defeating"? I suppose it may... but that doesn't prevent it from being The Right Thing.

Re:Worthless ...

[blueg3]

The whole thing would go a lot faster if they'd just tell us who they were going to select as their various advisors and whether or not they were going to listen to them.

Hopefully not too many people are deluded into thinking that the President actually makes his own decisions, rather than leaning heavily on advisors and other departments.

Re:Worthless ...

[ScentCone]

shades of gray

Don't you understand? Obama is completely black-and-white in his assertions that his political opponents are wrong, wrong, wrong about how they see things. His completely, unshakably clear on how wrong everyone else is. That's pretty black-and-white. Saying that one should "consider all sides" while also saying "the side on which my opponents live is wrong, and is a failure, and we must stop it" is - by definition - hypocrisy. He's "considering" other sides just long enough to 100% black-and-white dismiss them. He's NO different than his opponents in that sense, except that he's pandering to the warm-and-fuzzy crowd, who don't pay very close attention, by saying that he's post partisan and open to discussion, etc. He's trying to have it both ways, and that's the simplest demonstration of his immaturity you could ask for. He's happy to entertain multiple points of view, as long their all his, and don't upset the money-raising engine on the far left. This isn't limited to him - all candidates do it. The difference is that even as he's doing it, he's lying about his commitment to not doing it. That's what he's made of: deceit, right out of the gate, on the very thing that he claims makes him different.

Re:Worthless ...

[ScentCone]

Let me just say that, as someone who's not a US citizen, the fact that you refer to your president as "Commander in Chief" scares me. A lot.

Why? That's the primary role of that position. People seem VERY confused on this subject. The president doesn't make legislation happen. The president can't tax anyone. The president is one of the three legs of the checks-and-balances system, with the congress and the courts impacting some issues far more than the president can or should.

The president is the civilian who is in charge of executive tasks, and the defense of the country is first among those. The military and its related services/agencies are the tools of that job.

I specifically mention the C-in-C part of the job because it's the part that Obama is least suited for. But who decides how much humanitarian aid to fly off of an aircraft carrier into Burma after a disaster? Who made the decision to land aid-payload by military cargo aircraft in Georgia the other day, at what risk of of conflict with the Russians rolling tanks around in that country? The person commanding the military. The commander-in-chief. Who will be issuing orders to withdraw troops from one spot and move them to another as needed? Who will be interacting with the Ukraine, or Poland on military matters? When the Europeans promise more military support in Afghanistan but continue to come up short of delivering, who gets to decide whether and how to make up for that shortcoming, even as girls' schools are being burned down by the Taliban? Such things fall on the president to execute. He's the chief executive, and the commander in chief of a military that includes the Coast Guard as well as the mobile forces. Obama's a concern because of his unfamiliarity (other than complaining about other people) in those areas, and his willingness to make vague policy pronouncements rooted in that ignorance.

Re:Worthless ...

[crmarvin42]

Ok, let me get this straight...

1. My initial post is modded Flamebait because I assert that most posters to Slashdot are ultra Liberal.
2. It is pointed out to me that my impression of the general slant of Slashdot members is not accurate. (I wouldn't consider that flamebait, but that's just me)
3. In response to this correction, I admit that my impression is probably colored by my own tendency to focus on certain topics.
4. You vilify every person in the US who considers themselves conservative, which based on the last presidential election is roughly half of the people that bothered to get out and vote.

... And I am the "scumbag"?

This sort of hostile vilification of those "different from yourself" is the cornerstone of racism/anti-semitism/etc. that lead to political coup's, ethnic cleanings, civil war's, and further intolerance (those who were previously tolerant become intolerant as a defensive measure).

You're attaching everyone from a political party because of your dissatisfaction with the current administration. You have NO IDEA who I voted for in any election, unless of course you can read minds through the internet. You don't know whether or not I agree with any stance that the current administration has made, or whether I'm a member of the Republican party because or in spite of Bush.

Like most people I'm conservative on some issues and liberal on others. It's not so black/white as you are making the liberal/conservative issue out to be. I joined the Republican party 10 years ago because the issues that mattered most to me were best represented by the "general" platform of the party, not the platform of any individual politician.

I think you need to talk to a counselor about your hostility issues, maybe get a valium prescription, get laid, something because your reaction to my post was way over blown and disproportionate.

Re:Worthless ...

[KGIII]

No, it isn't treason but to me it is treasonous - more so in my case than in most I suppose. (Military. Marines to be more accurate, thus I always vote.)

If I voted for what I believe I'd be writing in a candidate and, well, that'd be a waste in this campaign and any other presidential election.

I really wish there were a viable third party to vote for.

Re:Worthless ...

[magus_melchior]

Don't forget he had Phil Gramm, who enabled Enron's outrageous business practices through deregulation-- the same deregulation law is suspected to be a major cause of the credit/subprime crises. Notice, Gramm tried to downplay "recession" hysteria because he helped draft and promote that bill! Gramm's history as far as his position in the campaign is concerned, but his overly business-friendly policies are generally still in place.

Re:Worthless ...

[KGIII]

I've been screaming for it for years. If the Green Party and Libertarians hadn't put up nut-jobs and didn't have such extremist views I suspect they'd do better. I'd like a decent Independent candidate to vote for. Those parties have no numbers and thus have no money and thus have no exposure. If they aren't in the pockets of big business they aren't getting any media coverage and Average Joe doesn't get to know anything about them.

The two party system sucks and the third parties aren't really very good at getting a candidate that people will actually vote for. Sucks, really.

Re:Worthless ...

[cayenne8]

"Of course, tech people (for the most part) don't vote Republican, so I guess McCain feels he has nothing to gain from a good tech policy and everything to gain from a tech policy that favors the big business folks who do vote Republican, so I'm not at all surprised."

Wow...are you really serious here? Where did you get this idea?

I'm guessing purely anecdotal, but, if that is the case, my experience would show the complete opposite. Most everyone I've ever worked with in the tech industry, tends to be quite conservative...and I'd guess they lean more towards the Republicans.

If you have links to stats speaking towards your position on this, please post....

Re:Worthless ...

[cduffy]

Let me amend myself a little:

Maybe in his campaign speeches. Not in his lectures as a law professor. Not in his book.

...and also not not in his speeches over the last two years focusing on an individual issues (as opposed to campaign speeches, in which context explaining why one is a better choice than one's opponents is, after all, the whole point). I understand from his former students that even these are vastly simplified and unnuanced compared to the lectures he gave when teaching -- lectures which, far from telling left-leaning students on a campus with right-leaning faculty what they wanted to hear, asked them questions that challenged (and helped them refine) their beliefs.

Re:Worthless ...

[crmarvin42]

I'm flabbergasted, I don't even really know where to start!

Your "Facts" are not facts at all! They are assertions based loosely on actual facts in evidence, and more on conjecture and rhetoric.

If half of the country is conservative, then they can't be unamerican, becaase they are HALF OF AMERICA!

Religion, political opinion, and other perspectives that relate to world view are primarily influenced by the household someone grew up in. I gave examples of religious, and political persecution as well as racial persecution, and I didn't even mention sexual preference.

This to you means I'm a closet racist and trying to project those beliefs on you. Once again you are claiming knowledge not in evidence. My step father is part cherokee, my Mother's maiden name is Gonsalves, my wife is half Korean, and my biological father is 100% Polish (racial jokes about Pols were very common in my neighborhood growing up, and I kept my fathers heritage a secret for many years). I chose to work with a Nigerian professor for my MS and PhD in a lab where over 6 years I've worked with, and befriended 3 Nigerian, 2 Ghanaian, 1 Korean, and only 2 American graduate students. I've experienced the pain and suffering that is caused by prejudice in general and racism specifically, and will not accept it from anyone! So FUCK YOU YOU IGNORANT PRICK.

You are full of irrational hate for individuals that disagree with you. You want my opinion on political issues? ASK ME! Don't put words in my mouth, I'm more than capable of taking responsibility for expressing my own beliefs.

I don't judge individuals based on their religious/political/ethnic/sexual affiliations or preferences. YOU on the other hand do. Your judgement of me based solely on my statement of political affiliation is the definition of bigoted based on the definition supplied by Leopard.

bigoted |ËbigÉ(TM)tid| adjective obstinately convinced of the superiority or correctness of one's own opinions and prejudiced against those who hold different opinions : a bigoted group of reactionaries. â expressing or characterized by prejudice and intolerance : a thoughtless and bigoted article.

You claim that Republicans are the single biggest threat the to the safety of the US, yet Republicans make up the vast majority of those willing to lay down their lives to defend this country. My step-father served in the marines, both of my brothers and my uncle (mother's family) are currently serving in the military. Your free to say the hateful crap you spew because the military defends this country you claim to love so much and they are predominantly the Republicans you hate so much. I also abhor the use of torture, I have family in the military and fear any of them being taken captive and tortured because of the widespread evidence torture being used by the current administration.

You also claim that I support a Theocracy. I do not, the religious right is a much smaller portion of the party than the media makes it out to be. I haven't attended church in over 10 years if you discount the 7 or 8 weddings I've attended in that time. In fact, over the last 15 years I've made the transition from Believer, to Hopeful skeptic, to strong skeptic, to currently a borderline atheist. It is one of my biggest deviations from the part line, that I don't believe religion has any place in politics. I support Sex-ed and think Abstinence only programs are a recipe an explosion of teen pregnancy. While I support the rights children and teachers to pray at school if they choose, I don't believe their should be a formal moment for praying that others are forced to participate in. I agree whole heartedly that the US was founded by people looking for religious freedom, I'm originally from Massachusetts and grew up going to Plymouth rock every couple of years on field trips.

Being a Republican from Massachusetts impressed upon me the importance of political tolerance because I ran

Re:Worthless ...

[cayenne8]

"In this environment, esp. if one lives in a state where the outcome (due to the Electoral College system) is "preordained" (for example, California)..."

I don't think the Electoral College is what 'pre-ordains' the vote of CA or any other state. The problem is, that most states have it so that the Electoral votes are all "all or nothing" votes. If every state voted proportionally with their EC votes in the EC...then we might see a large change in how things go for president.

I frankly like the idea about how the EC is there...it preserves the equality of votes across ALL states. Remember, you are a citizen of your state first, then a citizen of the United States...so, therefore, each state should have equal share in say of the president..and the EC provides this.

Re:Worthless ...

[cduffy]

its funny that he stood by that man in silence those many years. either he tacitly agrees with wrights views or is a moral coward.

Oh, c'mon, now.

The church in question has been known for social progressivism long before Wright made the news, and if you read Obama's books, he talks about some of the issues he had with some of the other churches in Chicago and the leadership thereof; to put it bluntly, he may well have ended up with one of the best of a bad lot.

I grew up attending a church where several of the members of the Board of Elders were people with some of whose views I disagreed with pretty strongly (and disagree with even more strongly now; suffice to say that depending on who was speaking that week, it was either forgiveness-and-salvation or hellfire-and-brimstone... unless it was our small town's banker talking about biblical money management or our high school's history teacher talking about old testament prophecies and their fulfillment, both of whose sermons I thoroughly enjoyed -- I grew up attending a very interesting church); the thing that made that church fairly distinct was that we were encouraged to make our own decisions between the many and varying views of Christianity presented. Anyhow, I'm sure that someone with a video clip of some of our more... interesting... sermons could come up with a claim that I grew up listening to a contemporary of Fred Phelps and cast aspersions on my character by such means, and indeed I considered the board members who took those positions in their sermons good family friends despite (and we all worked together on such projects as building [yes, building a building from the lot up, with our own hands and tools] a battered women's shelter and cooking food for the hungry)... in short, my background is such that I understand very well that people are multifaceted, and just where Huckabee was coming from when he refused to be baited into attacking Obama for his relationship with Wright.

In closing, let me quote Huckabee himself:

Obama has handled this about as well as anybody could. And I agree, it's a very historic speech. I think that it was an important one, and one that he had to deliver. And he couldn't wait. The sooner he made it, maybe the quicker that this becomes less of the issue. Otherwise, it was the only thing that was the issue in his entire campaign. And I thought he handled it very, very well.

And he made the point, and I think it's a valid one, that you can't hold the candidate responsible for everything around him that people may say or do. You just can't, whether it's me, whether it's Obama, or anybody else.

But he did distance himself from the very vitriolic statements. Now, the second story -- it's interesting to me that there are some people on the left that are having to be very uncomfortable with what [Jeremiah] Wright said when they were all over a Jerry Falwell or anyone on the right who said things that they found very awkward and uncomfortable years ago.

Many times those were statements lifted out of the context of a larger sermon. Sermons, after all, are rarely written word-for-word by pastors like Reverend Wright, who are delivering them extemporaneously and caught up in the emotion of the moment. There are things that sometimes get said that if you put them on paper and looked at them in print, you'd say, 'Well, I probably didn't mean to say it quite like that......'

And one other thing I think we've got to remember.

As easy as it is for those of us who are white to look back and say 'That's a terrible statement' -- I grew up in a very segregated South.

And I think that you have to cut some slack -- and I'm going to be probably the only conservative in America who's going to say something like this, but I'm just telling you -- we've got to cut some slack to people who grew up being called names, being told you have to sit in the balcony when you go to the movie, you have to go to the back door to go into the r

Re:Worthless ...

[ScentCone]

leaving any kind of tactical decision to those with the experience to do so: the people serving in the armed forces

But there would BE no tactical decisions to make without strategic decisions about when, where, and why to get the military involved in the first place. Likewise, issues with strategic importance (such as the use of nukes) absolutely have to involve the specific command from the C-in-C. Obviously a smart president is going to defer to his commanders about what's possible, the best way to accomplish a given task, etc. But do you really want military people and only military people deciding when and how to escalate a conflict... when or whether to ship out a new carrier group from one ocean to another? The president would be a fool to ignore input from his commanders, but we'd all be crazy to allow the military to make all such decisions in a vacuum. And of course, you're not always going to be talking about a "declaring war" situation. The crazy jihaddist types have totally learned that lesson. One way to consternate your enemy is avoid giving them a geopolitically concentrated enemy that has any resemblance to historical nation-state foes. Those days are gone (Russia not withstanding).

Re:Worthless ...

[slash.duncan]

> I really wish there were a viable third party to vote for.

Your wish is your command. Seriously, while the rules are certainly stacked for a two-party system, the only thing keeping it that way is the widely held belief that voting for anyone else is throwing your vote away. If you believe that a your single vote counts at all, as you evidently do, then it should be self-evident that the only thing keeping third parties from mattering is the believe that they don't matter. Self-fulfilling prophesy.

And it's not entirely hopeless from a numbers perspective, either. While the system is indeed stacked to maintain two-party dominance and unfortunately many third party candidates do seem half crazy, it doesn't take an outright win or even getting a directly significant number of elected representatives of a particular party in ordered to get a change. Ross Perot could have made a difference and did for a short time, but didn't maintain the organization or do much of anything with what he had, so he lost it. At the state level, who would have thought Jesse Ventura could have done what he did? The dominant parties can and do adjust their positions to appeal to significant segments of voters, and should the defeatists change their mind and believe a third party candidate /can/ achieve something, they most certainly can, even if they don't get the position they were running for right away or indeed at all.

Me? I think I'm somewhat opposite you, in that there's a whole stack of reasons I couldn't vote McCain. I was cautiously supporting Obama earlier, and still expect him to win as long as he keeps the optimistic position (political analysts and historians note that it's extremely seldom that a pestimistic or negative candidate wins against a positive/optimistic one, and I believe Obama likely to win based on that alone), but I don't believe I can vote for him unless he adequately explains his anti-human-rights anti-law vote re warrantless wiretapping. Unless he reverses his position there or otherwise convinces me he had a decent reason for that vote, I'll likely vote third party if I can find someone I'm reasonably comfortable with, or write-in none-of-the-above, if not, simply because there's nothing better. However, not expecting them to win, even if they are crazy to some extent, I can probably find a third party to vote for in the hopes that it'll at least get enough votes to significantly influence things, and if they /do/ win, to shake things up, knowing there'll be enough resistance from the entrenched two-party system to keep things from getting much crazier than they already are, even in the unlikely event the possibly somewhat crazy third party candidate I'll likely vote for does win. That's pretty much what happened to Jesse Ventura, too -- the entrenched resistance kept him from going too far out, and unfortunately there wasn't enough depth there to provide a lasting change. But again, if one believes an individual vote makes any difference at all, as one must if they believe it's almost treasonous not to vote (a position I definitely sympathize with), then one must also believe that change is possible, should we quit prophesying and self-fulfilling the prophesy that it's not.

"protect children from porn, and avoid regulation"

[Anonymous Coward]

Yay for contradictions?

John McCain on blogs

[jamie]

In 2006, John McCain gave the commencement address at Jerry Falwell's Liberty University, and took the opportunity to mock individual expression:

When I was a young man, I was quite infatuated with self-expression, and rightly so because, if memory conveniently serves, I was so much more eloquent, well-informed, and wiser than anyone else I knew. It seemed I understood the world and the purpose of life so much more profoundly than most people. I believed that to be especially true with many of my elders, people whose only accomplishment, as far as I could tell, was that they had been born before me, and, consequently, had suffered some number of years deprived of my insights. I had opinions on everything, and I was always right. I loved to argue, and I could become understandably belligerent with people who lacked the grace and intelligence to agree with me. With my superior qualities so obvious, it was an intolerable hardship to have to suffer fools gladly. So I rarely did. All their resistance to my brilliantly conceived and cogently argued views proved was that they possessed an inferior intellect and a weaker character than God had blessed me with, and I felt it was my clear duty to so inform them. It's a pity that there wasn't a blogosphere then. I would have felt very much at home in the medium.

His contempt for citizens expressing their views is, presumably, why he introduced legislation that would basically have shut down comments on blogs and on sites like Slashdot. Under John McCain, if you are an individual blogger and you allow user comments or user profiles, you'd have to follow the same reporting rules as an ISP, but you'd be subject to even harsher penalties. The EFF called McCain's bill a "constitutionally dubious proposal ... made apparently mostly based on fear or political considerations."

Re:John McCain on blogs

[4D6963]

"I was so much more eloquent, well-informed, and wiser than anyone else I knew" ... "With my superior qualities so obvious..."

I knew it from the start! John McCain is a secret elitist!

By the way, too bad he's not quite sooo eloquent anymore. It could have been useful, for stuff like, making people want to vote for him.

Re:John McCain on blogs

[howardd21]

I think you missed the point. While it is nice of you to enhance the blogopshere comment with a bold font, that was not his subject. He was obviously speaking about the tendency of youth to dominate the conversation about anything and everything as if they knew the best approach and all others had nothing to offer. In fact, what he is implying here is that it is important to listen, especially to experienced individuals, but listen. That does not reduce the value of a blog, it puts it in context of "where, or from whom,do good ideas come from"?

Re:John McCain on blogs

[10101001 10101001]

It's funny because I generally agree with him. Many people, young or old, think they know what is best for others. They're inclined to step in and dictate how others should run their lives, how other countries should run their governments, and generally how the world would be so much better if either (a) people would just listen to their insights or (b) people would give them the power to enforce their insights on others.

So, perhaps he had the right idea, that he himself didn't know everything. The problem is that he took that insight and, still assuming he knew everything, extrapolated that out to be an issue of age and wisdom. A wise man knows he is a fool. He does not force his foolishness on others. Instead, it is in his wisdom that he only answers the questions of those who seek him out. For even if he gives a foolish answer, he is merely provided what is asked of him. Such is the paradox of politics and having wise men as leaders in a democracy.

Re:John McCain on blogs

[kklein]

Sorry, but you just quoted McCain being facetious as though he were serious, meaning you didn't get the joke. It's funny. Laugh.

His technological platform, however... Not so funny.

Re:John McCain on blogs

[rockout]

I'd agree with you, except that right after the blog line McCain said he "would have felt very much at home in the medium", obviously taking a cheap shot at bloggers as people who "dominate the conversation about anything and everything as if they knew the best approach and all others had nothing to offer."

The original poster very much got his point, methinks.

Re:John McCain on blogs

[ericspinder]

he's mocking what many people perceive to be the stereotypical self-important blogger attitude.

I believed that to be especially true with many of my elders, people whose only accomplishment, as far as I could tell, was that they had been born before me,

What I believe he was implying is that children should be seen and not heard. Of course his definition of 'children' seems to extend to all bloggers, regardless of age. Of course the First Amendment gives freedom the press, but doesn't tell us the definition of "Press", but I really doubt if the Framers meant "Government sanctioned and licensed persons"

Re:John McCain on blogs

[jamie]

Sorry, but you just quoted McCain being facetious as though he were serious, meaning you didn't get the joke. It's funny. Laugh.

McCain used exaggerated language to humorous effect. That part's hard to miss.

What I find more important is that the target of his humor is the ceaseless argumentation on all matters, political and otherwise, that the citizenry engages in when permitted freedom of speech. Contrary to what career politicians would have us believe, there are things worth discussing beyond the pronouncements of our daily papers. There are wrongs to be called out and acts of courage to be heralded. We dredge up our politicians' histories, we compare and contrast, we insult and mourn and challenge not only our opponents' beliefs but our own. We're not polite, because unlike the self-righteous papers' hallowed halls of pretend-land, we talk the way real people talk. Sometimes we persuade, often not, but in large ways or small, we do learn from each other.

The blogosphere is democracy at its most raw, a ceaseless conversation about the way things are and ought to be, led not from the "top" but by whatever ordinary people want to talk about each day. It's political conversation that, for the first time in thousands of years, actually comes from the people. That worries the entrenched media who for decades have built up undeserved reputations as the arbiters of the news cycle, and the politicians whose unspoken agreements with the media got them where they are.

I've been a programmer for Slashdot for eight years now. I've spent much of that time writing code to quash abuse without censoring contributions, and support thoughtful comments while discouraging "omg roftl," because goddammit I believe there's something vital and important about what ordinary people have to say. I want to give those people a soapbox, and give their readers the tools to find the most interesting and thought-provoking comments. People with something to say don't need a lecture on prudence and humility from their betters, they need to be encouraged to stand up and join the conversation.

And politicians like McCain mock them, and mock the way we argue. We're youngsters who show insufficient deference to the hard-won wisdom of our elders. Fuck that shit.

Re:John McCain on blogs

[argStyopa]

Let me guess:
You are a young man
You are quite infatuated with self-expression, and rightly so because, you are so much more eloquent, well-informed, and wiser than anyone else
You understand the world and the purpose of life so much more profoundly than most people.
You believe that to be especially true with many of your elders, people whose only accomplishment, as far as you can tell, was that they had been born before you and consequently, had suffered some number of years deprived of your insights.
You have opinions on everything, and you are always right.
You love to argue, and you can become understandably belligerent with people who lacked the grace and intelligence to agree with you.
With your superior qualities so obvious, it is an intolerable hardship to have to suffer fools gladly. So you rarely do.
All their resistance to your brilliantly conceived and cogently argued views proves is that they possess an inferior intellect and a weaker character than God has blessed you with, and you feel it is your clear duty to so inform them.
You and your Floppy, Hoppy Bunnies feel very much at home in the blogosphere.

Gee you're right, he must be TOTALLY wrong. I'm convinced.

Re:John McCain on blogs

[bmajik]

Of Course. This _is_ the "McCain" in "McCain-Feingold" we're talking about, after all.

Surely you're familiar with the McCain-Feingold "incumbency protection act", who's aim is to create a dubious "protected class" of people for whom the 1st amendment (which protects _political speech_ and no other type) still actually applies.

For everyone else (people who aren't "real journalists") -- no more 1st amendment rights for you, anytime an election is 6 months (or wahtever the bill says) away.

McCain Feingold is one of these ridiculous laws that, when examined, seems totally ridiculous and unconstitutional. As a practical matter, I don't think it has had a chilling effect on much of anything. As a theoretical matter, it's one of the reasons why libertarians don't like McCain.

In many ways the '08 Election is a reverse of the '04 Election. In 04 the Democrats were running a "he's not Bush" candidate, and to be frank that was Kerry's only real qualification.

McCain is someone who is neither pleasing to conservative republicans nor to libertarians who normally grudgingly fall into the republican camp. He's the "not Obama & not Clinton" vote. Almost everyone I've spoken with is much more interested in "not Obama" than "McCain".

Oddly enough, the fact that McCain is not squarely in the conservative/republican camp may make him an acceptable president. He obviously doesn't care about pissing off other republicans, and he obviously jumps off traditional conservative/republican dogma when it suits him. The reality of the senate voting record is that McCain has jumped across the aisle to get something done with the Democrats far more often than Obama has broken rank with the progressive agenda to get some reasonably-centerist legislation done by cooperating with Republicans.

Re:John McCain on blogs

[Dhalka226]

He's implying--stating fairly clearly, in fact--that children think they know everything. I'm only 24, but in my experience, even looking back on my own actions, that tends to be true. I'd like to think I'm past it, but who knows if I'll think the same of myself a few more years down the road. Regardless of its truth, though, it's a societal meme in the same vein as "teenagers think they're invincible," so I wouldn't go so far as to ascribe anything to it specifically.

To be honest, I'm not even sure the comment about bloggers should be considered more than a joke. It's two sentences at the end of a fairly long paragraph; twenty words out of two hundred--out of 3500 if we're counting the entire text of the speech. I checked out the link to the whole speech and while I didn't read it all, that wording is at the end of a paragraph with the next paragraph about him not being so sure of himself as an older man. It would have helped to hear the delivery, I think, but at the moment everything points to it simply being a joke.

Re:John McCain on blogs

[jamie]

Making fun of me is fine (and I think I'm all those things, except "young"!)

McCain was mocking and denigrating unsanctioned argument as a whole.

Re:John McCain on blogs

[pudge]

What I find more important is that the target of his humor is the ceaseless argumentation on all matters, political and otherwise, that the citizenry engages in when permitted freedom of speech.

You are implying McCain believes people need to be "permitted" freedom of speech.

You are, of course, completely making that up. There is no truth to it. It's odd that you feel the need to lie about McCain; if he's so bad, why don't you just stick to truth?

The sad thing is that YOUR guy, Obama, has attacked "the blogosphere" at least as much as McCain, but you apparently ... don't care. He has blamed "blogs" and the Internet for "driving up" his negatives. How dare he attack this "democracy at its most raw!"

Come to think of it, you've done the same thing on MANY occasions.

The point, of course, is that it is one thing to attack certain expressions on the Internet, and another to condemn the Internet in general. You, Obama, and McCain have all criticized certain expressions, not the whole thing.

And politicians like McCain mock them, and mock the way we argue.

No, he only criticizes SOME of the way they argue, such as pretending to be superior and making stuff up. And good for him. And good for you and Obama for doing the exact same thing.

Fuck that shit.

Fuck your overtly partisan hypocrisy.

Re:John McCain on blogs

[pudge]

Of Course. This _is_ the "McCain" in "McCain-Feingold" we're talking about, after all.

Surely you're familiar with the McCain-Feingold "incumbency protection act", who's aim is to create a dubious "protected class" of people for whom the 1st amendment (which protects _political speech_ and no other type) still actually applies.

For everyone else (people who aren't "real journalists") -- no more 1st amendment rights for you, anytime an election is 6 months (or wahtever the bill says) away.

McCain Feingold is one of these ridiculous laws that, when examined, seems totally ridiculous and unconstitutional.

Not for nothing, let's remember the fact that Democrats supported the bill 198-12, and Republicans supported it 41-176, in the House. In the Senate, it was 46-3, and 11-38. In the Congress, Republicans broadly opposed the "Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act," and Democrats almost universally supported it.

So let us not pretend (not that you were doing so) that Obama, a Democrat, who has already proven to be unprincipled on campaign financing (saying he would do one thing out of campaign finance principles, and then rejecting that principle and pretending what he was doing was following that principle), would not be in favor of McCain-Feingold too.

Re:John McCain on blogs

[shadowbearer]

I find the contrast between Obama's tech page and McCain's interesting in that in Obama's he talks more about what should be done ... On that standpoint alone I would trust Obama more

Despite the fact that he's never actually DONE anything, and that he's already changed on many of the things he SAID he would do? :-)

Obama is at least paying attention; he had his technical stance up long, long ago. McCain waited until the point in the campaign where it was necessary to do so, and what he put up, as I noted, sounds more like a corporate resume than a reasonable, rational technology statement by a potential future leader of the most powerful country on the planet.

I am entirely non-partisan; while I think Obama is likely the more honest of the two

This befuddles me. I can't speak for YOU of course, but I wonder if the reason many people think this is because they believe that Obama "means well," so even if he goes back on something, well, he meant it at the time! And if McCain changes on something, well, he "obviously" was lying.

My non-partisan stance befuddles you, or ? ;)

  Does Obama "mean well"? I dunno, it's hard to tell, from a distance. I think he's a lot more honest about how he does feel about the issues, it doesn't feel - to me, yes - like he's playing the career game. McCain is, of course, a career professional.

  I'm being completely honest when I say I'm non-partisan, if you've read any of my posts over the years you'd see *I'm* being honest.

Jamie, that was one hell of a great rant

I don't believe I have ever thought a rant was good that was almost entirely based on fabrications.

You're entitled to form and hold your own opinions. For a little while longer, anyway.

  Your response is typical of the ones I get from many career republican voters. I find them just as amusing as the ones I get from the other end of the spectrum. Neither style of fanatic, in my opinion, has much of anything new to offer.

  I'm still voting for Kodos. ;)

Cheers,
SB

Protect children from porn

[4D6963]

I wonder how he'd go about doing that. Probably the same way they (most of the Republicans) go about protecting children from STDs, by preaching abstinence. Keeping children away from computers would probably work about as well.

That would be ironic if they preached using parental protection software, which by analogy could be compared to using a condom. Cue the "it's not the same thing" replies.

Re:Protect children from porn

[sakdoctor]

The problem is that adults forget what it was like being a kid, and try to hoard all the porn for themselves. This is totally misguided, and kids need porn just as much as the rest of us.

Re:Protect children from porn

[4D6963]

The problem is that adults forget what it was like being a kid, and try to hoard all the porn for themselves. This is totally misguided, and kids need porn just as much as the rest of us.

But yet more alarmingly, children from unfavoured homes who don't have access to the Internet at home have no means to educate themselves with pornography, causing a dramatic gap in sexual education. Trust me, these days, you don't want to be the only kid on the playground who thinks that "golden showers" have anything to do with Scourge McDuck.

Re:Protect children from porn

[4D6963]

Trust me, these days, you don't want to be the only kid on the playground who thinks that "golden showers" have anything to do with Scourge McDuck.

Crap, neither do you want to sound like you read a BDSM version of Scrooge McDuck comics.

Re:Protect children from porn

[4D6963]

Keeping your dick in your pants has always been the best way to avoid STDs. Sorry, but that's the way life is.

Yeah, the tiny flaw in that plan is the "keeping your dick in your pants" part. It seems people find it more difficult than it sounds and when they do what they thought they wouldn't do they don't have a clue how to stay as safe as possible.

Re:Protect children from porn

[Albert Sandberg]

They work to the opposites.

Teach your kid computers and you don't have to worry about STD's.

Teach your kid about condoms and you don't have to worry about him messing around with computers.

jk.

Re:Protect children from porn

[urcreepyneighbor]

go about protecting children from STDs, by preaching abstinence.

Abstinence is the only proven method of not contracting STDs. The only way.

I'm sorry, my friend, but if you're going to slut it up... you're going to pay the price. All the latex and gels in the world won't give you the same protection as abstinence.

Keeping children away from computers would probably work about as well.

This isn't about keeping children away from computers. This is about keeping porn from kids.

You do realize that you can use a computer without accessing porn, I hope.

Cue the "it's not the same thing" replies.

Having access to a computer and having sex are different. Maybe you just don't get it?

Re:Protect children from porn

[4D6963]

Abstinence is the only proven method of not contracting STDs. The only way.

I'm sorry, my friend, but if you're going to slut it up... you're going to pay the price. All the latex and gels in the world won't give you the same protection as abstinence.

The problem is it only works in theory. In reality, on large scales, even kids with abstinence rings end up doing it, and getting pregnant or catching a STD. The reality is, most people just have to get laid, no matter what you say or what they say, they're gonna do it. All you can do is make sure the ones who will do it will do it properly. Pretending that it's as easy as not doing it is sticking your head in the sand. Abstinence alone isn't enough. You also need to be completely reliable, which is foolish to assume from anyone. Or very unattractive.

Re:Protect children from porn

[nasor]

Abstinence has been REPEATEDLY shown to not be an effective way to control the spread of STDs or prevent pregnancy in populations. The problem is that people just aren't willing to be abstinent, even when they are educated about the risks of sex. It's certainly inconvenient that people aren't willing to be abstinent, but society needs to face that reality and deal with it, rather than continuing to fantasize that we can control the spread of STD and pregnancy with abstinence programs.

Re:Protect children from porn

[NeutronCowboy]

Abstinence is the only proven method of not contracting STDs. The only way.

And avoiding contact with all people is the only way of avoiding being killed by someone. Fact. Doesn't mean it isn't completely stupid and illusory. Sorta like communism. Right?

hypocrisy

[je ne sais quoi]

John McCain's stance on copyright infringement is hypocritical. The reason is that he is currently being sued by Jackson Browne for copyright infringement because he used the song "Running on Empty" without permission. This looks to be yet another Republican professing high fallooting morals but who by his deeds is shown to believe that morality is for the populace and doesn't apply to him.

Re:hypocrisy

[Dhalka226]

Right from the article you linked:

A McCain spokesman said the ad in question, which mocks Sen. Barack Obama, was put together by the Ohio GOP.

The article isn't even 100 words, could you not make it all the way through? I know /.'ers are notorious for not reading the article, but one would think they wouldn't link it as support for a dubious claim without giving it a once-over.

It isn't even being run by him or his campaign. Even if it were, it's entirely probable that he would have nothing to do with the ad other than a final "go ahead and run it." It would not be at all unreasonable to assume that even if he took note of the fact that they were using the song, that he assumed his staffers had done their job and obtained proper permission to do so. If I were a presidential candidate, I know I would have much more important things to do than micromanage my team.

I haven't seen the ad in question, but if it's anything like most political ads it runs about 30 seconds long, which in my mind would also bring up a fair use question even if the song ran the entire duration. The article also doesn't mention anything about whether or not anybody was contacted with a request to stop using the song or compensate the artist or if he just went straight to lawsuit town.

I'm not a McCain supporter by any stretch, but your post is just ridiculous. Then again it's patently obvious you made up your mind long ago and are inventing lame "issues" to try to lambast him with, so I suppose you'll just come back with a "zomg he's lying he's a politician lolerskatz."

Re:hypocrisy

[remove office]

Actually, both the McCain campaign and the RNC have gotten itself in hot water several times for using copyrighted music or video clips without permission during this cycle.

A few examples:

McCain was served with a cease and desist letter from Fox News after he used their broadcast footage in a commercial without buying it...

McCain was sued by Mike Myers after he used a clip from a skit from SNL without purchasing it or getting permission from Myers himself (Myers isn't the copyright owner, but that's irrelevant).

McCain got yelled at by copyright owners for using the "Rocky" theme song in an ad without permission.

One of McCain's YouTube videos have been hit with a copyright infringement claim by Warner Music Group after the campaign used a song by Frankie Valli without permission.

Of course, all of this is not to mention McCain's little plagiarism issue with Wikipedia...

Re:grr.

[chuckymonkey]

Sadly when it comes to things such as network neutrality, MAFIAA litigation, censorship of the internet, and understanding how the internet has the potential to be an unstoppable force of intellectual freedom most U.S. citizens are woefully ignorant. They care about gas prices, making sure that they are not responsible for raising their kids, ensuring that gay couples are not recognized as a legal union, and which religion the candidate subscribes to. They have forgotten that there is a reason the the freedom of speech was the very first amendment, I have met very few that ever read the Federalist Papers, hell half of the people that I talk to have never even read the constitution or have the most basic understanding of how our government works. The internet has the power to be the most perfect force for the first amendment which is essential to the rest of the Constitution and in all honesty I don't think the GOP really wants the average citizen to have that kind of power.

Re: McCain Releases Technology Platform

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh great. Yet another Linux distribution that www.distrowatch.org is going to have to track. "McCain-ix"
Probably needs 1GB just to load. I'll stick with Obama-mama-ix thanks.

I can't wait for the Barack Software Distribution. There's no way in hell McCain-ix can beat BSD.

Did he ever have your vote?

[an.echte.trilingue]

I knew this kind of position was coming as soon as he said he didn't know how to use a computer. He obviously doesn't understand the issues, so naturally he is just going to default to his party's (or contributor's) position.

If I were in his place and somebody asked me to formulate a position on farming, I would do the same thing. That's why it is important to look at what party a candidate belongs to and who is giving him money.

Re:Did he ever have your vote?

[NicknamesAreStupid]

Not true, I heard that his first girlfriend was Ada Lovelace.

He picked Carly Fiorina as an advisor

[HangingChad]

Arguably one of the worst leaders in the tech industry. It's no wonder his technology positions don't make any sense. That's like picking Jeffery Skilling as an energy advisor...wait, he doesn't need him, he's got Phil Gramm. With the added advantage that Gramm isn't in federal prison...yet.

Let's just pick the most incompetent, corrupt people from every industry we can find and bring them together in one party. It's no wonder his positions on technology don't make any sense. A classic case of the problem dictating the solution.

Re:grr.

[iminplaya]

I don't think the GOP really wants the average citizen to have that kind of power.

And don't believe for a New York second that the democrats are any better. Both are authoritarians who think that ignorance is strength.

Re:Sharing?

[tepples]

Violating other people's legal rights is not "sharing".

Granting legal rights of excessive scope and duration is not "good government" either, especially when sites such as opensecrets.org demonstrate the bribery that prompted things like the Bono Act and the DMCA.

Grow the fuck up, asshole.

Nor is comparing somebody to an anus "civil".

Really?

[Nicolas MONNET]

Technology is my area of expertise, and I guess it's that of many slashdot readers. There is probably no other area where we can judge a candidate as well; therefore if his program sucks balls in this respect, it's probably just fair to extrapolate to the others.
Besides, McCain is Bush III. He's pro war, pro war on terra, and so on.

Re:Really?

[blueg3]

If you were going to do this properly, you could at least pick the correct logical fallacy than just selecting the one that everyone knows about.

Re:Really?

[finiteSet]

Tell me this: has Bush kept us safe since 9/11?

No. Inspiring the next generation of poor, angry, anti-American would-be-terrorists is not keeping us safe, it is setting us up for long-term failure.

Day to day life has been devastated for many in the middle east, with aggressive US foreign policy as the catalyst (if not cause). Rightly or wrongly, it gives a new generation someone on which to assign blame for the problems they face.

Bush's bandaid will fall off sooner or later.

Re:"protect children from porn, and avoid regulati

[fedos]

How about, "I'll protect the American consumer, and I'm against net-neutrality[sic]"?

Re:Who takes platforms seriously in an election?

[rtb61]

The most wildly blatant contradiction, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation and he doesn't know how to use a computer. Man, you guys can really pick them, now I know how you managed to have both shrubs running the CIA and why the CIA made such a hack job of collect evidence on all those so called terrorists in GITMO.

The really lamest part of course is 'Educate Its Workforce For The Innovation Age', all the lamest politicians the world over have been rabbiting on about exactly the same thing and then in the next breath, global marketplace and free trade, with the net result that all those job are outsourced to countries that pay one tenth the wage and you have a flood of people in the food services industry with tech degrees. Either that or cannon fodder for the military industrial complex.

Re: McCain Releases Technology Platform

[urcreepyneighbor]

I'll stick with Obama-mama-ix thanks.

That's still vaporware. :)

Just look at the URLs :)

[jopsen]

I took a look around the different campaign sites it's clear McCain is EVIL!
Links at McCain site:
johnmccain.com/Blog/Read.aspx?guid=3d8ee2ad-d7f2-4f3d-ad9f-ffe1b41ca178

Links a Obamas Site:
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/

Clearly, McCain is using a Microsoft server and Obama is using mod_rewrite or similar technology... Probably a rather none-evil technology...

Also at validator.w3.org:
McCain has: 124 Errors, 44 warning(s)
Obama has: 8 Errors
I'd say this proofs McCain is evil!

Encouraging scientific education

[dlur]

How does either candidate expect to move interest in science forward in the US when you can no longer: a) buy a home chemistry set, b) you end up with government agents raiding your house if you have a LEGAL home chemistry lab (ala Mass.), c) experimenting with home-built fireworks or small-scale explosives is now an act of "terrorism"?

No kids are going to get interested in science anymore because all of the cool things we did as children to pique our interest in science are now illegal or acts of international terrorism.

My Scorecard

[davide marney]

My scorecard for the McCain platform. Rated on a uninflated A-F grading scale, where a "C" means the norm.

John McCain Supports Risk Capital For Investment In American Innovation

Grade: C. OK; nothing specific to the tech sector, though.

John McCain Will Not Tax Innovation By Keeping Capital Gains Taxes Low.

Grade: C. A good idea in general, but not of particular help to technology.

John McCain Will Reform And Make Permanent The R&D Tax Credit.

Grade: B. Good idea.

John McCain Will Lower the Corporate Tax Rate To 25 Percent To Retain Investment In U.S. Technologies.

Grade: C. Again, a good idea for the economy in general, but doesn't do anything to specifically address technology.

John McCain Will Allow First-Year Expensing Of New Equipment And Technology.

Grade: B. Good idea.

John McCain Will Ensure Technology And Innovation Is Not Hampered By Taxes On Internet Users.

Grade: C. OK, fine, but I'm not buying the rationale at all here. I think this is code for "no government regulation". A vast amount of bricks-and-mortar commerce has been moved onto the Internet. If we accept taxation of commerce, we should have no problem accepting taxation of it on the Internet.

John McCain Opposes Higher Taxes On Wireless Services.

Grade: C. OK, lower taxes, yeah, but what we are buying with our taxes in the first place?

America Must Educate Its Workforce For The Innovation Age.

Grade: B. Grants for higher ed are a good bargain for taxpayers.

Fill Critical Shortages Of Skilled Workers To Remain Competitive.

Grade: B. Good idea. More flexibility on H-1B visas will help.

John McCain Has Been A Long And Ardent Supporter Of Fair And Open World Trade.

Grade: C. Nice to know.

Competition Has Been A Great Strength For America -- Offering Opportunity, Low Prices, And Increased Choice For Our Citizens. Markets work best when there is robust competition.

Grade: D. McCain had a chance to address the real problems of non-competitiveness that plague the technology sector, and ducked.

John McCain Will Protect The Creative Industries From Piracy.

Grade: D. Another disappointment. The "creative industries" already have plenty of money, lawyers, lobbyists, and memberships in the exclusive clubs needed to get the protection they need. Who's giving the people the protection they need? Not the government, apparently.

John McCain Will Push For Greater Resources For The Patent Office.

Grade: C. Obviously needed; basic good management.

John McCain Will Pursue Protection Of Intellectual Property Around The Globe.

Grade: C. OK, fine; more good management.

Provide Alternative Approaches To Resolving Patent Challenges.

Grade: B. Some innovation here is long overdue. Good idea.

John McCain Will Preserve Consumer Freedoms.

Grade: B. Freedom is good, and additional attention in this area is needed to keep a level playing field.

When Regulation Is Warranted, John McCain Acts.

Grade: C. OK, that's the right pattern, but McCain seems to not get the fact that the tech sector really needs some tough love from the government right now. If regulation is not warranted now, when would it be?

John McCain does not believe in prescriptive regulation like "net-neutrality," but rather he believes that an open marketplace with a variety of consumer choices is the best deterrent against unfair practices.

Grade: F. The telco marketplace is anything

Serious Question...

[RocketScientist]

There were two parts of the platform related by Ars Technica. The first part was increased copyright enforcement, and the second was patent reform.

The question's coming up, bear with me, some setup involved.

There are, basically, 3 industries that benefit from copyright: Music, Movies/TV, and Software. Copyright enforcement helps all 3, but (at least for short term profits) patent reform is not good for the software industry. So overall, this part of McCain's platform really only helps the Music and Movies/TV industries.

That's part 1 of the setup. Here's part 2:

The Music and Movies/TV industries are populated *mostly* by people who support Obama. Furthermore, the Christian Right in this country very much hates those two industries and would like to see them die in fires of hell for promoting vice. Oh, and the Christian Right hates the software industry, because all they do is make games full of murdering.

That's part 2. Here's the question:

Is there a reason that McCain's platform serves to (1) increase the profits of industries that hate him and give TONS of money to his opponent, and (2) Provides legal protection for industries that his primary voting base despises?

Re:grr.

[Grym]

The difference is that Democrats will get more votes from young people who think that only chumps (and old people like McCain) should have to pay for movies, and who capable of compartmentalizing their "respect" for their favorite musicians separately from their willingness to happily rip them off. The hypocrisy is stunning. They don't want to be told what they can and can't do online (including burning a huge portion of the available bandwidth while ripping off entertainment), but they want the ability to tell a business that builds and sustains a network how they should operate it.

I love it when Baby Boomers get on generational tirades like this. It has genuine comedic quality about it, particularly given how ridiculous and hypocritical it is.

But since you seem to be a true-believer, let me clear it up for you, old timer. "Young people" are, knowingly or not, rejecting the flawed assumptions and unjust laws that have effectively attempted to privatize human culture for the benefit of a greedy few at the very top of content distribution companies who are better at bribing the legislature than serving their own customers. What you describe as pathological compartmentalization is, in actuality, the very natural returning shift in public values to a more balanced, modern view of copyright protections. In short, the pendulum is finally swinging back towards the social-contract view of government-granted, temporary monopolies described in Article I section 8 of the constitution, which references not the "rights" of companies or starving artists but the "progress of science and useful arts".

-Grym

Do children actually need protection from porn?

[nasor]

Has it ever been scientifically demonstrated that porn is harmful for children? Just curious - if it has, I would be genuinely interested to heard about it.

Re:Do children actually need protection from porn?

[Reziac]

Good question. In my experience, *normal* children seem to have exactly one reaction to porn: they go "Eugh, gross!", gawk for a few moments (the same way anyone will when confronted with something they consider freaky), then quickly lose interest and go on to other normal childhood pursuits.

I'm wondering if the only "harm" from porn comes to children who are already psychologically abnormal (maybe liking porn at an early age predicts a tendency toward sexual abberations as an adult?), or are being sexually abused (so the porn looks more "normal" to them, rather than icky and gross).

Re: McCain Releases Technology Platform

[Darundal]

But McCain-ix is undeveloped, closed source abandonware.

Re:grr.

[blueg3]

I actually get my MP3s off the intarwebs for free and then mail the artists the 10 cents per album they would have gotten if I bought the CD.

The scope of the First Amendment

[Pfhorrest]

1st amendment (which protects _political speech_ and no other type)

I see this assertion on Slashdot here now and again, and while I'll certainly agree that political speech was probably the type of speech which the Founders were most concerned with protecting, I see no basis for the assertion that that was all the First Amendment is meant to protect. Quoth the Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Seems pretty broad and universal to me.

Re:grr.

[Darby]

The hypocrisy is stunning. They don't want to be told what they can and can't do online (including burning a huge portion of the available bandwidth while ripping off entertainment), but they want the ability to tell a business that builds and sustains a network how they should operate it.

Your hypocrisy is stunning.
The ISPs didn't build and sustain the networks. We the people were robbed at gunpoint to pay for them to do so. They refused to deliver what we already paid them to do and instead siphoned off the money to executive salaries and bonuses.
So until they deliver what they lobbied to force us the pay them to do, they have no rights and no legitimate authority over *our* networks.

If they wanted intelligent, informed people (unlike yourself) to support their right to own their network, then they should have actually paid for it themselves. So by your delusional statement that they should be allowed to screw over my use of *my* property which *I* paid for you demonstrate not only hypocrisy, but the belief that you, me and everyone else in the country are nothing more than the slaves of whoever bribes the government enough.

You really should consider relocating to a country like China or Saudi Arabia where they already share your values rather than trying to drag this country whose values you despise down to their levels. It is, of course, the ethical thing to do which is why I'm not holding my breath waiting for you to do it.

Re:grr.

[ScentCone]

the pendulum is finally swinging back towards the social-contract view of government-granted, temporary monopolies described in Article I section 8 of the constitution

Which provides, in which way, for legal cover when millions of kids grab ripped-off copies of a newly released recording the day after the musician in question publishes it for sale?

social-contract view

So, an artist who spends years putting together a recording, or novel, or opera, etc., has no social contract upon which to lean? Only the people who want the material at no charge get to invoke that concept in the spirit of pendulum-swinging? If you don't like the fact that your favorite musician wants to charge you for their work, walk away. The only social contract that matters here is the one where the people who want the artist to work for them either meet what that artists asks as a price, or they take their entertainment-buying dollar elsewhere. You're doing your level best to excuse people from ripping off the entertainment they want because they can. Songs for a dollar? A movie appearing on your TiVo for $1.99? The horror! It's a good thing that we have earnest young rebels willing to forward the useful arts by ripping that stuff off, instead.

*Obama is Dying

[Dogtanian]

I can't wait for the Barack Software Distribution. There's no way in hell McCain-ix can beat BSD.

Sorry to disappoint you, but Netcraft confirms it- Barack's campaign is dying!

Re: McCain Releases Technology Platform

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

But Obama reversed his position on booting being a necessary step for PC operation, for booting pc's is bad for global warming, therefore Obamanix will not have the option of creating a bootsector, nor will it come with one.

When I enquired about exactly how he used this empty black screen of his, I was called a racist, beat up, and thrown out of the building (from the third floor window).

Fortunately the massive quantities of hot air in the head of one of his former fans broke my fall. To those who weren't there it might seem that it'd be very hard for mere hot air to break a fall from a third floor window, however to those I would say that that depends on the quantity. Think big.

The rest of his fans don't care, after all, Obama promised Obamanix would come with Duke Nukem Forever pre-installed.

The distributions release date is said to coincide with Duke Nukem Forever's release date : the day after installing Obama in the white house and giving him the power of preventing a single word about the curious absense of said distribution being published, with laws that would let less bytes pass on *any* router than "prophets suck" articles can be found in this year's "taliban chronicles".