Slashdot Mirror
Lessig On McCain's Technology Platform
Agthorr writes "Lawrence Lessig has created a video analyzing John McCain's recently released technology platform (available here). Lessig's video touches on broadband penetration, competition, and network neutrality." Note that while Lessig has come out as a supporter of Barack Obama, this video is not from the Obama campaign.
This is a good argument for selling the 'last mile' to consumers. Some companies are looking into selling the last mile to consumers or smaller communities that way they do not have to pay for the cost. This also would make a much better argument for net neutrality in consumers and communities owned the last mile.
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
by providing subsidies to the cable and telecom monopolies
Not quite. What McCain proposes is tax cuts to these areas to spur development. Lessig, of course, calls them subsidies. A subsidy is very different from a tax cut. Of course, one shouldn't be surprised that Lessig makes this confusion as his political leanings tend to assume that tax money originates and belongs to the government, not the originating source of the income. The word subsidy also makes it sound like McCain wants to fill evil telecoms' pockets with undeserved cash.
If you don't see the distinction ... imagine calling a decrease in your personal income tax a subsidy :)
How many people who might vote for mccain either know or care who Lessig is anyway? I won't be voting for McCain, and I'm only marginally aware myself.
Yeah, population density explains it. That's why a typical Canadian broadband connection is faster that a typical broadband connection in the US (or any particular part of the US, regardless of population density.)
Looking at the post from the fellow in Romania, I think it's interesting that HDTV is normal here is the US, but basically doesn't exist in Romania, while the reverse is true for fast Internet. It's not a matter of technology level, or wealth. It's just a matter of priorities. Romania invested in a key enabling technology that has impacts in education, the economy, and individual political empowerment. The US invested in American Idol with extra pixels. And, this makes me sad. I know we could do better, and I just don't understand why we as a society choose not to.
The difference is that Obama's faith isn't the rigid taking-orders-from-god kind, but rather the kind that's supportive of using logic and rationality to decide issues. He's on record supporting atheists and denying that religion is a requirement for morality. http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060628-call_to_renewal/
> It sounds like you are pretty far from any CO. You are in range for IDSL but not regular ADSL.
Yup, it is in fact IDSL. I'm just over 20,000 feet from the CO. Thing is, I checked online maps and there weren't a whole lot of COs in the greater Phoenix area. But the question is "why?"
This is a major metro area. I have to drive 10 miles or more in any direction to get out of town. And you know when you're out of town because there's just desert. The southern edge, just south of the 202/Pecos Rd. near South Mountain is especially stark, with one side of the road built up and the other side is empty desert.
There are NO good options here for high-speed access. This is NOT a population density problem, either. There are tons of people here. We're #5 in the US, for crying out loud!
So if you can't get decent speed here of all places, what's wrong with broadband in America?
I lost all respect for Lessig when he described the opposition to telecom immunity as "leftist hysteria". It's like if Richard Stallman suddenly called opposition to DRM the work of "Linux zealots".
You guys
Huh? I'm not registered with either party. I already know where McCain's coming from, religiosity-wise. He really hasn't changed in any way - though it would be nice if he woke up one morning and realized it was silly.
I'm paying more attention to how interesting it is to watch people on the left try to reconcile their mental image of Obama as a cerebral, rational, pillar of tolerance and understanding (and promoter of science and education) even as he loudly proclaims that he's an adherent to all-powerful magic invisible friends and whatnot. That's what's fun to watch.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Just because you believe that there is something out there larger than yourself does not mean you turn your brain off
Just the part that processes things like the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny.
the last poll I saw ~80% of the adult population in the US believed in God (not necessarily Jesus but a creator) so why do you find it surprising that the candidates would pander to a group that large?
No, the real question is, why would someone who calls himself the Candidate For Change, and who is proclaimed by all of his media talking point specialists as a staggering intellect, a man of science and reason and "progressive" thinking (whatever the hell that's supposed to mean), not use the opportunity of having the public spotlight to actually see about making it less fashionable to proclaim belief in the supernatural? How many of those 80% do you suppose just say that because of peer pressure? I expect it's a huge share of them. Obama says he doesn't like the "old" ways of doing things... but at the same time he says he gets his entire ethical framework from a frequently mis-translated collection of 2000-year-old (and more recently edited, obviously) mythology that includes descriptions of an all-powerful, all-loving God that - oddly - still to this day likes to kill innocent children with lukemia and bolts of lighting.
Everyone has filters that they see the world through. Which set are you using?
Here's an intereting notion: how about seeing it as it actually is, rather than filtering it? You could even consider seeing your candidates that way.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Perhaps because even intelligent people don't necessarily agree about things, especially when talking about the existence or nature of supernatural, which is by definition impossible to verify either way with science. It is possible to be intelligent and a man of science and still believe in supernatural; "intelligent" doesn't mean "thinks like I do".
A more cynical part of me suggests that he's using that intellect to predict the reactions to such proclamation, and has decided it would likely cost him more support than it'd gain.
You know, "I think they lied" is not a very convincing way of rebutting statistical data you don't like. Some might even suggest you're not being very scientific, and not looking at reality as it is, but rather through a filter ;).
Sadly, that is impossible. At it's most fundamental known level the world is just a list of properties (spin, place, velocity, etc.) of various particles. Extracting any kind of useful data out of that requires interpreting them; for example, your ability to see is based on your brain interpreting the chemical changes in your retina as reflecting the energy of photons hitting it, while your ability to read this text is your brain interpreting certain patterns of black and white as equivalent to speech.
Basically, there is no objective reality beyond that fundamental level; everything besides the list of properties of basic particles is just you interpreting that list with a filter that gives you information you consider relevant. A photon in a particular state is in that state objectively, but a dead rabbit might be a curiosity, insignificant, or a meal, depending on who you ask; if it's been dead long enough, some might even argue that it isn't rabbit but dust.
This gets even worse with political candidates, because the very same candidate, who's message is understood and character and abilities judged in the exactly same way by two people, might be considered entirely differently by them, depending on the filter of what they consider desirable.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.