Slashdot Mirror


McCain Answers Science Policy Questionnaire

thebestsophist writes "A couple weeks ago, I reported that Barack Obama had answered a questionnaire by Scientists and Engineers for America. McCain has now answered that questionnaire as well. You can also compare their answers. Perhaps with help from the Slashdot community, we can get all the Congressional candidates as well?"

28 of 829 comments (clear)

  1. Innovation by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 5, Informative
    In the "innovation" category, one of the first things McCain mentions is

    "I am committed to streamlining burdensome regulations and effectively protecting American intellectual property in the United States and around the globe."

    I'll leave it up to the rest of you to flame McCain for that! I believe that it is also worth mentioning that Obama didn't bring up "regulation" or "protecting intellectual property" at all, especially not in the first paragraph as McCain did.

    1. Re:Innovation by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 5, Informative

      Not surprised. McCain's made no secret of his desire to have Steve Ballmer in his cabinet. Ballmer himself probably put those words right in McCain's mouth

    2. Re:Innovation by bill_kress · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It'll make a lot more sense when you realize that we only have one party, and both wings of the Commercial party are pretty much the same when it comes to issues like NAFTA and DMCA and copyright.

      I don't believe Obama is "in", so I'm fairly sure he'll be neutralized. It will either be strange voting machine results or something worse...

    3. Re:Innovation by eln · · Score: 5, Funny

      John McCain is a puppet of the Jew.

      Sure, but which Jew? I bet it's Woody Allen, since they have so much in common: They both used to be entertaining and relevant, but now they're just churning out derivative crap.

      On the other hand, it could be Joe Lieberman. Lieberman's clearly got his head up McCain's ass, he might have his hand up there too.

      Come on man, you can't leave us hanging like this: which Jew is controlling McCain?

    4. Re:Innovation by jellomizer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is Slashdot where almost everyone wants one of those nice R&D jobs. But yet they are against the ways of funding them. If you are going to spend 10 years of R&D and millions of dollars, more to fund the R&D that doesn't work, or product a commercial use. Then have competition use that Idea and make a competing product the next month, and able to product it cheaper because they didn't spend the millions for R&D themselves.

      So what will the smart business man do. There isn't any money in R&D and more in blatant copying. So those nice R&D Jobs get reduced or killed. Leaving you to either take a boring job, or going back to the Education Sector and have 3/4 of your job begging for money, and 1/4 actually do real R&D.

      When analyzing these laws you need to remember rule #1, IT IS AN IMPERFECT WORLD AND THERE WILL NEVER BE A PERFECT WORLD. IP Law yes protects those big heartless corporations, but without them you may not have a job. A heartless companies are not in it for the good of man kind, but to make money, if you can do both great if they conflict then the good of man kind will get shafted. IP Protection helps isolate the risks of R&D costs, and makes it possible for Greed and Humanity to work together for a common output.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    5. Re:Innovation by superberg · · Score: 5, Funny

      This is the point, where an honest man in your shoes either commits suicide or promises to vote for a Republican as a penance...

      Now, now, two wrongs don't make a right.

    6. Re:Innovation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Come on man, you can't leave us hanging like this: which Jew is controlling McCain?

      Jesus. Oh wait, that's Palin.

    7. Re:Innovation by flitty · · Score: 5, Insightful
      This quote is probably the most important...

      "When you control the pipe you should be able to get profit from your investment."

      So, in mccain's view, Comcast has "control" of the pipe, and can do as they see fit. Don't forget that.

      --
      Whether or not there is some sort of god, I'm not supposed to say/god is a word and the argument ends there-Smog
    8. Re:Innovation by eonlabs · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It always feels like the issue here is that everyone wants to take sides and polarize the issue to the point that arguing about it is absurd.

      How about looking at some of the gray levels here, because there are plenty of them.

      IP was originally useful when data transferral was significantly slower, when the industries involved did not evolve beyond recognition in 5 years, and when the people granting patents and the like were somewhat knowledgeable of their field.

      The usual statement is that IP law is to protect the people who paid for the research to allow them to recover what went into it. This is STILL APPLICABLE. I completely agree with the parent in this regard. The problem people have with patent law is that it no longer seems applicable. A patent lasts for too long for the amount of innovation involved in the tech industry.

      Three words:
      One Click Patent

      Because the balance is off in the tech sector, the benefits are being trumped. Patent law should exist. It needs to adapt to changing times. It isn't, so people who don't reap the benefits of it want to see it go away.

      Thoughts?

      --
      I wouldn't consider the mad hatter mad. Just reality impaired. He sure can make a mean cup of tea.
    9. Re:Innovation by mcgrew · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This quote is probably the most important

      Never listen to a candidate speak. All politicans are liars. Like the politician in the movie The Hunt for Red October (which ironically had one of the Republican Presidential candidates before McCain sewed it up, former actor Senator Fred Thompson), "Son, I'm a politician. When I'm not kissing babies I'm stealing their candy". (Thompson played a boat captain, not the politician, the line I quote was a different actor)

      Rather, look at how they've voted. unfortunately, Obama's a first term Senator and hasn't cast enough votes to get a good picture of where he really stands.

      It looks to me like McCain will be the next President. If so, since he's a Republican following a two term President who completely ruined the economy (like I said in great detail in a slashdot journal, Hoover for President!,
      the next Herbert Hoover will also be a Republican.

      The similarities I pointed out in that linked journal get scarier every day.

      The losers in this Presidential race (we have five viable candidates, I'm voting for Barr) will be the real winners.

      I sincerely hope I'm wrong. I fear I'm right.

      Yesterday in a bar, a black man called me a racist because I'm voting for the Libertarian candidate instead of Obama. To a black racist, any white person who votes against Obama is, ironically, a racist. I wonder what he'd have said if I'd said "McKinney" rather than "Barr"? Since neither McKinney nor Barr will win, maybe I should vote for that nutjob McKinney so I can say I voted for "the black woman".

      As I pointed out to the racially-obsessed gentleman, Illinois' electors will be voting for Obama no matter who I vote for. And considering that I believe the next President will be the 21st century Hoover, if Obama wins it will set black people back a generation.

      Neither Republicrat candidate, in my opinion, will be good for us nerds. We're fuX0red, unfortunately.

    10. Re:Innovation by Angostura · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Thanks for putting this near the top

      All politicans are liars.

      It flagged up that I should be wary about the level of sophistication of the rest of your argument. All politicians are liars is a great sound-bite, and it might be a fashionable sentiment, but there's no evidence that the statement is true. I'm not a politician, and I belong to know political party, but many of the local politicians I've dealt with spend a lot of time dealing with hard, tedious local matters and are in the business of helping the local community. They are not *liars* except to the extent that we all are.

    11. Re:Innovation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      As a bit of explanation, he probably called you a racist because Barr is a notorious bigot. Likewise, many Libertarian Party members are white supremacists using their party line as an excuse for their politics (note how many of them are in favor of repealing the Civil Rights acts, as well as Ron Paul's opposition to the 14th Amendment). Maybe the problem isn't that you weren't voting for Obama, but that you're voting against that guy's human rights?

    12. Re:Innovation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      I dunno. When I play pocket pool, It's a zero sum game between inflation and deflation.

    13. Re:Innovation by k1e0x · · Score: 5, Interesting

      What? You clearly do not understand.

      The reason Libertarians are moving away from the LP (Libertarian Party) is because like you, nobody knows what that word means anymore. I mean who can blame people for being confused when you have people like Glenn Beck and Bob Barr calling themselves Libertarian. Much less people like you describing it.

      Ron Paul's a huge states-rights advocate who runs with the Libertarians, because they share the common goal of reducing the size of the Federal government, even though his views on state government are borderline tyrannical.

      Ron Paul not being an anarchist supports the Constitution. You have heard him call himself a Constitutionalist before right? I think you misunderstand the 10th amendment but clearly Paul has the correct understanding of it. States really do have the freedom to enact a varying degree of laws you or I might call tyrannical, that does not mean they will, and even if they did local government is much easier to change than federal government, AND EVEN if you couldn't there are 49 other states to go to that compete with each other for your tax money. Your comments makes it sound like Ron Paul is only a libertarian because he is a closet authoritarian wanting to use the powers of the states, and that is absolutely wrong. If you read Paul's writing you will see that he absolutely understands the danger that government proposes to people, he is on the ball with some of the best libertarian minds that there ever was.. in fact.. many of his campaign positions are out of whack with what could only logically be his philosophy.. It is my believe he takes those positions because he is pandering to the right wing base.

      Their belief is generally that the government (at all levels) should only do things that individuals absolutely, positively cannot do for themselves. In many cases this actually does include civil rights and gun control to a certain extent.

      So, what you are basically saying is that Some "so called" Libertarians believe that people can not have "civil rights" or gun control without government.
      If you believe that then you CAN NOT logically have a sound understanding of the nature and concept of rights.

      The term "civil rights" is pleonastic description of rights. You have "rights" and they are all the same. You do not need to separate your rights into individually divided groups, such as "civil rights", "existing rights", "breathing rights", etc. Also "civil rights" implies that these are rights awarded to citizens, or that only citizens have rights. It is a ridiculous concept and I will explain why.

      To have a right is to have the supreme authority over something. If you have a right to something you do not need to ask anyone for permission to do something with what you have a right to. The reason you have rights is because you own your body, you own your life and you own your liberty. No other person can claim ownership over you, just as you can not claim ownership over other peoples lives. Rights are supreme authority over some piece of property and they can not be given or taken away, they can be infringed upon but are never lost.

      The opposite of a right is a privilege. This is where someone with supreme authority over something allows or grants you an ability to use it. To make this simple lets say you buy a pizza from someone else. You have justly acquired your property and now you can do whatever it is you like with it, even stuff it in your mouth, and you do not need to ask anyone for permission to do so. You have a right to this pizza. However if someone else owns this pizza you must ask if you may have some, they own it, and grant you a permission, or a privilege to have some.

      So the distinction between rights and privileges is important. Privileges mean you have to ask someone of higher authority, rights means asking a higher authority is not necessary because there is no higher authority. Privileges are granted bu the higher authority

      --
      Bringing liberty to the masses. - http://freetalklive.com/
  2. Who really wrote the answers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Come on, are we to believe that the candidates actually wrote their own replies to these questions? I wonder how many people came up with the answers.

  3. Old Skool Science Mavericks by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Palin is a Creationist. McCain is a fossil.

    Of course they'll talk a good science game (after farming that questionnaire out to one of the lobbyist lawfirms that make up their campaign) when the geeks ask during a campaign. Then these "Compassionate Conservatives" will just show they were lying once they're past the Election Day "accountability moment", and get the power to drag us all back to the Stone Age.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:Old Skool Science Mavericks by furball · · Score: 5, Funny

      But Palin is a hot Creationist. It's like an equation. After hot, you can drop everything else.

    2. Re:Old Skool Science Mavericks by aproposofwhat · · Score: 5, Funny

      Palin is a Creationist [google.com]. McCain is a fossil.

      Does that mean that Palin believes that McCain was carefully buried by God to confuse the evil Darwinists?

      --
      One swallow does not a fellatrix make
    3. Re:Old Skool Science Mavericks by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So you're saying that Palin has more experience than McCain to be president. Why not reverse the ticket (other than basic sanity, because she is indeed even worse than McCain).

      Palin's "executive experience", like McCain's non-executive experience, is bad experience. George Bush has loads more executive experience - and I expect that you, Anonymous Republican Coward, would prefer more Bush.

      Oh, as for the rest of your zombie Republican talking points: When Obama said that deciding the moment when a collection of 46 chromosomes becomes legally a "human life" is "above his pay grade", he was referring to god. I thought you faithy Republicans went nuts for that kind of thing, not against it. And you've got a lot of nerve to whine about "voting present" when #1: Bush hasn't even been present for most of his catastrophic reign (though Cheney has no plans to leave the Cheney Bunker from which he's run the country the past 8 years). And #2: McCain has not even been present in the Senate for most of the past two years, even though Obama, Clinton, Biden, Dodd and the rest managed to do their jobs while campaigning.

      And finally, thanks for admitting that you think that Barack Obama is a "secret Muslim". Though of course his Christian pastor hates America, too.

      Being a Republican means never having to make any sense at all. Just stay scared and cowering at anything Karl Rove cooks up, and everyone will be OK. Except that after 8 years of Bush, ruling at the end of 12 years of the Republican Congress, every national institution is in a shambles. You personally are worse off than you were 4 years ago. Unless that is really you, Karl Rove, fat from your reign of terror, and sucking up yet more paychecks for yet another Republican campaign "gone wild".

      You sick bastard.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

  4. Re:The best answer to the science questionnaire by Tekzel · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That would NOT be a good idea. The reason is simple, businesses almost NEVER do pure research. Its hard to turn the results directly into money, and (rightfully) that is all a business is there for. Taxpayer funded programs do the pure research, then businesses take the result and do the research needed to turn that into a product. Take the Fed out of research and a lot of innovation will come to a grinding halt.

  5. I hate these; they are SOOO rigged by WindBourne · · Score: 5, Insightful

    All of these kind of things are answered to encourage whatever somebody wants to believe. In the end, I think that we are far better off looking at the candidates voting record AND life. Look at W. He has bankrupted multiple companies; he mismanaged and lied on a number of items PRIOR to running as pres. Clinton, well known womanizer PRIOR to president. reagan, nixon, etc all had their issues before they got president (reagan ran up monster deficit in CA, and then got out of trouble because JFK started NASA).

    What it comes down to, is these ppl already have their behavior in place. Just look at how they acted over the last 5 years and it will give you a better idea of what to expect.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  6. The site by mikesd81 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    does not at all have what McCain feels about science. It's just alot of "according to" or "on this date" or "this Reporter reported" There's absolutely nothing saying where he personally stands.

    --
    That which does not kill me only postpones the inevitable.
  7. How the heck??? by DnemoniX · · Score: 5, Funny

    McCain must have had some help with this, we all know he doesn't use computers, doesn't know how to use e-mail and admittedly depends upon his wife for that. Talk about out of touch with the 21st Century. How is he ever supposed to become a Cybernetic Overlord? I mean really!

    Vote Cthulhu 08
    Why vote for a lesser evil when you can vote for a greater one!

  8. HOT? I think NOT. by MosesJones · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Seriously the standard of "hotness" is phenomenally low in US politics. We are talking here about someone who came 2nd in Miss Alaska (population 600,000) in a state where less than 50% of the people are female and isn't exactly known as the place where attractive people flock to. Hell this makes her less attractive than the 2nd most attractive person in DETROIT (population over 800k).

    Never before has a media image of what you should think been so quickly accepted by people. Palin isn't hot, she isn't an ugly bird but she isn't a stunner. Lets concentrate on her madly insane political views (abstinence teaching working for you kids Mrs Palin?) and not listen to the media's view of attractive. Put it this way, do you think that Fox News would have her as an anchor? Of course not, a we know that hot is their only real criteria.

    Hot in Alaska? Let put politics first.

    On the other hand look at FRENCH politics if you want seriously hot politicians with incredibly well educated views.

    --
    An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
  9. Re:The best answer to the science questionnaire by Sloppy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We The People need to take responsibility for getting things done, instead of deferring every concern to government.

    "Private sector" does not necessarily have to be a synonym for "profit-oriented business." Imagine if the same portion of your paycheck's federal withholding that is being spent by the feds on science, were instead voluntarily contributed, by you, to a foundation of your choosing. Imagine choosing foundations based on the directors' expertise in science and grant proposal selection, instead of choosing senators and reps and presidents based on a such huge array of factors.

    There is no reason we should have to use the same small group to make every decision. When you put politicians in charge of this stuff, you get situations where, say, a certain party's position on global warming, embryonic stems cells, etc. matters. Their opinions on these things shouldn't matter. We send them to Washington to set policies based on the topics mentioned in Article 1 Section 8 of the constitution, not to vote on whether or not to believe scientists. Think about how absurd it is for them to voting on science.

    We could be voting with our wallets instead. We don't need a republic for this. The possible tyrannies of democracy aren't a threat here; one person's decision to fund research doesn't take anything away from you, in the way that passing laws or pointing guns can.

    --
    As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
  10. Palin's Experience by BodhiCat · · Score: 5, Funny

    In her interview with Charles Gibson, Sarah Palin claimed to have foreign policy experience because, "You can see Russia from Alaska." Is this true? Is Alaska so close to Russia that you can see it? From a world map we can see that the state of Alaska is indeed close to Russia. (Use Google Maps) They seem to be closest at the Seward Peninsula. But, both the peninsula and the part of Russia that it is opposite are snow covered mountainous regions that are separated by about 50 miles of the storm tossed Bering Strait. Not a likely invasion route. But since they are 50 miles apart how can you "see Russia from Alaska"? Well between the two peninsulas there are two islands Big Diomede and Little Diomede. Big Diomede is indeed owned by Russia and Little Diomede is part of Alaska, since they are separated by about 2 miles of ocean, you can indeed see one from the other. Little Diomede is 2.8 square miles and has a population of 146, mostly Native Americans who make their living from whaling and ivory carving. Not a tempting target for Russia. So where did Palin get the idea that Russia is such an immediate security threat to Alaska? Well, if you look at the Risk game board there is indeed a dotted line where you can move armies from Russian territory to Alaska. Is playing Risk where she really got her foreign policy experience?

  11. Serious differences in world view by lakshmanok · · Score: 5, Insightful
    There are serious differences in the world-view between the two candidates.

    Two examples:

    (1) Obama wants to improve science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education by broadening its scope beyond just science and engineering majors:

    All American citizens need high quality STEM education that inspires them to know more about the world around them, engages them in exploring challenging questions, and involves them in high quality intellectual work. STEM education is no longer only for those pursuing STEM careers; it should enable all citizens to solve problems, collaborate, weigh evidence, and communicate ideas.

    whereas McCain sees science as being for geeks only. He wants more geeks, so the rest of the country don't have to bother their pretty heads while getting law and business degrees:

    The diminishing number of science, technology, engineering and math graduates at the college level poses a fundamental and immediate threat to American competitiveness. We must fill the pipeline to our colleges and universities with students prepared for the rigors of advanced engineering, math, science and technology degrees.

    (2) Obama sees technology leadership as being essential to national security:

    It's essential to create a coherent new defense technology strategy to meet the kinds of threats we may faceâ"asymmetric conflicts, urban operations, peacekeeping missions, and cyber, bio, and proliferation threats, as well as new kinds of symmetric threats.

    whereas McCain sees national security as essentially just military superiority:

    As President, I will strengthen the military, shore up our alliances, and ensure that the nation is capable of protecting the homeland, deterring potential military challenges, responding to any crisis that endangers American security, and prevailing in any conflict we are forced to fight.

    For more contrasts, see my blog post