Slashdot Mirror
Internet Co-inventor Vint Cerf Endorses Obama
SEAActionFund writes "Vint Cerf, Google's Chief Internet Evangelist who also happens to be credited with co-founding the Internet, submitted a video to our AVoteforScience YouTube challenge. In it he discusses the importance of net neutrality and endorses Barack Obama specifically because he supports net neutrality (John McCain does not.)
The AVoteForScience challenge calls upon scientists to upload videos to YouTube explaining who they are voting for and why. The first two videos were by Cerf and the 2008 Nobel Prize winner in Chemistry Marty Chalfie. Any Slashdotters game for explaining who they are voting for and why?" Still waiting for one of the campaigns to ask for my endorsement, which is totally available to whichever campaign offers me the better cabinet seat.
It boils down to: can content carries make cost changes to providers or content.
For example (totally made up):
Comcast and AT&T really like Disney, Disney made a large 'Donation' to AT&T: In a net-newtral world, there is not a lot anyone can do, or notice, however *without* it: Comcast / AT&T can give priority to Disney / NBC content over say, NickJr.com.
It also allows them to charge Google big$ because 'oh my god, they use all our bandwidth answering search requests' The fallacy there (and what the lawmakers seems to be missing) is that Google *already pays* for a connection from their data centers to the Tubes...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality :)
for all the gory details
Write in votes are only counted as "write-in" and not as a write in for a specific person. The only exception to this is if someone files the paperwork to have their write in's counted, or they could make a difference. So a write in vote for Ron Paul isn't really different than a write in for Elmer Fudd. You will probably send a stronger message by voting for Bob Barr.
http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/3513.041
Actually looked up the code in Ohio here and right in the 1st paragraph it says:
Write-in votes shall not be counted for any candidate who has not filed a declaration of intent to be a write-in candidate pursuant to this section.
This being true ... I don't understand why you got modded down to zero.
http://politics.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/10/09/1256235 links to the candidates defined positions.
ACM link
(shamelessly stolen from the Wikipedia article on Vint Cerf)
Bingo. Anyone who will vote for somebody based on their skin color or gender (or any other criteria the person has zero control over) isn't using their brain. Vote on the candidate who represents your views the best.
I know one bitter Clinton supporter who claims she is going to vote for McCain. She can't come up with one valid reason why she is giving her support to Sarah Palin - who is the absolute polar opposite of her views. I just don't get it.
"But this one goes to 11!"
Why is this rumor still being touted as true? Palin never made any woman pay for any rape test. No one did. It's all bullshit.
everything in moderation
One of McCain's close friends is G Gordon Liddy (documented a bit on Wikipedia), who McCain claims to admire. This is after Liddy masterminded Watergate, planned assassinations of anti-Republican politicians for Nixon, the firebombing of political enemies, and advocated the murder of federal agents. The association between McCain and Liddy is much closer than the one between Obama and Ayers, includes Liddy fund raising for McCain, and Liddy is much worse of a terrorist than Ayers ever was.
"I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
One of McCain's close friends is G Gordon Liddy (documented a bit on Wikipedia), who McCain claims to admire.
Which, the parts marked "[citation needed]" or the part marked "This article or section may contain original research or unverified claims."?
Ayers not only doesn't feel any remorse about bombing federal buildings, he published memoirs about it! And Obama didn't just go on his radio show, Obama actively worked with him in politics!
Libby didn't try and kill people. Ayers did. Trying to equate the two is beyond ridiculous.
Well, AC, if you look at the Wikipedia article under "Relationship with Senator John McCain" there are two citations, one of which is a quotation from McCain himself. Neither "citation needed" nor "unverified claims" appears there. Maybe you were thinking of someone else named "Libby," but I was discussing Liddy.
Obama condemned Ayers' actions, and his "active work" with him in politics was working in a charity organization partially funded by McCain's some of McCain's political allies (notice that McCain doesn't attack the charity, since he and Obama both support it). Let's just let the well cited Wiki article speak for me here:
"The two met "at a luncheon meeting about school reform."[41] Obama was named to the Chicago Annenberg Challenge Project Board of Directors to oversee the distribution of grants in Chicago. Later in 1995, Ayers hosted "a coffee" for "Mr. Obama's first run for office."[42] The two served on the board of a community anti-poverty group, the Woods Fund of Chicago, between 2000 and 2002, during which time the board met twelve times.[42] In April 2001, Ayers contributed $200 to Obama's re-election fund to the Illinois State Senate.[41] Since 2002, there has been little linking Obama and Ayers.[42]"
Obama was involved in various good causes in his neighborhood and Ayers was involved in one of them. Obama didn't ever give Ayers anything, didn't put him on the board of this organization, and never said anything about his terrorist past other than condemning it.
Liddy did specifically try to murder people, though indirectly. He wanted other people to do it for him. Just because his personal physical presence was limited (as far as we know) to breaking and entering in order to win a presidential election and extend a war in Vietnam doesn't mean that his detailed plans for murder and drawn up for Nixon and given to the public at large after the Waco nonsense in the 90s didn't have a bigger negative effect on people's lives than Ayers' non-lethal (but absolutely evil, and they easily could have been lethal) insane attacks.
Ayers is a grass roots whacko, while Liddy was (and still is) backed by corrupt politicians. They both did terrible things, and Obama has condemned Ayers while McCain said he's proud of Liddy. Note the citation in that Wiki article. I agree with the Obama campaign, however, in that I don't believe McCain's "association" with Liddy is relevant to the election. I only bring it up to show that the pot is calling the kettle black.
"I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
The poor tend not to remain poor, and the highest earners tend to turn over quite a bit as well. And here's a hint: the poor who improve their standings are the ones who don't rely on forced redistribution of wealth through taxation.
Let's talk about the real world.
The poor in the US do tend to stay poor, and the rich stay fairly rich, in general. There isn't as much churn as you imply. In fact, 40% of the population controls less than 1% of the wealth. And here's a hint: that 40% works very hard, in general, simply to maintain shelter and food.
Just in case you intended to imply that working hard makes you financially successful: that's not supported by evidence. In fact, the evidence suggests that those that are well-off by birth tend to have a much higher financial success rate than those that are not well-off by birth.
However, it's rare a poor person can become financially-successful by sitting on their ass, either.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.