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.
...because no one is better qualified to make a decisiono on politics than someone whose expertise is in a completely unrelated field. I wonder who JaRule is indorsing.
A staggering number of people in this country dont believe results that these scientists / engineers come up with, I don't think the (Quoting Palin) *ahem* 'Joe Six Packs' of this nation care.
This election is going to come down to what it always does, who has: 'who's the candidate I can see having a beer with'
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=17316144
I'm voting for Barr because neither one of the Republicrat candidates represent my views.
It is my belief that representing you views is the only reason you should vote for any candidate, but the voting population has been gamed for so long they are like Pavlov's dog.
There is a war going on for your mind.
Growing up, my parents had the same answer to the two following questions: 1. How much money do you make? 2. Who are you voting for? The answer? None of your damn business.
meh
I think a vote for or against someone because of a single view, be it abortion stance, environmental stance, or net neutrality stance is not exactly the best way to go about things. If you boil things down to one really narrow issue and vote solely on that you run the risk of voting in 9 evils for the 1 "good" idea you're passionate about.
No joke but I'm planning to write in Ron Paul. I don't like either of the major party candidates.
I like Obama's stance on Net Neutrality and the War. But I am pro-gun and anti-taxes and the Democrats historically as a party don't agree with my positions.
On the other hand, I've never cared for McCain (even in 2000). I don't like the statement he made during the primary campaign about leaving troops in Iraq for 100 years. He would be more likely to support my gun and tax positions but I think it would pretty much end there. He's not a true fiscal conservative nor does he seem to be a defender of individual liberties and I believe we'd get another 4 years of intrusive huge government.
I've been considering voting for Bob Barr but I think the Ron Paul write-in sends a better message.
"Us" being the news media. Quite simply, he needs to create a more compelling narrative on change and get angry about something. Our ratings depend on it. Attack ads! Push polls! We need material!
We need the argument that this is an election with two choices - not just one popular dynamic guy and one old past-it guy. That's not a compelling media narrative!
Obama's 2:1 advantage in the Electoral College is far too confusing for our viewers. We need to re-run polls until we get one with a 1% change, never mind the 3% error margin. It's sooo close! Experts say it's a wake-up call! Better keep your eyes glued to the screen! Oh my goodness!
If Obama can just pull ahead between now and November 4, he may become President Barack Obama ... Or not! Who knows? You need to keep watching! Right here! Stay tuned!
http://rocknerd.co.uk
The problem with charging women up to 1200 dollars for a rape exam is that it discourages legitimate claims.
I actually like your idea of how to fix this, but it'll never work. There's too much money involved for common sense to be useful.
Also, wrt your comment "I'm not out raping people and I don't feel that I should have to foot any portion of the bill, through my tax dollars." People who don't have kids in school still pay that part of the tax. The whole reason we have taxes beyond what is necessary to run a skeletal government is to provide for the public good - education, criminal justice, things like that.
I just had another thought of how to get the money back. Let's say 1 out of 10 rapists is caught. That's 12000 dollars that someone has to pay - make the one rapist pay it. Basically, charge them to make up for however much is being spent without result. And, in cases of women crying 'wolf' (claiming rape when it didn't happen) charge the women who make false claims.
Show this to your friends and family that don't know what a real hacker is
Not wanting to start anything but I'm just curious who should be paying for the rape exams if not the people who are actually using them?
Okay, so... The state is using them, so the state should pay for them. It is criminal evidence, not a medical procedure. We don't make murder victim's estates pay for gathering murder evidence, either. It's in the general good to prosecute criminals, and it's been accepted that evidence gathering is the responsibility of the police and paid for by the state. Why rape should be any different is beyond me.
E pluribus unum
Moreover, he's the only candidate willing to make the tough decisions. If you make a mistake, ever, in your life, don't worry. He will rescue you. Get a loan you can't afford? No problem! Make bad decisions that lead to failure? Glad to help! Want a free lunch? Here you go! Short-sighted? Your vision's fine - it's the long-sighted that need glasses!
The only people that have to worry are those greedy bastards who only care about profit, efficiency, and getting good, reliable workers for their money. You don't need an expert to build a bridge - the labor force is the one that does all the work, after all.
[/sarcasm]
I would no sooner vote for McCain, either. They both would sooner hang your rights in effigy than make a promise that reality says can be kept.
but that doesn't matter
what matters is i VOTE
anyone reading this who is not going to vote, i have nothing for you but the most withering disgust i can muster
there are many arguments as to why it is important for you to vote, but here's probably the best one i can think of right now:
2,912,790 to 2,912,253
it gave us the last 8 years of fail
in these numbers, are those responsible for our worst president ever
next election, don't let the source of our failure be you
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
The only advice I can give to any voter without trying to endorse anyone, Do not cast a punishment vote (vote for A because B from the other party did X). Think what offer each one, think what is doable and what is a complete lie or impossible promise, and vote for the one you think will do the best
"who should be paying for the rape exams if not the people who are actually using them? [...] Why should that be the general taxpayer?"
I got 5 mod points, but I can't help but replying instead of using the points.
The mere fact that people that like you exist in the same world as me scares the living shit out of me. Whatever happened to having even the slightest touch of basic human compassion? Is the financial bottom line really THAT important to you, that you cannot fathom spending a few bucks on a fellow human being? Why should the tax payers pay for rape exams you ask? Because it's the fucking decent fucking thing to do, that's why!
GAWD! If I ever wished there was a way to stab someone in the face over the internet, now is the time. I hope you die from something painful.
SIG: TAKE OFF EVERY 'CAPTAIN'!!
Voting for a candidate because they are either prolife or prochoice is the dumbest decision ever. In 8 years, none of that is going to change regardless of who's president. Social issues are meant to distract the American public from the things that are really important. They are used as rallying cries, but in the end, little will change with any one of them. Believe me, they will still be issues meant to rally the Republican and Democrat base in 8 years. You as an Obama supporter and a likely democrat should know this simply because you may have lost the election 4 years ago because of the prolife vote. Everytime a candidate appeals to his base, I lose a little bit of respect for them. I'd rather them speak their mind about issues that they can do something about.... but they rarely do.
The upside of Endless War is that the more gullible of our rural tax-consuming citizens will offer their lives to a government that doesn't care about them.
The downside is the cost, death and destruction.
But given the 'salt of the earth' I've been hearing at McCain/Palin rallies...which is the lesser of the two weevils?
"rural tax-consuming" How do you figure that the rural areas consume more taxes?
Yeah! And I think dead people should pay for their own autopsies. After all, I didn't kill them.
What?
So Cerf having invented something of value, years ago, makes him a reliable commentator on things political?
No, Cerf having invented something that has grown beyond prediction while still using most of the same protocols, tells me that he is a smart guy and probably knows what he is talking about when it comes to the internet. I would not simply trust his economic ideas or his gardening tips.
This cuts to the core of our problems: responsible exercise of the franchise can't be left to the uninformed. I'm not speaking of Cerf, but of those who would change their minds simply because of his -- or any other -- endorsemen
Could not agree more with you on that one. The USA political system together with the biased media and the fake-isolationist attitude are almost guaranteed to lead to abismal results when it comes to voting capable people into offices. Simply put: US citizens are actively kept stupid.
Wenn ist das Nunstueck git und Slotermeyer? Ja! Beiherhund das Oder die Flipperwaldt gersput.
I agree! Where is my smaller government candidate? I don't think those actually exist anymore. I'll probably just end up writing in Ron Paul, not because I believe in everything he says and wants to do, but he's the only one who has shown he as ANY clue about the current financial mess we're in.
The taxpayer pays for every other police procedure. If your house is burgled they take fingerprints, etc and they don't charge you for that. That's what the police are *FOR*. That's what we pay taxes *FOR*.
Think about that. Not one other police procedure involves the police saying to the victim "well, we can investigate, but it'll cost you". Not one. You get burgled, carjacked, mugged, assaulted, whatever and the police investigate and don't bill you a penny. What possible reason could there be for making rape the single exception to that rule?
I can think of two 1) those supporting this hate rape victims and want to make them suffer more than they already have, or 2) those supporting this want to make it even more difficult than it already is for women to report rapes and prosecutors to get convictions in rape cases.
McCain has voted against a federal bill mandating that rape exams be taxpayer funded (exactly like every other part of police work) every time the measure has come up. Under Palin Wasilla was the only city in Alaska to charge rape victims (but not the victims of any other type of crime) to investigate; the state of Alaska wound up passing a law banning the practice statewide for no reason but to force Palin to stop charging rape victims (but not the victims of any other crime) for the investigation.
But, before you go complaining about what a horrible thing it is to charge the taxpayers for rape investigations, remember that we charge the taxpayers for every other sort of investigation. Why would you get upset about the taxpayer footing the bill for rape investigation if you aren't similarly upset about the taxpayer footing the bill for murder investigation, or burglary investigation, or every other bit of work the police do?
"Mission Accomplished" -- George W. Bush May 1, 2003
But he supports net neutrality THIS WEEK.
He's so much into change, he happens to change his stance on issues weekly. I can see that he's a smooth talker, but it's hard for me to rally behind anyone whose convictions waffle around seemingly at random.
What happens if he is elected and then some lobbyist comes along with an agenda, convinces Obama that net neutrality is the devil, and all of a sudden Obama reneges?
The short answer? I'll believe it when I see it.
Imagine not paying for the exam. The responsibility then falls on the victim who may be poor or broke and say 'I can't afford that so I guess there will be no evidence of rape' or the victim may be a minor raped by a family member/guardian - why would the rapist want to pay for evidence against himself?
The problem is his association with Bill Ayers a unapoligetic terrorist.
And the head of McCain's transition team used to lobby for Saddam Hussien. Playing the "associations" game is asinine, because there isn't a person on this planet that can't be connected to an unsavory person in one or two steps.
classic how your version of compassion only applies to certain situations.
Yes. I lack compassion for those who completely lack it themselves. If possible I would wish upon them, and only them, the world that they wish for, so they could see the cruelty of their ways without others suffering for it. Then maybe they would gain some compassion for others, and thus be deserving of some.
I don't see how this is hypocritical at all. I have compassion for the victim of rape. I have no compassion for someone who lacks compassion for the victim of rape.
The enemies of Democracy are
I'm ambivalent towards dogs. I think any dog that attacks a person (yes, without justification) twice should be put down and their owner charged with assault. Far better to put the dog down the first time, or at least keep it penned such that it can NEVER happen again.
I'm tolerant towards other humans. I think people who can't see the value of stopping criminals who probably won't target them (not too many rapists targeting males, and the odds are the OP was male) deserve to be called down in public, and I, too, hope they suffer something tragic and very personal in the (very faint) hope that they gain enlightenment.
Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
Why do you Americans vote on what politicians say they will do, rather than on a track record of what they have actually done?
Is it common, in America, to be able to walk up to some stranger and have them agree in writing that they will be ruled by you for four years? And all you have to do in return is give them an oral, unenforceable promise that you will do various things that they like the sound of? I come from a former Soviet bloc country and I'd laugh if someone tried that to me, whether a stranger in the street or a face on the television - unless, perhaps, they'd shown themselves to act as they speak. With conviction and consistency. For decades.
Because smaller government for the sake of smaller government
There are actual principles of which the effect is a government smaller than the one now. For example, the only proper, justifiable role for the government is to support and uphold individual rights. A government that restricted itself to that would be much smaller than the one now. Saying I am "for small government" is just a shorthand reference to this principle.
this one has some merit, though Palin's precise role is unclear...
Palin had been the mayor of Wasilla for four years at the time, and a local paper reported that the Wasilla police chief, Charlie Fannon, defended the practice, saying he had billed women and their insurance companies for these tests rather than placing a "burden" on taxpayers.
I'd say that SOMEONE made the victims pay. Palin herself, personally, obviously didn't hand someone the bills. The police chief that she hired didn't personally do it either, I'm sure. Policy is still policy. You can delegate authority, but not responsibility.
I guess they are mistaken: Did Sarah Palin make rape victims pay...?
Your link at best does nothing to dispel the rumour.
Fine, so Palin didn't push the policy personally... it was instead done by Charlie Fannon, her handpicked appointee.
Given that she appointed him and was his superior, it's at least plausible that she provided some direction on this issue. And your factcheck link provides no evidence demonstrating she did not intervene.
> Science is all about the truth.
Except most scientists aren't. Remember your basic RAH, "Most scientists are button sorters and bottle washers." And science today is more politicized than at any point in history. Sorry, the same new deal nostrums delivered by some twit in a lab coat don't do it for me.
Scientists are people too, and subject to all the defects that come with it. Plus the all too common defect of thinking expertise in a narror area is applicable to topics far outside. Mr. Cerf is a good tech guy, but if he is actually voting based purely on net neutrality (which I don't believe for a femtosecond) he is a bigger fool than the single issue pro lifers.
> As Colbert said, they make facts based on decisions.
You mean like politicized scientists do? AIDS is going to break out into the general population any day now, you just wait! Breand name scientists told us that fairly tale back in the 1980s when you could at least argue they were just being cautious but they haven't stopped to this day to flog that story to keep the FUD levels up and keep the funding flowing. The best science available tells us the population of the polar bear has never been higher, but 'scientists' insisted it be classified as threatened for purely political reasons having nothing whatsoever with the polar bear. Riddle me this; if the polar bear is threatened by having record population what ovjective criteria will be used to determine it is no longer threatened? Yea, now the picture comes into focus.
> So we hear people saying that science is just another religion, and they say that like they really believe it.
Science by itself isn't a religion, but too many scientists seem to believe it is. Listen, science can't answer any of the important questions, life the universe and everything, WHY? etc. By definition it can't probe beyond the big bang, as far as science is conserned, beyond here be dragons is as good an answer any. It can't answer a single moral question. So why do scientists think otherwise? Why do they think being 'men of science' makes them qualified to expound of matters their training has left them totally unequipped to deal with? Once you try to extend 'science' to a total worldview that offers answers to "why" you have a religion. Religions don't have to have a "God" you know.
> And we can only speculate on what medical advances we could be benefiting from right now if only stem cell research hadn't been suppressed.
By suppressed you mean no government funding. Kinda says volumes about your world view now doesn't it. Private entities are unfettered in what they can do in this area, and the lack of federal funding for embyronic stem cell research has driven a multitude of new interesting options. You might not have a moral problem with it but millions and millions of taxpayers did. You might believe they are all ignorant hicks but in our Republic they do still get a vote. It would be just as wrong to seize their money and use it for things they consider an abomination than it would be to seize yours to build churches. You inability to see that makes you unfit to hold any public office.
Now since this topic is about our choices, here's mine:
McCain/Palin with a clothspin on my nose. But no money. Bad Republican, no check. Not only do I have the usual Republican objections to McCain for his RINO traits, McCain Feingold is the deal breaker for me. Void the 1st Amendment and I remember it forever. If he needed to atone for his minor role in the Keating Five he could have resigned or hell, go out back and shoot yerself if that is what ya gotta do but damned if I can see how totally violating one's Oath of Office redeems your Honor. So I can never vote FOR McCain.
Even though I have an unbroken record of voting for Republicans going back to Reagan in '84 I would have considered a Democrat vs McCain had they picked a sensible one. But the progression isn't promising now is it. Arkansas Horndog, Green Pope, Traitor and
Democrat delenda est
I typically vote republican, and I was a delegate to the republican county convention here in Nevada this year, but I've decided to vote Obama this year.
Maybe the man hasn't been in politics long enough, but there isn't any real dirt on the man. He really is a good honest man with a loving family. Contrast that with McCain. When McCain returned from Vietnam, both he and his (former) wife were vastly different people. No one would have blamed him for calling it quits on their marriage. Instead of caring for his crippled wife, he choose to live a fast life chasing any blond tail he could get his hands on. John McCain's moral compass points too far off true north for my vote. He even choose a running mate who is oblivious to her ethical shortcomings.
When I look at party platforms, I don't agree with a lot of Democratic ideals, but when I look at the man running for president, I see a man who has values that reflect my own.
The biggest problem with libertarians and other anti-tax people is that they feel they're ENTITLED to a quality of life above that of a lone subsistence farmer while simultaneously complaining when forced to support the society which makes such quality possible. Indeed, many rage against the government confiscating part of their income on the very Internet which was funded with those confiscated resources, completely ignoring the fact that they only have "income" because they live in an organized society that is kept running with that confiscated portion, and wondering why the general populace doesn't vote for them.
It comes down to having two mutually exclusive choices:
Most people consider the life and well-being of the majority of the citizens as well as the stability of the society to be more important than the right of the few to enjoy all the benefits of an organized society without paying any of the price. I know that that is shocking and stomach-turning to you, but try to understand that these people suffer from mental conditions called "empathy" and "thinking beyond your nose", so they really can't help it.
Tyranny of a few wealthy feudal lords isn't better, you know. Unless you happen to be one of them, of course. Do you perhaps fancy yourself John Galt ?
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Well that explains it. You support small government because it's "proper".
I could explain it in much more detail than this, if you'd like. You could also read the Constitution, early Founding Fathers, and Locke, for further guidance.
And anyone who disagrees with you is automatically giving everyone a free lunch and destroying bridges.
They are violating rights, yes.
Did you ever think about the consequences of your ideology? Like, what might happen if someone were batty enough to go out and implement it?
You've characterized it as "batty" but have not shown that your characterization is correct. Either provide an actual argument, rationale, or evidence to support your claim, or drop the label.