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.
I was under the impression that neither candidate has *defined* what they mean by NN. If either has defined it well and I've missed it, let me know. Until then, meh.
Reply to That ||
Subject says it all. Looks like smart people are going for Obama, shocking.
"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." My, you sure do like the spoils system, huh?
Anyway, I'm voting for Obama - he doesn't believe in charging women to get rape exams; he is pro-choice; he is for net neutrality; he didn't pick his running mate based on tits and ovaries (And I don't mean McCain picked Palin because she has nice ones. I mean he picked her because she just HAS tits and ovaries); he doesn't support abstinence only education; his economic plan makes more sense to me.
Also, all these people who are like "OMG his name is Barack Hussein Obama, he's a terrorist!" really should go read about a) the muslim religion b) why he has that name.
Show this to your friends and family that don't know what a real hacker is
Because Obama has a middle name that is middle eastern he is a terrorist? When Bush Sr. gives Bin Laden power because he gives him weapons and money to fight the Russians in Afghanistan or when Rumsfeld is seen shaking hands with Saddam because they are good friends that's OK. Obama was once on a school board with a guy who was a terrorist and he's paling around with terrorists. What should we say about the McBush group then?
http://www.nsm88nj.com/images/saddam_rumsfeld.jpg
I hear Obama uses Windows and McCain uses Linux and a Mac AT THE SAME TIME!!!
I live in Virginia in the Washington D.C. metro area. I've been exposed to avid fans from both sides and have decided I won't be voting for McCain. Why? Read the fifth paragraph down in this article to get an idea of what one sometimes has to deal with. And all I need to do is peruse factcheck.org to see who's lying about what.
Call me stupid & naive for desiring a non-manipulative president but I've been nonplussed with the McCain campaign (and Fox News for that matter). Both candidates twisted each others words but I haven't been exposed to many negative ads against McCain. I wish I didn't have to vote for either of them, we'll still be at war four years from now regardless of who wins--it's probably just a matter of how many countries we'll be at war with.
My work here is dung.
Good for them. If they don't want to share, that's their prerogative. If Vint Cerf or anyone else does want to share, that's their prerogative as well. Or don't you believe in free speech?
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
Net neutrality is around #75 on my priority list of important issues to consider when electing a president.
Besides, net neutrality would be legislated by the congress, not the president. The next president will have very little impact on net neutrality.
The trouble with all the third parties is that, because they are not mainstream, they attract all the nuts and crazies. Take the Libertarian party. As one example, right in their platform, they say they want to sell off the national parks. Now, you may think that's a great idea, but I think it's fair to say that most people think that's not just radical, but outright insane.
And when you get to other common Libertarian beliefs that may not necessarily be in the platform, such as 100% private fire departments, 100% private roads, unlimited right to bear arms (e.g., private nukes), any candidate that actually got within sniffing distance of power would be radioactive.
And the Libertarians are actually the most reasonable party. The other ones are out and out loony bin material.
Americans will vote for a third party candidate, if he's viable -- look at Perot, who had a serious shot at the Presidency until he self-destructed. What we need is a *real* party formed by reasonable people with a reasonable platform. A combination of the best parts of the theoretical Republicans (e.g., small, limited government, embrace of free market Capitalism, strong defense) with the best parts of the theoretical Democrats (strong privacy, moderate regulation). Mixed, most importantly, with MODERATION.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
The one good point with McCain is that we are in zero danger of him having extra marital sex. There isn't a female alive who would sleep with that old fool.
But the simple truth is I would not vote for any Republican under any circumstances. I have suffered enough from their idiotic policies and I am sick to death of the rampant corruption within the republican party. And this sewage with Bush allowing torture of POWs is enough to almost turn me into a radical, militant activist.
A.) What was it again that Ayers was convicted of? And what was his sentence?
B.) Here is Bill Ayers CV: http://cryptome.org/ayers-vita.doc - It's 49 pages long. Sounds like he might be a good person to know.
"The ferrets, they're every where I tell you!"