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.
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 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 ||
"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
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.
Are there people who cast their vote based on crap like this? One one hand it's cool to know why someone is supporting someone, so this is somewhat different than the usual "I support Joe" stuff we see plastered all over. I'm tired of all the signs everywhere showing me who the sign owner is supporting. You drive down the street and see signs for every candidate and it does absolutely nothing to further any particular candidate. It serves only as an eyesore. This is why I don't plaster my car with bumper stickers supporting anyone or anything. I live several sports teams but I don't need to announce that to the world on my bumper. In this race I once again can't stand either candidate (the last candidate I really supported in a presidential race was Reagan) and just wish we could get this over so the bloody signs will get taken down.
How is it that one careless match can start a forest fire, but it takes a whole box to start a campfire?
From someone who co-founded the Internet with Al Gore, who else would you expect him to endorse?
It's like asking Al Gore how he would build the internet. Oh wait...
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.
If you think ANY field is "unrelated" to politics, you arn't paying attention.
Where are we going, and why am I in this handbasket?
I really liked the last 8 years of Bush rule, so I'm going to vote for Nader again.
Non-neutral net:
It's basically treating someone else's (especially VoIP) packets like red-headed step-children, and giving your (especially VoIP) packets express treatment. That way, your "real-time" services rock, and the competition's suck wind.
The next thing to remember is to put next things next.
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.
So am I. I mean, Sarah Palin claims to understand foreign policy because she can see Russia from Alaska. I've actually lived in a couple of other countries -- even one where (gasp!) they don't speak English. So I certainly should be Secretary of State -- or Ambassador to the UN, at the very least.
Or maybe I can be Secretary of Agriculture. After all, I know how to ride a horse, and I milked a cow once.
Following this logic would disqualify nearly every person in the United States. This is why we have the electoral college IMO.
Vote for Chthulu!!!
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
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
JaRule is likely endorsing whoever promises to legalize marijuana. Vint Cerf is likely endorsing the person that best represents his values. Since he is (presumably) a leader in technology and slashdot is a place for geeks, his opinion may well be relevant for the readers of this site.
Stick around for logical fallacies 101.
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.
[...]Obama's political spectrum and priorities far outweigh any relation an internet engineer could bring to the table. Seriously, if the fact that this dude is endorsing Obama ends up swaying a voter, then I think it can only be qualified as laughable -- not newsworthy.
The great unwashed masses hardly vote rationally. Witness the "P.U.M.A"s who were for Clinton but now plan to vote McCain (a diametric opposite) simply because Clinton losing hurt their feelings.
JaRule is likely endorsing whoever promises to legalize marijuana. Vint Cerf is likely endorsing the person that best represents his values. Since he is (presumably) a leader in technology and slashdot is a place for geeks, his opinion may well be relevant for the readers of this site.Stick around for logical fallacies 101.
The problem is that this engineer's should be extolled for endorsing Obama based on the qualified reasoning and logic behind his endorsement, even if those reasons are strictly based on the internet and technology. Instead, he's being extolled for endorsing Obama based on the fact that he invented the internet. It makes for a catchy headline, but it's not logical at all.
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
Subject says it all. Looks like smart people are going for Obama, shocking.
This time, it's not about being "for" anything. It's completely sufficient to be "against".
The next thing to remember is to put next things next.
This is why we have the electoral college IMO.
And look at the fine job it has done for you.
Deleted
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?
Which, for some strange reason, comes -after- Logical Fallacies 201.
If you assumed otherwise, you need to repeat Logical Fallacies 201.
I used to work for NetQoS. I no longer do, but want to keep the excellent karma attached to this account.
That suggests both are in fact supporting whoever best represents the values they hold most important.
There's only a few reasons to endorse someone:
- you agree with them
- you are being payed by them
- you disagree that strongly with their opponent
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.
JaRule is likely endorsing whoever promises to legalize marijuana.
Ron Paul?
The government can't save you.
ACM link
(shamelessly stolen from the Wikipedia article on Vint Cerf)
Don't look at me... I voted for Kudos.
Disclaimer: I am not god.
We may not be created equal
But we can be treated equal.
It's done me just fine. I've worked myself out of debt and am a better situation than I was 8 years ago.
I'm confused. You're saying you would PREFER to be at war with more countries? Because McCain is poking at Iran and Russia. He's fixing for a fight. With Obama, maybe we could avoid getting into those wars.
Those who fail to understand communication protocols, are doomed to repeat them over port 80.
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!"
This time, it's not about being "for" anything. It's completely sufficient to be "against".
This has never happened before in a presidential election, and it is unlikely to happen again.
there really isn't an "Obama is a terrorist" campaign outside of some idiotic right-of-center types
You mean Sarah Palin?
Why I will not vote for McCain, from his own mouth:
"I would rather have a clean government than one...where 'First Amendment rights' are being respected that has become corrupt. If I had my choice I'd rather have a clean government."
source
OK, so a clean government is, to McCain, far more important than our first amendment rights. Odd, to say the least, but possibly understandable.
Or at least it is until you look a little closer. Charles Keating. A campaign staffed and run by lobbyists. An affair with a lobbyist. The pick of Palin, who abused her position as governor for personal ends.
Alone, his stated position that a clean government is more important than our first amendment rights gives me great pause. Combined with his actions, which make it seem that he doesn't really give a damn about clean government, i find it rather frightening.
How can you vote for someone who sneers at the first amendment?
the united states is a nation of laws; badly written and randomly enforced -- frank zappa
That's a risk with either candidate.
However Obama seems to understand science and technology, and has advisers.
McCain and Palin are anti science.
Who do you think is going to understand that issue better?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
The great unwashed masses hardly vote rationally. Witness the "P.U.M.A"s who were for Clinton but now plan to vote McCain (a diametric opposite) simply because Clinton losing hurt their feelings.
Or the Ron Paul supporters who are now voting for Obama. /was a Ron Paul supporter //voting for McCain ///you guys can all kiss my ass, have fun voting for your cheerleader. This is a goddamned presidential election, not a popularity contest. You idiots remind me class president elections in high school.
NewslilySocial News. No lolcats allowed.
> 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
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.
That's assuming you feel there is an actual concrete difference between the candidates. You really can't judge based on what they say because neither actually says very much once you get past the marketing speak and both lie on a regular basis. You can't really judge by their records because every bill they vote on is really a bunch of separate bills bundled together.
Given the above, I could certainly understand a black person reasoning that having a strong and well educated black man as President might be more valuable as a role model for their kids than any minor policy differences that might exist, especially after Congress has their say.
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!"
No concrete differences? Well other than abortion rights, health care, tax strategy, foreign policies, education, and separation of church and state you are absolutely right - I can't see a difference.
To be honest, it would be hard to find a better example of two fundamentally diametrically opposed female politicians as Clinton and Palin.
"But this one goes to 11!"
It is obvious that you did not read that discussion. It was quickly pointed out that the report was completely bogus. Read his plan yourself. It is very good and quite comprehensive. Some highlights:
Barack Obama and Joe Biden's Plan
* Protect the Openness of the Internet: A key reason the Internet has been such a success is because it is the most open network in history. It needs to stay that way. Barack Obama strongly supports the principle of network neutrality to preserve the benefits of open competition on the Internet.
* Encourage Diversity in Media Ownership: Barack Obama believes that the nation's rules ensuring diversity of media ownership are critical to the public interest. Unfortunately, over the past several years, the Federal Communications Commission has promoted the concept of consolidation over diversity. As president, Obama will encourage diversity in the ownership of broadcast media, promote the development of new media outlets for expression of diverse viewpoints, and clarify the public interest obligations of broadcasters who occupy the nation's spectrum.
* Reform the Patent System: A system that produces timely, high-quality patents is essential for global competitiveness in the 21st century. By improving predictability and clarity in our patent system, we will help foster an environment that encourages innovation. Giving the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) the resources to improve patent quality and opening up the patent process to citizen review will reduce the uncertainty and wasteful litigation that is currently a significant drag on innovation. As president, Barack Obama will ensure that our patent laws protect legitimate rights while not stifling innovation and collaboration.
* Safeguard our Right to Privacy: The open information platforms of the 21st century can also tempt institutions to violate the privacy of citizens. As president, Barack Obama will strengthen privacy protections for the digital age and will harness the power of technology to hold government and business accountable for violations of personal privacy.
* Invest in the Sciences: Barack Obama and Joe Biden support doubling federal funding for basic research over ten years, changing the posture of our federal government from being one of the most anti-science administrations in American history to one that embraces science and technology. This will foster home-grown innovation, help ensure the competitiveness of US technology-based businesses, and ensure that 21st century jobs can and will grow in America.
* Restore Scientific Integrity to the White House: Good policy in Washington depends on sound advice from the nation's scientists and engineers and decision-making based on the needs of all Americans. Obama and Biden will restore the basic principle that government decisions should be based on the best-available, scientifically-valid evidence and not on the ideological predispositions of agency officials or political appointees.
FreeSpeech.org
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.
INCOME REDISTRIBUTION is STEALING,
Fine. You stop paying taxes, and we'll stop you using anything that they've paid for. You can say goodbye to using the roads, police force and firefighters to start with, you won't be able to call for help from anyone else either, both the Internet and telephone system were either started up by government funds, or at the very least have had significant government investment. Hell I'll pay for your one way ticket to Somalia, there's no taxes or laws there. It should be paradise for you.
If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
No concrete differences? Well other than abortion rights, health care, tax strategy, foreign policies, education, and separation of church and state you are absolutely right - I can't see a difference
Ok, let's take them one at a time.
Abortion rights: Mccane hasn't had much to say about it in the general election but in the past his attitude has been essentially, "I'm against abortion but also against making it illegal". He does seem to flipflop on it from time to time depending on who he is pandering to at the moment which to me means it really isn't a priority to him either way. In practice that means that abortion laws would likely stay the same under both candidates. See this Youtube clip for a sample: http://hk.youtube.com/watch?v=DpGUiEWZDUI
Health Care: I'll concede there is a difference here but this is something that is going to be decided mainly by Congress.
Taxes: Once again, mainly something that will be decided by Congress. Anyway, they both want to increase spending. Obama wants to get the money from the rich and McCain want's to borrow it. Either way it's money that won't be available to the private sector since even borrowed money has to come from somebody.
Education: Both seem in favor of more Federal interference in local schools. I don't see a winner here.
Foreign Policy: Besides for the question of weather we talk to our enemies or yell at them I don't see much difference. They both want to commit far more troops than we actually have on various expeditions around the world. McCain seems worse here and Obama more thoughtful but then again so did Jimmy Carter.
Church and State: Both claim to be for seperation but both support "Faith based initiatives".
To be honest, it would be hard to find a better example of two fundamentally diametrically opposed female politicians as Clinton and Palin.
???? Clinton isn't running for anything and the Vice President has pretty limited decision making athority.
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.
I think it's very sad that people are arguing over whether the government, which includes law enforcement, should be paying for rape kits which cost $1200 when they must be used. I challenge somebody who is arguing that the government should not bear the cost to add up how much is spent on rape kits in the US per year and divide it by the number of taxpayers.
Do these people have the slightest idea how immeasurably tiny that amount is in the grand scheme of things (taxes)? This isn't just sad, it's disgusting. Does human greed know no bounds?
Cue dirty commie accusations in 3,2,1...
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel