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.
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.
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.
[...]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.
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
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!"
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
> 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.
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!"
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.
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.