Julius Genachowski To Head FCC

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The US President-elect, Barack Obama, has selected Julius Genachowski to lead the Federal Communications Commission. This appears to bode well for a forward-looking (or at least clued) Internet policy, since Genachowski is credited with running Obama's internet-based election campaign, and, according to 'Fierce Telecom,' 'has an impressive record working with technology and communications companies: He was Chief of Business Operations at InterActiveCorp; he's co-founder of Rock Creek Ventures, which currently backs 11 internet-based start-ups, and he's also served on the boards of numerous technology and new media companies, including The Motley Fool, Web.com, Truveo, and Rapt'."

Comments

Sweet victory

[unity100]

after all those years of telco induced horror, good news from u.s. government regarding internet at last.

Re:Sweet victory

[Anonymous Coward]

As opposed to the news of the new "fuck everybody" "Global Climate Change Czar", who was the one responsible for the Clinton-era ozone changes that had no scientific basis, then joined up as a high-ranking member of Socialist International, and has a husband who's head of an energy-policy lobbying firm...

I mean, sheesh. The word "graft" has taken on an entirely new meaning and Obama's not even sworn in yet. First the MafiAA guy, then the Socialist in a "new position" designed to be sure she doesn't have to go through Senate confirmation hearings... what's next?

Re:Sweet victory

[Rei]

As opposed to the news of the new "fuck everybody" "Global Climate Change Czar", who was the one responsible for the Clinton-era ozone changes that had no scientific basis,

Amazing the anti-science idiocy that grows on this site like weeds. "95% of peer-reviewed papers on the subject say one thing, but the remaining 5% are the ABSOLUTE TRUTH and action on the other 95% has no scientific basis!"

Re:Sweet victory

[Rycross]

Well, consensus is not science. What I find to be more telling is that the 95% tends to be moderately good to very good science (supported by evidence, peer-reviewed, predictive) while the 5% tends to be moderate-at-best to bad science. At least that's what I have gathered from discussions of said papers.

Re:Sweet victory

[unity100]

ALL the supposedly derogative 'facts' you shoved in your nifty little post, is million times better than trying to employ a nation by waging a war in an irrelevant distant land, causing millions to die.

if you still havent realized what that was, its bush & co's employment policy. wage a war in a distant land, pump up credit consumption at home, hey - employment !

the entire world is having to bear the burden, and your country's bankruptcy severely disrupted global economy. bankruptcy, yes. you have SO big a deficit that it boggles the mind. youre running on empty, running on credit and goodwill from other countries you do business with.

and boy, will you have to pay for the adventure neocons did !

Yes... but...

[Rei]

Does his appointment know who our base are belong to?

I love having a presidential nerd. ;)

Re:Yes... but...

[mcgrew]

I love having a presidential nerd. ;)

First, I woudn't go so far as to call Obama a nerd, although compared to the guy he's replacing... Second, there was one President in my lifetime who was a bona-fide nerd; the man held a degree in nuclear engineering. But Carter was a terrible President; I never thought I'd see a worse one, although with Bush I did.

Using a blackberry and checking email doesn't make you a nerd. Ever see the movie Apollo 13? That was a movie about nerds (note the pocket protectors).

Re:Yes... but...

[BigGar']

Hell yeah.
I had a Math teacher once that worked for NASA as a Mathematician during the Apollo years. One can see him in a documentary of the Apollo 13 incident that includes footage shot in the control room and there's an actor playing the same part in the Tom Hanks movie, albeit a nonspeaking role. Anyways all that to say that guy was an uber nerd of the tenth order. Obama's got nothing on this guy in the world of nerdery. Obama might be a step up that ladder from what we've had in the past, but he's not that far up, given how tall the ladder is.

Re:Yes... but...

[Rei]

Using a blackberry and checking email doesn't make you a nerd.

Nice pick and choose there. To sum up:

  * One of the first things Barack Obama did when he became president-elect was to post his own Web site
  * At the Al Smith dinner, Obama made a relatively obscure joke about Superman, cracking that his real father's name was Jor-El.
  * Not only did Obama pose for a photo in front of a statue of Superman in Metropolis, Illinois, he went even geekier and posted the photo at his Senate Web site (since deactivated).
  * Appointed nerds to key cabinet posts, including the appointment of a Nobel Prize-winning physicist to be secretary of energy.
  * Obama was supported by nerd icon Leonard Nimoy during his campaign, getting donation money (in Quatloos, no doubt) from Mr. Spock himself. According to some reports, he's been known to flash the Vulcan salute.
  * At a campaign rally, Obama joked that John McCain was Kato to George W. Bush's Green Lantern.
  * According to Newsweek, after a campaign event Obama and his wife Michelle were making jokes about one another's wardrobe. Barack leaned close to Michelle's belt and tapped it, saying, "It's the (di)lithium crystals! Beam me up, Scotty!"
  * According to the London Telegraph, he's also read every single Harry Potter book
  * Obama is a gadget guy, making use of devices like the Blackberry, the iPod, and (by some reports) the Zune. His tech addiction is causing a minor dust-up, as his security personnel are trying to convince him to part with his beloved PDA.
  * Not only has the president-elect admitted to collecting Spider-Man comics, he's actually going to play a role in an upcoming comic book starring the noted webslinger.
  * There's a secondhand report that Obama, when an intern quipped "All your base are belong to us", he leaned over, cocked an eyebrow, and responded, "What you say?"

Re:Yes... but...

[tcolberg]

Obama is a gadget guy, making use of devices like the Blackberry, the iPod, and (by some reports) the Zune. His tech addiction is causing a minor dust-up, as his security personnel are trying to convince him to part with his beloved PDA.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Don't mention the Zune, he might lose the respect of the whole country: http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2008/12/8/crisis/

Re:Yes... but...

[mcgrew]

• One of the first things Barack Obama did when he became president-elect was to post his own Web site, and everyone has one of those. A web site doesn't make you a nerd. Writing javascript for it MIGHT.
• At the Al Smith dinner, Obama made a relatively obscure joke about Superman, cracking that his real father's name was Jor-El. Watching Superman movies doesn't make you a nerd either. And knowing that Superman's father's name was Jor-el is hardly obscure.
• Not only did Obama pose for a photo in front of a statue of Superman in Metropolis, Illinois, he went even geekier and posted the photo at his Senate Web site (since deactivated). See the above.
• Appointed nerds to key cabinet posts, including the appointment of a Nobel Prize-winning physicist to be secretary of energy. That doesn't make him a nerd himslelf, but it does show he may not be incompetent at his new job.
• Obama was supported by nerd icon Leonard Nimoy during his campaign, getting donation money (in Quatloos, no doubt) from Mr. Spock himself. According to some reports, he's been known to flash the Vulcan salute. An actor in a science fiction TV show/movie series is not a nerd, and getting that actor's support doesn't make you a nerd.
• At a campaign rally, Obama joked that John McCain was Kato to George W. Bush's Green Lantern. Again, reading comic books doesn't make you a nerd. Many non-nerds enjoy comics.
• According to Newsweek, after a campaign event Obama and his wife Michelle were making jokes about one another's wardrobe. Barack leaned close to Michelle's belt and tapped it, saying, "It's the (di)lithium crystals! Beam me up, Scotty!" Watching Star Trek doesn't make you a nerd, although participating in a Star Trek convention in costume does make you a dork. And Obama was ony two years old when Scotty first beamed up Kirk.
• According to the London Telegraph, he's also read every single Harry Potter book Jesus, man, how many Heinlein, Doctorow, Clarke, Asimov, etc books has he read? Potter, Superman, Star Trek, have become very popular fiction. They may be popular among nerds, but they are also popular among non-nerds.
• Obama is a gadget guy, making use of devices like the Blackberry, the iPod, and (by some reports) the Zune. His tech addiction is causing a minor dust-up, as his security personnel are trying to convince him to part with his beloved PDA. Nerds don't just use tech, nerds design, disassemble, hack, mod, and otherwise interact with their bare metal. Businessmen use the technology like iPods and Blackberries that nerds design.
• Not only has the president-elect admitted to collecting Spider-Man comics, he's actually going to play a role in an upcoming comic book starring the noted webslinger. *Sigh*
• There's a secondhand report that Obama, when an intern quipped "All your base are belong to us", he leaned over, cocked an eyebrow, and responded, "What you say?" That suggests to me that he has never heard the phrase.

You might ask yourself if YOU are truly a nerd. Have you ever built a ham radio, or a guitar amplifier, or hacked a transistor radio into a guitar fuzzbox? Written computer programs (or at least shell scripts)?

Have you used the <li> operator for bullet points rather than using an asterisk?

There are 10 kinds of people - those who know binary, and those who do not. The latter may be nerds, the former surely are.

Obama is intelligent, but he's no nerd. Carter was a nerd, and a shitty President. He was better than Bush, who was kind of an anti-nerd.

Re:Yes... but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you even know what a nerd is? this site has truly gone down the shitter. Nothing but wannabes and posers. Now take your fucking macbook and gtfo.

Re:Yes... but...

[lwsimon]

Have you used the <li> operator for bullet points rather than using an asterisk?

You mean the <li> element?

HTML doesn't have operators - its markup, not script.

Does that make me a nerd?

Re:Yes... but...

[SBFCOblivion]

• There's a secondhand report that Obama, when an intern quipped "All your base are belong to us", he leaned over, cocked an eyebrow, and responded, "What you say?" That suggests to me that he has never heard the phrase.

I was with you til the last one. Had he said "What did you say?" would certainly imply he was unfamiliar with the phrase. But "What you say?", c'mon, straight from the game.

Re:Yes... but...

[mcgrew]

No, it makes me an idiot (*bangs head on desk*)

Re:Yes... but...

[TheoMurpse]

Guys, calm down. You're both virgins.

What's his stance on censorship?

[FortKnox]

With the ridiculous fines being handed down on censorship, I'd like to know where our new FCC chief stands. Are we to continue being the ass backwards country when it comes to censorship (nudity is bad, but violence is ok!), or will he take steps to allow parents to determine what their kids can and cannot see?

Re:What's his stance on censorship?

[Shakrai]

or will he take steps to allow parents to determine what their kids can and cannot see?

Why is that even a job for Government? I have a novel idea: supervise your kids when they are watching TV or using the internet.

Re:What's his stance on censorship?

[CannonballHead]

Supervise and/or...

• Don't have TV
• Get your TV company to turn off these or those channels
• Install this or that filter on computer
• ...

The novel idea of supervision does seem to escape most people. I guess it's the government's job to educate, supervise, instill morals, AND otherwise pay for their kids...

Re:What's his stance on censorship?

[Anonymous Coward]

Learn how to use the v-chip you already have in your TV

Re:What's his stance on censorship?

[Shakrai]

Don't have TV

That's my vote. I've seen kids that are absolutely mesmerized by the TV. They stare at it for hours on end. If they aren't watching Cartoon Network they are probably playing video games. And people really wonder why we have a childhood obesity problem?

At the very least, ditch the cable TV service and go with over the air broadcasting only. This accomplishes three things:

1) Cuts down on the number of shows your kids are going to care about and encourages them to do other things.
2) Encourages them to watch PBS, which has a lot more redeeming value (in my experience) than most of the crap they'll zone out on with cable.
3) Saves you a shitload of money.

Install this or that filter on computer

Also a good idea. Combined with supervision it works really well for younger children. Older children can no doubt figure out a way to bypass most filters -- but hopefully by then you've instilled them with enough values that you don't have to worry as much about them anymore. I'd also make an argument for putting the computer in a public area. My kids won't be browsing the internet behind closed doors......

Re:What's his stance on censorship?

[tnk1]

I'm sure the Obama administration will correct the double standard you are bringing to light by ensuring that violence gets fully censored as well.

Re:What's his stance on censorship?

[_xeno_]

The idea is fairly simple, actually - the government requires TV shows to have ratings (sort of like they do now) and parents can use government-required technology in their TVs (sort of like the V-Chip) to filter out shows they are objectionable. In return, broadcasters can broadcast anything they want, as long as it's properly rated. (OK, so not anything, but, well, almost anything...)

Several "parents groups" have claimed this is what they're demanding from the government, and that once it's in place, they'll have no problem with uncensored content being broadcast, as long as it's properly marked.

Somehow I find it hard to believe, considering that the technology exists and they still won't shut up about "filth on TV," but the idea behind "tak[ing] steps to allow parents to determine what their kids can and cannot see" is essentially a compromise between censorship and freedom of speech. It's a pragmatic solution, not a perfect solution.

Re:What's his stance on censorship?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are we to continue being the ass backwards country when it comes to censorship (nudity is bad, but violence is ok!), or will he take steps to allow parents to determine what their kids can and cannot see?

First comes public standards. Instead of making grand assumptions how about you go out and take a poll and see what parents feel about 14 year old Johnny seeing on prime time TV. So far the history of TV in America shows that adults are much more comfortable with violence than nudity. If you need proof of this go to the FCC complaints department. Don't think that network TV doesn't test the waters with their toe from time to time, they just never get very far.

And something that troubles me about the upbeat tone of the blurb is the very false assumption that just because this guy has a technology background that he's going to do what's 'right' in the eyes of the majority opinion around here. I'm not saying that he isn't but it's a sad sign that people around here think that if someone doesn't do what they feel is best they're automatically labeled as a dullard. Just because someone doesn't march to the beat of your drum neither makes them stupid nor wrong.

I think Americans are going to be in for a wicked eye opening with the next administration. I only hope that if it does happen that we're smart enough to stop this game of accusing others of being the fools and acting like we knew what was happening all along. We had a 70% approval rating for an invasion of Iraq the evening before the actual invasion happened. Today you can't find 3 people honest enough to admit that they were for it. It's time to be honest about what we do and do not know.

Re:What's his stance on censorship?

[Shakrai]

The idea is fairly simple, actually - the government requires TV shows to have ratings (sort of like they do now) and parents can use government-required technology in their TVs (sort of like the V-Chip) to filter out shows they are objectionable. In return, broadcasters can broadcast anything they want, as long as it's properly rated. (OK, so not anything, but, well, almost anything...)

See, to my way of thinking the bigger problem isn't the violence/sex on TV (although the v-chip is certainly helpful with that) but the sheer amount of TV aimed at children. How many different cable networks are aimed at kids? They can literally zone out in front of the TV from the time they wake up in the morning to the time they go to bed at night.

I grew up in the middle of nowhere. We received a grand total of three channels (CBS, ABC and PBS) with our aerial antenna. Consequently we wound up (*gasp*) playing outside a fair amount. The only time I really remember watching TV much was Saturday mornings. I ditched cable a long time ago. I've tried to encourage my friends to do the same and the response is invariably "But my kids like it". Yeah, so? Your kids aren't going to be traumatized if they can't zone out in front of Cartoon Network for six hours a day during the week and 12 hours on weekends.....

Re:What's his stance on censorship?

[Anonymous Coward]

What v-chip?

My TVs are 17+ years old, and refuse to die, and I won't replace them until they do.

Got my digital converters months ago. For the amount of over-the-air TV I watch, that's just fine. No, I don't have cable. For the rest there's Hulu and Netflix.

Re:What's his stance on censorship?

[value_added]

I have a novel idea: supervise your kids when they are watching TV or using the internet.

I don't think you can lump TV and the intarwebs into a single category. TV (and TV stations) has to have rules that enforce some sort of community standards. I don't think even the most idealogical Slashdotter would agree that allowing sexual or violent programming during prime-time is a wise idea for family households. You can argue what those standard should be, of course, but that's a different matter.

The internet, on the other hand, is a different beast, so different rules have to apply.

I'd agree that parental supervision is the best approach. However, here we have another problem. Most families need 2 wage earners just to get by. That has been a fact of life for some time. So without the time to do what the stay-at-home mom did in past generations, and a combination of over-worked and over-stressed lifestyles, parents find it anywhere between difficult and impossible to supervise a child properly. It shouldn't be any surprise that out of this is the tendency to pass those responsibilities to the rest of society. That means more laws and more government involvement.

I'm sympathetic with advocating parental responsibility, and society might be better off with frequent clue-bat reminders, but offering up that admonition as The Solution isn't helpful. At least no more helpful than telling women to leave the workforce to stay at home to make sure the kids are being raised properly.

Re:What's his stance on censorship?

[Muad'Dave]

I think the converter I got has a v-chip in it.

Re:What's his stance on censorship?

[CannonballHead]

That's my vote. I've seen kids that are absolutely mesmerized by the TV. They stare at it for hours on end. If they aren't watching Cartoon Network they are probably playing video games. And people really wonder why we have a childhood obesity problem?

My thoughts exactly. I grew up with computers and played video games... too much, most likely. But I also played outside, loved playing basketball, skated, went skiing (weird word. :P), etc. My house, growing up, never had anything other than TV coming in from the aerial, which where we lived, meant two to four channels. I occasionally watched cartoons Saturday morning and Spiderman at 4:30, if the channel came in. We watched football on Sunday/Monday, depending on who was playing.

As far as bypassing filters, by the time they can learn to do that, there are probalby other things they are learning to be able to do as well, so by then if I haven't done the whole parenting thing that well, it's probably too late.

Re:What's his stance on censorship?

[Anonymous Coward]

What v-chip?
My TVs are 17+ years old, and refuse to die, and I won't replace them until they do.
Got my digital converters months ago. For the amount of over-the-air TV I watch, that's just fine. No, I don't have cable. For the rest there's Hulu and Netflix.

If your TVs are too old to have the v-chip, your recently acquired digital converters have them. Learn how to use them if you want something protecting your children.

Re:What's his stance on censorship?

[Rycross]

Well, apparently he's involved with Common Sense Media which seems to provide ratings, tools, and advice for parents with concerns to the media. It seems to be fairly parental-responsibility oriented. However, their "Common Sense Belief" sections contains a couple of statements you might be interested in:

# We believe in media sanity, not censorship.

We believe that the price for free and open media is a bit of extra homework for families. Parents need to know about media content and need to manage media use.

# We believe appropriate regulations about right time, right place, and right manner exist. They need to be upheld by our elected and appointed leaders.

# We believe ratings systems should be independent and transparent for all media.

Seems like they'd support some government toe-stepping in the form of mandatory ratings and enforcement of time-slots, but stop short of outright censorship.

Re:What's his stance on censorship?

[Shakrai]

I don't think even the most idealogical Slashdotter would agree that allowing sexual or violent programming during prime-time is a wise idea for family households

I would agree if you are talking about over the air broadcasts. I would disagree if you are talking about cable TV. Cable TV requires that you opt-in and pay money for it. Anybody with a pair of rabbit ears can tune into OTA.

Most families need 2 wage earners just to get by.

Then move somewhere with a cheaper cost of living. Or seek help from your expanded friends and family network. Most families have someone (Grandma or Grandpa?) whom isn't working. Why rely on the TV to supervise your kids after school if you have a family member or friend to fall back on?

It shouldn't be any surprise that out of this is the tendency to pass those responsibilities to the rest of society. That means more laws and more government involvement.

If you resign yourself to more government involvement it would seem to me that it would be better to have it involved in solving the problem of needing two wage earners to afford to live than to have it involved in regulating what can go on TV. Maybe that's just me though.....

but offering up that admonition as The Solution isn't helpful

It's a bigger part of the solution than expecting government or Hollywood to do it for you.......

Re:What's his stance on censorship?

[idiotnot]

He'll be forced to enforce and expand it. Google for "fairness doctrine."

Re:What's his stance on censorship?

[Anonymous Coward]

or will he take steps to allow parents to determine what their kids can and cannot see?

Why is that even a job for Government? I have a novel idea: supervise your kids when they are watching TV or using the internet.

It's their job because they are the ones with the power to ensure that the V chip is included in all TVs sold, and the american people demanded that they be able to protect their children from objectionably material on TV.

If enough people demand they do something, the government is going to do it unless their is a good reason not to. Not being a power enumerated in the Constitution stopped being a good reason a very long time ago.

'The People' scream to be protected from all sorts of things: Porn, Terrorism, Naught Words, whatever. The government takes steps to protect them via the only avenue available to the by creating legislature.

Unfortunately, the only thing new legislature can do only take away more rights from 'the people'.

Re:What's his stance on censorship?

[Rycross]

No one is advocating bringing back the fairness doctrine. This is a right-wing/libertarian talking point. Let it go, ffs.

Re:What's his stance on censorship?

[Shakrai]

so by then if I haven't done the whole parenting thing that well, it's probably too late.

Amen to that.

Re:What's his stance on censorship?

[redxxx]

Supervise and/or...

• Don't have TV
• Get your TV company to turn off these or those channels

• Read the tv's manual and turn on the V-chip that has been mandated for almost a decade.

Re:What's his stance on censorship?

[KovaaK]

That's my vote. I've seen kids that are absolutely mesmerized by the TV. They stare at it for hours on end. If they aren't watching Cartoon Network they are probably playing video games. And people really wonder why we have a childhood obesity problem?

It depends on the age group, but there are multiple sides to this - particularly with video games. In certain areas, sometimes the only perceived alternative to doing stuff at home is doing illegal stuff (underage drinking/drugs) with friends elsewhere.

Would you rather have a child:
a) Be a nerd/gamer on the internet who potentially learns how to program, or at the worst has better hand-eye coordination.
b) Potentially start to rely on drugs/alcohol for entertainment and develop serious issues in the future.

I fully realize that option b) doesn't happen every time, but the chances seem much higher. Also, I know there are many other outcomes for both paths, but I would just like to say that you shouldn't be so quick to dismiss certain things (video games, in particular) as completely destructive to a child's development.

I was talking to one of my closest online friends yesterday, and he talked about how much it bugs him that his girlfriend obviously grew up and followed the second path. Despite the fact that she's a great woman, her past/friends are making him question things. Talking to him made me grateful that I didn't spend so much time with my group of highschool druggie^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hfriends. Being a nerd helped me avoid that sort of life, and in its place, I had a head start on my education (Computer Engineering) in many ways.

Re:What's his stance on censorship?

[cayenne8]

"With the ridiculous fines being handed down on censorship, I'd like to know where our new FCC chief stands. Are we to continue being the ass backwards country when it comes to censorship (nudity is bad, but violence is ok!), or will he take steps to allow parents to determine what their kids can and cannot see?"

Well, let's don't do away with violence...just allow more nudity.

I think it'd be a shame if they couldn't show Dirty Harry on TV (I think they censor it too much as it is). Let's just allow nudity too.....

Re:What's his stance on censorship?

[aztektum]

Why is that even a job for Government?

Because their job is no longer to do for the public good. Their job is to bring in votes.

Re:What's his stance on censorship?

[Curunir_wolf]

No one is advocating bringing back the fairness doctrine. This is a right-wing/libertarian talking point. Let it go, ffs.

How about Schumer and Pelosi? Or Sen. Jeff Bingaman? Then there's the fact that it was included as part of the Democratic Party Platform in 2000. Oh, then there's this article quoting Nancy Pelosi's support of it. Illustrious leader Dick Durbin has also advocated its reinstatement.

Just because they're paranoid, doesn't mean there's nobody out to get them.

Re:What's his stance on censorship?

[Shakrai]

Potentially start to rely on drugs/alcohol for entertainment and develop serious issues in the future.

If that happens then you probably should have been paying closer attention to what they were doing.....

I would just like to say that you shouldn't be so quick to dismiss certain things (video games, in particular)

I didn't say video games were bad. I think the tone of my post was that playing them to excess is bad. If your kids are playing video games to the exclusion of doing anything else then wouldn't you say that you have a problem? If video games are part of a healthy mix of recreational activities (that hopefully includes some amount of physical/outdoors activity) then I don't see a problem.

I grew up playing video games. My Mom did go out of her way to get me games with what she perceived to be educational value. My favorite one was probably Sim City. Got into the classic version of that on the SNES and eventually wound up getting the newer versions when we bought our first PC. She never would have let us have games like Halo, GTA, Mortal Combat, Lethal Enforcers, etc, etc. Mind you, as an adult I don't have a problem with such games (I'm not with the Jack Thompson lunatic crowd) but I definitely wouldn't buy them for my kids.....

Re:What's his stance on censorship?

[Anonymous Coward]

Community standards? Why should your community (presumable the bible-thumpers) be able to dictate what I am allowed to watch? Babysit you own damn kids.

Re:What's his stance on censorship?

[KovaaK]

I'm curious then - How would you view games with social networks? For example - if your child grew an interest in World of Warcraft, would you prevent him from playing it?

What is your criteria for not allowing certain games? Online social interactions not allowable under a certain age? Violent games not allowable under a certain age?

Re:What's his stance on censorship?

[fm6]

Nudity is bad because people complain about it. Violence is OK because people don't complain about it. And violence is more than OK, because it's a sort of representational sex. Consider the fight scene at the end of the second TOS. Are William Shatner and Gary Lockwood fighting or making love? It's not all that obvious.

Re:What's his stance on censorship?

[Shakrai]

How would you view games with social networks? For example - if your child grew an interest in World of Warcraft, would you prevent him from playing it?

I grew up playing AD&D so I wouldn't really object to the content in WoW. I'd be concerned about who they were playing with but again this would come back to supervising them. Beyond that I don't think I'd have any major issues with WoW beyond the sheer amount of time that some people wind up "investing" into it. Again though, this is controllable.

Violent games not allowable under a certain age?

Depends on the context of that violence. I honestly don't see any compelling reason that kids need to be exposed to games like GTA or even Halo -- if the entire game consists of shooting things then what the hell is there to learn exactly? Hand-eye coordination? You could gain that playing basketball or flight simulators.....

Re:What's his stance on censorship?

[luker0]

Supervise and/or...

• Don't have TV
• Get your TV company to turn off these or those channels
• Install this or that filter on computer
• ...

The novel idea of supervision does seem to escape most people. I guess it's the government's job to educate, supervise, instill morals, AND otherwise pay for their kids...

And how do you deal with commercials for Ultimate fighting Championship that air in the middle of G rated TV show? How about the previews for PPV movies that are rated R airing in the middle of a G rated show? I do supervise my child's TV watching (the total of which is about 30 minutes to an hour a couple of times per week). Explain to me why cable and satellite providers must providing the rating of a TV show, like say Mythbusters (G rated), but then can air whatever they want during the commercial breaks.

Re:What's his stance on censorship?

[CrashPoint]

...or will he take steps to allow parents to determine what their kids can and cannot see?

No, he won't. Because such steps do not and cannot exist, for the very simple reason that parents already can determine what their kids watch on TV.

Re:What's his stance on censorship?

[mcgrew]

The V chip is as useless as the ratings. Say "shit" three times in a movie and it's rated R. But you can chop people's arms and legs off and burn them up in lava and it's PG-13 (Star Wars). It's the sort of censorship that the establishment wants, and not necessarily the choices a parent migh make.

An example with my own kids when they were little: They were fans of Pee Wee's Playhouse, so I showed them the scene in the Cheech and Chong movie where Paul Ruebens gets arrested and spews obscenities at the cops. You should have seen the girls' faces!

OTOH I wouldn't let them watch Robin Hood, as watching a guy get his hand chopped off is IMO a bit much for kids, and I wouldn't even let them watch the TV version of The Terminator, because you still have Arnold ripping a guy's heart out and cutting up his own eyeball.

Pee Wee cursing isn't going to give them nightmares. Watching someone being dismembered will. The V chip was useless; I watched TV with them.

They still love Star Trek!

Re:What's his stance on censorship?

[KovaaK]

Thoughtful response on the WoW discussion - Thanks :).

Depends on the context of that violence. I honestly don't see any compelling reason that kids need to be exposed to games like GTA or even Halo -- if the entire game consists of shooting things then what the hell is there to learn exactly? Hand-eye coordination? You could gain that playing basketball or flight simulators.....

That's the thing - it's hard to tell what kids will get out of these games. I grew up playing Doom (age ~7-8), Duke Nukem 3D (age 10-11), and Quake (age 11-23).

Aside from killing crap in Doom in singleplayer, I messed around with freebie level editors and had fun making my own creations. In Duke3D, I had my first experiences in online games, I messed around with the .ini files to change attributes of the games, and once again I made (more intricate) levels.

When it comes to Quake, what the hell haven't I done... I learned a LOT about programming by messing with the game source code, did more level editing... but more importantly, I learned how to critically think. I started analyzing the top players of the game to the point of being able to mimic their actions/responses, and eventually I learned how to BE one of the top players of the game. It was a hell of a trip. I've become a very well-respected member of the community, been an administrator for a significant portion of the servers in the country, learned how to fairly be an admin for the servers and deal with abusive users maturely. I've been able to apply myself to so many more things for being involved in Quake.

During summers of Highschool, my dad used to pester me to get a job flipping burgers or something. Since then, he has said on a number of occasions that he was wrong and has been very surprised by what I learned from playing games.

Re:What's his stance on censorship?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because DTV came after the v-chip mandate, all new digital TVs and DTV converter boxes have v-chip functionality.

Therefore, I think the tits and swearing should be allowed back on the air; since everyone now has the tech in their homes to censor the programming if they want to.

i.e. put the onus of censorship on the viewers.

Re:What's his stance on censorship?

[Shakrai]

It's the sort of censorship that the establishment wants, and not necessarily the choices a parent migh make.

I love how a five second shot of tits gains a movie an instant R-rating but all that violence and gore typically only garners a PG-13. Personally I'd rather have my kids see the tit than Anakin burning but that's just me.

Another problem I see with the ratings system is how an NC-17 (movie) or AO (video game) rating results in retailers pulling the title from their shelves. Net result: The movie/game receives some minor tweaks and winds up being released as R/M. Perhaps the retailers should consider stocking these titles and actually enforce the age restrictions instead of adopting a holier than thou attitude and deciding what I should be able to purchase?

Re:What's his stance on censorship?

[Shakrai]

I'm with ya on the learning stuff from games. I self-taught myself how to program C by administering a MUD when I was 14-17 years old. I guess I just don't see the appeal in the console FPS games for kids though. What do you learn from playing Halo? How to veg out in front of the TV and eat junk food?

I wouldn't tell someone else what to buy for their kids but my kids won't be getting copies of those games for Christmas....

Re:What's his stance on censorship?

[mcgrew]

They blew it with Die Hard IV. I rented it when it first came out, and it didn't seem like any of the other Die Hard movies.

But it was a great nerd flick. I saw it on the shelf in the store, the "unrated" version, and bought it. If they had gone with the same R rating the other Die Hard movies had, I think it would have been a great success instead of just another good nerd movie.

The PG-13 version is like the other Die Hard movies when they cut them for television.

It's amazing how much better having an occasional "FUCKING SHIT!!!!" makes it. I mean, come on, if the stuff in that movie happened to me I'd be cussing like a sailor. Hell, most grandmas would cuss under those circumstances.

But the odd thing is, all they excised of the PG-13 version was language. You still have car wrecks, an airplane wreck, PCs set to explode when somebody hits the delete key, blood, a guy falling out of a helecopter, a woman falling down an elevator shaft with an SUV falling behind her... but a few instances of "shit" and "fuck" and all of a sudden it's not suitable for children? Hell, they hear it in school every day.

Mod Parent Up

[Moryath]

There's been far too little scrutiny of a number of Obama appointees... he seems to be stacking the cabinet with nothing but extreme left-wingers every chance he gets.

So much for people who thought he was "honest" or "centrist."

Re:Mod Parent Up

[gad_zuki!]

Wait, competent people from the startup-world with real success are "extreme leftists" but Bush's pick of fucking lawyer with no tech business experience is "good business sense?" Get off it already, no one but the Rush Limbaugh echo chamber believes these talking points.

Re:Mod Parent Up

[R2.0]

I believe he was speaking about a different Obama appointee, Carolyn Browner.

Re:Mod Parent Up

[Anonymous Coward]

Huzzah! Give him what for!

Re:Mod Parent Up

[pthisis]

There's been far too little scrutiny of a number of Obama appointees... he seems to be stacking the cabinet with nothing but extreme left-wingers every chance he gets.

Aside from low-level appointments to things like HUD and the EPA, this is pretty much backwards. The major positions are being filled by some moderate Democrats (with Napolitano and Richardson being the only thing to approach "extreme left-wingers"), some independents, and some Republicans.

More than half of the major defense, foreign affairs, and economic appointees served in significant positions in Republican administrations (mainly under George W. Bush and/or Ronald Reagan)

Of the "big 3" cabinet positions, 2 are Bush appointees:
Secretary of State: Hillary Clinton (D). Leftie, but hardly extremist.
Secretary of Defense: Robert Gates (R). Republican, Bush cabinet member
Secretary of Treasury: Timothy Geithner (I). Generally conservative. Bush appointed him chairman of the New York Fed.

Of the "next 2", one's a Reagan appointee:
Attorney General: Eric Holder (D). A moderate Democrat, Holder is a Reagan appointee (Superior court) most famous for prosecuting Dan Rostenkowski (D).
Secretary of Commerce: Bill Richardson (D). Somewhat of a leftie.

Other major appointments
The other major names on his economic team are Reagan CEA member Lawrence Summers and Reagan Fed Charman Paul Volcker

The other major defense names are 4-star general Jim Jones (recipient of multiple Bush administration appointments and special Middle East envoy under Condaleeza Rice) and Arizona Gov Janet Napolitano.

Napolitano, Richardson, and Hillary Clinton are the 3 most "leftie" of the major appointees.

The other 6 (Gates, Geithner, Holder, Summers, Volcker, and Jones) are all significant Reagan/Bush adminstration figures.

Re:Mod Parent Up

[amRadioHed]

No, he was making a statement about all the Obama cabinet appointees. A laughably dumb statement Obamas cabinet.

Re:Mod Parent Up

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait, people who've studied and specialized in communications laws is just a "fucking lawyer" picked by Bush?

We get it, you don't like Bush, but no one but Keith Olbermann echo chamber believed those talking points...

Oh wait...

Re:Mod Parent Up

[The AtomicPunk]

Eric Holder was Janet Reno's right hand man that went on a rampage against all forms of private firearms ownership. If anti-individual rights zealots like that are "moderate democrats", I'd hate to see the true lefties.

Don't get me wrong, I don't have any faith in the righties either, we're pretty much screwed either way, because both halves are hopping on the fascism train.

Re:Mod Parent Up

[pthisis]

Eric Holder was Janet Reno's right hand man that went on a rampage against all forms of private firearms ownership.

Holder filed an amicus brief in support of DC's right to regulate gun ownership in DC vs. Heller. That's clearly a liberal position, but it's also far from going on a rampage against all forms of private gun ownership.

He also supports closing Gitmo.

Those positions are well within the mainstream wing of the Democratic platform. You can disagree with them (and I do disagree with the stance on gun control), but trying to paint him (or any of the nominees for major cabinet/advisory positions) as "extreme left wingers" is completely polemical.

I'm not saying he's a staunch conservative. He's very far from being some crazy lefty. The guy's career in public service started with a Ronald Reagan appointment to Superior Court.

The media consensus has been similar, whether you look at FOX News or the Washington Post or sources ideologically in between.

FOX News wrote: "Barack Obama's Cabinet lineup, completed Friday with a month to spare, sends a signal that the fresh-faced president-elect will lean on experienced hands and moderate voices to steer the nation through turbulent times."

CBS's Bob Schieffer wrote "...a lot of people said this is going to be a very extremist president and all that, that he's a very liberal Democrat, but as we have seen in appointment after appointment, he's hewing to the center. He's picking a bunch of flaming moderates here".

Politico wrote "President-elect Barack Obama spent the campaign fighting the notion that he's an unabashed liberal. Now he can point to Exhibit A: a Cabinet that's a middle-of-the-roader's dream".

The Washington Post wrote: "But many of Obama's other picks reflect his apparent preference for practical-minded centrists who have straddled big policy debates rather than staking out the strongest pro-reform positions. Their reputations as moderates have won Obama plaudits from even some Republicans"

Re:Mod Parent Up

[Eskarel]

Opinions on the second ammendment are rather diverse, even on slashdot. Being anti-gun does not an "anti-invidual rights zealot" nor an "extreme left", even by the standards of the US where extreme left would be most countries conservative parties, make. You might clarify them as anti-gun, and not like them for those reasons, but being anti-gun is not exactly extreme, even if you disagree with it.

Re:Mod Parent Up

[Captain Nitpick]

The other major names on his economic team are Reagan CEA member Lawrence Summers and Reagan Fed Charman Paul Volcker

Note that Volcker was first appointed by Carter.

It is still just one person

[Anonymous Coward]

Instead of having single individuals be in charge of huge chunks of policy, are we not now technologically mature enough to have an open process whereby everyone can participate as they please?

Re:It is still just one person

[Score Whore]

participate as they please?

Because a lot of people who participate "as they please" are living on other people's money and have a lot more spare time to "contribute" to ensuring that they can continue to live on other people's money.

Re:It is still just one person

[UnknowingFool]

I think there is a misunderstanding in the role. FCC chair should be in charge of implementing and advising the President's policy. George Bush delegated (I say abdicated) much of this that to the FCC chair. The result has been 2 largely controversial if not ineffectual FCC chairmen. I think under Obama there will be more of a clearer focus about what the FCC should do rather than have it under the whim of the Chairman.

Re:It is still just one person

[Anonymous Coward]

That is probably why the site linked by the OP is about a consensus government.

Not So Fast

[mpapet]

You, and the no-doubt +5 Insightful modding to follow will lead to crushed expectations.

1. This poor bloke doesn't stand a chance against the telco's lobbying. His years running VC are not comparable to years running government, defending attacks from the Telcos and Cable Co's.

2. Government changes very slowly. This is part of the human condition more than anything else. One guy, even with the temporary backing of an Administration doesn't have much to work with.

3. The political system we have will create a great deal of friction preventing it from changing. Telco's and cable co's will screw this guy out of a job if he runs too far afield of their goals to capture the media distribution market.

Don't be disappointed when it doesn't go well.

Re:Not So Fast

[Chris Burke]

Don't be disappointed when it doesn't go well.

Don't worry, I won't be. I'm aware of all the real-life problems you bring up and more. No matter who is in what position, there's a huge political machine to be dealt with.

So I'm not expecting it to go well. But with someone heading the FCC who doesn't seem bound and determined to fuck us over, I'm confident it will at least go better.

One other thing to consider...

[Moryath]

Just imagine if someone in the Bush administration had acted like this.

Wouldn't you be screaming bloody murder? Wouldn't you be demanding an investigation into what was being hidden?

What's the difference?

Re:One other thing to consider...

[KovaaK]

We do scream bloody murder. Politicians suck.

Re:One other thing to consider...

[falcon5768]

The difference is timing and nature. She did it when the Internet was still a seldom used tool that hardly got a notice in fact the whole of records of email for the Clinton era probably could fill a 100gig drive and still have a ton of room left over. Also she flat out admitted the reason why, because a email of hers she had forgotten about came back to haunt her in Florida, you have to remmeber at the time email had barely even been used in court cases, no one knew email was for all purposes like putting it down on paper. Hell I know a company who had a very similar thing happen in regards to AIM around 98, a IM chat cam back to haunt a manager. Thus ended the companies allowance for using AIM.

Bush's administration used it and used in leu of the publicly paid for system to deceive the public. they for all purposes created a shadow organization to prevent people from seeing through the official records what they where really up to. In their case we are talking about whole Library of Congress sized amounts of data secretly being sent back and forth through all branches of government and people of intrest, especially since by this point email supplanted voice and paper record for doing things.

But then you knew that before you posted this and went ahead with it anyway.

Re:One other thing to consider...

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, I never knew e-mails had physical mass. How many comprise a ton?

Re:One other thing to consider...

[Rei]

That's a good point, though. Today, we're in an environment where emails have been ruled to have the same constitutional privacy as telephone conversations. Back in the 90s, that wasn't the case.

Re:One other thing to consider...

[Tiber]

wow I never knew Bush had access to the tinfoil hat illuminati superjew government.

Re:One other thing to consider...

[Sethus]

If you read the article you just posted, she simply didn't want to be in a position where she would be accountable for what she said. Sounds bad right?

My dad works in a high position in an international company and me, getting into the working world the last year, and him sat down to have one of our many talks about office politics. I showed him some of my many notebooks I use to document all the projects I have to do. He responded in kind of a story about his company being sued over a project he had been involved in; at the time he kept similar paper notebooks. He was terrified at being called in to testify.

Now I should explain, my dad is about as straight shooting, honest son-of-a-gun you ever knew. To this day he does not allow people to put mp3s on his computer. He paid a speeding ticket when he went to Panama, a country where it's common and accepted as Status Quo to bribe the cop who pulled you over. So why would be he scared to be called to testify?

Lawyers for one, they're professionals at twisting words and documents to their stories. You just don't know how they'll take your simple notebooks and use it against you; and you could then be held PERSONALLY liable. Needless to say, after the trial, my dad destroyed those notebooks.

Point is, just because you have nothing to hide, doesn't mean you won't be found at fault.

Re:One other thing to consider...

[falcon5768]

a Library of Congress is a term of data size roughly equivalent to 20 terabytes of data. Not actually accurate since the Library has much more than that and it was estimated to be this much based solely on books and not other media, but it is a somewhat used unit of measurement in terms of data size when not speaking scientifically.

Re:One other thing to consider...

[Kiaser Zohsay]

It depends on whether you print them at 8 points or 12.

Re:One other thing to consider...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Point is, just because you have nothing to hide, doesn't mean you won't be found at fault."

And there ya go... if you're an Obama appointee and don't leave an email trail you're a cautious person using common sense against evil lawyers.

If you're a Bush appointee and don't leave an email trail, you're a scumsucking pig and should be attacked by enlightened lawyers to get the truth.

Re:One other thing to consider...

[Ma8thew]

No, you're scum if you illegally delete the emails.

Re:One other thing to consider...

[The AtomicPunk]

Why do people keep acting like there's some substantial difference between Bush and Obama?

Hell, he's not even in office yet and we're already staying in Iraq. W00t!

Next you'll tell me there's some real difference between the Republican and Democratic parties... that one wants to spend hundreds of billions on corporate welfare, and the other wants to spend hundreds of billions on individual welfare....

ah crap, now I forgot which is which.

Re:One other thing to consider...

[Ihmhi]

Don't Talk To Cops (Part 1, Part 2) is an excellent video in a similar vein. A lawyer and a police officer sit there and explain to you how they twist words and deliberately (and legally) trick people to get as much information as they can.

Re:One other thing to consider...

[ubrgeek]

Sure. He tried to get this guy appointed but it was blocked at the last minute ... :)

Re:One other thing to consider...

[Tiber]

MOD PARENT UP. That was awesome.

Anything would be an improvement

[damn_registrars]

The FCC is probably the least competent of all our federal government's departments right now. Have you ever filed an FCC complaint? I have (against a toll-free RespOrg, and then against another one when the owner of the number in question moved). When you file a complaint, the response is a form letter telling you the FCC cannot do anything. And then when you call the FCC for more information on how they came to that conclusion you wait for half an hour on hold before someone tells you they can't do anything, either; and they won't tell you if you can find out who read your complaint (if it was read at all).

Frankly they could put a lobster in charge of the FCC and it would be just as well off as it is at this moment. So any sentient being will likely be an improvement.

The FCC is so frustrating I went to go stand in line at the DMV afterwards because I wanted to feel like I accomplished something that day.

Re:Anything would be an improvement

[bill_mcgonigle]

The FCC is undoubtedly a runaway bureaucracy, but there are some good apples there. Kevin Martin has been in favor of net neutraility, anti-government censorship, pro-competition, and Michael Copps understands exactly where the FCC has screwed up on high-speed Internet policy.

I know, that's two out of how many, but some guys there deserve kudos; there's been some progress in the past couple years.

Re:Anything would be an improvement

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder if he's paid (all of) his federal income taxes...

Re:Anything would be an improvement

[GigsVT]

I also have a complaint response here on my desk (against the "This is your second notice that your warranty has expired" people). Somehow the FCC thinks this clear cut violation of multiple telemarketing laws is somehow not a violation.

They have called my cell phone about 4 or 5 times with their recorded message, ignored the do not call list, and violated the laws on recorded telemarketing even if it were not a cell phone. And yet the FCC somehow says that isn't a violation.

Re:Anything would be an improvement

[damn_registrars]

I also have a complaint response here on my desk (against the "This is your second notice that your warranty has expired" people). Somehow the FCC thinks this clear cut violation of multiple telemarketing laws is somehow not a violation.

That is one of the 800 number-related incidents that I would like to report, but we don't have caller ID so I have never been able to get a number for where those calls are coming from. I presume that is the same call about vehicle warranties that you are referring to? I have even managed to answer that call once or twice, and told them that I don't own a car. They kept calling anyways.

Though the one I have been trying most to address is the "reduce your credit card payment" scam. We get this call 1 or 2 times a month at work, and they call with the same message but a different company name and number each time. They never say who they are looking for. I call them back and ask to be taken off their calling list and they either deny calling or they hang up on me. They are in blatant violation of the cold-calling regulations but the FCC always says there is nothing wrong.

In other words, I feel your pain.

Re:Anything would be an improvement

[GigsVT]

Yes it is the auto warranty brokers. They are spoofing caller ID anyway apparently, so it won't help you too much.

Re:Anything would be an improvement

[damn_registrars]

Yes it is the auto warranty brokers. They are spoofing caller ID anyway apparently, so it won't help you too much.

I figured as much, most of the annoying automated callers spoof caller ID.

What do you report them under when you try to complain to the FCC about it? Were you able to get a company name or something?

At work I get annoying calls of three types:

• The vehicle warranty bastards that you mentioned
• Some other bastards that want to sell me discounted diabetes medications and supplies
• Yet some other bastards that call to refinance credit card debt (or reduce credit card payments) - these are the current targets of my anger

At least with the credit card bastards I do get toll-free call back numbers. They are different every time but with Ameritech (800-337-4194) I can call and find out which RespOrg is responsible for the number in question. Then I at least have a company to call and complain to, and someone to direct my FCC and attorney general complaints against.

Re:Anything would be an improvement

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you seen the sorts of complaints the FCC receives? They get mountains of hilariously ridiculous complaints like these:

Complaint Summary:
Homer was asking Marge, his wife, why they took in this really annoying older mooch named Gil. She responded
nicely saying, "Christian charity, I guess."; And Homer whined and yelled back, "What does a porn star have to do
with anything?!!?"; Extremely offensive to Christians, disgusting actually. combining the two complete opposite
worlds in one sentence. I am appalled b that show anywa ,but now I'm even more anti-Sim sons.

Others available here. [PDF]

Re:Anything would be an improvement

[damn_registrars]

Which is probably why they send the same canned response to every complaint now, claiming to have read the complaint and determined that nothing wrong was done and nothing could be done in response.

Fine, "On Topic" then:

[Moryath]

Here's A Bio of the guy.

Note why he's really being hired:

- Schoolchum of Obama
- Clerked for an odd combination of judges (wonder why?)
- "Common Sense Media" - anything but, a thinly veiled left-wing group aiming to further tilt the media. Also involved in several highly anti-common sense issues regarding video games.

This isn't a rosy pick. Of course, I could be wrong. He might walk in first day, declare the RIAA/MPAA/MAFIAA to be a bunch of jerks, re-implement the necessary media-channel ownership laws so that we actually get competition (as opposed to the current ongoing death of local radio, thanks to relaxation of rules that took us from over 5000 station owners to a mere 5 conglomerates owning 99% of the market in a mere two years during the '90s), and recommend the DMCA be tossed out for the useless, anti-innovation pile of shit that it is.

But seeing his resume, I really doubt it. He looks like a lobbyist masquerading as a public servant and as Obama's already proven by appointing people whose spouses are lobbyists elsewhere, "the federal cash register is open for some 'honest graft' ka-ching!"

Re:Fine, "On Topic" then:

[Rycross]

Graduated from Columbia College and Harvard magna cum laude, was a senior official in the FCC, was on the board of directors for various companies, some utilizing the internet heavily (expedia.com), and was part of the working group that created Obama's technology and innovation plan. That's hardly what you portrayed, that he's a purely political pick without any credentials.

On a perusal of Common Sense Media's site, it seems that they offer ratings and tools for parents to help parents control what their kids watch. Oh the horrors! I can see how that's super-left-wing *eye roll*. A private org focusing on parental responsibility is EXACTLY the sort of thing I'd like to see from an FCC official.

In summary, I see nothing here that would suggest that he was a bad pick, and on the contrary, by your own link, he seems to be a good pick. I get it: you don't like Obama. But the amount of spin you're throwing into this is intellectually dishonest at best.

Re:Fine, "On Topic" then:

[Etrias]

You have a dim view of this. How is it that I see the link you posted of his biography entirely different than you?

Harvard Law grad, with honors. Not everyone can say this. Might be a friend of Obama's but doesn't necessarily exclude him from being qualified.

Your statement on clerking is off the mark. My wife clerked for two judges, both of them pretty conservative guys, one at the district level and one on the circuit level (my wife, btw, is not even close to being a conservative). Clerking for any judge is a competitive position, usually sought after by hundreds of applicants. Clerking for the USSC is a highly sought after position and a huge honor. Wouldn't serving for a conservative and a liberal judge at least show an ability to work across the aisle? Plus, having clerking experience really can pay off to know how the court thinks and what they demand in terms of what arguments make the grade.

Did you skip over the part about Barry Diller and IAC? You know Barry, the guy who helped start Fox Broadcasting? His involvement with Common Sense Media seems somewhat balanced out with some of the other companies who's boards he has served on.

Of course you skipped right over the part where it said he previously worked for the FCC as General Council and all, denoting a level of experience with the organization he's being appointed.

The ultimate judge of this guy will be the positions he takes and the moves the FCC make during his reign, but to say that he only got this because he was Obama's buddy (which he is) and that he's not qualified (he's far more qualified than the last few FCC chairs we've had) is missing the forest for the trees.

Re:Fine, "On Topic" then:

[kentrel]

Do you have any more information on how those 5000 stations became 5? Not saying its not true, but just I never heard of it, since I don't live in America, but I'm interested in reading more about it. "Media-channel ownership" doesn't tell me much in google.

Re:Fine, "On Topic" then:

[Rei]

I despise Common Sense Media. Their email opt-out system is broken. I've had to twice threaten them with the CAN SPAM act to get off their mailing list. The first time, they took me off... and then I magically reappeared on it six months later.

Re:Fine, "On Topic" then:

[Anonymous Coward]

There used to be rules regarding the number of media outlets is a market that an entity was allowed to own. The Republicans did away with that in the 90s and noughties. The result is massive consolidation of media outlets (radio, TV, and print) into mega conglomerates like Clearchannel. These conglomerates drop costs by producing programs in one location that are syndicated across their media outlets. The result is a drop in local content and accountability and a greater facility in control of information and the manipulation of public opinion. See herefor some of the regulatory history that allowed this to change.

Re:Fine, "On Topic" then:

[Tubal-Cain]

Maybe they restored from backup.
Or maybe they need a competent administrator. I'm sure you know just the person for the job, right?

Re:Fine, "On Topic" then:

[TheoMurpse]

Clerked for an odd combination of judges (wonder why?)

I just checked what you said. He clerked for the D.C. Circuit and for two justices on the SCOTUS. You want to know why?

Because those are three of the most prestigious positions in the world for a young lawyer to have. Any one of those, especially either of the two SCOTUS jobs, practically guarantees that your first year after that job you can make $600K walking on to any law firm in the country. Additionally, the D.C. Circuit sees every important case arising out of the federal government. It's fascinating and important work. I'd hope that anyone with a moderate amount of interest in having a good job can understand the appeal of doing things that matter on a wide scale. All of his three clerkships were this type of job.

And you can't make any sort of "poitical" pattern out of the clerks, either: Brennan and Souter are practically on different sides of the world, politically. At least, at the time Genachowski clerked for them, Souter was still on the right.

And as for the "schoolchum of Obama" reference, the man went to Harvard and served on HLR at the same time as Obama. Obama has first-hand knowledge that the man is extremely gifted; experience that dates back to the late 80s and early 90s.

And the guy was a high-ranking official in the FCC in the 90s. It's not like he doesn't have the pedigree: prior relevant experience, prestigious education, and an obvious intellect (you don't get any of those clerkships without being in the top 1% of all students graduating from Tier 1 law schools, which shows you know how to at least get very high grades).

Note that I know nothing about his politics whatsoever. I'm merely refuting your uninformed accusations that somehow this guy cannot possibly be qualified for his position by any stretch of the imagination.

Re:Unlikely choice

[Farmer Tim]

I'm pretty sure that's the previous head of the FCC. Or his hat, anyway.

Credentials aren't so hot

[girlintraining]

I'd rather have someone who didn't spend their life in management making decisions about how the internet should work. And that's all this guy has... Funding, venture capital, management. So he's great at money! Good--I'm sure he'll make a bunch of businesses very rich. But does he know what TCP/IP is? Does he understand what makes effective QoS policy? How about the difference between bandwidth and latency or (shudder) the OSI 7 layer [burrito] model of networking? Bluntly stated -- does this guy give two sh*ts about consumer interests?

This guy will be head of the FCC. Isn't that organization also very much about engineering, not just policy. If the FCC has become a policy-making organization and left its engineering roots, well how shall I say -- "Houston, we have a problem." And yes, the comparison to NASA I think is fitting, given it was another engineering-based governmental body that later become all about policies and management and has now sent two shuttles smashing into the ground because of it.

Change we can believe in. Heh--Yeah. Right. Looks like more of the same to me.

Re:Credentials aren't so hot

[Reality Master 201]

You'd make an awful manager.

Re:Credentials aren't so hot

[Rycross]

Management is a different skill set than technology. Whats important in a leader is being able to listen to people who are experts, learn from them, and then make a reasoned decision. Its not so concerning if he's not a techy if he has a track record of listening to informed techies and making good decisions based on that information. A track record of leading companies that effectively utilize the internet is such a track record.

Re:Credentials aren't so hot

[Anonymous Coward]

insightful? wtf. There's a world of difference between public policy and QoS policy, between Secretary of the Interior and a construction worker.

Re:Credentials aren't so hot

[tnk1]

In defense of managers, you don't make money managing technical firms by being ignorant about the business you are in.

That's not to say all managers in tech are successful managers.

The FCC is a federal regulatory group. It's there to make policy, not engineering decisions. If they wanted engineering decisions, they form an IEEE working group. Now, you may argue that the scope of their authority should be limited to regulation of the spectrum proper, and not what goes over the spectrum, but policy is definitely one of their roles.

Re:Credentials aren't so hot

[keithjr]

Bluntly stated -- does this guy give two sh*ts about consumer interests?

The guy pretty much wrote Obama's tech plan, the motto of which is "Open Government, Open Networks, Open Market." And he's an advocate for 'Net Neutrality.

The FCC isn't charged with creating standards and products, it's about policy. Technology policy, but policy nonetheless. It is a regulatory body. Nothing more, nothing less.

I know it's the cool thing today to be cynical about Obama's decisions, and I haven't agreed with many of them lately as well, but this is a good pick.

Re:Credentials aren't so hot

[sohp]

Yep. He's not a geek, he's a suit. A suit who happens to be involved in money-making geek-ish business, but a suit.

Re:Credentials aren't so hot

[girlintraining]

You'd make an awful manager.

Probably, but the same could be said of Scotty. And without Scotty, Kirk wouldn't have a ship.

Re:Credentials aren't so hot

[Rycross]

Without Kirk, Scotty wouldn't have a ship either. It worked because Kirk was a good leader and listened to his team, not because Kirk was intimately familiar with the technology his ship used.

Re:Credentials aren't so hot

[girlintraining]

My point isn't that policy is one of their roles. My point is that it is not their only role and putting someone in charge that only knows the policy side of the equation will not make effective decisions about implementation of those policies. His policies could be the best thing since sliced bread but if the implementation is crap it doesn't matter. And given that the FCC has legal power over just about every electronic device sold, used, and produced in the United States... I'd like to know the man has some fundamental grasp of how they actually work. If not, well.. here's some history for you:

"The wireless music box has no imaginable commercial value. Who would pay for a message sent to nobody in particular?" --David Sarnoff's associates in response to his urgings for investment in the radio in the 1920s.

Re:Credentials aren't so hot

[girlintraining]

We need both managers and engineers, the problem is... Where are the engineers in the FCC and why don't they have a voice in how things are going? Because a lot of the FCC's decisions lately seem to be rolling out the doors with glaring implementation problems. Do they even employ them anymore?

Re:Credentials aren't so hot

[girlintraining]

The guy pretty much wrote Obama's tech plan

That page doesn't indicate he authored it. And the page you gave looks like a power-point presentation, not a policy paper. That does not inspire my confidence.

The FCC isn't charged with creating standards and products, it's about policy.

Flip over whatever you typed that with. There should be a sticker there that says "Part 16, FCC rules." Read it.

I know it's the cool thing today to be cynical about Obama's decisions, and I haven't agreed with many of them lately as well, but this is a good pick.

I'm not cynical about his decisions, I'm cynical about his administration. He hasn't been sworn in yet, so he hasn't made any decisions yet per-se.

Re:Credentials aren't so hot

[girlintraining]

Management is a different skill set than technology. Whats important in a leader is being able to listen to people who are experts, learn from them, and then make a reasoned decision. Its not so concerning if he's not a techy if he has a track record of listening to informed techies and making good decisions based on that information. A track record of leading companies that effectively utilize the internet is such a track record.

That's an excellent point. But I don't think the credentials listed so far speak to that. It only speaks to him knowing where and how to invest. That isn't leadership ability, that's financial know-how. What is there here that speaks to his ability to lead?

Re:Credentials aren't so hot

[Rycross]

Good point. He does have senior level experience in the FCC. He was on the Board of Directors for a lot of companies, and Chief of Business Operations at another. I would assume that the only way to determine if he is a good leader or not is how he participated in these positions, but I don't have access to that information.

Re:Credentials aren't so hot

[UnknowingFool]

I'd rather have someone who didn't spend their life in management making decisions about how the internet should work.

I'd say that is a large exaggeration of one of his many jobs.

• 2005 to present. Obama's transition team and the IT side of his campaign.
• 1997 to 2005. Executive Positions at Barry Diller's Internet conglomerate IAC/InterActive Corp including chief of business operations and general counsel.
• 1994 to 1997. FCC (Yes the same FCC) in a number of positions including chief counsel to the chairman.
• 1991 to 1994. Law clerk to Supreme Court Justices David Souter and William Brennan.
• 1988 to 1991. Harvard Law School
• 1985 to 1988. Staffer to Sen. Charles Schumer

So not counting his time in law school, it appears that he worked 8 years out of 20 years working "in management." He does have experience in the FCC and government. Now, you are right that he doesn't have as much technical IT background as you would like. But his last 10 years or so, he has worked in the IT industry.

Re:Credentials aren't so hot

[mcgrew]

But does he know what TCP/IP is?

I don't want the FCC to have anything whatever to do with the internet, except make the telcos and ISPs keep it open and free. You don't have to know anything about tech to do that.

We don't need an engineer in charge of the FCC, we need a manager. Engineers are as bad at management as managers are at engineering.

Bluntly stated -- does this guy give two sh*ts about consumer interests?

That's what's important IMO, not his tech creds.

Isn't that organization also very much about engineering, not just policy.

I think the FCC was always about policy. For example, busting up AT&T back when. Allocating broadcast frequencies.

You don't hire a programmer to manage a programming environment, you hire a manager who hires programmers.

Re:Credentials aren't so hot

[jmorris42]

> But his last 10 years or so, he has worked in the IT industry.

No. You just listed the resume of a LAWYER, not a tech type. The guy is a lawyer that has worked for a couple of tech companies in a legal capacity or business operations capacity, never as a technical type.

But I'll bet he is deeply connected to the corrupt monsters who run Chicago, just like almost every other Obama pick.

Re:Credentials aren't so hot

[Sloppy]

Isn't that what we want?

Re:Credentials aren't so hot

[ScrewMaster]

You don't hire a programmer to manage a programming environment, you hire a manager who hires programmers.

I'll buy that to a degree ... but if you hire a manager who doesn't know what the engineers are talking about you're in BIG trouble. And that's what I see happening here.

Re:Credentials aren't so hot

[Anonymous Coward]

yep. for example 'can spam'... the name was correct, it just wasn't what we thought it was...

Change we can believe in

[MikeRT]

How about Obama surprise everyone by doing something radical like announcing that he is going to make the FCC's only responsibility the licensing of spectrum and enforcement of (future?) federal cable and telecom franchising laws?

He is what the new FCC head should do:

[jackspenn]

Simply abolish the FCC and replace it with a citizen run mod point system.

Nepotism?

[retech]

I'm sure none of his companies will directly benefit from his appointment.

Re:Nepotism?

[Red Flayer]

Nepotism? (Score:2) by retech (1228598) on Tuesday January 13, @02:52PM (#26438239)

I'm sure none of his companies will directly benefit from his appointment.

Even if they do, that's not nepotism, unless his companies are run by his family members.

I believe the phrase you are looking for is Modern American "Democracy".

Re:He is what the new FCC head should do:

[sricetx]

replace it with a citizen run mod point system.

I nominate...Slashdot!

Any ideas on LPFM?

[Anonymous Coward]

The FCC (aka Friends of Clear Channel) has been holding this one up FOREVER. Will he support LPFM or keep the status quo?

Crashing this Obama parade!

[tjstork]

You guys are all giving each other high fives over Obama's FCC pick, and what you do not get is that commercially, he's going to be a very strong IP guy and a lot of you are going to be disappointed in that.

Think, people! How does a man who does venture capital for web startups NOT wind up being strongly in favor of copyright enforcement, software patents, and all the litigation that this board has come to despise?

I see a lot of media companies that did Obama a lot of favors, and Obama's bill for them is coming due. I would expect to see an Obama administration have -stricter- regulation than Bush's administration ever did, all to protect the big city newspapers, publishing houses, record companies, movie studios and other enterprises that form the economic backbone of what we would call the "liberal economy". I would expect to see increased liability on telcos for copyrighted content, a federal bureacracy to handle copyright claims, greater pressure on the rest of the world to get on board, and what's France going to do, when their own newspapers, movie studios, and more, are telling them to do the same thing. Bush had to sell out to Exxon and Halliburton, but Obama is a sellout to Time Warner and the New York Times. Every President, regardless of political party, has a business constituency that they whore out too, and in Obama's case, its the publishing industry. Bush brought us $4/gallon gasoline to appease his corporate masters, and Obama's going to kill the open internet, to do the same.

Re:Crashing this Obama parade!

[Anonymous Coward]

I was looking for something of substance in your response, but I couldn't find it...a lot of conjecture, but no substance.

Re:Crashing this Obama parade!

[californication]

How about the other side? The fact that the telcos want to start screwing the web startups by charging them for data sent from them to us over a connection we already pay for? That is what Net Neutrality was originally about, preventing the telcos from double dipping and creating a financial bottleneck for content sent over the internet. If he's associated with web startups and media that's not on the telcos' side, then most likely he is against the telcos' pay-to-play scheme.

Re:Crashing this Obama parade!

[corerunner]

You raise a valid point. We can only try to minimize the harmful effects of our politicians, and let's hope more good than bad comes from the new administration.

Re:Crashing this Obama parade!

[LeafOnTheWind]

Wait, what? At least the FCC pick is worthy of moderate discussion because it's already happened.

Bush brought us $4/gallon gasoline to appease his corporate masters, and Obama's going to kill the open internet, to do the same.

[citation needed]. Oh wait, there is no citation because you're criticizing his future actions. He hasn't even remotely insinuated that he'd do any such thing! Please tell me you understand how idiotic this is.

Re:Crashing this Obama parade!

[Atario]

You guys are all giving each other high fives over Obama's FCC pick, and what you do not get is that commercially, he's going to be a very strong IP guy and a lot of you are going to be disappointed in that.

Think, people! How does a man who does venture capital for web startups NOT wind up being strongly in favor of copyright enforcement, software patents, and all the litigation that this board has come to despise?

Small problem: the FCC has nothing to do with Imaginary Property, copyright enforcement, nor software patents. Thank you, drive through.

Bush brought us $4/gallon gasoline to appease his corporate masters, and Obama's going to kill the open internet, to do the same.

Wow, you really are a loon. The open Internet pretty much made Obama President. Even if you're so cynical about him (before he's even taken office, mind you) that you think he's purely in it for the cash, why would he bite the hand that feeds him?

Re:Crashing this Obama parade!

[Halo1]

Think, people! How does a man who does venture capital for web startups NOT wind up being strongly in favor of copyright enforcement, software patents, and all the litigation that this board has come to despise?

About the software patents: by being sane like Benchmark Capital (one of the first investors in eBay) and several other venture capital firms.

Re:Crashing this Obama parade!

[tjstork]

Small problem: the FCC has nothing to do with Imaginary Property, copyright enforcement, nor software patents. Thank you, drive through

The FCC stands for "Federal COMMUNCICATIONS Commission". Therefor, it can really be about anything that involves communications, including property rights and software patents. It most certainly could. In fact, there's probably quite a bit of jockeying in the government as to what organization will actually manage IP in the digital age. Surely the FCC wants a piece of that!

Wow, you really are a loon. The open Internet pretty much made Obama President

The open internet didn't do jack shit. Sorry, all of your writing on blogs and having a little cluster fuck in praise of Obama didn't do anything. What got Obama elected was Obama first and foremost, because he sensed that voters were fed up with the economic status quo from free trade, put his thoughts out on the table, and his book sold and took off like wildfire. He was also a very savvy politician and an excellent fundraiser, and great public speaker, at a time when the country wanted a good public speaker. Meanwhile, his political opposition ran a completely inept campaign. The whole strategy to bail on Bush completely backfired. Had they ran out Bush doing his town halls constantly like he had in 2004, and a candidate that defended the war and explained the problems in ways that said they are being worked on, and not been so stupidly anti-union, then Republicans probably could have won the election.

lobster + FCC =

[damn_registrars]

Frankly they could put a lobster in charge of the FCC and it would be just as well off as it is at this moment.

It occurred to me after writing that rant that if a lobster were indeed in charge of the FCC, it could then be the Federal Crustacean Commission.

Thank you, and don't forget to tip your server.

Re:lobster + FCC =

[manastungare]

Thank you, and don't forget to tip your server.

I did as you said; it landed with a thud and now it won't reboot.

Why is nudity vs violence backwards?

[tjstork]

Sorry, but, you know, this whole hippy thing of nudity is love and violence is evil is just stupid.

Nudity has nothing to do with love. Sticking your dick into some slut's snatch and gushing it around until she says she loves you doesn't do anything for the country at all. Unless she decides she's up for breeding some good old babies for Jesus, otherwise, it's useless.

On the other hand, violence is plenty useful. It can get you more oil, access at the bargaining table with the great powers, AND, most of all, it can get your more broads to ram that fuckstick of yours into.

I know what Jesus said and all, but, the reality is different. If you want to be a big pussy and wish you had a girlfriend, value nudity. But, if you want to have tons of oil and power, then be violent, as you'll get tons of pussy to boot, and, they'll all be cranking out your genetic destiny in the form of children.

Who would you rather be, Ghandi, living impoversished in a tent, and getting shot in the end by some punk. Or, would you rather be Ghengis Khan, with an empire the size of Asia and the Middle East, tons of loot, and more women than you can name colors?

Re:Why is nudity vs violence backwards?

[Tiber]

Oh my god I wish I could +1 you.

Also in this day and age, Ghandi would be raped to death by some punk who was never prosecuted because in our society, gay rape is love!

Re:Why is nudity vs violence backwards?

[fm6]

You're talking about real life. We're talking about television.

Re:Why is nudity vs violence backwards?

[amRadioHed]

Peace is plenty useful to. If you disagree I'm sure you're real popular in your neighborhood.

And I'd rather be Gandhi, thank you very much. Stealing shit and raping women is not living the good life.

Re:Why is nudity vs violence backwards?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know... I can name a lot of colors.

Re:Why is nudity vs violence backwards?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nudity != hardcore sex
Take a look at the video to Sigur Ros' Gobbledigook: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puC0UeWLjM8
Not much of dick sticking there... still it was banned on many TV stations, and where it was aired it was often just shown at late times. Because, yeah, this is clearly harmful to kids.

Re:Why is nudity vs violence backwards?

[Chris Burke]

I see what you're saying, but give hippies their due. After all, the main gist of your argument for why violence is so great is that in the end it gets you laid, and let's be honest here that's the ultimate motivation for all the would-be Ghengis Khans and their legions. But the hippies were up to their necks in "free love", without the need for all that violence and the dangers of the resulting counter-violence. Their biggest risks were a bad acid trip and a case of the clap -- gotta take antibiotics, bummer man! You think tin-pot dictators like Saddam would have gone to all the trouble of oppressing half their people, making enemies of all their neighbors, risking constant assassination just to be able to order any women he wanted into his bed, if he could have gotten all the play he wanted just by saying "Hey wanna come to my drum circle, we've got a hookah?" I don't think so.

The world has changed, and we never see anything like it again, but for a brief period there, peace was tha shit.

Re:Why is nudity vs violence backwards?

[Anonymous Coward]

OK, you convinced me. Where do I sign up for the fully clothed violence?

I sure hope you aren't as wrong as that Army recruiter was, though; I really liked having legs, back before I got sent to Iraq.

Re:Why is nudity vs violence backwards?

[Anonymous Coward]

Saving all that up for a snarky Slashdot post about censorship, were ya?

Re:Why is nudity vs violence backwards?

[freedom_india]

Yeah true. But in the case of Genghis Khan some woman pulled his pee-pee so hard that he died the next day.
That is a poor way to die: worse than getting shot.

Re:He is what the new FCC head should do:

[Shakrai]

Simply abolish the FCC and replace it with a citizen run mod point system.

Does that mean Olbermann will get cut off on the days that the right-wingers have mod points and O'reilly will get cut off on the days that the left-wingers have em? ;)

Motley fool?! YAY I CAN SUE HIM FOR SPAM!

[plasmacutter]

A long time ago I gave my email to register on this site and poke around.

I have since been receiving more traffic from motley fool than the mplayer mailing list in digest form.

I have requested removal from their lists to no avail.

I'm glad to see there is now a high profile target I can torpedo with lawsuits.

Don't blame me, I voted for Twitter Sockpuppet #3

[redxxx]

I think that would work almost as well as meta moderation works here. Actually, it would probably be closer to Digg, with lobbyists playing the role of 'Power Users'.

Crash!

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, you sure crashed their parade.

I also find that hysterical half-mad tirades are the best way to inject skepticism into a discussion. But I'll depart from that tradition to give you some insight:

1) Web startups do not like having to pay tribute to software patents owned by companies that can afford to amass them.

2) I don't think liberal economy means what you think it does.

3) Some of us don't see regulations such as net neutrality as a bad thing. If that's going to "kill the open internet" for you then you can throttle your own connection and pretend your ISP is doing it.

4) Quit it with the Bush == Obama nonsense. It's possible for a president to be better than Bush. (In fact, it has happened 42 times already!) Let's wait and see!

Re:Crash!

[tjstork]

There's nothing hysterical or half mad about what I said at all. All I said was that Obama was beholden to media interests. They are going to want some concessions from him, and they are going to get them.

1. Web startups like to have patents of their own, to get venture capital.

2. Liberal economy means exactly what I said. The problem is the USA is a liberal economy with mercantile trading partners, except that instead of holding gold, they hold dollars and treasury bills.

3. Net neutrality isn't bad, but, you'll get other regulation as well. Right off the wheel, we have states looking to get internet sales taxes, the dems want to squelch conservative content, and the publishing houses want greater tracability to try and crush internet theft. Those are all issues advocated by the people that put Obama into the white house and they are going to want a return on their political investment.

4. Well, again, "better than Bush" is a subjective term. You have to go by industry and some industries did well under him, and others did not so well. If you worked in commodities, or other "red state" industries, you did rather well. Similarly, owing more towards an ideological bias against regulation than anything else, the open source movement, and software industry as a whole, did rather well under the Bush administration. On the other hand, if you worked in media, government or traditionally blue state service industries - like banking or wall street, you got screwed. It's the same deal with Obama. Strip away the rhetoric and there are clearly industries to align with in his administration. Favor products that support copyright, environmental stuff, renewable fuels, and you'll be in good shape. In my case, that means write for Windows and buy stock in biodiesel companies. Go Obama.

Venture capitalists

[macraig]

Having a venture capitalist in any appointed position in what is supposed to be a representative democracy does not strike me as very wise. Whose interests exactly do we expect such a person to represent? Certainly not mine nor those of any of my friends and family....

Re:Venture capitalists

[macraig]

I meant to title that "Venture capitalists in the henhouse". Ooops.

Why VIOLENCE rules, the short version:

[Anonymous Coward]

To Crush Your Enemies. To See Them Driven Before You. And To Hear The Lamentations Of their Women.

you know

[unity100]

conservatives in your level of extremism are dubbed as extremists in even turkey, and shunned ?

you would really love islamist extremists. they really do talk and act like you do. eggs in a basket.

Federal Communications Commission?

[ScrewMaster]

The FCC, huh. I have an idea ... how about we appoint a goddamn communications engineer? At least someone with a degree in electronics, RF, microwave tech, networking, something. I'd like to see an individual in this position who isn't yet another MBA-type with political obligations who doesn't grasp either the fundamentals of communications technology, or, perhaps even more importantly, its potential. I mean, we don't need another Esther Dyson clone (look how well that turned out.) Someone who lives in a area that is underserved by the incumbent communications providers would also be a plus.

The FCC wields an awful lot of power, and it's been exercised rather irresponsibly as of late.

Re:He is what the new FCC head should do:

[ScrewMaster]

Simply abolish the FCC and replace it with a citizen run mod point system.

Does that mean Olbermann will get cut off on the days that the right-wingers have mod points and O'reilly will get cut off on the days that the left-wingers have em? ;)

Yes. And that would probably be a good thing for everyone concerned. And if nobody gets mod points ... we get to watch I Love Lucy re-runs instead.

Why not play outside

[tepples]

My thoughts exactly. I grew up with computers and played video games... too much, most likely. But I also played outside

As I understand it, not as many kids can play outside when higher population density forces families into apartments rather than separate houses. And parents are afraid to send their children into public parks alone for fear of kidnapping; more people per square km means more criminals.

Extreme Leftists? Not Really

[DesScorp]

There's been far too little scrutiny of a number of Obama appointees... he seems to be stacking the cabinet with nothing but extreme left-wingers every chance he gets.

So much for people who thought he was "honest" or "centrist."

The left is apoplectic right now because most of the truly powerful cabinet picks are centrists, or in some cases, even center right. Obama is getting the occasional doctranaire liberal for a post, but most of them are minor cabinet positions in the great scheme of things. Look at the lefty blogs and message boards, and they're quite pissed at Obama, and feel like he betrayed them. And maybe he did. Maybe he told them what they wanted to hear, and planned on being a centrist all along, as that's the likliest path to a second term. If he came in with both socialist-guns a'blazin, that would validate what Republicans were afraid of. He's been pretty smart in steering clear of that so far, to the anguish of many of his fervent supporters. Re-appointing Gates to SecDef was not only very smart, it felt like a dagger in the back of his anti-war supporters. Now he's even talking about delaying the closing of Gitmo.

People like Carol Browner may or may not be some kind of crypto-commie, but right now it looks like her "climate czar" position will be all sound and fury, with little substance. With the economy in the dumps, I just don't see Obama being stupid enough to let her or anyone else start shutting down factories and energy plants.

Just Wow

[DesScorp]

No one is advocating bringing back the fairness doctrine. This is a right-wing/libertarian talking point. Let it go, ffs.

The Senate Majority Leader and Speaker of the House are both on record as stating that it should be re-instated. So are powerful colleagues Diane Feinstein, John Kerry, Barney Frank, and Charles Schumer. Senator Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico has stated in October that he plans to draft legislation to this effect
in the new Congressional term.

Will they actually do it? Or succeed? Probably not. Barrack Obama has changed his mind and now opposes reinstating it, and after some polls showed that voters were overwhelmingly against it. And political pundits now say that Reid and Pelosi will probably try to block such measures from even coming to a vote... they don't want to give the GOP any ammunition on this.

So, we're probably safe. But to claim that no one wants to do it or that no one is advocating it is patently absurd.

Re:Just Wow

[Rycross]

I am obviously misinformed on this topic, as I was drawing on my memory of past discussion of this topic. This might be because I find it absurd that anyone would want to bring back the Fairness Doctrine. Good thing I didn't vote for any of these clowns, and its doubly good that Obama opposes it.

Re:He is what the new FCC head should do:

[Shakrai]

And if nobody gets mod points ... we get to watch I Love Lucy re-runs instead.

If the Slashdot crowd is the only one that gets mod points does that mean there won't be anything on TV besides Mythbusters, Office Space and cult movies with racial epithets in the title?

Just like he managed..

[Anonymous Coward]

So he's going to manage the FCC just as well as he did Obama's campaign website? Oh wait.. but his website was compromised by hackers..

And the other other side?

[tjstork]

How about the other side?

And what about the other, other side. While I'm not in favor of it, there could always be a push to create a Federalized Linux distribution by using a tax on broadband to pay for it. If you payed for your broadband, you might have to kick in an extra $2 a month but you would basically allow something like a corporation for public computing to form up and make Linux. Instead of the GPL then, you would just have the work be in public domain.

As developers, we tend to be Aspberger's like focused on immediate and specific issues, but really, as soon as people in the government start to actually do something, you need to remember, anything can happen.

Re:He is what the new FCC head should do:

[canajin56]

Sounds like a good idea, actually!
"That report was BS, everybody knows they faked the moon landing. -1 troll"
"It's not censorship, if you don't like it, you can just change your filters settings for tits from -1 to +1"

Re:He is what the new FCC head should do:

[Xtifr]

I'm confused. How are "Star Wars", "Serenity" and "The Matrix" racial epithets?

eeeeeeeeeeh

[unity100]

the problem is, when enough members of the society adopts a certain behavior pattern, that pattern gets stronger and stronger, and also affects those within the group too.

simple breakdown :

as more and more punks accept your proposal of badass heaven as a viable way of life, the application of power does not stop with those outside the group. people who follow the path of 'power' do not sit around a round table and distribute the spoils like good samaritans. the ones who are more powerful think they deserve and can take more, and a power struggle ensues. it goes on until all the participants think that they are on the highest level of power structure as they can get, and only then the system can work. and when it does, its a very inefficient system - more effort is spent in preserving the power structure than applying that power to outside sources for profit and gain. and since gains are unevenly distributed from top to bottom, the synergy that abundance creates does not happen.

as an example you can observe the current supposedly free market environment in united states. even though there are regulations, the power is aggregated by a few big groups that have increasingly more and more power, and eventually every other lesser group becomes an underdog. and these groups spend more cash for mergers, acquisitions, deals, licenses, buying laws, defending markets than they actually invest. result is, through a lot of side causes, and some last resort actions, the decline of us as an economy in contrast to europe, india and china, and the current economic crisis.

as can be understood from the example, such groups eventually kill themselves. OR, turn about.

the case of mutually beneficial, freedom and sharing based concepts is an easy one to talk about. you are living in apartments/houses in 21st century luxury, just because these thoughts have taken foothold, and a totally weak specie of hominoid monkeys have started to take care of their weak regardless of anything, and therefore have been able to develop skills that were not immediately needed for survival at that point in time, but later proved big technological advancements.

add to that the fact that throughout the course of history, it has been the more democratical, equalitarian, socially conscious, mutually beneficial relations-seeking groups and societies making big strides and achieving great things both for themselves and others, you can see the big picture. greek democracy, despite living in barren islands with little resources and little population, have bested and outlived many big empires that threatened them. same goes for republic of venice, dutch republic for centuries, and britains emerging as a big country from an obscure island through implementation of human rights and societal justice, and eventually the emergence of united states from a mere colony to a big nation.

all these have bested all kinds of badass wannabee, hardliner countries that threatened them.

of course, not that you were serious about what you were saying. its evident that you are being sarcastic, for noone can be that stupid.