Sure. Because broad generalizations are so honest and accurate.
In my experience, both parties lose touch and experience creeping corruption when in power. I have observed, however, that it seems that the Republicans experience it faster than the Democrats do.
As far as your commentary on restricting rights, BOTH parties have their issues, and I do not see the Democrats as being worse than the Republicans by a long shot, especially when it comes to religion (prayer in schools, prayer at government functions, the flagrant display of religious iconography in public buildings, denial of other religions equal access for displays, etc), the right for one to decide how to best manage body medically, and who one is allowed to have sex with, contraception, and who one is allowed to marry. Those issues hit me a lot closer to home than firearms ownership/carry, and how I'm allowed to access content vis-a-vis music and movies on the Internet.
Yeah, I love it how people these days forget that in politics, one has to look at the options, actually evaluate what these candidates have done in the past and what they claim they'll do now, and pick one that has the most in common with the realistic goals that they share.
This, "Ohmygod! They agree with me on W, X, Y, and Z, but disagree with me on A and B, oh the horror!" attitude that seems prevalent is saddening. I know that I am not going to agree with everything that is espoused or even actually held as a belief by a candidate that I choose from. I have to pick the candidate that I think will do the best job all around, and issue-politics and muckracking doesn't help me see the bulk of the positions that a given candidate takes, only the ones that the opponents of the candidate think will be the most onerous.
Interesting and all, but it begs the question: why isn't this price-fixing, if "prices really never fell below a certain threshold".
Because one organization owns all of the intellectual property, and as the sole supplier they can dictate the price. Price-fixing is only illegal if there are multiple parties in collusion. A seller might even be able to sell for less than the price they paid for the merchandise, but they're not going to get a profit, and the supplier probably won't supply to them anymore.
I assume that the zombie-workstations send out e-mail via SMTP. Why not require real mail servers to comply with DNS to have an MX record for the domain or IP, and to then have SMTP servers for a given network or internet service provider throttle the number of e-mail per unit of time and to limit the number of recipients to human real-world numbers?
That would prevent a non-MX mail server from being able to send mail since other mail servers would reject it based on DNS, and would prevent zombie botnets from using the SMTP servers of the service provider that the computer is connected to in order to spam through.
It wouldn't eliminate spam, but it might serve well to reduce it significantly. Yes, it would require some more programming in the SMTP daemon, but it shouldn't jack with the protocol.
Remember, when someone buys drugs they're buying something they generally know is illegal, same with the seller. Both have a personal interest in keeping the transaction as low-key as possible.
A purchaser of sports memorabilia is not looking to buy anything illegal. That means that the sellers of sports memorabilia in general are not low-key, and have to seem legitimate, which could open them up to investigation if the copyright and trademark holders do a good job of documenting the supply chain. Remember, many products have minimum costs per the resale agreement, and any price coming in under that price could automatically trigger a more thorough look. If one is counterfeiting memorabilia and is not aware of the minimum price, attempting to undercut legitimate resellers to drive sales could attract attention.
I know this because years ago I worked for a small business that did all manner of technology and equipment work. Among the company's offerings were OEM software products, and remember, the definition of OEM back then was loose enough that one could buy a copy of Office or Windows as an OEM product if buying a qualifying hardware product, which could mean something as cheap as a Microsoft mouse. Well, the owner of the small business found a supplier of Windows and Office that let him sell for really, really cheap, and he advertised. A few days later, an investigator on behalf of Microsoft stopped by. He and the owner talked, and basically the rep was willing to exchange all of our copies of everything we had bought for resale in exchange for being given the information on the party that sold us the software. It probably worked that way because we had about fifteen products, not exactly a mecca of commercial piracy. He collected the counterfeits, gave us real ones, and left with contact information. Before he left he explained the supply chain that Microsoft used to distribute, and how prices really never fell below a certain threshold for current products.
Back to this situation, if the real owners and producers of the licensed memorabilia have a supply chain with defined prices, it's easy to catch sellers who have unlicensed product if you just watch for their ads.
Take his hard disk drive full of his downloaded music, movies, porn, etc, and say, "This is all of the stuff provided through the Internet". Take a hammer, say, "This is the new laws that they're planning on passing". Then say, "This is the result of those new laws" and smash the hard disk drive to bits.
Granted, you'll lose a friend, but you might gain an ally...
Avoid malware by using an iPhone. Sorry. Someone would have said it if I didn't.
And they'd have been just as wrong too.
The "install an infected app from the app store" route is only one of many ways to infect a device like this. A remote exploit, like how Microsoft's browser brings down hundreds of thousands of PCs a year, is much more likely IMHO to cause real widespread chaos.
and be wary of apps that want permission to... connect to the Internet or reveal your identity and location.
So, in other words, all apps that actually make use of the fact that it's a mobile device able to determine its position in real space to enhance the user's real-world experience...
Sounds to me like the OS makers need to address this, and give user-level ways of doing things that don't compromise the whole system if something nefarious happens, and then also give the manufacturer of the OS the ability to alert users when the manufacturer learns of malicious applications so that they can be removed.
She shouldn't be surprised because while *she* might not have had anything beyond the cartridge round, someone else or someones else might have had the firearm or pieces. It's the exact same reason why the old, young, and the infirm are subject to seach; that individual might not intend to do anything or might not even be capable of doing anything, but they could be a mule for the real perpetrator, unwitting or not.
On the other hand, I think that the way the old, the young, and the infirm are searched needs drastic modification. Those in relatively standard wheelchairs should be transferred to airline owned and provided wheelchairs and have their chairs stowed, and then go through security in a chair that can't be used to conceal. The young need to be spoken to by someone with teacher-style training to ask them questions about things that they might have been asked to carry, rather than patted down the way they've been without any just cause. The old need to be screened by staff that have received special training in ailments and treatments that the elderly could be dealing with, and ways to screen people with these conditions with more respect.
But, at this point, I'm thinking that it's time to throw out the baby with the bathwater and literally start over.
If you want to talk about server administration, you'd do well to remember that Novell didn't even give you many options on the console on the server. Most of the tools were run on the workstation. The whole point was that there wasn't much reason to ever sit at the server itself.
I thought innovation was supposed to be moving us forward, not backward!
But it is. The rest of the server/network operating system community, like Novell, UNIX, VMS, MVS, OS/400, and Linux are now welcoming Microsoft to the fold. They've matured enough to now acknowledge they don't need a GUI. Heck, Novell barely had an interface of any kind on the server, all of the administration was done through tools one one of the workstations authenticated against the server once the server and workstation were up and running...
My old servers had no GUI as there was no need for them. I had an eight inch tube monitor connected so I could use the console if needed on rare occasions. Only reason new my server at home will have a GUI is because it'll also be a MythTV frontend, since it'll hammer my network a lot less than running the frontend on a different box, and because it won't be providing any services on the public Internet.
Except that roads aren't generally monopolistic. The public in the form of the government they choose establishes rules for the construction of roads and for the procedures under which they're built. Private companies bid to build the roads, and anyone who can meet the fairly loose criteria established by the government is free and welcome to participate. Most roads, once built, are free for anyone to drive on, with the caveat that certain kinds of traffic or vehicles might be prohibited, usually due to those vehicles' propensity for damaging the road.
There are toll roads, which usually do provide money back to the government, but that money was to finance their construction and maintenance. Having driven highways in probably a dozen states, many southwestern states have worse roads that are free to drive on even though the weather doesn't quickly destroy them, while the toll turnpikes in Massachusetts and New York are smooth even though they see frost heaves. Arizona does have pretty good roads though, probably the best in the southwest, definitely better than NM.
Most government services are provided because private companies are ill-suited to providing them. Private police have a tendency to unequal and biased enforcement of the law, far worse than any police agency. Private currency-issuing-banks did exist (they were called Wildcat banks) but were so unstable that sticking to a single currency note made more sense. Education is not monopolized by government in the sense that many school districts allow for Open Enrollment where one can send one's child to any number of school districts or charter schools instead of just the neighborhood school.
Very broadly speaking and due to history, Republicans tend to be mostly rural and southern whereas Democrats are urban and on the coasts. And this strongly influences their outlook. Republicans in the last 50 years have also been the most staunchly anti-communist as well (and thus anti-socialist). So a more rural Republican base is very distrustful of anything to do with welfare whereas a more urban Democratic base is in favor of government programs and assistance.
I suppose that explains The Farm Bill and the protesters with signs reading, "Keep Government Out Of My Medicare!" at rallies...
I'm a Libertarian and I don't like either party. You're wrong if you think there's a difference between the two parties.
1. "The Republicans generally support the goals of big business, and have a top-down approach to wealth."
So do the Democrats. How many poor Democrats are in congress? Seven of the top ten richest congressmen are Democrats.
I have never had any objection to people being wealthy, even ridiculously wealthy, and most Democrats that I've talked to on this matter do not have a problem with this either. The problem is in shirking responsibilities. No legal document founding this country makes any guarantee of being wealthy, or any respect for it.
If you want to talk about what wealth disparity does, look at the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, the Chinese Revolution, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War. ALL had large elements of a super-rich, corrupt elite who wouldn't return to society some of the fruits of their success that they benefitted from society. When income and resource inequality gets too far out of whack, revolution happens.
2. "Many members feel that they have a moral imperative to attempt to push their moral agenda on people who have nothing to do with them"
Democrats do this also with issues like affirmative action and gay marriage.
I am not going to get into a debate about affirmative action right now, the issues of generations of racial discrimination and the ramifications of it are far too far reaching to get in to depth on in this forum. On the other hand, I don't see anyone forcing a social conservative to have a gay marriage. I don't see anyone forcing a social conservative to participate in a blow job, or in birth control, or in sex for pleasure, or in sex in anything other than the missionary position (I'm pointing directly at Santorum here), nor is anyone forcing them to have premarital sex or extramarital affairs. The point in this is that Democrats generally want to not prohibit activities between consenting adults. I do, however, see Republicans arguing that their social restrictions on who can have sex with who when everyone involved are consenting adults, and I find that more disgusting than any of the sexual practices that they seek to render illegal between those consenting adults.
3. "The Republicans are also very good at compelling members to conform and follow, even when a given member may disagree with a lot of party rhetoric, and even when it's not in their best interests to actually agree."
Same for the Democrats. How to you think the Democrats get 98% of the black vote. It's almost impossible to get 98% of any group to agree on anything. My friend is a coal miner and voted for Obama because the union told him too. If that's not voting against your self interest, I don't know what is.
I was referring to the elected officials, not to the public. Terri Schiavo comes to mind. In my opinion, Democrats should have removed the filibuster from the Senate's rules of order and rammed single-payer-with-optout (ie, if you opt out, no one is required to care for you if you can't pay), end of DADT, appointment of judges, cabinet post and agency director positions, and a whole host of other legislation down Republicans' throats just as the Republicans did when they managed to gain majorities in both chambers.
I know, you're libertarian, so you don't like many of my ideas, but if you want roads, clean air, clean water, postal delivery, the ability to purchase things that require loans, someone to deal with the results of your rights being violated, someone to put out fires, and much, much more, you'll need some form of organizing body, and that is called Government.
Yeah, we're well behind where you are in service. Our phones are locked in to a given carrier and it's a PITA to unlock them, our plans suck rocks, we have two-year contracts, and now we have extra fees to help pay for the phones on top of the contracts.
Geeks don't agree, but geeks don't literally come down as on only one side of each of several issues with another group of geeks coming down on exactly the opposite side of the set of issues either. A politician who knows the issues and can actually talk about them with some kind of insight is the kind of person we would ultimately want, even if not everyone agrees with everything they stand for all of the time.
My wife is an MIT alum and is really active in her alumni group, so I know A LOT of extreme übergeeks. They fall all over the place as far as opinions on the political responsibilities and ramifications of technology, yet they all would agree that generally understanding and employing technology and being able to look at the results of its usage is essential in the further progression of society. After all, Technology is what differentiates human beings from all of the other animals on this planet. We are the only species that engages in any sort of high level manufacturing beyond a little bit of the use of found objects in a few other mammals.
I used to think this, but I've come to realize that this thinking is not entirely correct.
The Republicans generally support the goals of big business, and have a top-down approach to wealth. They believe that making people at the top rich will lead to prosperity for all. Many believe that social programs do not help well enough to justify many of them. Many members feel that they have a moral imperative to attempt to push their moral agenda on people who have nothing to do with them, and whose behaviors do not affect them in the slightest. The Republicans are also very good at compelling members to conform and follow, even when a given member may disagree with a lot of party rhetoric, and even when it's not in their best interests to actually agree.
The Democrats look at individuals for success, and define success through a bottom-up approach, rather than a top-down approach, as many believe that top-down approaches have led to severe inequality. They believe government has the ability to address such injustices and to help dampen inequality. Many believe that an individual's right to make ones' own choices, so long as those choices don't victimize others, is important, but are not willing to ignore data that demonstrates particular freedoms causing lots of harm. Democrats generally like to build consensus before agreeing on a plan, which lately has been to their detriment, as it allows their political opponents to stonewall things that should be able to pass despite objection.
There are times for either, and both political parties have this habit of becoming sort of rotted out from the insides due to corruption. Unfortunately, it seems that the Republicans rot-out a lot faster than the Democrats, yet members of the party have seemingly short memories of it, like Newt Gingrich, who has managed to be a serious contender for the Republican party's nominee for President despite having resigned from the House of Representative in disgrace.
I'm much more inclined to look at a candidate that uses or has used technology versus those who just like to talk about it.
In that sense, Obama came into his position while using a Blackberry to keep connected. Presumably this allowed him to use the business features of the device to make his work more efficient. As a user, he would be affected by changes to the law that might restrict what he could do if companies now stop things that they've been doing in practice.
A candidate who talks about technology without actually putting it into practice is not necessarily a good candidate, in that their understanding doesn't come to a practical level and the could think they understand issues that they don't, and since they don't even use the tech, making a bad decision wouldn't even impact them.
Run away from candidates who are proud of their provincial, luddite behavior. That's perfectly fine in any random person, but is unacceptable in someone who will be expected to make decisions that affect millions of people but can't be bothered to get informed.
"Those Internets" -George W. Bush
"The Internet is a great way to get on the Net" -Bob Dole
...what non-information companies have to gain by this bill. Ford is limited to intellectual property related to their physical products, and only could really deal with software piracy for ECM and BCM computers which are limited to use in Ford products anyway. Nike could face a competitor stealing their product designs which would be easier to make than Ford's, but still would fall into industrial espionage rather than casual piracy, and Estee Lauder makes cosmetics and other products that again, aren't exactly end-consumer-piratable...
I wonder if it's a bigger deal that these companies are supporting Congressmen who are passionate about this bill, and this is just another way of helping to keep these Congressmen in their pockets.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure. Because broad generalizations are so honest and accurate.
In my experience, both parties lose touch and experience creeping corruption when in power. I have observed, however, that it seems that the Republicans experience it faster than the Democrats do.
As far as your commentary on restricting rights, BOTH parties have their issues, and I do not see the Democrats as being worse than the Republicans by a long shot, especially when it comes to religion (prayer in schools, prayer at government functions, the flagrant display of religious iconography in public buildings, denial of other religions equal access for displays, etc), the right for one to decide how to best manage body medically, and who one is allowed to have sex with, contraception, and who one is allowed to marry. Those issues hit me a lot closer to home than firearms ownership/carry, and how I'm allowed to access content vis-a-vis music and movies on the Internet.
Yeah, I love it how people these days forget that in politics, one has to look at the options, actually evaluate what these candidates have done in the past and what they claim they'll do now, and pick one that has the most in common with the realistic goals that they share.
This, "Ohmygod! They agree with me on W, X, Y, and Z, but disagree with me on A and B, oh the horror!" attitude that seems prevalent is saddening. I know that I am not going to agree with everything that is espoused or even actually held as a belief by a candidate that I choose from. I have to pick the candidate that I think will do the best job all around, and issue-politics and muckracking doesn't help me see the bulk of the positions that a given candidate takes, only the ones that the opponents of the candidate think will be the most onerous.
Because one organization owns all of the intellectual property, and as the sole supplier they can dictate the price. Price-fixing is only illegal if there are multiple parties in collusion. A seller might even be able to sell for less than the price they paid for the merchandise, but they're not going to get a profit, and the supplier probably won't supply to them anymore.
I assume that the zombie-workstations send out e-mail via SMTP. Why not require real mail servers to comply with DNS to have an MX record for the domain or IP, and to then have SMTP servers for a given network or internet service provider throttle the number of e-mail per unit of time and to limit the number of recipients to human real-world numbers?
That would prevent a non-MX mail server from being able to send mail since other mail servers would reject it based on DNS, and would prevent zombie botnets from using the SMTP servers of the service provider that the computer is connected to in order to spam through.
It wouldn't eliminate spam, but it might serve well to reduce it significantly. Yes, it would require some more programming in the SMTP daemon, but it shouldn't jack with the protocol.
Already been done. Another head finds the body. Didn't you even read the summary?
No, it's probably more about low-hanging fruit.
Remember, when someone buys drugs they're buying something they generally know is illegal, same with the seller. Both have a personal interest in keeping the transaction as low-key as possible.
A purchaser of sports memorabilia is not looking to buy anything illegal. That means that the sellers of sports memorabilia in general are not low-key, and have to seem legitimate, which could open them up to investigation if the copyright and trademark holders do a good job of documenting the supply chain. Remember, many products have minimum costs per the resale agreement, and any price coming in under that price could automatically trigger a more thorough look. If one is counterfeiting memorabilia and is not aware of the minimum price, attempting to undercut legitimate resellers to drive sales could attract attention.
I know this because years ago I worked for a small business that did all manner of technology and equipment work. Among the company's offerings were OEM software products, and remember, the definition of OEM back then was loose enough that one could buy a copy of Office or Windows as an OEM product if buying a qualifying hardware product, which could mean something as cheap as a Microsoft mouse. Well, the owner of the small business found a supplier of Windows and Office that let him sell for really, really cheap, and he advertised. A few days later, an investigator on behalf of Microsoft stopped by. He and the owner talked, and basically the rep was willing to exchange all of our copies of everything we had bought for resale in exchange for being given the information on the party that sold us the software. It probably worked that way because we had about fifteen products, not exactly a mecca of commercial piracy. He collected the counterfeits, gave us real ones, and left with contact information. Before he left he explained the supply chain that Microsoft used to distribute, and how prices really never fell below a certain threshold for current products.
Back to this situation, if the real owners and producers of the licensed memorabilia have a supply chain with defined prices, it's easy to catch sellers who have unlicensed product if you just watch for their ads.
...for their analogies.
Take his hard disk drive full of his downloaded music, movies, porn, etc, and say, "This is all of the stuff provided through the Internet". Take a hammer, say, "This is the new laws that they're planning on passing". Then say, "This is the result of those new laws" and smash the hard disk drive to bits.
Granted, you'll lose a friend, but you might gain an ally...
Don't ever turn it on, or for heaven's sake, don't take it out of airplane mode...
And they'd have been just as wrong too.
The "install an infected app from the app store" route is only one of many ways to infect a device like this. A remote exploit, like how Microsoft's browser brings down hundreds of thousands of PCs a year, is much more likely IMHO to cause real widespread chaos.
So, in other words, all apps that actually make use of the fact that it's a mobile device able to determine its position in real space to enhance the user's real-world experience...
Sounds to me like the OS makers need to address this, and give user-level ways of doing things that don't compromise the whole system if something nefarious happens, and then also give the manufacturer of the OS the ability to alert users when the manufacturer learns of malicious applications so that they can be removed.
Be careful with people understanding five-syllable words...
Sounds like my Uncle Fred...
She shouldn't be surprised because while *she* might not have had anything beyond the cartridge round, someone else or someones else might have had the firearm or pieces. It's the exact same reason why the old, young, and the infirm are subject to seach; that individual might not intend to do anything or might not even be capable of doing anything, but they could be a mule for the real perpetrator, unwitting or not.
On the other hand, I think that the way the old, the young, and the infirm are searched needs drastic modification. Those in relatively standard wheelchairs should be transferred to airline owned and provided wheelchairs and have their chairs stowed, and then go through security in a chair that can't be used to conceal. The young need to be spoken to by someone with teacher-style training to ask them questions about things that they might have been asked to carry, rather than patted down the way they've been without any just cause. The old need to be screened by staff that have received special training in ailments and treatments that the elderly could be dealing with, and ways to screen people with these conditions with more respect.
But, at this point, I'm thinking that it's time to throw out the baby with the bathwater and literally start over.
The summary says her research is based on her family living arrangements. Is she planning on growing a shell or something?
So, Microsoft a'la 2012 = Novell 1993...
Sounds about right, considering Microsoft hired many, many Novell developers when it came time to write Active Directory...
If you want to talk about server administration, you'd do well to remember that Novell didn't even give you many options on the console on the server. Most of the tools were run on the workstation. The whole point was that there wasn't much reason to ever sit at the server itself.
But it is. The rest of the server/network operating system community, like Novell, UNIX, VMS, MVS, OS/400, and Linux are now welcoming Microsoft to the fold. They've matured enough to now acknowledge they don't need a GUI. Heck, Novell barely had an interface of any kind on the server, all of the administration was done through tools one one of the workstations authenticated against the server once the server and workstation were up and running...
My old servers had no GUI as there was no need for them. I had an eight inch tube monitor connected so I could use the console if needed on rare occasions. Only reason new my server at home will have a GUI is because it'll also be a MythTV frontend, since it'll hammer my network a lot less than running the frontend on a different box, and because it won't be providing any services on the public Internet.
Except that roads aren't generally monopolistic. The public in the form of the government they choose establishes rules for the construction of roads and for the procedures under which they're built. Private companies bid to build the roads, and anyone who can meet the fairly loose criteria established by the government is free and welcome to participate. Most roads, once built, are free for anyone to drive on, with the caveat that certain kinds of traffic or vehicles might be prohibited, usually due to those vehicles' propensity for damaging the road.
There are toll roads, which usually do provide money back to the government, but that money was to finance their construction and maintenance. Having driven highways in probably a dozen states, many southwestern states have worse roads that are free to drive on even though the weather doesn't quickly destroy them, while the toll turnpikes in Massachusetts and New York are smooth even though they see frost heaves. Arizona does have pretty good roads though, probably the best in the southwest, definitely better than NM.
Most government services are provided because private companies are ill-suited to providing them. Private police have a tendency to unequal and biased enforcement of the law, far worse than any police agency. Private currency-issuing-banks did exist (they were called Wildcat banks) but were so unstable that sticking to a single currency note made more sense. Education is not monopolized by government in the sense that many school districts allow for Open Enrollment where one can send one's child to any number of school districts or charter schools instead of just the neighborhood school.
So, yes, you can have it both ways.
I suppose that explains The Farm Bill and the protesters with signs reading, "Keep Government Out Of My Medicare!" at rallies...
I have never had any objection to people being wealthy, even ridiculously wealthy, and most Democrats that I've talked to on this matter do not have a problem with this either. The problem is in shirking responsibilities. No legal document founding this country makes any guarantee of being wealthy, or any respect for it.
If you want to talk about what wealth disparity does, look at the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, the Chinese Revolution, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War. ALL had large elements of a super-rich, corrupt elite who wouldn't return to society some of the fruits of their success that they benefitted from society. When income and resource inequality gets too far out of whack, revolution happens.
I am not going to get into a debate about affirmative action right now, the issues of generations of racial discrimination and the ramifications of it are far too far reaching to get in to depth on in this forum. On the other hand, I don't see anyone forcing a social conservative to have a gay marriage. I don't see anyone forcing a social conservative to participate in a blow job, or in birth control, or in sex for pleasure, or in sex in anything other than the missionary position (I'm pointing directly at Santorum here), nor is anyone forcing them to have premarital sex or extramarital affairs. The point in this is that Democrats generally want to not prohibit activities between consenting adults. I do, however, see Republicans arguing that their social restrictions on who can have sex with who when everyone involved are consenting adults, and I find that more disgusting than any of the sexual practices that they seek to render illegal between those consenting adults.
I was referring to the elected officials, not to the public. Terri Schiavo comes to mind. In my opinion, Democrats should have removed the filibuster from the Senate's rules of order and rammed single-payer-with-optout (ie, if you opt out, no one is required to care for you if you can't pay), end of DADT, appointment of judges, cabinet post and agency director positions, and a whole host of other legislation down Republicans' throats just as the Republicans did when they managed to gain majorities in both chambers.
I know, you're libertarian, so you don't like many of my ideas, but if you want roads, clean air, clean water, postal delivery, the ability to purchase things that require loans, someone to deal with the results of your rights being violated, someone to put out fires, and much, much more, you'll need some form of organizing body, and that is called Government.
Yeah, we're well behind where you are in service. Our phones are locked in to a given carrier and it's a PITA to unlock them, our plans suck rocks, we have two-year contracts, and now we have extra fees to help pay for the phones on top of the contracts.
Geeks don't agree, but geeks don't literally come down as on only one side of each of several issues with another group of geeks coming down on exactly the opposite side of the set of issues either. A politician who knows the issues and can actually talk about them with some kind of insight is the kind of person we would ultimately want, even if not everyone agrees with everything they stand for all of the time.
My wife is an MIT alum and is really active in her alumni group, so I know A LOT of extreme übergeeks. They fall all over the place as far as opinions on the political responsibilities and ramifications of technology, yet they all would agree that generally understanding and employing technology and being able to look at the results of its usage is essential in the further progression of society. After all, Technology is what differentiates human beings from all of the other animals on this planet. We are the only species that engages in any sort of high level manufacturing beyond a little bit of the use of found objects in a few other mammals.
I used to think this, but I've come to realize that this thinking is not entirely correct.
The Republicans generally support the goals of big business, and have a top-down approach to wealth. They believe that making people at the top rich will lead to prosperity for all. Many believe that social programs do not help well enough to justify many of them. Many members feel that they have a moral imperative to attempt to push their moral agenda on people who have nothing to do with them, and whose behaviors do not affect them in the slightest. The Republicans are also very good at compelling members to conform and follow, even when a given member may disagree with a lot of party rhetoric, and even when it's not in their best interests to actually agree.
The Democrats look at individuals for success, and define success through a bottom-up approach, rather than a top-down approach, as many believe that top-down approaches have led to severe inequality. They believe government has the ability to address such injustices and to help dampen inequality. Many believe that an individual's right to make ones' own choices, so long as those choices don't victimize others, is important, but are not willing to ignore data that demonstrates particular freedoms causing lots of harm. Democrats generally like to build consensus before agreeing on a plan, which lately has been to their detriment, as it allows their political opponents to stonewall things that should be able to pass despite objection.
There are times for either, and both political parties have this habit of becoming sort of rotted out from the insides due to corruption. Unfortunately, it seems that the Republicans rot-out a lot faster than the Democrats, yet members of the party have seemingly short memories of it, like Newt Gingrich, who has managed to be a serious contender for the Republican party's nominee for President despite having resigned from the House of Representative in disgrace.
I'm much more inclined to look at a candidate that uses or has used technology versus those who just like to talk about it.
In that sense, Obama came into his position while using a Blackberry to keep connected. Presumably this allowed him to use the business features of the device to make his work more efficient. As a user, he would be affected by changes to the law that might restrict what he could do if companies now stop things that they've been doing in practice.
A candidate who talks about technology without actually putting it into practice is not necessarily a good candidate, in that their understanding doesn't come to a practical level and the could think they understand issues that they don't, and since they don't even use the tech, making a bad decision wouldn't even impact them.
Run away from candidates who are proud of their provincial, luddite behavior. That's perfectly fine in any random person, but is unacceptable in someone who will be expected to make decisions that affect millions of people but can't be bothered to get informed.
"Those Internets" -George W. Bush
"The Internet is a great way to get on the Net" -Bob Dole
...what non-information companies have to gain by this bill. Ford is limited to intellectual property related to their physical products, and only could really deal with software piracy for ECM and BCM computers which are limited to use in Ford products anyway. Nike could face a competitor stealing their product designs which would be easier to make than Ford's, but still would fall into industrial espionage rather than casual piracy, and Estee Lauder makes cosmetics and other products that again, aren't exactly end-consumer-piratable...
I wonder if it's a bigger deal that these companies are supporting Congressmen who are passionate about this bill, and this is just another way of helping to keep these Congressmen in their pockets.