Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Politics Government Technology

Kerry and Bush Answer Questions on IT Industry 137

Posted by michael from the animal-vegetable-mineral dept.
An anonymous reader writes "The questions were submitted by CompTIA (Computing Technology Industry Association) and each candidate's response follows. Read the responses at comptia.org."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Kerry and Bush Answer Questions on IT Industry More

Kerry and Bush Answer Questions on IT Industry

Comments Filter:

  • screw both of them (Score:4, Interesting)

    by schnits0r ( 633893 ) <nathannd@saskte[ ]et ['l.n' in gap]> on Thursday October 21, 2004 @02:23PM (#10590258) Homepage Journal
    The problem is that if everyone elects higher class, they will only look after the higher class anyways. It's clearly defined in this Mousland Speech here: The Story of Mouseland as told by Tommy Douglas, 1944 It's the story of a place called Mouseland. Mouseland was a place where all the little mice lived and played, were born and died. And they lived much the same as you and I do. They even had a Parliament. And every four years they had an election. Used to walk to the polls and cast their ballots. Some of them even got a ride to the polls. And got a ride for the next four years afterwards too. Just like you and me. And every time on election day all the little mice used to go to the ballot box and they used to elect a government. A government made up of big, fat, black cats. Now if you think it strange that mice should elect a government made up of cats, you just look at the history of Canada for last 90 years and maybe you'll see that they weren't any stupider than we are. Now I'm not saying anything against the cats. They were nice fellows. They conducted their government with dignity. They passed good laws that is, laws that were good for cats. But the laws that were good for cats weren't very good for mice. One of the laws said that mouseholes had to be big enough so a cat could get his paw in. Another law said that mice could only travel at certain speeds so that a cat could get his breakfast without too much effort. All the laws were good laws. For cats. But, oh, they were hard on the mice. And life was getting harder and harder. And when the mice couldn't put up with it any more, they decided something had to be done about it. So they went en masse to the polls. They voted the black cats out. They put in the white cats. Now the white cats had put up a terrific campaign. They said: "All that Mouseland needs is more vision." They said: "The trouble with Mouseland is those round mouseholes we got. If you put us in we'll establish square mouseholes." And they did. And the square mouseholes were twice as big as the round mouseholes, and now the cat could get both his paws in. And life was tougher than ever. And when they couldn't take that anymore, they voted the white cats out and put the black ones in again. Then they went back to the white cats. Then to the black cats. They even tried half black cats and half white cats. And they called that coalition. They even got one government made up of cats with spots on them: they were cats that tried to make a noise like a mouse but ate like a cat. You see, my friends, the trouble wasn't with the colour of the cat. The trouble was that they were cats. And because they were cats, they naturally looked after cats instead of mice. Presently there came along one little mouse who had an idea. My friends, watch out for the little fellow with an idea. And he said to the other mice, "Look fellows, why do we keep on electing a government made up of cats? Why don't we elect a government made up of mice?" "Oh," they said, "he's a Bolshevik. Lock him up!" So they put him in jail. But I want to remind you: that you can lock up a mouse or a man but you can't lock up an idea.

    • Re:screw both of them (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Profane MuthaFucka ( 574406 ) <busheatskok@gmail.com> on Thursday October 21, 2004 @02:32PM (#10590394) Homepage Journal
      In Soviet Mouseland, the mice elected to the mouse government turn out to be cannibals. Sad, but true.

    • "The fundamental problem with representative government is that the people who would be best for the job least want it, and vice versa."
      • Perhaps we should do what the ancient Greeks did and randomly select citizens to run the country. Before you dismiss the idea, bear in mind that this is essentially the same system that we still use to this day in juries.
        • I think that is a great idea. I am in the process of writing a script for a politically oriented science fiction movie. One aspect of the movie is a future society where political representatives are randomly selected from a large pool of qualified citizens.

        • An idea I've been toying with achieves a similar result (adding random elements to election) but still attempts to find the best person for the job. Basically, you divide society up (randomly, but based on location so you can meet your group) into groups of 10 people. Out of that group of people, 1 is selected to represent that group. Then all of the "winners" get together and are randomly divided into groups of ten again, etc. In the USA, you would have 9 levels - and each time people would be choosing
          • The problem is that the ones most likely to 'win' a group are more likely exceptionally good in A) lying, B) manipulating and C) other malevolent people skills than just 'good guys'.
    • Yes, but the basic ideas of capitolism still took place. The cats ate up all the mice, and soon there were no mice left, so the cats put the mice the endangered species list untill there were plenty of mice. Eventually after a few runs of taking them on and off the list they finally found a way to eat just enough mice so that they stayed fat while allowing the mice population to grow. Moral of the story, umm we're just food, but don't overharvest us :)

    • At least the cats knew how to use line breaks.

      There is a slight problem with the analogy, though. It doesn't really say if the mice were writing their votes in or not. If they were, they deserve exactly what they get. If they were not, then the problem is legitimate, since they wouldn't have a choice of who to vote for.

      The latter is more like the US's situation, where the two parties do everything that they can to prevent the entry of other parties into the democratic process.

      • Re:screw both of them (Score:5, Informative)

        by renehollan ( 138013 ) <rhollan@[ ]arwire.net ['cle' in gap]> on Thursday October 21, 2004 @07:47PM (#10593712) Homepage Journal
        Write-in votes are not permitted in Canada.

        A would-be candidate requires (at least this was the number around 1993) 100 nominating signatures from their chosen riding (rather like an electoral district) in order to appear on the ballot there. If a sufficient number of like-minded candidates from a common party meet this qualification in enough ridings, they can be listed under their party name as well, instead of as "Independent".

        You'd think this would result in a very large number of candidates on the ballot, what with the low barrier to entry (well, the nominations, and the $1000 fee - almost entirely tax-refundable (you contribute it to your campaign for a $450 tax break, and at least half gets returned to the campaign after you file your paperwork -- all of it if you get 15% of the vote)).

        Sadly, Canadians are so apathetic, that rarely do non-mainstream candidatates get enough nominations to appear on the ballot.

        Of course, I'm quoting early 90's requirements -- they may have changed since.

        • To correct myself: listing a party affilliation simply requires being a member of a recognized political party. That requires having a large enough number of candidates run in the previous election (listed, possibly, as independents).

          It used to be the case that not running sufficient candidates (the number was 50 for recogition in the next election and deregistration after the current one), would result in deregistration of the party. But, that was challenged by the Communist party around 1997, IIRC. They

  • A changing workforce requires us to modernize our financial aid programs. I will make loans available to help workers pay for short-term training that leads to an industry-recognized credential or certificate. We must also revise outdated loan restrictions to expand access to competency-based programs, allow students and workers to take courses throughout the year, and eliminate current restrictions to promote distance education.

    All this will do is raise the cost on competency-based programs. Already Ne
    • He didn't say encourage loan amounts, simply what you can use loans for. And yes I agree that there is some overcharging, but ultimatly if people would wise up and understand they have to pay these loans back eventually prices would go down. Or maybe the people taking these classes think the classes will pay for themselves in extra earnings, therefor the price isn't inflated.
      • He didn't say encourage loan amounts, simply what you can use loans for. And yes I agree that there is some overcharging, but ultimatly if people would wise up and understand they have to pay these loans back eventually prices would go down. Or maybe the people taking these classes think the classes will pay for themselves in extra earnings, therefor the price isn't inflated.

        In my area- New Horizons does everything they can, including false advertising, to lead people to that last conclusion. Just last w
    • Not to be off topic, but certification courses teach you just that -- How to pass a certification. That means you've learned how to pass a test, not how to understand the fundamental concepts of the subjects revelant to the field.
      • Not to be off topic, but certification courses teach you just that -- How to pass a certification. That means you've learned how to pass a test, not how to understand the fundamental concepts of the subjects revelant to the field.

        Not off topic at all- and a very good point! This is one of the major reasons why the inflated salaries used in advertisements for these certification courses rarely come true.
      • There is a common belief that certifications are wothless because tests are worthless. I assume that is the basis for the points I just read. But it isn't so. It is not accurate to say that is the case for all certification courses. It may be the case for many courses, but dismissing all forms of testing and certification is unfair.

        Psychometrics, the application of psychology to measurement and testing, is a well-established field of science. The problem is that it is often cheaper to do skip the pshy

  • Disappointing answers to a disappointing question (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Dachannien ( 617929 ) on Thursday October 21, 2004 @02:33PM (#10590411)
    CompTIA asked both candidates about their stances on digital media and legitimate consumer use, and both candidates gave wishy-washy answers that indicated their favorableness to supporting the rights of consumers. But it's fairly obvious that they were both catering to their audience, having been tipped off by the nature of the question.

    http://www.comptia.org/pressroom/election_2004.asp x#5 [comptia.org]

    What should federal policy be toward protecting intellectual property on the Internet - recognizing the harmless role played by mere conduits - and facilitating the free flow of ideas based on those creations?

    This just means that yet another opportunity to find out whether either candidate supports limitations on DRM/broadcast flag/DMCA is wasted. Why not ask a more pointed, but less coached, question? "Do you feel the DMCA has provided adequate, insufficient, or excessive protections to copyright holders?" "Do you support or oppose the mandatory compliance of electronic devices with the digital broadcast flag?" "Do you support or oppose the DMCRA?"

    • I dont believe for a second that bush wrote any of that, he probably isnt even sure what the cup holder is for on computers.

    • Re:Disappointing answers to a disappointing questi (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Brandybuck ( 704397 ) on Thursday October 21, 2004 @11:15PM (#10594851) Homepage Journal
      While both did give wishy-washy answers, that's because they're politicians. But once you get past that, it's interesting to see that the candidate who gave the better answer was <gasp> Bush.

      Bush: "Blaming the technology does not address the issue. We must vigorously enforce intellectual property protections and prosecute the violations, not the technology."

      In other words, fight copyright violations, not software. Isn't that what everyone has been saying here for the past half decade?

      Kerry: "I am open to examining whether legislative action is necessary to ensure that a person who lawfully obtains or receives a transmission of a digital work may back up a copy of it for archival purposes or transfer it to a digital media device for the purpose of non public performance or display."

      In other words, he's examining to see if it's okay for you to have a right that you already possess under Title 17!

      • "he's examining to see if it's okay for you to have a right that you already possess under Title 17!"

        Read it again, calmly this time, and suppress your instinctive knee-jerk reaction:

        I am open to examining whether legislative action is necessary to ENSURE that a person who lawfully obtains or receives a transmission of a digital work MAY back up a copy of it for archival purposes or transfer it to a digital media device for the purpose of non public performance or display.

        What he actually said is an

        • NOW which answer do you think was best?

          As a libertarian, I think both major candidates are tyrannical statists, but of the two, Kerry seems more statist when it comes to intellectual property.

          Copyright law already ENSURES that a lawful owner of a copy MAY make an archival copy. This law has been affirmed by court decision. You don't need Kerry to examine the issue, because the issue is already settled! All we need is a chief executive who will protect the rights we already have! (unfortunately, that will
          • Alright, my two cents isn't worth even that, but it might be worth a moment of thoughtful consideration. (FTR (for the record), I will be voting Badnarik. Those who don't like that, can find something painful or disgusting to do to themselves.)

            Copyright law doesn't ENSURE our ability to make a copy of lawfully acquired works. It affirms it, but anyone is currently free to produce works with whatever copyright protection mechanisms they wish (and DMCA force to prohibit the breaking thereof). If read in that

          • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Kerry is a senator. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by DAldredge ( 2353 ) <SlashdotEmail@GMail.Com> on Thursday October 21, 2004 @02:37PM (#10590455) Journal
    What bills has Kerry introduced to impliment his ideas?

    Also, What bills has Bush asked the GOP leaders in congress to pass?

    They say one thing and do another. Both major parties are full of people who would not know the truth if it hit them in the ass.

  • Did you notice the Bush war on Porn? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by DAldredge ( 2353 ) <SlashdotEmail@GMail.Com> on Thursday October 21, 2004 @02:40PM (#10590495) Journal
    "My FY 2005 Budget would double funding for Justice Department programs that investigate and prosecute child exploitation and obscenity over the FY 2001 level. "

    Notice how obscentiy doesn't have the world child in front of it? That is because the want to restart the 80's war on porn. Bush, like a lot of people on the right (and far left) have a major problem with porn and wish to use the goverment to get rid of it.

    Google for "Protection from Pornograpy Week"

    • Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Thursday October 21, 2004 @03:21PM (#10590933)
      Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • Re:Did you notice the Bush war on Porn? (Score:4, Informative)

        by DAldredge ( 2353 ) <SlashdotEmail@GMail.Com> on Thursday October 21, 2004 @03:54PM (#10591284) Journal
        Protection From Pornography Week, 2003
        By the President of the United States of America
        A Proclamation

        Pornography can have debilitating effects on communities, marriages, families, and children. During Protection From Pornography Week, we commit to take steps to confront the dangers of pornography.

        The effects of pornography are particularly pernicious with respect to children. The recent enactment of the PROTECT Act of 2003 strengthens child pornography laws, establishes the Federal Government's role in the AMBER Alert System, increases punishment for Federal crimes against children, and authorizes judges to require extended supervision of sex offenders who are released from prison.

        We have committed significant resources to the Department of Justice to intensify investigative and prosecutorial efforts to combat obscenity, child pornography, and child sexual exploi-ta-tion on the Internet. We are vigorously prosecuting and severely punishing those who would harm our children. Last July, the Department of Homeland Security launched Operation Predator, an initiative to help identify child predators, rescue children depicted in child pornography, and prosecute those responsible for making and distributing child pornography.

        Last year, I signed legislation creating the Dot Kids domain, a child-friendly zone on the Internet. The sites on this domain are monitored for content and safety, offering parents assurances that their children are learning in a healthy environment. Working together with law enforcement officials, parents, and other caregivers, we are making progress in protecting our children from pornography.

        NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim October 26 through November 1, 2003, as Protection From Pornography Week. I call upon public officials, law enforcement officers, parents, and all the people of the United States to observe this week with appropriate programs and activities.

        IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twenty-fourth day of October, in the year of our Lord two thousand three, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and twenty-eighth.

        GEORGE W. BUSH

      • WTF would is child obscenity? When your child says "shit","dick" or "pig fucker"?
    • Yes, but the supreme court already ruled on this so there really is nothing they can do is there. BTW "obsenity" is illigal just that what makes something obsence can change from place to place. But on the internet it pretty much is only child porn and encouraging minors to view regular porn.
      • What the feds do is have a postal inspector request,buy,download porn from the site they want to go after/make an example of. That postal inspector is in a very conservite community and they use that communities standards to go after the site.

        Just like they did in the 80's

    • They want to protect you from children saying obscene things. Isn't it obvious?

  • Who makes this up (Score:5, Insightful)

    by cheeseSource ( 605209 ) <snailbarn AT yahoo DOT com> on Thursday October 21, 2004 @02:45PM (#10590550) Journal
    The beginning of bush's second response:

    "I support innovative communications technologies like Voice Over Internet Protocal (VoIP),"

    Now, does anyone really think he knows what VOIP is, or even how to spell internet? His only evidence is that protocol is misspelled.

    Seems like easy proof that someone else wrote the answers...
    • Seems like easy proof that someone else wrote the answers...

      Well, yes. They don't write their own speeches either. It's no big secret.

    • Now, does anyone really think he knows what VOIP is, or even how to spell internet?

      Which internet are you talking about? If you'd watched the last debate, you would know that Bush is well aware of the internets...
  • Judging from his gun record (banning tools because of how they are used) Kerry will go full force into banning things that the DMCA make illegal.

    goto opensecrets.org and see how much the CA content producers have 'paid forward' into his campaign.
    • You're probably right about that. The Democrats don't have a good voting record on supportng freedom in technology. It was senior Democrats like Diane Feinstein (CA) who initiated and passed the DMCA

      And of the six senators who signed the failed Induce Act, four of them were Democrats.
    • Judging from his gun record (banning tools because of how they are used) Kerry will go full force into banning things that the DMCA make illegal.

      Whoa. I think I must have missed a few hundred steps on the logical thinking you are doing.

      A more logical conclusion could be drawn from which candidate is getting all the corporate money.

      BTW - Kerry only supports assault weapon bans and not other types of guns.

    • Re:Kerry will ban tech that violates the DMCA. (Score:5, Informative)

      by Minna Kirai ( 624281 ) on Thursday October 21, 2004 @04:06PM (#10591445)
      Judging from his gun record (banning tools because of how they are used) Kerry will go full force into banning things

      What record? Kerry has never voted to ban any gun [issues2000.org], except for the Brady Bill, which is something that President Bush claims to support also.

      Kerry's got the NRA against him because he supported gun show background checks, and wanted to force manufacturers to include complimentary trigger locks.
      • Um, yes he has.

        And he's co-sponsor of S.1431, "Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2003"

        This bill sounds noble, but it's too zealous, banning almost all semiautomatic rifle or shotgun, because they have a "pistol grip."

        See text of the bill at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:S.1431:
        • This bill sounds noble, but it's too zealous, banning almost all semiautomatic rifle or shotgun, because they have a "pistol grip."

          It's just errorneously written. "Pistol grip", as defined in that resolution, includes anything that can be used to "grip", which includes barrels, triggers, tomatoes, and anything else with solid substance. Many bills have numerous small errors that would be ironed out before it ever comes to a vote.

          But that doesn't matter, because S.1431 is the bill that would've re-newed
      • Senator John Kerry (a Massachusetts resident) illegally accepted the gift of a shotgun (of the type he wants to ban as an "assault weapon") from a resident of West Virginia on 6 September 2004!

        Under the federal statutes 18 USC 922 (a)3 it is a felony for Kerry to have accepted this gift. Under 18 USC 922 (a) 5 it is illegal for the West Virginia resident to have given it to him. Details of the offenses are listed below taken from BATF's June 2000 report Following the Gun: Enforcing federal laws against
        • That's interesting. It raises the following question: Who sent him the gun and why? It doesn't pass the sniff test for being a legitimate honest gift since it is so close to the election.
          • FromASearch (FAS)
            Seriously, though, I'm referring to John Kerry accepting a semiautomatic shotgun from a supporter during a campaign stop in West Virginia. The president of the United Mine Workers of America presented Senator Kerry with Beretta A300, and Kerry accepted it, saying "...I can't take it to the debate with me."

            It came out after he accepted this gift that the gun would have been banned, had a bill that Kerry cosponsored passed. When confronted with this information, Kerry supporters s
    • You are probably right. He will push the Justice Department to prosecute "piracy" aggressively, and he will sign onerous new legislation to prop up failing business models, but Bush/Ashcroft is going to do the same thing. It's too bad but we Americans are headed for a very rough time over the next 3-6 years (it usually takes a solid decade to halt our episodes of collective rectal-cranial inversion, e.g., Prohibition). After that things will even out -- either government will adjust to the market or the mar

  • Bush is not 'reality based' that = a problem... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    He seems to have the same problem my mother had, which is called "narcissistic personality disorder" - It's a common character disorder - and it seriously impairs the judgement of people who have it. Very Seriously. They have an inability to feel empathy with others, they tend to have delusions of grandeur (which is another, more traditional name for this disorder) and all the worst leaders in history have had it. (Nero, Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Kim Il Sung, Kim Jong Il, Pol Pot, etc.) It is uncurable. And peop

    • Re:Bush is not 'reality based' that = a problem... (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      He seems to have the same problem my mother had, which is called "narcissistic personality disorder" - It's a common character disorder - and it seriously impairs the judgement of people who have it. Very Seriously. They have an inability to feel empathy with others, they tend to have delusions of grandeur (which is another, more traditional name for this disorder) and all the worst leaders in history have had it. (Nero, Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Kim Il Sung, Kim Jong Il, Pol Pot, etc.) It is uncurable. And peo

    • I _just_ read that article. And I agree with you 100%.
      We should all be afraid... very afraid.
      Even more scary are those fanatics that support this guy. Like he is the Messiah. I got news for you... He isn't.

      God save us.
      [What am I saying? He thinks he is god]

    • Dude, the NY Times is not a very credible source for anything other than kindling.

      Then again, I haven't really heard a major lie come ouf of Bush's mouth. He said he'd cut taxes, and he's done so. He said that we'd take out Iraq, and has done so. I'm quite sure that he felt quite a bit of empathy after 9/11, as the rest of us did.

      Bush isn't on trial here for purjery. A certain US president came rather close to it, but he unfortunately didn't get any heat for it. A president that was adored by NY medi

      • I voted for him, and I wish I didnt... then again, Gore wasnt better.

        Look here for the 2000 debates, second speech.
        http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2000b.html

        One excerpt about Iraq:

        ---start---
        MODERATOR: People watching here tonight are very interested in Middle East policy, and they are so interested they want to base their vote on differences between the two of you as president how you would handle Middle East policy. Is there any difference?

        GORE: I haven't heard a big difference in the last
        • The fundamental problem you're overlooking is that, while our forces shouldn't be used for nation-building, nation-building is still an important job. It's just supposed to be left up to the UN. The UN fscked this one, just like they did Bosnia, so we're taking care of it.

          As far as rebuilding a coalition, I'll repeat what Bush has said in all three debates...we have 30 countries in the present coalition. We aren't getting France and Germany, we never were, case closed. You could have bribed them with a
    • According to my psych textbook, diagnosing other people with mental illnesses is a symptom of borderline personality disorder [wikipedia.org].

  • It would be more accurate to say staffers response (Score:4, Informative)

    by dtolman ( 688781 ) <dtolman@yahoo.com> on Thursday October 21, 2004 @02:57PM (#10590674) Homepage
    Magazine interviews are commonly filled out by the candidate's staff. It would be more accurate to call this then the candidate's staff's response - probably based off the staffer's knowledge of the candidate's positions, the platform, or some other source. For all we know, the candidate's aren't even aware of this interview - do they even read these over before these things get published in their name?

    Kerry got in trouble for this (common) practice a few months back, when a staffer wrote in (incorrectly) that he owned an automatic weapon he grabbed as a war trophy...

  • While only a little offtopic, was it just me or was it nice to read somewhat coherent answers to good questions that were not immediately followed with "And I would do a better job than him" or "He will cause the downfall of your country" or some other such drivel?

    I certainly wish the campaigns themselves (and especially the debates) had more of this flavor. While clearly canned answers (Bush knowing what VOIP is????), it is a refreshing thing to see in a race that has become increasingly ugly.

    Oh, and
  • Kerry seemed to simply state the problem and say it needs to be solved and that he would try to fix them. Bush seemed to have a clear grasp of the finer details in each problem, adn in many cases suggested valid solutions or spoke of valid solutions already in the works. Kerry seemed to want to have the government try to solve all the problems, Bush seemed to think that the government should provide the tools so that people could solve their own problems, and of cource the problems on the internet can't be
  • I wonder why I even bother to read these things. It somehow seems unlikely that either canidate actually has the time or the inclination to sit around and respond to these things. I'd like to see one where the first question is:

    "Do you solomly swear upon your honor and favorite religious symbol that the answers given in this document are written, typed or dictated soley by ...."

  • This is SO frustrating!

    It is just more of the same!

    Kerry doesn't answer the questions at all (I am open to...)

    While Bush gives answers I don't like (We need to implement nation-wide morality laws that forbid anything that could effect anybodies children, even if you don't have any!)

    Errg!! I think I am going to vote for Cthulu this year. I am tired of trying to figure out the lesser of two evils!

  • That's what everyone is hinting at. So just get it over with, vote for a spotted cat for once ...

    But I don't know who you should vote for.

    My real question is this:

    Is this 'intellectual property' situation hopeless? YRO is always so depressing to read.

    >

  • They Left Out the Most Important Question (Score:4, Funny)

    by clickster ( 669168 ) on Thursday October 21, 2004 @05:01PM (#10592174)
    Where is the "vi or emacs?" question? What a waste of time.
  • "I am open to considering the best means available to ensure people do not receive unsolicited email."

    gee. that swayed my vote.
  • ... to see some of President Bush's responses include plans for the future rather than statements of past actions. On the flip side, it would have been nice to see some of Senator Kerry's responses include statements of past actions backing up his plans (and unstated claims therein).

    It also would have been nice to have a few "third party" candidates respond, as others have said. Still, what's done is done, and we can only ask the persons who set up this Q&A set to include third party candidates, next t

  • cybersecurity czar (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Bush's cybersecurity czar quit [arstechnica.com], abruptly, because he was unhappy with the way things were going.

    That's very disturbing to me. One day's notice? Frustrated?

    Are we ready for an attack? I don't think so, especially if the current administration is unwilling to listen to their own cybersecurity czar. I know when Kerry takes office, he'll listen to his people.

  • Bush didn't write those responses (Score:3, Informative)

    by Guspaz ( 556486 ) on Thursday October 21, 2004 @09:03PM (#10594161)
    I don't know about Kerry, for all I know he might not have (Though his responses where he appears to have no idea what the question is talking about would indicate he did).

    Considering his statement in the debate about "I hear there have been rumours on the internets (Yes, notice the plural he used for internets), do you REALLY think he'd then answer the VoIP question like this:

    http://www.comptia.org/pressroom/election_2004.a sp x#2

    Bush is no idiot, but I'm pretty sure that the question/response was way over his head.
    • So nice to see that people are leaving their preconceptions at the door.
      • I'm Canadian, I'm allowed to have preconceptions about the US presidential candidates ;)

        Besides, outside the US, nearly everybody hates bush. How's that for preconceptions?

        I'll say again, bush isn't an idiot, but I don't think he knows enough about VoIP to respond to that question, when he seems to hardly know what the internet is. This is the problem with these type of non-live Q&A sessions, I have to wonder if the candidates ever even see the questions, or if flunkies respond to them.
  • "What do you think the other guy would do better at?"

    Whoever's full of less bullshit wins.
  • The small roll that Presidents take in the legislative process is even further marginalized by the fact that none of these issues are really mainstream. The only thing we know for sure is that regardless what Orin Hatch gets passed through the congress, Bush will sign it. After all, he hasn't vetoed a single bill since he took office.
  • Scanning the answers to the questions, I find myself asking who actually answered them.

    I've watched them both many times, and while I can imagine Kerry saying most of that, I don't think he did.

    Bush on the other hand: There is no way in hell that those thoughts, embodied by those words, have ever been formed by the mind or lips of the President.

    Not a chance.

    --QTone

Slashdot Top Deals

Cobol programmers are down in the dumps.

Close