McCain vs. Obama on Tech Issues

eldavojohn writes "Ars is running a brief article that looks at stances from Chuck Fish of McCain's campaign and Daniel Weitzner from Obama's in regards to technical issues that may cause us geeks to vote one way or the other. From openness vs. bandwidth in the net neutrality issue to those pesky National Security Letters, there's some key differences that just might play at least a small part in your vote. You may also remember our discussions on who is best for geeks."

Has Obama been selected

[ISoldat53]

I thought the Dems haven't selected a candidate yet.

Do you really think they have opinions?

[unassimilatible]

I doubt either one of these guys has the background or passion for tech to really have well thought out, firm ideas on any tech issues. They likely had aides poll and give them pat answers on tech. In other words, don't expect them to stick to any positions they might articulate now. Then again, that probably applies to all issues, not just tech.

Re:Has Obama been selected

[Shakrai]

I thought the Dems haven't selected a candidate yet.

It's basically all over but the crying and reconciliation at this point. Look for news around this time next week -- until then it's just the media rehashing old stories over and over or inventing issues (Assassination-gate) to sell copy.

All I need to know

[Nursie]

"Chuck Fish, an attorney for the McCain campaign and former Time Warner executive"

"Daniel Weitzner, an MIT computer scientist"

Who are you going to place more faith in there?
As usual republicans == corporate interests over technical or popular interests.

(BTW, before you accuse me of being a shill or a partisan or an idiot democrat, I'm not even USian and don't get to vote on this. I'm just calling it like I see it)

McCain has been one of Amtraks most

[antifoidulus]

vociferous critics, and one of the Iraq wars biggest cheerleaders...nuff said.

Sorry, but I'd prefer their voting records

[Shivetya]

not their campaign promises or who is working for them currently.

Granted Obama doesn't have as much time in the Senate as McCain, and Clinton doesn't compare favorably for time either but still beats out Obaman, but what does their voting record say?

Considering the fact we can look at how these people voted on many issues why would you believe their promises without comparing the two? Turning over a new leaf is more fairy tale than anything

Re:All I need to know

[eldavojohn]

"Chuck Fish, an attorney for the McCain campaign and former Time Warner executive"

"Daniel Weitzner, an MIT computer scientist"

Who are you going to place more faith in there?

That really depends on what you're trying to get accomplished. The MIT scientist offers up a white paper on how to do it. Unfortunately, I don't need this to be proved or argued for. I want it done. I have no idea what Chuck Fish's interests are but if you want to change the market, it might be best to do it with someone who knows the market--or even has the ability to change it from the inside. I don't think the problem is a theoretical computational barrier, it's a real life political issue that's going to take Machiavellian like maneuvering to produce any real results.

Of course, neither side will offer up anything that's measurable or quantifiable nor will they set any milestones at this point. Which is truly sad.

Re:What about the other candidates?

[smack.addict]

Do you have evidence for Obama being in corporate pockets? Or are you just parroting the Green and Libertarian lines?

I think you are just parroting.

Re:All I need to know

[Notquitecajun]

Dems, despite all their bluster, are beholden to big businesses as well. Both parties, particularly at the top, are heavily influenced by both competing and non-competing corporate interests more and more.

Re:What about the other candidates?

[Nursie]

True, all this Rep vs Dem stuff ought to be academic.

You a copyright infringer? They want you behind bars.
Pot smoker? Behind bars.
Violent video games? Banned.
Porn? Off the internets.

Unfortunately there are a lot of people out there more sold on the "lesser of two evils" doctrine, than are sold on the "don't give your mandate to someone that wants to put you in jail!".

Not voting for people with views like those should be an obvious choice. Unfortunately it seems not.

Re:Do you really think they have opinions?

[hey!]

Well, good.

It's true that technology changes some things, like the economics of using copyright to provide economic support to creators. But a lot of the time technology is used as an excuse to reopen issues happily settled long ago, on things like the first sale doctrine, or the intrusion of the government into the private lives of citizens.

I don't look to tech geeks political leadership. I want somebody smart (which most geeks are) with their head screwed on straight (and geeks are as all over the map on this). If he's a tech geek, well that's nice, but not necessary. If he's got the right aims, and is smart enough to cut through the mumbo jumbo, that's enough.

In particular, I'd be wary of amateur tech geeks -- people who are computer enthusisasts, but not for anything that counts. I wouldn't rule them out, but I'd look extra close at their tech policies, which may exhibit a "knows enough to be dangerous" character.

Re:Has Obama been selected

[Z00L00K]

It's starting to get embarrassing for Hillary Clinton now. Time to call it a day, but maybe she knows something that we don't know since the candidate isn't selected yet.

Anyway - most policy regarding the internet will be handled by subordinates with their own agenda, so I don't think that whoever holds the office will make much difference.

Re:Has Obama been selected

[iminplaya]

It's basically all over...

"Dewey defeats Truman"

Re:Has Obama been selected

[cduffy]

You want to count the votes in the state where Obama wasn't even on the ballot? How is that fair?

I haven't seen a single major media story discussing Hillary's claim of being ahead on the popular vote that didn't indicate that said claim was valid only given a very particular set of conditions. It's all over but the shouting, and additional carrying on does nothing but hurt the primary's winner in the real election.

Re:Has Obama been selected

[fm6]

Technically, neither party has an official candidate, and won't until they nominate one at their respective conventions. But when it comes to counting up the delegate votes, the fat lady has sung. Hillary Clinton still thinks she can scrounge up a majority, but she'd have to get all those delegates from the unsanctioned primaries in Michigan and Florida admitted and convince most of the uncommitted superdelegates to ignore the primary vote. Almost everybody who doesn't actually work for her agrees that's pretty unlikely.

Re:Has Obama been selected

[Shakrai]

Basically, if you don't bother counting all the votes, Obama is winning. However, it you do decide that everyone's vote should matter, Hillary is leading the popular vote.

Even if she was leading the popular vote (which by any fair metric she isn't, but that's beside the point), any 5th grade civics student (or Al Gore) can tell you what that's worth in American politics. You can debate whether or not that's just but those are the rules that we are operating under for this cycle.

So after all the whining about Bush and how he didn't win the popular vote

I didn't whine about Bush not winning the popular vote. I whined about him stealing Florida thanks to badly designed ballots and Jewish voters that couldn't tell the difference between Pat-WW2-wasn't-worth-fighting-Buchanan and Al Gore. Anyone that says that popular vote loss somehow de-legitimized GWB in 2000 never paid attention in civics class.

Re:All I need to know

[Nursie]

"I have no idea what Chuck Fish's interests are but if you want to change the market, it might be best to do it with someone who knows the market--or even has the ability to change it from the inside"

The fact he's an ex-exec from a business that is a prime player in some of the most suppressive, anti-progress, anti-freedom and anti-privacy organisations, organisations which consistently try to criminalise vast swathes of people and totally miss the point on technological issues.... Well that puts him on my blacklist.

Whatever your "it" is, his presence ought to set off some BIG alarm bells.

As I said in my original post - I'm not USian and have no affiliation to either party. I have a preference for democrats but their "family friendly" policies make me sick - but a Time Warner exec as a tech advisor? Seriously, don't vote for this guy.

Re:Has Obama been selected

[Anonymous Coward]

Florida and Michigan BROKE THE RULES. They fucked up and their votes won't count. So what now? We don't follow the rules. Florida and Michigan have no one else to blame but themselves for trying to push their Primary date up. I'm sick of you guys who want to bend the system to suit your candidate. There was no use of violence preventing anyone from voting and this is a primary. Technically the votes don't have to mean dick if the DNC deems it so.

Tech knowledge doesn't matter ...

[LaughingCoder]

Technical skill is not even close to being on my radar of what I want in a president, nor necessarily even in his/her closest advisers. In fact, I worry when the ones at the top, be it a corporation or a government, think they know more than the underlings and specialists as regards any subject, including technology. In my mind, vision, scruples and the ability to see through BS are the leadership skills I look for in candidates. And as it happens, these are actually pretty easy to discern by simply examining their track records. The hardest way to determine these things is to listen to what they say.

Re:Has Obama been selected

[Anonymous Coward]

I whined about him stealing Florida thanks to badly designed ballots and Jewish voters that couldn't tell the difference between Pat-WW2-wasn't-worth-fighting-Buchanan and Al Gore.

The ballot that was designed by a Democrat and approved by a Democrat controlled elections board? The voters who were trained who to vote for and screwed it up because they're too incompetent to actually think for themselves? Yeah... that's all Bush stealing Florida. Ignore the shenanigans that happened in the other states or the fact that Gore lost his home state that had elected him Senator before. Bush stole the election...

The Message and the Messenger.

[fm6]

Politics can get pretty shallow, but there's more to it than being a bitch for the polls. I think this little Q&A is a case in point. Not the answers themselves, but the people chosen to deliver them. McCain chose a lawyer with strong connections to a major media conglomerate that many of us have reason to loathe. Obama chose a computer scientist with connections to a university that played a big role in creating the Internet. That, by itself, should tell you where there respective priorities are.

Re:Do you really think they have opinions?

[internic]

In a country with over 300 million people, a more than $13 trillion dollar economy, worlds largest military, and many global interests and programs, there are simply too many important issues for the candidates to have a nuanced knowledge of all of them. Realistically, they must all rely on advisors, so I would take the views of their advisers fairly seriously. You can also get at least a sense of a candidate's general leanings, which suggests which advisors they are likely to listen to. It's also useful to look at the opinions of people who you respect on these issues that have actually talked to the candidates, e.g., Lessig's endorsement of Obama [lessig.org].

Now, let me add that, while a candidate must rely on advisors for detailed positions, he must know something about the issues himself, otherwise he cannot reasonably assess whose advice to take. We have in recent years seen a stark object lesson in the disastrous consequences when the decision maker really doesn't know anything at all and is simply led by whichever advisors are the loudest, most persistent, or the most clever at politicking.

The last point worth making is that the biggest problem on tech issues is that money talks. Lobbist access, fundraising, and political ads by large corporations have a tendency to drown out the public interest. I do think that on at least one of these points Obama has a clear advantage: His fundraising is based much more in small donations from ordinary people, so he is less beholden to these corporate interests and has less obligation to spend time listening to their lobbyists at fundraisers. I think this may make a bigger difference in the end than people realize.

corporate interests?

[Quadraginta]

Er...who, exactly, do you think gets technical stuff done? Martians? NGOs? Neighborhood watch associations?

Nope. Corporations. You know, like Amazon.com, Cisco, Google, Sun, and a thousand tiny tech start-ups you won't hear about until the day you sure wish you'd bought stock early in 'em.

So I'm pretty mystified by how you see it as conceivable that "corporate interests" are opposed to "technical interests." Seems to me the only way to really advance technical interests is to advance the corporate interests of technical corporations. Or are you thinking you still live in some quaint 18th century world where the individual inventor can do it all himself, and there is no real need to form large cooperating teams of technical folks and provide them with good support staff and plenty of capital investment -- i.e. found "a corporation"?

As for "popular" interests: the "popular" interests are what the vast seething market of consumers want, and, guess what, they don't give a flying fsck about technical interests at all, because they're not techies. They want their tech stuff to Just Work and be incredibly cheap, if not free. They're not the least bit interested in coolness, or advancing the art in amazing ways, or any of those other geeky kinds of goals you might find among people who seek each other out and associate into a corporation so that they can spend the productive part of their lives advancing those technical interests.

Sheesh, get a clue. Or a job. Find out how the world actually works instead of regurgitating mindless slogans from the 19th century.

H-1b is the real tech jobs issue

[randall_burns]

Both Obama [betterimmigration.com] and McCain [betterimmigration.com] favor expansion of the H-1b program.

What that means in practice is that tech jobs [vdare.com] in the US will be largely filled by foreigners because is is cheaper for companies to pay employees with green cards [vdare.com] than with cash.

It's not that simple

[mosb1000]

The main-stream candidates are also more committed to maintaining the status quo. This may sound like a bad thing, but changing a lot of things all at once is much, much worse. It is a testimant to the supreme arrogance of man that almost everyone on this message-board believes they are intellegent enough to make radical, sweeping changes to the government and the economy without killing everyone.

No one in their right mind should vote for somone who advocates that kind of change, no matter how much they think it's a good idea. The only approach that works it making small changes over time and working toward your eventual goal. Libertarians should vote for the republican candidate, since he advocates deregulation and reliance on markets. This is not the same as making drugs and porn legal, but it's a step in the right direction.

Re:What about the other candidates?

[Shakrai]

Obama and McCain want to put potsmokers in prison

With regards to Senator Obama, do you have a citation for that? Everything that I've seen suggests that he is open to the idea of decriminalization. Every quote that I've heard suggests that he realizes the folly of putting people behind bars for non-violent drug offenses.

Obviously that's not as good as Gravel or Paul's positions on the issue, but I'm not going to base my vote on the single issue of pot smoking. Not when we have an ongoing war, climate change, a failing economy, nuclear proliferation and the rise of China, India and Russia to deal with. And yes, I am a regular pot smoker.

Besides which, even if you got Gravel or Paul in office what about the state laws against marijuana? Those are the ones that actually impact pot-smokers on a day to day basis. Other than the bullshit Federal raids against medical marijuana dispensaries I'm hard pressed to think of any meaningful impact that the Feds make against pot-smokers.

Re:What about the other candidates?

[Anonymous Coward]

if your a pot smoker you deserve to be in prison.

Both are Globalists

[Anonymous Coward]

Both are pro rigged-trade globalists. Their loyalty is to the elite. To Joe Workingman American, it's tweedledee vs. tweedledum. Middle class has choice between
A) Lower Standard of Living and huge defecits (mccain)
and
B) Lower Standard of Living and huge taxes (obama).

Whatever.

Re:Do you really WANT them to have opinions?

[CastrTroy]

The only reason that the government isn't the expert at tech, or at farming, or transportation, or medicine, etc, is that they don't hire experts. Or when they do, they don't listen to them, of give the experts they have hired any power. There's no reason why the government couldn't hire some technically oriented people or consult with people when drafting laws that affect the internet, or farming, or medical care. There's no excuse for the government coming up with bad laws. You can't just give them slack because they are just a bunch of lawyers.

Re:Has Obama been selected

[Orange Crush]

And as a Floridian voter who was informed, in no uncertain terms, that the democratic primary would be rendered a non-binding beauty contest, I decided to re-register as a republican so my vote would actually count for something (even if it was half strength).

I'm far from the only one who did that. Even more simply stayed home. The biggest thing on the ballot for the primaries was a property tax amendment which was especially a big draw for elderly voters who owned their own homes.

The democratic primary vote here was deeply flawed and those delegates should not be seated. The only truly fair way of doing it would be to hold new primaries, which the logistics make exceedingly unlikely. I could accept a compromise and seat the Florida delegation at half strength, but knock it off with this popular vote bullshit. It "disenfranchises" every state that held a caucus because Hillary doesn't like those (because she did poorly in caucuses).

If the tables were turned and Hillary had an insurmountable lead while Obama won the non-binding Florida and Michigan primaries, do you think for a second she'd be lifting a finger to get those delegates seated?

Re:Has Obama been selected

[interstellar_donkey]

I can't think of a better use of the "troll" moderation. Never mind the fact that Hillary was perfectly fine with the exclusion of states that didn't follow the rules, and now that it looks like it can't serve her she wants to change those rules. Never mind the fact that she is doing her best to tear apart the Democratic party, and never mind the fact that she's essentially self-destructed over the last several months showing herself as a bitter, small woman hell bent on power and will do whatever she can to get it.

No, let's ignore all of that and just look to the facts: More Democrats want Obama to be our next president than Hillary. Even counting the invalid votes (from elections that Obama wasn't even on the ballot), Obama still wins.

The continued Hillary support that goes on is dumbfounding. You know her problems. You can't have lived with your head in the sand for that long.

Unless, of course, you're still waiting around for him to get shot.

Re:Do you really think they have opinions?

[Yvanhoe]

Like other posters said, the candidates don't really have to know about tech, neither they need to know about agriculture or naval construction but they have to listen from knowledgeable people. And McCain chose a guy from Warner Bros as his tech consultant, Obama, a guy from MIT.
This alone should make McCain sound like a very bad choice.

Net Neutrality and politicans who support it vital

[Eravnrekaree]

Net Neutrality is very important and critical to preserving a free and open internet and we do badly need to make this a part of law. Barack Obama is more likely to do this. I am definitely a Obama supporter not only due to this but due to a wide spectrum of other issues as well.

The claims made by telcos are mostly lies and deception. The telcos always have been able to tier service based on overall speed, what they have not been allowed to do is effectively censor content by slowing down some sites or blocking access to them. They dont need any capability to censor content or to discriminate against certain content. The corporations agenda is simply a vieled attempt to control information flow over the internet and to block access to things they dont like and dont agree with.

Measures lesser than Net Nuetrality wont be enough to address this. Blocking access or making access more difficult to certain content is innately bad and has no place on what should be an open and democratic form of communication where everyone has equal opportunity to be heard, where things are not biased towards corporations and their content. There is no way to make discriminating against content an acceptable practice or tilting it in favour of powerful corporate interests.

It is little different from what is being done in china, It is different in name only, here we have corporations do the censorship, In china it is government, The US has a composite government consisting of corporations and the republican government which they elect and which represents their interests. The corporations are the republican constituents. When you here a republican talk about their constituents, they are usually referring to the wealthy corporate donors who got them elected and paid for their campaigns. Democrats while not always perfect are certainly have a greater propensity to represent the people and do what is in the best interests of the general population rather than of big corporations.

We complain about what China has done in censoring the internet however we would have the same situation here unless we do something to bolster the internet as a free and open medium where everyone which is open to everyone with no discrimination. The same sort of mentality and insidious objective behinds Chinas censorship and the desire of corporations to censor the internet springs from the same mindset. The corporations have been able to control the flow of information for so long, they have had a monopoly on the media and were the gatekeepers, they could control what people could see and hear and it was very difficult to reach a large number of people, very expensive, though traditional mediums, so it excluded many from being able to express their views. the internet is a democratic form of communication, it is the first time we have had anything approaching true positive free speech where anyone could broadcast their views to anyone else and everyone is on an equal footing, no matter if you are poor or are a millionaire. And if a you re a rich megalomaniac you just cant have a situation where the little people can express themselves and actually make their voice heard to millions, and where there is nothing you can do to stop this and where they basically are on an equally footing, yhou no longer have your built in advantage of traditional media which allows you to more effectively distribute your views. Thje rich hate this because they have been so long accustomed to setting the agenda and manipulating society for their own benefit. So the openness and democracy of the net scared them because they are losing power and the internet has moved us more in the direction of a democratic society, so they are now trying to find a way to desperately shut it down and turn it into some sort of corporate controlled outlet one way sort of medium just like television is, where only the corporations have any rights to express themselves and everyone else is a mindless consumer who pays their monthly satellite subscription bill to be brainwashed by c

Re:Tech knowledge doesn't matter ...

[Wister285]

I have to agree. I think it's absurd that people expect elected officials to understand microscopic issues. The problem is when the think they know what they are talking about and they make laws that, while well intentioned, are extremely hard to execute. The more important thing is that they are able to let the experts take charge to determine feasible solutions that maximize a cost-benefit analysis.

Re:Has Obama been selected

[interstellar_donkey]

Not unnecessarily. We can assume that a candidate will chose subordinates who are in tune with his or her ideals. They might not understand the specifics of tech policy, but a democrat is likely to choose someone who is pro civil-liberties, while a republican is likely to go more pragmatic. They won't drive the policy, but the tone of their administration will show through in technology issues.

Re:corporate interests?

[Nursie]

Actually, I work for one of the world's biggest tech firms.

"So I'm pretty mystified by how you see it as conceivable that "corporate interests" are opposed to "technical interests."

See DRM, the multiple court cases over DeCSS, the whole DMCA and its restrictions over discussion of security, the massive abuse of the patent system (effectively cutting out or severely crippling many of your "thousand tiny tech start-ups you won't hear about".

I'm pretty mystified that you could have missed out on these themes over the past few years.

"Or are you thinking you still live in some quaint 18th century world where the individual inventor can do it all himself, and there is no real need to form large cooperating teams of technical folks and provide them with good support staff and plenty of capital investment -- i.e. found "a corporation"?"

I'm sorry if my use of the word "corporation" set off your hippie and/or student radar. Neither is the case here and I'm quite capable of backing up my previous comments without resorting to impugning the intelligence of those I argue against. I suggest you try the same, nice ad hominem though.

As for "popular" interests: the "popular" interests are what the vast seething market of consumers want

In other words the people of the United States of America, those that the POTUS is supposed to represent and to serve, right?

they don't give a flying fsck about technical interests at all, because they're not techies.

Didn't say they were, I said the likes of the republican's apparent tech spokesperson was against their interests.

"They want their tech stuff to Just Work and be incredibly cheap, if not free. They're not the least bit interested in coolness, or advancing the art in amazing ways, or any of those other geeky kinds of goals you might find among people who seek each other out and associate into a corporation so that they can spend the productive part of their lives advancing those technical interests."

Do you live in a fantasy world? Tech advances are a means to an end for some companies, not all, and not the only means. Large companies exist to make money. In fact for public companies that's a legal requirement or the board can face charges. Yes, a lot of tech comes from large corps, they are good for that, but please don't pretend that corporate influence, especially on politicians, is always a good thing. Especially given this person's prior record.

In the arena of copyright law, the likes of Time Warner are clearly directly opposed to what the people of the country want and are arguably going well beyond what's best for society and business in general. They don't respect privacy, they engage in campaigns of scaring the population into compliance with their take on IP...

Sheesh, get a clue. Or a job. Find out how the world actually works instead of regurgitating mindless slogans from the 19th century.

Back at you. You've swallowed the "money is always" right line a little too far there. Tell me, in your world, do companies always act in the best interests of the whole population?
Or are there no incidences of monopolistic behaviour, unethical behaviour, exploitation of cheap foreign child labour etc etc?

Re:Has Obama been selected

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

What are you, racist ? Not voting for a black man is obviously racist. Clinton is a woman, so they're giving her some leeway in politically-correct land.

But let's take a look at races, without prejudice :
-> Race A votes 91-9 for the candidate of the same race (and 25% admit that they only did soe because of race)
-> Race B votes 58-42 for the candidate of the same race (and only 2 guys admitted it had something to do with race)

Who are the racist voters ?

But let's not forget Obama's church ... "Only white people can be racist". So it's Race B that's almost 100% racists, capiche ?

As Obama's mentor says Are you white ? Are you aware that you've created the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color. The government lied ... [npr.org]

Re:All I need to know

[Wister285]

I love the villianization companies such as Time Warner, who has the fiduciary responsibility to protect their assets, which in turn protects their employees and shareholders. I'd have to assume you reference their music and film divisions and how they "criminalise" people who illegally copy copyrighted material. If upholding copyright law and defending their property is "suppressive", "anti-progress", "anti-freedom", and "anti-privacy", then what do you expect from them? Close a up shop because you deem their business model to be "obsolete"? It's opinions like this that I find so disturbing. It seems as though most people don't understand the point of copyright law. It's to make sure that people know that they will be backed up, which in turn encourages innovation. If the pharmaceutical companies didn't have patent protection from the government, they would not be able to stay in business. Although this isn't quite the same as protection of things like music and film, the idea is similar. Why should a company spend all of the time promoting an artist, who are mutually bound by contracts, if you can just go download the music? Do I like how big business operates with regard to art? Not particularly, but artists need to make the change. Don't blame the companies for doing what they have the fiduciary responsibility of doing.

I'm all for free market capitalism, but I'm not so laissez-faire that I think anarchy is the way to go. Let the market decide if Time Warner's media component is the right business model going forward. Things tend to not change overnight, so don't be impatient. Some of the worst decisions are made with haste.

Re:It's not that simple

[Shakrai]

So what do you do?

Run for office?

Re:method is more important than issues

[Wister285]

I think people need to be careful about falling in love with politicians. To his credit, Obama is an excellent orator, but this can be dangerous as well. Just because he says things you want to here in such a way that makes you feel hopeful don't really mean much. You have to look at what people have done. Quite frankly, it worries me that he is running for the presidency at such a young age with such little experience on both a national and executive level. Ambition can be a good trait when kept in check, but dangerous when it is not.

That was my primary worry about Clinton since it appeared that she thought she deserved the nomination. I thought that Obama wouldn't be as bad, but at this point, I think that you can't afford to let your guard down.

Re:Do you really think they have opinions?

[fish_in_the_c]

I thought about feeding a troll today
but that just seemed to drool today
so I thought I'd take the time to say
don't be silly go somewhere else and play.

Seriously , 'religion is for the weak minded' is a bigoted and antiquitated statment of an idialog
that belongs long laid to rest with the Nazi's and stalin.

Peace out.

Re:Has Obama been selected

[Captain Splendid]

In this day and age?

That's your problem right there. Hatred, racism and bigotry don't just disappear in a generation.

Re:Has Obama been selected

[Shakrai]

it's obviously still a pretty big deal for a lot of Americans.

And it remains to be seen whether or not those Americans can actually swing the election.

I for one refuse to base my vote off of the fear of what racists might do. That Hillary is reduced to using this piece of FUD to make her case says volumes about how far she has fallen.

Re:He wants to kill the Manned space program.

[eldepeche]

The manned space program is a boondoggle. We've learned much more from unmanned missions, and they cost 10% as much. Since we don't need to compete with the USSR anymore and I don't think Al Qaeda will pull off a manned space flight any time soon, we don't need the prestige associated with it either.

Re:Do you really think they have opinions?

[eldepeche]

It sure is funny to call women bitches, huh? It reminds us that issues are much less important than personality.

Re:Has Obama been selected

[EastCoastSurfer]

They might not understand the specifics of tech policy, but a democrat is likely to choose someone who is pro civil-liberties

I'm pretty sure pro civil-liberties and Obama went opposite directions when he started talking about mandating what temperature I keep my house, how much food I can eat, or how much gas I can buy.

Re:Has Obama been selected

[VoltCurve]

Yes. Presidents who follow the rules are horrible. We need more people like Bush, who view rules like the constitution with the disdain they deserve. ... idiot.

Re:Do you really think they have opinions?

[mrbooze]

If you think Obama or Hillary are real liberals and/or socialists, you REALLY need to meet some real liberals and socialists.

Re:Has Obama been selected

[Shakrai]

It's fair because Obama choose to withdraw his name from the ballot in order to suck up to Iowa and New Hampshire.

You mean like how Hillary sucked up to them by saying that FL and MI "won't count for anything"? Don't take my word for it -- it's her own quote [dailykos.com].

Planning for short-term gains at the expense of the long-term is precisely a quality I DO NOT want in a president.

Then I'd guess that you don't want the candidate who ignored the caucus states and whom assumed the coronation^Wrace would be over on Super Tuesday?

We're asking the wrong question

[squarooticus]

The right question is:

"Why do we have to give a crap what the grizzled old fossil, the newly-minted career politician, or the shrieking banshee have to say about technology?"

The President of the US (as well as the Congress) should have zero effect on it. He or she has one main duty: to defend the borders of the US from foreign invasion. Everything else this government does is simply meddling in the private consensual affairs of citizens or usurping the powers of local governments to set policies best suited to local culture and tradition.

That said, practically speaking, if you vote your goal should be either (a) to elect the candidate who will do the least damage to your civil liberties, on the premise that the system is salvageable; or (b) to elect the candidate who will do the most damage, on the premise that the citizen-led equivalent of a reboot (aka a "revolution") is the only way to fix the system.

Until enough people figure out that trying to ram their own preferences down the throats of people living thousands of miles away is a bad idea, we will continue to be presented with nothing but bad choices.

Re:Has Obama been selected

[scipiodog]

Not unnecessarily. We can assume that a candidate will chose subordinates who are in tune with his or her ideals. They might not understand the specifics of tech policy, but a democrat is likely to choose someone who is pro civil-liberties, while a republican is likely to go more pragmatic. They won't drive the policy, but the tone of their administration will show through in technology issues.

Not true!

The Bush Administration != Republicans. The democratic party has been more in favour of big government, and therefore anti-civil liberties.

It is only the current crop of Republican "yes men" (and let's face it, the Democrats have been no better in recent years when it's their team in charge) who've been determined to turn the USA into a fascist state.

IMHO there is only one solution, and it doesn't lie in either Obama or McCain. We need to cure this country's dangerous addicition to Executive Power.

If the checks and balances written into the US constitution were observed again, and the dictatorial power of the executive branch (gained more by precedent than legitimate legislation) civil liberties would not be an issue.

Gets things done -- doesn't matter what things!

[weston]

I have no idea what Chuck Fish's interests are but if you want to change the market, it might be best to do it with someone who knows the market--or even has the ability to change it from the inside.

In other words, he's a real go-getter -- it doesn't matter what he decides to get done, just that he's got the connections, the can-do attitude, and the shark skills to get it done!

Look, I can take the point that execution skills matter. The problem with this is that what we're talking about here are policy advisors, and when it comes to understanding the potential of technology, Mr. Fish is quite likely going to be limited at *best* to its value as a corporate asset. And there's little evidence McCain has the ability to pick anybody better.

By contrast, Obama's selection shows that he knows where to start for picking people who understand the underlying knowledge domain. And there's definitely evidence to suggest that Obama has the ability to pick people and build an organization that can get things done to supplement to work of policy advisor that knows what's up.

Re:He wants to kill the Manned space program.

[mhall119]

The vast majority of people who work on the space program don't ride rockets, you do realize that don't you? Manned missions don't add that many more jobs to a mission, and they significantly increase the cost of those missions.

Also, we went years without manned space flights after the Challenger and Columbia accidents, and we're already planning on going many years between the time the Orbiter is decommissioned and the time the Orion project is ready.

Re:Has Obama been selected

[tbannist]

I have ot point this out. I think it might just be because American laws allow partisan hacks to be appointed to run your elections.

In other countries we punish the mere appearance of impartiality in our electoral officers. Americans allow their officials to run the election and the campaign for one of the two front runners in that same election without any type of oversight.

It's really is no wonder that the elections officials act like partisan hacks. They are partisan hacks, and they were hired because they are partisan hacks and the people who hired them want them to act like partisan hacks. They're just doing the job they were paid to perform, that is making sure that elections are not run fairly and impartially but that their side wins at any cost.

Re:Vote Hillary!

[Shakrai]

What about the Democratic love affair with John McCain? It wasn't uncommon to hear Democrats talk about how much they liked him and how they would even possibly vote for him. Now that it's game time, it's interesting to listen to the silence.

If the John McCain from 2000 was running he'd had a serious shot at my vote in spite of my support for Senator Obama.

The John McCain that we all know and loved seemed to have been replaced somewhere around the 2004 election. I stopped listening to him when he started kissing Jerry Falwell's ass and went on the campaign trail for the man that accused him of fathering an illegitimate black child to torpedo his chances in South Carolina.

(To be fair, I did start listening to him again when he stood against his party on torture -- but you don't hear him talking too much about that lately, do you?)

Re:Has Obama been selected

[jeffasselin]

That's something a lot of people don't understand and never figured out; something which I figured out before I could even vote. For most elections and high-profile posts, you should obviously look at the character of the person who you are voting for, but we should understand people in such positions don't make most decisions or even implement the decisions they take themselves, their subordinates do.

Which is why one of the most important qualities in a leader is to be a good judge of character and be able to select good, skilled, and honest subordinates to whom they can delegate important tasks. So look at the people they have working for them right now in their campaign, look at the people they associate with now, or have worked for them in the past as well as at the people they are likely to nominate once they are elected/chosen. This applies to presidents, prime ministers, as well as CEOs in fact.

Re:Do you really think they have opinions?

[hey!]

Like amateur AI programmers vs. WoW players or something?

I wouldn't assume those sets are disjoint.

I'm thinking more of the guy who set up his home inventory system in Access, and considers himself hot stuff with PowerPoint animations, carries a BlackBerry, and takes this as proof he understands Technology.

The whole Ted Stevens "Series of Tubes" flap is an example. As has been pointed out, it is very reasonable to use this as a first approximation of how the Internet works for some purposes. Just not the specific purposes in question. Not knowing the limits of your knowledge is not only embarassing, it is dangerous when you are a lawmaker.

And that's where technological overconfidence becomes hubris, when you stop relying upon your ow personal experience and start relying upon received wisdsom without realizing you have done so. A top drawer lawer, if he was fully aware of his own technological ignorance, would grasp useful and misleading aspects of the "tubes" analogy in about five minutes. In about five more, he'd get on to the real substance of net neutrality, which is gaining control over markets by limiting vendor access to customers.

This is something even a pretty sophisticated engineer might miss, because he's too close. You have to be interested in economics, not the details of protocol implementations.

Tech *policy* absolutely matters

[weston]

Look, a candidate who can write code obviously may not have an edge over one who can't -- in fact, given the aptness of Philip Greenspun's comparison of pilots vs programmers (see here: http://philip.greenspun.com/materialism/early-retirement/aviation [greenspun.com] ), it's entirely possible programming skill isn't a great test of broad intellectual ability. :)

But tech issues absolutely underly quite a few other issues of economics and liberty, and those are certainly have a weight equal to other big issues like foreign policy.

But I think there's an even bigger reason why tech workers *definitely* should be looking at how candidates understand and address issues they understand. Because this is the arena where *you* may actually know enough, as a professional, to really gauge a candidates policy acumen. I doubt most slashdotters are experts in military tactics or nation building. Most of us have a shallow grasp of economics -- yes, even most of you Austrian school autodidacts. Same goes for health care, education, criminology, etc -- Slashdot readers may be smart laymen, but that's all most of us are in those fields.

But lots of us are IT pros. And if a candidate seems to really get it in the area where you can tell buzzspeak and platitudes from real knowledge, that tells you quite a bit about their ability to reach into an issue, understand it, and formulate a plan to do something about it.

It's worth paying attention to.

Re:All I need to know

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah yeah yeah, this is like the "everyone lies" argument in response to complaints about particular politicians. It's true that everyone does lie at one time or another, but not everyone is a compulsive liar... Like for example, out of the people I know, only a small handful would make up a story about being under sniper fire when they weren't and not a single one of those would I trust as president. Most normal people, though they might find themselves in a situation from time to time where they lie, aren't going to make up off the wall shit like that.

Likewise, "Everyone is influenced by corporate interests" is true, however, there is a difference between a corporation or lobbiest having a politician's ear and having politician's who are their little bitches. The republicans have demonstrated time and again that they are the bitches of corporate America.

All it really takes right now for anyone to understand this is for the average person to ask themselves if they think the country is better off now than it was 8 years ago and whether they think the pharmaceutical industry, the oil industry, the defense industry, the energy industry, agribusiness, etc... is better off now than it was 8 years ago. The people aren't, but those industries are. Those industries are the pimps of the republican party. Everything done under Republican rule was designed to favor all those industries, at their behest.

Re:Has Obama been selected

[LihTox]

But let's take a look at races, without prejudice :
-> Race A votes 91-9 for the candidate of the same race (and 25% admit that they only did soe because of race)
-> Race B votes 58-42 for the candidate of the same race (and only 2 guys admitted it had something to do with race)


Sure, their support is racially motivated, even racist by some standards (racism is a terribly ambiguous word, meaning everything from "pride in one's race" to "discomfort with strangers" to "desiring the extinction of another race".) But I for one can't blame them for it: it's no more wrong than Arkansans voting for Clinton because she lived there for a while, or for military families voting for McCain because he is a veteran. One would hope that voters would take their responsibility more seriously than that, but people are always going to have some sympathy for "one of their own" becoming President.

Well then, what's so wrong about white voters refusing to vote for Obama because he's black? Frankly, I can't help but be sympathetic with those white voters who say they are afraid of black retaliation: the proper response to them isn't "you are a horrible racist!" but "how can we alleviate those fears?" But there is a distinction between voting FOR someone vs. voting AGAINST someone. To take a less controversial example, saying "I am proud to be a Texan!" is less likely to offend anyone than saying "I'd hate to be one of them Oklahomans!", let alone "You can't trust those damn Okies!" (None of the above statements apply to me, btw.)

I will admit that it is a mixed bag, with "black pride" all mixed up with white hatred, and white racism all mixed up with "white pride", so that it's hard to tell the difference.

You quote Obama's "mentor" (actually pastor); I'll quote Obama [npr.org]:

In fact, a similar anger exists within segments of the white community. Most working- and middle-class white Americans don't feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race. Their experience is the immigrant experience -- as far as they're concerned, no one handed them anything. They built it from scratch. They've worked hard all their lives, many times only to see their jobs shipped overseas or their pensions dumped after a lifetime of labor. They are anxious about their futures, and they feel their dreams slipping away. And in an era of stagnant wages and global competition, opportunity comes to be seen as a zero sum game, in which your dreams come at my expense. So when they are told to bus their children to a school across town; when they hear an African-American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never committed; when they're told that their fears about crime in urban neighborhoods are somehow prejudiced, resentment builds over time.

Re:Has Obama been selected

[Hatta]

Is voting for your own race necessarily racist? Someone more similar to you is more likely to effectively advocate for your interests. A race related preference may have nothing to do with your belief that one race is superior to another.

For instance, I'm a pot smoker. I would vote for any candidate that smokes pot in an instant. Not because I believe pot smokers are better people, or that they're better qualified to lead, but because such a candidate would be most likely to fight strongly for legalization of cannabis. There's no prejudice involved.

Similarly, a black person voting for a black candidate may only be acting out of self-interest and not prejudice.

Re:Do you really think they have opinions?

[garett_spencley]

You know what I find interesting and a little optimistic ? During the last 2 presidential elections you heard the term "Lesser Evil" thrown around quite a bit here on Slashdot. I don't think too many people really liked Gore or Kerry they just *really* didn't want George W. in office. You'd also hear about the Libertarian party quite a bit and various democrats and libertarians would practically beg libertarians to vote democrats just to ensure that George W. was not elected.

In this particular election I have yet to hear any of that at all. At least I have not heard "lesser evil" at all thus far in the primaries (maybe it's a bit early). It seems that most slashdotters are very pro-Obama. There's exceptions of course but it's no where near what it was in the last elections. If Obama wins the primary it is going to be a very interesting and nerve-wracking election (for me anyway).

Re:Has Obama been selected

[cduffy]

He CHOSE to not be on the ballot.

...because, like Clinton, he had agreed to be bound by Democratic party rules. If Clinton didn't intend to abide by those rules, she shouldn't have signed her name to them.

Do I need to point to a clip of Clinton saying that those states' primaries wouldn't matter?

Re:Has Obama been selected

[Anonymous Coward]

civil-liberties and Obama went opposite directions when he started talking about mandating what temperature I keep my house, how much food I can eat

Source? That sounds like some ridiculous shit you'd read on a blog.

Re:Has Obama been selected

[ArcherB]

I'm pretty sure pro civil-liberties and Obama went opposite directions when he started talking about mandating what temperature I keep my house, how much food I can eat, or how much gas I can buy.

and there is the difference between parties. Democrats think it is OK to do such things, as it helps the greater good in reference to GW and equal access to resources (Communism).

Republicans think it's OK to do things like tap phone calls in order to preserve national security, which is also the greater good.

I see the difference this way. I don't know when/if the NSA is listening to my calls so it makes absolutely 0% difference in my life. I DO KNOW when someone takes food off of my family's table, tells me what kind of car I can drive or I have to spend my child's college fund to fill up my car because someone thinks (incorrectly, I might add) that a fuckin' caribou might be badly affected if we do the same thing in ANWR that we do in every state in the union, including about 7 miles away in Prudhoe Bay.

Guess how I'm voting?

Re:method is more important than issues

[Bent Mind]

Conservatives are the ones that follow the constitution and do little to hamper our freedoms. Check out Reagan - the greatest president of the 20th century

Yes, all hail the creator of the "War on Drugs". And remember, "Just say No".

Re:All I need to know

[Anonymous Coward]

It's "American". If you say "USian", we don't know if you mean the United States of Mexico (commonly called "Mexico") or the United States of America (commonly called "America").

Re:Has Obama been selected

[dctoastman]

Look up what discrimination means. It basically means selection based upon differences. If you are selecting someone based on race, you are discriminating based on race regardless if you are voting for a guy just because he shares a skin tone or voting against him based on the same criteria.

Re:You need manned missions to send a man to Mars

[Anonymous Coward]

[without] manned missions we'll pretty much never send a man to Mars, or colonize much (or at all) beyond the planet

Incredibly expensive and wasteful missions should be put on hold in favor of safe, secure, and much less expensive (by orders of magnitude) missions. It is ultimately a temporary measure. But educating the next generation of people is of much greater concern and importance. They will be the ones who travel beyond the moon. And they will be people of the planet earth, not some nationalistic boondoggle.

the idea that any kind of problem can kill off everyone on earth

Huh?

SuperKendall

Not so super any more. You are still soaking in the kool-aid. Time to get it out of your system and quick.

Re:Send These Clowns a Message!

[hey!]

Well -- identical twins have idential DNA -- or close to it. They aren't identical in their character, however.

The thing to remember is that while we might not have as much difference between candidates as we'd like, small differences make a big difference, if they're over something that's important enough. Lots of people have been complaining for a long time that the Democrats and Republicans are too much alike. They're probably right. It doesn't mean that things wouldn't have been different, for better or worse, if Al Gore had beeng granted Florida's electoral votes in 2000.

Many Democrats don't see much difference between McCain and Bush; many Republicans don't see much difference between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Some don't see much differnce between McCain and Obama. None of these people are wrong, except to the degree that they think the "small" differences between those individuals won't have big practical impacts on the life of the country.

Re:H-1b is the real tech jobs issue

[p0tat03]

Right, because the best way to remain a world leader is to cower on your turf, so worried about your job that you turn away tens of thousands of talented foreigners who are just dying for the chance to become Americans and contribute to making your country great.

I'll admit, my stance may be biased. I'm a Canadian working in the USA, and I work with a huge number of people who are on H-1b's, and just as many who are now naturalized citizens, but first came on work visas. Not a single one is considered "cheap labor"; they are paid as much as their local, home-bred American counterparts. The job crunch is not due to people like us "stealing" your jobs, it's due to your flaccid economy to begin with... but from what I can see tech is booming in spite of the American economy's current weakness, and there's really no excuse for complaint in this regard.

Might I remind you that America's initial ascent to world superpower was largely powered by foreign immigration? After WW2 we moved a great many scientists and engineers out from Europe, and they in turn have paid their dues to America. It's a win-win for everyone, except the locals who refuse to compete with the inbound immigrants. No offense, but I've seen some truly lazy people (in both Canada and the USA) who would rather sit and bitch about how the immigrant dude is willing to work harder than he is, and it's TOTALLY not fair. Guess what? Hard work is what put this country at the top, and hard work is the ONLY thing that will keep it there.

Re:What about the other candidates?

[smack.addict]

That says something about you, not the candidates.

Re:Not exactly

[Shakrai]

On Iraq, you seem to be unable to distinguish between helpful and unhelpful actions there - something McCain has shown better judgement for.

The best judgment would have been not invading the country in the first place. So how did McCain vote on the authorization for military force?

Re:Don't shoot the....

[FrankDeath]

Analyzing what they actually have to say is good, however is helpful to understand a person's motivation. Consider the following situations:

1. A very knowledgeable sales person who recommends an extended warranty seems to want to protect you from expensive repairs/replacements.

2. A doctor recommends a change in diet to help you reach a healthier weight and reduce your risk of heart disease.

The sales person has his own interests in mind and the doctor has your interests in mind. If you follow the doctor's advice you'll actually need him less. On the surface both seem to have your interests mind. How do you avoid being swindled if you don't judge the messenger?

Re:probably a slight majority of americans

[EastCoastSurfer]

There was a poll done on black americans and the large majority said they didn't know anything that Obama stood for, except that he was black. I don't see how this is any different than the white bigot who votes against him only because he is black.

Now what would have been interesting is if someone like a Powell or Rice had run. Would black Americans have blindly voted for a black republican?

Re:Has Obama been selected

[zerocool^]

Fish is McCain's guy.

On the question of retroactive immunity for telecoms that participated in warrantless surveillance by the National Security Agency, Fish sought to reassure the civil libertarian-leaning audience that McCain did not support "indulgences" (an allusion to the medieval church's practice of selling absolution for sins) and surprised many by saying that hearings should be conducted to determine the scope and extent of NSA acquisitions. (The campaign later walked back from that position, leaving it unclear just where Fish was coming from.)

Fish was substantially vaguer on the question of what sort of checks and oversight should be imposed on future surveillance, and reiterated McCain's condemnation of Democrats in the House for "fail[ing] to address" the problem of reforming the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. (The House has, in fact, twice passed bills reforming FISA, both of which have been deemed unacceptable by the White House.) He did, however, articulate a more general philosophy of "privacy as security." This, he explained, meant that "just as liberty is not licentiousness [sic]," privacy should not be conceived as absolute control over personal information, but rather as protection from harms accruing from the use or disclosure of information.

Yeah, no thanks. I'd take pretty much any other option than this guy.

Privacy IS actually privacy. It's not privacy (most of the time, sometimes it's ok if the government knows what you're doing, they won't abuse it I promise, and no you can't know what they're doing).

~Wx

Re:He wants to kill the Manned space program.

[Anonymous Coward]

because the current administration either is unwilling or unable to capture him. plus, if we off OBL, who would the bogeyman be then?

Re:Has Obama been selected

[SanityInAnarchy]

Hatred, racism and bigotry don't just disappear in a generation.

I've seen it happen.

I live in a small town of about 10k people. A bunch of people from the Transcendental Meditation Movement came here to start a university, and later a primary school -- it's now possible to go K-12 and college without leaving the same campus.

A lot of the older people in town ("Townies"), especially the more religious ones, have a pretty irrational dislike for the Movement -- or the "Rus", short for "Gurus". Part of it probably comes from being pretty normal Iowans until we came in here with all our weird hippie Hindu stuff. Part of it probably has more to do with the fact that we're a bunch of outsiders, moving in on their community.

Now, I don't know of any actual violence that's happened because of this, but there is certainly bigotry and discrimination. It gets weird -- Rus don't want to do business with Rus, and Townies don't want to do business with Rus, and that's a whole separate story -- my parents get most of their business from out of town.

But whatever there was, it's pretty much gone in my generation. Nobody cares where you came from, or what you believe -- that's your business.

Or take a better example -- Israeli and Palestinian children. A group of schoolchildren, to be precise -- brought together for some amount of time. By the time they went home, they were trying to teach their parents to be tolerant.

No one is born in hatred, racism, or bigotry. It has to be taught.

Re:The Message and the Messenger.

[nickhart]

I beg to differ. Looking at who is funding their campaigns is a better gauge of where their priorities are.

All election year platitudes and rhetoric aside, both candidates are firmly in the pocket of corporate America and will do whatever is best for big business and not the public. Rest assured they will both embrace any technology that will help the government spy on citizens and suppress political dissent. Ditto for technology that will help the military maintain the US's global empire by killing and suppressing political dissent abroad.

Don't look for change from within the system--it doesn't work that way. Change only comes through struggle and putting pressure on the system from the outside.

And if Obama really wanted to help fund education, then a better source of funding than slashing space exploration would be to slash military spending. However, he's not about to tip that sacred cow--because like McCain he fully supports the US's drive to dominate the planet. The Democrats and Republicans are in complete agreement on that point (they only disagree on how to best implement it).

What is Net Neutrality

[pseudorand]

I agree with Obama that open access trumps bandwidth. What's more, the loads of free content that open access naturally creates provide huge incentive to upgrade the network. Let's take the cell phone network vs. the Internet. The internet has gone from 2800 baud dial-up service on $2K+ 286 PCs accessing BBSs to Mbps service on sub $1000 computers with processing, graphics, and multi-media capabilities that far exceed what was available in professional video-editing houses just a few decades back. BBSs (much to some of our dismay) gave way to streaming video and interactive GUI applications. And not only have the prices of the devices dropped by huge amounts even in inflation-adjusted dollars, but I don't pay much more for broadband than I once did for dial-up. And today I can sign up without a contract and switch my service provider if I'm unhappy with the service (because we have competing technologies/infrastructure, cable modem and DSL, we have true competition). As for additional infrastructure upgrades, I predict people will start to ditch cable for on-demand TV via the internet. Content provides will innovate with interactive TV and targeted ads. Advertisers will get more for their money because consumers will be more willing to watch ads that they're actually interested in. These efficiencies will motivate and pay for infrastructure upgrades.

The cell phone network on the other hand started as basically your land line sans the wires and hasn't really come very far. Features added include caller ID, call waiting, text messaging, an address book and calendar on your phone that your forced to edit using the horrible UI of the phone itself. You're locked in to a contract, sometimes a multi-year contract. And your devices is tied to the service provider, so you can't take it with you. Where's the simple to implement and obvious features like being able to edit/sync/backup your address book, calendar, etc on a real computer with a full keyboard. Sure, there are better devices like the iPhone and crackberry, but they cost an arm and a leg. And you're still locked into a service provider, so why would I pay so much more for a better device when I have no control over the most important feature, namely coverage area and bandwidth. The cell-phone network is actually bunch of closed-access monopolies and though coverage area has become somewhat better, bandwidth and devices still suck eggs.

Imagine if you could just sign up for wireless access and connect any device you want to the network and switch providers any time you want to get the best performance. I think there would be a huge innovation in devices. Once more useful devices were available, content would follow. (Honestly, how many of you web developers bother with versions of your sites for mobile devices.) Once the content and devices where there, consumers would demand (and be willing to pay for) a better network.

I'm not saying the we shouldn't take caution on the legal definition of NN (I like the Limited Discrimination and Tiering [wikipedia.org] one), but I think it's pretty clear that ensuring open access is the market-centric approach to this issue and letting ISPs get away with trying to exercise monopoly power by exploiting control of the infrastructure would be a huge step backwards.

Re:probably a slight majority of americans

[indifferent children]

Now what would have been interesting is if someone like a Powell or Rice had run. Would black Americans have blindly voted for a black republican?

But how many white Republicans would have voted for a black person? Carrying 13% of the national vote won't cut it (and that's assuming that every black person is eligible to vote (not true, esp. in Florida) and actually votes).

Re:The Message and the Messenger.

[fm6]

The circle of people they attract? Please, these are their techno advisors, not somebody randomly chosen from their followers.

Far from projecting, I'm assuming that both candidates acted like reasonably intelligent bosses, and picked their advisers on the basis of previous experience. It's the experience that's considered relevant that's telling. McCain went by business experience and ignored a total lack of technical expertise. Which isn't exactly unprecedented when you consider the recent history of his party.

I'll tell you who's projecting. It's the guy who thinks that anybody critical of McCain is a fuzzy-headed liberal suffering from all the cognitive disorders so aptly described by the esteemed Dr. Limbaugh.

But guess what? The electorate pretty sick of that kind of bigotry. Which is precisely why this has been Obama's year, and probably will continue to be so through November.

Re:probably a slight majority of americans

[Anonymous Coward]

"Most liberal"? What does that even mean?

Hey, isn't National Journal the same magazine that rated John Kerry as the most liberal senator in 2004? Gee, what a coincidence!

Re:Has Obama been selected

[NMerriam]

How would you know? They're obviously not going to say anything.

On the contrary, many of her top fundraisers and several of her staffers have gone on the record in the past weeks acknowledging that it's nearly impossible for her to win it unless pictures of Obama in his Nazi Youth uniform surface, but that they're staying in the race to the end to represent all the people who voted for her already, or to stand up for women, or to make sure all the votes are counted, etc.

There are numerous theories as to why she's really in, but I tend to think the simplest one is most likely -- with only days left in the primary contest, she can't quit without it being weird. After Pennsylvania, and with the Wright controversy, she was hoping for a rally around her, but it didn't happen, and she's just stuck in this awkward position of knowing she can't win but being so close to the finish line that there's no really graceful way to exit other than waiting to the last primary and then congratulating her opponent.

Re:Don't shoot the....

[fm6]

It's bad enough when people mix their metaphors, but you're mixing your cliches. Neither spokesman is a "messenger" in the sense you mean. Neither is reading a script; each is considered by his boss to be an expert on technology. So it makes perfect sense to consider why they're considered experts.

Re:it's them scheming democraps

[David Greene]

McCain is actually far closer to Bush and basically just tries to extend Bush's disastrous fiscal policies.

All too true. What scares me is that the "maverick" label of McCain has stuck. He's no maverick. Look at how he accepted the endorsement of nutcase pastor Hagee until he was finally called out on it. And even then, he didn't actually address the comments Hagee made.

McCain scares me because people actually believe he will be different than Bush. Remember how Bush put forth the image of his "common man" lifestyle and "compassionate conservatism." Hmm...how well does that hold up against the track record of the corporate corruption and lawlessness actively supported by his administration?

McCain has one of the most conservative voting records of anyone in the Senate but somehow people think he's a moderate.

Re:He wants to kill the Manned space program.

[BlueStrat]

The point? Sometimes it ain't about the immediate scientific benefits. Sometimes it's about the long-term. We (the US) screwed ourselves royally in the 1970's literally throwing out a shitload of research and knowledge (e.g. Saturn V propulsion, etc) - all in the name of politics. We really need to stop doing that if we are to have any hope of eventually getting a sizeable portion of mankind off of this one fragile pandemic-and-asteroid-prone rock.

I agree, we (as in humanity overall) need a manned space program. The spin-off tech alone has historically paid for the entire space program, manned and unmanned, many many times over. There isn't nearly as much of a technical challenge (and thus rewards in spin-off tech) in sending some hardware flying off somewhere on a one-way trip than there is in keeping a living human crew alive, deliver them to their destination, and return them safely.

Never mind the advantages in scientific information gathering and on the spot evaluation and adaptability to changing information and situations possible with a human crew that's completely impossible for a machine to duplicate. This can be important even in relatively simple matters, for example the Mars probes can be crippled if too much dust accumulates on the solar panels, where a human crew could simply brush the dust off.

There's also the inspirational factor for all of humanity. How many kids in the '60s and '70s said "I wanna be an astronaut when I grow up!", and were inspired to behave and try hard in school, even if they never actually became astronauts? Anyone who grew up during the manned spaceflight heydays understands what an enormous benefit it was in research, engineering, medicine, and in giving inspiration and hope to all people for the future of mankind. Hopes and dreams are powerful things that can inspire leaps and gains in both technology and in the social fabric impossible by any other means, and without which there is little hope for humanities' future.

Of course, politicians will increasingly see it differently over time, especially as the possibility of people moving off this planet gains more feasibility. How do they exert their power and control over people increasingly scattered across multiple planets/bodies/self-sustaining habitats? That this would vastly increase the chances of humanities' survival means little to them, as they could not care less if humanity survives long-term if it means they might lose power and control.

If they allowed large groups of people to colonize, these people might get some crazy idea that they should govern themselves or something! I think that this is one factor playing into the disinterest for manned spaceflight among those who desire more government control in peoples' lives. Even just the hopes and dreams of one day peoples' children or even great-great-grandchildren might be able to slip the yoke of government control can be enough to seriously impede their plans to increase their grip over the populace.

I must put in a plug here for a long-time favorite book; "The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress" by Robert A. Heinlein. If you've never read it, put it on your "must read" list.

Cheers!

Strat

Re:What about the other candidates?

[FiloEleven]

But regardless in my own experiences in one of the highest per-capita marijuana abusing cities in the US (Eugene, Oregon) I have had ample experience on the topic. Higher than normal taxes and a weak economy because most people are to lazy to do any real work and would rather just sit around smoking a bowl. I "Used" to smoke pot... it removes most motivations other than "Smoking pot", Munchies, and sleeping.

I call shenanigans. First of all, your experience is anecdotal evidence and should not be taken as any sort of basis for national policy. Your claim that your city's economy and tax rates are due to some pot smokers is simply ludicrous. Do you have a shred of evidence to back this up? I didn't think so.

Second, you state that Eugene is one of the "highest per-capita marijuana abusing cities." I am guessing that you make no room for marijuana users as opposed to abusers. I guess everyone who unwinds with a beer is also an alcoholic, eh? There are millions of pot smokers who have steady jobs and contribute a lot to society. You don't hear much about them because they don't get caught very often (largely due, IMO, to racial profiling, but that's a rabbit trail I'd rather not go down here).

Don't get me wrong there are exceptions to every rule... but exceptions are a small % of the people.

Exactly right. And you seem to be mistaking the exception for the norm. There will be some people who do nothing but waste their lives smoking pot, just as there are some people who waste their lives drinking alcohol, or watching TV, or working nonstop.

What you want is for Marijuana to become legal under the same classification. This is much different than changing Marijuana's classification.

I can't comment on this because it doesn't make any sense. Were you high when you wrote it?

Hence if you actually read my whole post instead of getting ADD from your POT and falling asleep you would have noticed the beginning part of the line you quoted:

"While I personally think Marijuana should be legalized with the same types of restrictions as alcohol"

Due to the failure of text to indicate tone, I'm not sure what the spirit of the above quote was, especially due to the mixed content of your post. If you were poking fun at pot smokers, then it was kind of funny. If you intended to be insulting, then it's just kind of sad. I hope for the former. I am wondering though, since you seem to really dislike the drug and its purported effects on people in your city, why exactly you want it to be legalized?

But that's okay... All illegal drug users can't do no wrong.. thats why they break into peoples houses and are the vast majority of criminals. That is why I own a handgun and can legally pack it around with me so I can shoot "Morons" like you when I "Fear for my life" due to you being high.

Come now. Breaking into people's houses is the domain of meth heads and maybe crackheads. I have never, ever heard of a stoned guy doing anything like that. I've heard of criminals (thieves, gang members, etc.) who happen to use marijuana doing such things while sober or on a different drug. Believing that all or even most or even many pot smokers act this way is like believing the same thing of hip-hop fans or Pepsi drinkers.

As for them being the "vast majority of criminals," you're not far off the mark there. The catch is that they are criminals solely because of the drug laws - these are nonviolent offenders, guilty of nothing more than being in possession of a substance that can't harm anybody unless they ingest it. And here we are, with more than 1% of our population behind bars (about 1.5 million people), overcrowded, expensive prisons, and no signs of slowing.

Hell no, I won't vote for someone who supports that. I'm not a single-issue voter, but I dislike most of the republicrats' other policies as well. That leaves me the option of voting for a 3rd-party loser or a write in in order for my vote to be at all meaningful, so that's exactly what I am going to do.

Re:Has Obama been selected

[NMerriam]

The Bush Administration != Republicans.

Sorry, you may not like it, but the Neocons are still running the Republican party (that would probably change change if McCain actually gets elected, of course).

I'll be just as happy as everyone else to see the Republican party embrace the principles they used to espouse, but a political party doesn't get off the hook for fucking up the country by just saying it was all a misunderstanding perpetrated by a few bad apples. Everyone in congress with an (R) next to their name was happy to vote like a sock puppet when Bush was high in the polls.

Re:Has Obama been selected

[NeutronCowboy]

Planning for short-term gains at the expense of the long-term is precisely a quality I DO NOT want in a president.

Then I'd guess that you don't want the candidate who ignored the caucus states and whom assumed the coronation^Wrace would be over on Super Tuesday?

Not to mention that Clinton's gas-tax holiday is the epitome of a questionable short-term gain at the expense of a guaranteed long-term loss. Clinton, at this point, is all about the short-term, populist message. Anyone who says anything else just hasn't been listening to her in the last few months. Granted, she's probably going to ignore everything she said in the primary election cycle if she'd become president, but still - that's not a good reason to vote for someone.

Re:Send These Clowns a Message!

[Belial6]

My tin foil hat has been telling me that this is actually why there is such a push for "every one to vote". When people have no idea who the candidates are, they will randomly pick from the names they have heard of. This will result in pretty much a wash for the two primary candidates, but will push the required number of votes up to make things more difficult for third party candidates. So, they are convincing the ignorant masses that they are doing something good, and helping democracy, when all they are really doing is acting as a spoiler for third party candidates.

This is why I try to convince people that don't have an opinion, or who are thinking of not voting out of protest, to vote third party. It doesn't matter who they are because they won't win anyway. BUT, if enough of the people who don't like either candidate where to vote 3rd party to even show up on the radar, whoever wins will behave in their interest.

Consider this. If you were running for president, would you try to woo the people that you knew would vote for you no matter what you do, or would you try to woo the people that are not mindlessly voting the party line, who also happen to be showing disdain for your primary opponent?

Re:Has Obama been selected

[NMerriam]

Just to clarify, ever since the it became clear that the Democratic primary wouldn't be quick and easy and over in a few weeks, the DNC leadership as well as most of the campaigns have been saying that they wanted to seat the Florida and Michigan delegates, the question was how to do so while still penalizing them for breaking the rules.

So yes, Dean (and everyone else at the DNC) talks about seating the delegates, but only as a public relations issue. As a practical matter, they're basically looking to find a compromise acceptable to all sides that doesn't affect the outcome of the race at all, so that they can make the Florida and Michigan folks feel less left out, but also not reward them in any way.

Hillary is the only person, AFAIK, who has advocated seating all the delegates from either state. Even her own supporters on the DNC rules committee (which will be the group that decides next week what to do about the delegates) say there's no way that will happen.

Re:probably a slight majority of americans

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL, the scale has been pulled so far to the right we're calling politicians "liberal" when they are not even close from a historical or global perspective. If this trend continues, your "conservative" politician today will be a "liberal" by future standards. Life needs balance. Ying and Yang. With too much on either side it becomes a recipe for disaster.

Supreme Court Justice John Stevens is considered one of the more "liberal" justices today. But when he was appointed, he was considered a "conservative" member back then.

Re:On the other hand ....

[NMerriam]

Our country has been 4 years of Bush, 8 years of Clinton, and 8 years of Bush already. That means anyone younger than 21 can't even remember a time when one of those two families wasn't in power in our nation!

Given that realization, I'd have to give the nod to Obama over Clinton - just for the sake of "breaking the cycle", if nothing else!

It's even worse than that -- don't forget GHW Bush was vice president for Reagan from 1980-88. Unless you're over 35, chances are you can't remember a country that didn't have a Bush or Clinton in the White House. And I agree, all other things being equal, I'll always vote against a political dynasty. Considering the next president could be in office for 8 years, Hillary would have to make an amazing argument for why only people considering early retirement should remember a non-bush/clinton America by the time she leaves office.

Wow, he's cleaner than I thought!

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, if that's the best dirt anyone has on Obama, he's cleaner than I thought!

But I can't believe someone buys into that. Oh no! He can't find a magazine article that influenced him 20 years ago! What HORROR are we voting for!? He's trying to TRICK US! About ancient _MAGAZINE ARTICLES_! The EVIL DEMAGOGUE must be stopped! Won't someone PLEASE think of the MAGAZINE ARTICLES!?

Oh crap. I just hope there aren't any sarcasm terrorists to go with the cynical ones :(

Re:it's them scheming democraps

[cduffy]

How can you claim that someone who spoke out against the war when it was immensely popular (and when they were in the middle of a tough senate race) has no backbone? Someone who spent years as a community organizer, keeping at it when it wasn't easy and a cushy job as a lawyer was available for the taking?

If you think Obama doesn't love his country, I suggest you read The Audacity of Hope. Certainly, he isn't guilty of blind patriotism -- but intentional blindness of any kind is a flaw, not a qualification. The partial quote "My country, right or wrong" is woefully incomplete; its ending is this: "If wrong, to be set right; and if right, to be kept right".

A person wearing blinders such that they can't see when their country is doing wrong is in no place to set it right, and is no kind of patriot compared to the person who sees their country's faults and does what they can to set it right.

Re:it's them scheming democraps

[bluefoxlucid]

National healthcare [...] is actually pretty easy to pay for - it's an investment strategy that saves us more as a nation than it costs.

.... what the fuck? Dude, when you retire, I am going to laugh at your poor ass. You know zero about anything financial, as demonstrated by this idiotic quote.

Unless the government controls all hospitals and doctors as government run facilities and employees, it can't properly assess and control costs. You now have stress between businesses trying to take advantage of government money and government trying to force business-end regulations down businesses' throats.

Most things (sociological cultures, individual businesses, the economy at large) act like bioforms: they self-manage to an optimal state via evolution and adaptation, and you shouldn't fuck with them. Any irritation is disease or predation, and as in any biological system can create balance but cannot force optimal development via over-application.

Re:it's them scheming democraps

[folstaff]

3 points worth mentioning:

1. It has been proven over and over again that reduced tax rates equal greater tax revenue. Less shackles equals more work.

2. Most of what McCain wants to do is keep the current tax rates the same.

3. Think progress is not an independent website.

Re:The Message and the Messenger.

[Shakrai]

60-70% of Americans want an *immediate* withdrawal of all troops from Iraq, yet Obama wants no such thing

Obama's plan is as realistic as any -- one or two brigades a month. I'm as opposed to the war as anybody else but even I can see the folly and risk of pulling out tomorrow. Never mind the risk to our own forces with a hasty withdrawal -- I'm not willing to throw the Iraq people to the wolves without at least giving them a chance to get their house in order. We did create that mess, we have somewhat of an obligation to try and clean it up before we walk away.

Over 60% of Americans want single-payer health care, yet Obama is devoted to protecting the health insurance industry's hold over the system

If you think we can have an honest debate on single-payer health care and get it through the United States Congress then raise your hand, I'll be the first one to support you.

A campaign is not a movement.

Neither is whining on /. without taking any steps to affect meaningful change or progress. Obama is the most progressive candidate to have a shot in my lifetime. He's also one of the few people that I think will actually be able to accomplish his progressive agenda -- if he can keep people engaged in the progress and get them to hold Washington accountable.

Re:probably a slight majority of americans

[bluefoxlucid]

While skin color is not anywhere near the top of my list for qualifiers, the fact that Obama is black is a non-negligible factor in my voting for him.

Your mom added an extra helping of stupid to your breast milk when you were a child.

"UNGH DECISION TOO HARD, USE IRRELEVANT FACTORS TO ADD WEIGHT RATHER THAN DOING MORE RESEARCH!"

Re:Has Obama been selected

[LihTox]

He listened to "white people are the devil" for 17 YEARS,
while being raised by his white mother. Must have been some awkward Thanksgivings at that house....

Central Planning

[bill_mcgonigle]

(To be fair, I did start listening to him again when he stood against his party on torture -- but you don't hear him talking too much about that lately, do you?)

I'm embarrassed to say I voted for McCain in 2000. Fool me once and all that.

McCain is good on two things: that the government spends too much money and that it shouldn't torture. However, he's the biggest socialist in the race, with plans to enslave all high school graduates for a period of one year in service of the government (. He's also against the first amendment, and has stated that he'd rather have a 'clean government' than the first amendment. Rah!, rah!, um, no, that's f-ing, Red China, not the USA.

Obama is only slightly to the right of McCain, hoping to engage in mass redistribution of wealth under threat of violence (paramilitary raids, imprisonment, possible death) for citizens who fair to offer up their dictated share of their personal property to the government and its 'mandatory charity' programs.

Who would have guessed a year ago that Hillary "Goldwater Girl" Clinton would be the rightmost candidate in '08?

None of the major candidates considers "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" a noble goal for a government. At least I can write in Ron Paul, but the odds are strong we'll have a real Socialist at the helm in 2009, which is astonishing. And deeply saddening to those who thought we might be able to undo some of Bush's policies in this go-around.

But to get back on topic, if anybody thinks the tech/internet sector has thrived based on government regulation, boy, there's gonna be some serious thriving ringing in the next decade.

Re:it's them scheming democraps

[pugugly]

Ah - No.

Most industrialized countries run a system more efficient that what we have here, and there are a number of different ways to do so.

There is a quite useful Frontline [pbs.org] that went over the benefits and trade-offs of several countries - Japan, UK, Taiwan, Switzerland, and Germany.

All of them had lower total healthcare costs, all of them took different approaches, and different trade-offs (and Frontline went into the deficiences of each system as well).

But yes, it turns out that systems that save you money, turn out to be easy to pay for - a strange financial that I've noticed often seems counter-intuitive to libertarians and conservatives, although I concede to having never entirely understood why.

I would suggest doing some research. You look like a putz when you make statements that something is inconceivable and stupid when people can point to obvious examples.

Pug

Re:it's them scheming democraps

[jbeach]

The "thriving free market" of insurance co's is raping us. Much like the "thriving free market" of multiple private highways, police departments, fire departments, armies etc. was also raping us, before we centralized them within state, local and fed governments. History itself contradicts the notion of free markets = always automatically awesome. That's because it's simply wrong, even if it's comfortable.

Re:McCain Farnsworth

[Your Pal Dave]

Farnsworth did, after all, invent the Finglonger.

If only he had...

odd, that

[misanthrope101]

How does it end up that every single Democrat running for office happens to be the single "most liberal" in all of Congress/the USA/the known universe? Gore, Kerry, Clinton (B and H both), and really every Democrat has been labelled with this.

And what the heck does it mean, anyway, to be the "most liberal?" Can you point out a conservative, so I can have a basis for comparison?

I want to: stop torturing, restore habeus corpus, get us out of Iraq, balance the budget, invest in alternative fuels, and invest some in our own infastructure. If advocating those things makes you "liberal" then sign me up for Obama. He isn't nearly liberal enough.

When "conservative" means torture, gutting habeus corpus, endless war, warrantless wiretaps, secret prisons, the largest deficit in US history, censoring scientific findings to meet political agendas, etc, then you guys don't have much to sell anymore.

Re:odd, that

[mcvos]

And what the heck does it mean, anyway, to be the "most liberal?"

It comes from the Latin "liber", or "free". So most liberal means most freedom-oriented. You could do worse than voting for freedom.

(Especially compared to all the repression that the republicans have supported over the past 8 years.)