McCain vs. Obama on Tech Issues 877
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."
Send These Clowns a Message! (Score:5, Funny)
Jack Johnson: It's time someone had the courage to stand up and say: "I'm against those things that everybody hates".
John Jackson: Now I respect my opponent. I think he's a good man but, quite frankly, I agree with everything he just said!
Fry: These are the candidates? They sound like clones. [He looks a little harder.] Wait a minute. They are clones!
Leela: Don't let their identical DNA fool you. They differ on some key issues.
Jack Johnson: I say your three cent titanium tax goes too far.
John Jackson: And I say your three cent titanium tax doesn't go too far enough!
Fry: If I were registered to vote, I'd send these clowns a message by staying home on election day and dressing up like a clown.
Re:Send These Clowns a Message! (Score:5, Informative)
our situation is just like the upper post... sigh...
we've even called (nation-vide) the 2 candidates "Veltrusconi" ( Veltroni + Berlusconi), since they're just the same....
they had the same program, their parties have almost identical names (pd vs. pdl), and the "opposition" actually said that they won't oppose...
uhm...time to change country, i guess...
Re:it's them scheming democraps (Score:5, Insightful)
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:it's them scheming democraps (Score:4, Interesting)
Therefore, if we reduce the tax rate to 0 we should have infinite revenue. GREATNESS!!!11!!
On the other hand, maybe some research on the Laffer Curve [wikipedia.org], which is usually the basis for the "reduced tax rates = greater revenue" argument, is in order. I do not think that it means what you say it means.
Re:it's them scheming democraps (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Send These Clowns a Message! (Score:5, Funny)
Man: He's right; this is a two-party system.
Homer: Well, I believe I'll vote for a third-party candidate.
Kang: Go ahead! Throw your vote away!
Re:Send These Clowns a Message! (Score:4, Insightful)
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?
McCain Farnsworth (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Send These Clowns a Message! (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Has Obama been selected (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Has Obama been selected (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:probably a slight majority of americans (Score:5, Funny)
Re:probably a slight majority of americans (Score:4, Funny)
Re:probably a slight majority of americans (Score:4, Funny)
Because it's been a string of 43 white guys... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:probably a slight majority of americans (Score:5, Insightful)
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:probably a slight majority of americans (Score:4, Interesting)
And then you get guys like me. I could personally care LESS about Barack Obama's skin color. Really. His ancestry is of no interest to me.
What is of interest are his positions defined by his voting record. Barack Obama's voting record is the single MOST LIBERAL [nationaljournal.com] of anyone in the Senate. More liberal than Ted Kennedy, more liberal than anyone. Even the redoutable Maxine Water of the House, who recently (and infamously) threatened to "socialize" all the American oil companies [sevenload.com], isn't as liberal as Obama (and has endorsed Hillary Clinton).
So my vote goes to McCain. Not because I particularly like him, but because he is, by far and away, the LEAST vile and frightening of the available choices.
On the other hand .... (Score:4, Interesting)
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! (Of course, a vote for McCain would accomplish that too
Re:On the other hand .... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
odd, that (Score:4, Insightful)
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:probably a slight majority of americans (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Has Obama been selected (Score:4, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
Source? That sounds like some ridiculous shit you'd read on a blog.
Re:Has Obama been selected (Score:4, Informative)
Link [yahoo.com]
Re:Has Obama been selected (Score:5, Interesting)
One of those is a civil liberties issue; the other one is just speaking the truth.
Re:Has Obama been selected (Score:5, Interesting)
-A
I understand your point about leaving it there as an savings type of investment, but I have a better idea. Drill it! It would cost about $30/barrel to extract the oil that sells for about $135 today. Remember, that's a billion barrels, or $135,000,000,000 profit. Take that "profit" and dump it into research towards alternative energy. By the time we run out of ANWR oil, we won't need it anymore. Or, if $135,000,000,000 in research can't find an acceptable renewable, then it can't be found!
I'm curious if that idea would be acceptable to either candidate.
Re:Has Obama been selected (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Has Obama been selected (Score:5, Interesting)
No, you're wrong. Bush has yet to surpass Reagan as the leader of the largest growth of the US government in history.
His war on drugs destroyed the 4th amendment. His corporate welfare programs haven't been matched by Bush. Bush's crimes against this nation are just the next step in the progression that Reagan pushed. He does not make them look like Libertarians, he makes them look just like he does. The problem isn't that Bush is worse than Reagan, it's that the Reagan cultists refuse to look deeper into the issue and spout nonsense like "Bush isn't a Republican". He's exactly what a Republican is. The rejection of the real Republican Barry Goldwater in favor of the fascist Ronald Reagan was the turning point at which Republicans completely rejected their stated platform in favor of the biggest government that they could get. Ron Paul was a last ditch effort at bringing that party back to its stated ideals and it turned out the same.
So, because I believe in a smaller federal government I'm a "wingnut extremist"? Wow. I suppose the other "wingnut extremists" include Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, John Quincy Adams, and a host of others of similar reputation?
No, *if* you believe in a smaller federal government *and* you support the Republicans, then you're a fool. You're a fool in that situation because there is no evidence backing up that link and all evidence points to the contrary.
I believe in a smaller federal government, but I'm not stupid enough to believe that supporting the (current) party of biggest, most invasive government is a rational choice. Thomas Jefferson is spinning in his grave at the idea of religious extremists (hell any religious people) destroying his careful construction. That you would dare to invoke the man who said "I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies.", in defense of unrestrained military spending at the benefit of said banking institutions *often in other countries*, demonstrates nothing but contempt for yourself, Thomas Jefferson, and everyone around you who's stuck footing the bill for your willful ignorance.
20 years wasn't that long ago. That's my point. It's not ancient history or something.
Like I said, 1980 was 28 years ago, and that's discounting the excesses of Nixon and Eisenhower. I'll ignore them in favor of simple rounding.
30 years is a long time. People born 30 years ago could vote for 12 years. That's 3 presidential election cycles. It's been a progression, and it started long before Reagan.
So, repeating nonsense that was already nonsense 30 years ago is ignorant, and it doesn't require the history to be ancient, recent, or modern. All it requires is for you to put a little thought and research into the matter rather than repeating old lies as if the mere repeating of them could make them true.
Re:Has Obama been selected (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Has Obama been selected (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Has Obama been selected (Score:5, Insightful)
Fish is McCain's guy.
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:Has Obama been selected (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Has Obama been selected (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Has Obama been selected (Score:5, Insightful)
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].
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?
Re:Has Obama been selected (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Has Obama been selected (Score:5, Informative)
Fact - Hillary Clinton signed a pledge that said:
"THEREFORE, I (Hillary Clinton), Democratic Candidate for President, pledge
I shall not campaign or participate in any state which schedules a presidential
election primary or caucus before Feb. 5, 2008, except for the states of Iowa,
Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina, as "campaigning" is defined by
rules and regulations of the DNC."
Note the "or participate" part.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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-WW
Re:Has Obama been selected (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Has Obama been selected (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
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:Has Obama been selected (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Has Obama been selected (Score:4, Insightful)
That's your problem right there. Hatred, racism and bigotry don't just disappear in a generation.
Re:Has Obama been selected (Score:5, Funny)
Sure no one has the patents to listen threw the whole serman and perhaps those words loose their power.
There has to be some kind of award for this one.
Re:Has Obama been selected (Score:5, Insightful)
-> 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]:
Re:Has Obama been selected (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Has Obama been selected (Score:4, Funny)
Careful, that's a pretty big demographic to offend ;)
(Yeah, I'm going to hell)
Do you really think they have opinions? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Do you really think they have opinions? (Score:5, Informative)
I can't speak for McCain, but go watch Obama at Google [youtube.com] and tell me that he has no passion for tech issues. Half of his broader economic plan boils down to putting our faith in science and technology again -- we'll never be competitive with China at building toys out of injection-molded plastic -- we can be competitive in the technological arena.
Half the reason I started following him back before it was popular was because he was one of the few candidates that I heard that even acknowledges the war on science and all the ill effects that we've suffered as a result.
He wants to kill the Manned space program. (Score:4, Interesting)
Well stopping it for five years will effectivly kill it. Anybody that is any good will leave for a new job. The total amount for education if any of it gets to education will be something like
All in all a REALLY BAD PLAN.
It will put thousands of people out of work in Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, and California and provide little to no help with education. The whole thing reminds me of a town near where I lived. They had a huge problem with drugs and prostitution. There solution was to close the strip clubs. Well that solved.... nothing but sure sounded good.
At this point I am hoping Clinton does get the nomination.
Re:He wants to kill the Manned space program. (Score:4, Interesting)
Wouldn't that be a neat option on your tax forms? It would be cool if you could designate x% of your tax dollars to go to some government program (education, military, NASA, CDC, etc). Whatever you are most concerned with would get a boost come tax time. The dollars would go to where we as a nation really want them to go.
I know that there are a lot of problems with distributed government plans, but the reason we have elected representatives as we do is because 200 years ago it was the only feasible way for everyone to have a semblance of a voice. With tech growing as it has (wikis, dBs), the possibility of getting everyone who cares to chime in is no longer an impossibility.
Wikilaws.gov? Congressional budgets via W-4s? I know it would be a disaster, but maybe some hybrid of our current system with a distributed system could work.
Re:He wants to kill the Manned space program. (Score:4, Insightful)
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:Do you really think they have opinions? (Score:5, Interesting)
Not to mention the behind the scenes stuff that most people don't see. They use that website (they call it MBO) for everything -- coordinating volunteers and logistics, calling voters, fund-raising, voter outreach, etc, etc, etc.
I've worked on a fair number of political campaigns in recent years and I've never seen one that leveraged technology quite as effectively as the Obama campaign. It was probably the margin of victory over Hillary -- especially in the beginning when nobody else had a clue how well organized Obama was.
Re:Do you really think they have opinions? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Do you really think they have opinions? (Score:5, Funny)
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Why Bother With An Election?
by Egregious Charles
Firehand of Irons in the Fire, one of my regular reads, got this great
email from a friend.
Sometimes, the Danes seem to have more sense than we.
Re:Do you really think they have opinions? (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Do you really think they have opinions? (Score:4, Informative)
As a whole, no. I'm talking about specifics, not political philosophy. Many specific points have been settled for a long time, but are being reopened by people operating under false pretenses.
True, there are many laws that need updating for technological reasons, but these laws need to be strengthened and extended, not weakened. For example the Pen Register act requires a warrant for the use of a Pen Register -- a device which records the impulses in an old analog telephone switch, and thus who you are calling. This isn't philosophically different from demanding the email logs of an ISP, which is not covered by the act.
Technology is reopening some of these issues, and the argument is that things have changed so much that the old concerns for the freedom and privacy of the citizen aren't as important in the face of new and unprecedented threats.
Really? The threats coming from people who are acting against the law's proscriptions don't look all that new. Today we're worried about Al Qaeda; thirty years ago we were worried about the KGB, as well as domestic subversives and radicals.
The argument is that the people are more technologically empowered to commit crimes. That is true. They're also much more dependent upon technology. That means that on balance the government (and its private sector agents -- another new development) has gained more power to meddle and pry than people have gained to transgress.
So on balance, things have changed in a fundamental way, but not so that we should avoid restoring the protections of, say the Pen Register Act. On the contrary, we should go well beyond those protections.
Re:Do you really think they have opinions? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Do you really WANT them to have opinions? (Score:5, Interesting)
What you want from these guys is the wisdom to see that letting folks alone to work out stuff for themselves is the best default option, and government should step in only as the utter last resort. You want them to know their own limits, to realize they're not only not experts in tech stuff, but also not experts in farming, or energy exploration and transportation, or medicine, or housing, or education, or any of the other million and a half things people do to keep the wheels humming. They're just lawyers, and if they confine themselves to drafting (or if President promoting the drafting of) well-written, focussed, modest laws that address the relatively few issues that actually can be helped with a good law...well, they'll do a lot more good than any number of demagogues and wannabe Caesars.
The Message and the Messenger. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The Message and the Messenger. (Score:4, Insightful)
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:Don't shoot the.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Do you really think they have opinions? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Do you really think they have opinions? (Score:5, Insightful)
This alone should make McCain sound like a very bad choice.
Re:Do you really think they have opinions? (Score:5, Insightful)
A lot can be seen from their choice of advisor. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:A lot can be seen from their choice of advisor. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:A lot can be seen from their choice of advisor. (Score:4, Informative)
Those who can't think, spout cliches (Score:3, Informative)
All I need to know (Score:5, Insightful)
"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)
Re:All I need to know (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:All I need to know (Score:5, Insightful)
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:All I need to know (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:All I need to know (Score:5, Informative)
Contrast that to Obama's adviser, who's from MIT -- and supports net neutrality. That, and Obama's whole campaign shows quite a lot more technical savvy than anyone else's, on either side.
(To clarify: I'm using the proper definition of net neutrality; that is, I believe the network should be neutral, and that we should probably legislate this.)
While I'm at it, McCain did say that he'd pick Steve "The Chair" Ballmer for his cabinet. [pcworld.com] In an ambassadorial role. That does not inspire confidence.
*headdesk*
Maybe they like Obama for other reasons?
Maybe you don't have any statistics at all for that, and you'd rather scream against the (imaginary) Slashdot groupthink?
Re:All I need to know (Score:5, Interesting)
They have a wider view of what constitutes an asset and the lengths to which they should be able to go to protect them than a lot of people think is good for society. Is it ok for us to become a police state in order to protect their assets? Or do we draw the line somewhere?
I'd have to assume you reference their music and film divisions and how they "criminalise" people who illegally copy copyrighted material.
There's that. Then there's the legislation like the DMCA which criminalises things like DVD decoding on unlicensed devices.
If upholding copyright law and defending their property is "suppressive", "anti-progress", "anti-freedom", and "anti-privacy", then what do you expect from them?
They do more than uphold, they try everything they can to extend copyright and other law in ways that are detrimental to society. See the treaty discussed on slashdot earlier today which would allow border guards to take copies of people's private data stores in order to check for noncompliance. I would like some ethics from them. But this isn't about what I expect from them, it's about giving your electoral mandate to someone who aligns with their interests.
Close a up shop because you deem their business model to be "obsolete"?
Straw man, and not one of my opinions.
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.
Thanks, I have a good understanding of IP law, perhaps you ought to check up on it yourself if you feel the need to illustrate a copyright example by using patents.
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?
Another straw man.
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.
They have a fiduciary responsibility to try to change the law? And to abuse the court system by presenting weak cases? And try a scatter-gun scare tactic approach 0on universities and other folks? This is news to me.
So I think I can blame them for their lack of ethics if nothing else.
And who should I blame for legislation favouring specific business sectors over and above the interests of the populace and the technical crowd?
Oh right, politicians who are in the pockets of the same media companies and hol,d their intrerests above those of society as a whole, or at least are quite prepared to hear a one-sided story. Which is, coincidentally, what we're talking about here, which politician should get your mandate. The one in bed with the coporations that are taking actions I disagree with wouldn't get my vote, were I a US voter.
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.
The market is not perfect, consumers are not always enlightened and competition is not always free and fair. That said it's not the business model I argue with, it's the ethics and the politics.
Some of the worst decisions are made with haste.
This is releveant to what, how?
I'm not asking for radical overnight change, I'm looking for politicians and political parties that will stop us going even further in the wrong direction, then consider what to do from there.
Re:corporate interests? (Score:5, Insightful)
"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:corporate interests? (Score:4, Informative)
In fact, a corporaiton's charter and bylaws determine what the goals of the organization are. Most public corporations include shareholder value and profits among the goals of the organization (why else would someone invest?), but many privatecorporations are not-for-profit; some actually exist to *lose* money (such as some incorporated charitable trusts with a schedule for payout).
At any rate, it is not a legal requirement to try to make money; it is a contractual obligation, which is different. You can't face charges for steering a company poorly, unless your acts themselves are illegal. You can, however, face a tort action for violating the company's charter if some of the shareholders feel there was gross negligence or willful wrongdoing.
McCain has been one of Amtraks most (Score:5, Insightful)
Barack Obama's Plan (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/technology/ [barackobama.com]
method is more important than issues (Score:5, Interesting)
Barak Obama consistently evaluates situations and sets goals in a dynamic and networked way. This is how his campaign has generated such a huge response from mostly small donors. John McCain has been labeled a maverick, but has closely associated himself with conservative players and the mindset that an authoritative leader can best set goals for others.
Virginia Postrel explores the differences between these approaches in detail in The Future and Its Enemies. Al Gore, for example, appears to be future oriented because of the many apparently progressive stands he takes on issues, but Al Gore uses a top-down evaluation strategy that locks in a particular view with little input before or after. As such the future is at odds with Al Gore, and will tend always to surprise him and chafe at the positions he takes which are based on a mostly static model of the world and the options for progress it presents us.
Re:method is more important than issues (Score:4, Insightful)
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:method is more important than issues (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry, but I'd prefer their voting records (Score:3, Insightful)
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:Sorry, but I'd prefer their voting records (Score:5, Informative)
Both of these candidates, however, are abstaining quite a bit in the recent votes to avoid alienating any swing groups.
Tech knowledge doesn't matter ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Tech *policy* absolutely matters (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
H-1b is the real tech jobs issue (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:H-1b is the real tech jobs issue (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Net Neutrality and politicans who support it vital (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think you are just parroting.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
It's not that simple (Score:3, Insightful)
No one in their right mind should vote for somone who advocates that kind of change, no matter how much they t
Re:What about the other candidates? (Score:4, Interesting)
Probably because they have no realistic chance of winning.
(Yes, I know that's a self-fulfilling prophecy.)
In all seriousness, I feel like a third party candidate would now need to be part of the "national conversation" on the election a lot earlier than now to win in November -- assuming that's even still really possible.
Re:What about the other candidates? (Score:5, Insightful)
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? (Score:5, Informative)
Obama has indicated a willingness to halt the DEA raids on dispensaries in California. He and Bob Barr (Libertarian) favor letting states handle the issue. Obama still wants the FDA involved somewhere; I'm not sure about Barr. McCain has waffled but apparently endorses the current Bush Administration policy. link [sfgate.com]
Re:Vote Hillary! (Score:5, Insightful)
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?)