How Tech-Savvy Will the Next President Be?

CorinneI writes "We've got our candidates. We know their positions on the major issues of the day — healthcare, the Iraq war, the economy, yada, yada, yada. But Senators McCain and Obama will also have to be concerned with tech issues. Where do they stand on Net neutrality, patent protection, piracy, broadband, privacy, and H1B visas? Do their campaign positions match up with their voting records and public statements? Here's how they stack up on the big five tech issues of the day."

Showing his age...

[smitty97]

I think McCain has first-hand experience with a Babbage computer

Re:Showing his age...

[Rei]

I hear he's written a script, triggered by an X10 motion sensor in his front yard, that plays back an audio recording of him shouting, "Get the hell off my lawn!"

Re:Showing his age...

[thetoadwarrior]

I heard he spends his days playing Battlefield Vietnam but he's a bit shit at it and he's always getting captured.

Re:Showing his age...

[HungWeiLo]

They didn't call it Arizona back in McCain's time. It was known as New Mexico Territory [wikipedia.org] back in those days.

McCain IS tech

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm pretty sure he's the same model as Saul Tigh.

lol mccain

[Brian Gordon]

McCain: Supports increased broadband access via competition rather than government regulation.

This literally made me laugh out loud. I don't even know what to say.

Also, don't forget that McCain inexplicably supports telecom immunity..

Re:lol mccain

[MightyMartian]

Also, don't forget that McCain inexplicably supports telecom immunity..

I'm sure a reasonably careful analysis of his bank records would render this a good deal more explicable.

This isn't Insightful.. It's disgusting...

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know why shit like this is considered insightful on slashdot.

Here are his income tax returns for the last two years. [johnmccain.com] Maybe you can do the analysis yourself and see if there's something that would support your wild and baseless accusation. You know, because claiming McCain is just trading votes for cash and being corrupt does require a bit of evidence and proof.

I'm waiting...

Re:This isn't Insightful.. It's disgusting...

[wizardforce]

You're right, he did it of his own free will- that should scare you.

Re:This isn't Insightful.. It's disgusting...

[0111 1110]

If you were accepting bribes, would you list them on your tax return?

Re:This isn't Insightful.. It's disgusting...

[Slashdot Suxxors]

Yes, because that would be the right thing to do.

Re:This isn't Insightful.. It's disgusting...

[wizardforce]

it should frighten *everyone* that Government took it upon its self to grant special powers to those who would and do threaten our civil liberties in favor of perceived safety. It shouldn't surprise anyone though and that is sad,

Re:This isn't Insightful.. It's disgusting...

[KevinKnSC]

Maybe we should look at campaign contributions [fecwatch.org] instead. Hmm, notice any telecom companies accused of illegal domestic spying on his "top 5 contributors"?

Re:This isn't Insightful.. It's disgusting...

[PopeRatzo]

No, but his wife is certainly aware enough, as are his lobbyist "advisors" (whose other clients include Iran, by the way).

Oh, when John McCain's egg gets cracked, there's gonna be a huge mess. He can only hide behind the "I'm a hero because I crashed my plane in the jungle and then made videos for the Viet Cong" angle for so long. Sooner or later, some journalist is going to grow a set and actually do more than a cursory glance at McCain's history. Then, there's gonna be much wailing and gnashing of teeth among Republicans and corporate lobbyists.

Re:This isn't Insightful.. It's disgusting...

[Chris Burke]

He can only hide behind the "I'm a hero because I crashed my plane in the jungle and then made videos for the Viet Cong" angle for so long.

Hey now. Go ahead and question how heroic getting shot down really is, at least so far as whether you can base an entire Presidency upon the fact. But "made videos for the VC" is going exactly contrary to that kind of thoughtful analysis. Because in reality he was tortured until he made videos for the VC, and eventually cracking under torture does not in any way diminish his hero status (to whatever extent that may be) because any hero would crack, eventually. The human brain is simply not designed to withstand unlimited pain, and it's a relatively simple matter to inflict enough of it that anyone will say whatever you want.

Which, by the way, is why torture is really not that useful for interrogation, because that's ultimately the result you get: Them saying whatever you want them to say.

Which does bring me to a real issue I have with McCain, and that's that while I have much respect and sympathy for his time spent in the Hanoi Hilton, he lost nearly all of that the moment he allowed the door to be opened even a tiny bit for sanctioned torture by U.S. forces. There's no practical and no moral justification, and he of all people should know that. Seemed to know that and say as much. That he would sacrifice that principle just to fit in with his party and to boost his "tough on terror" cred (as if he needs to) is very, very disappointing.

But that's been the trend since the last election cycle, everything I liked about McCain has been slipping away.

Re:This isn't Insightful.. It's disgusting...

[Danse]

Do you know how many other elected officials AT&T supports?? Is it illegal to be a campaign supporter now? oooh 160 grand! Mccain (the millionaire) can finally buy that Taj Mahal he's been wanting.

Just shows that there is a hell of a lot of conflict of interest in D.C. People like you just accepting it ensures the perpetuation of the corruption.

Seriously, these implications of wrong doing are idiotic. Mccain, though I hate him, is a champion of campaign finance reform.

When we actually see some reform that fixes the problems, then I'll give him some credit. Until then, he's got the same conflicts of interest and appearance of impropriety as anyone else doing favors for corporate interests after accepting contributions from them. It's damn near impossible to prove quid pro quo, but the appearance is bad enough. Even if those contributions just mean that he'll take their calls, that gives them a level of influence that is much greater than anyone else. That's a corrupting influence as well.

So.... Why are there only two candidates?

[Colin Smith]

Not an American. Just would like to know why politics there is binary. On/Off, Good/Bad, Black/White.

Seems amazingly simplistic to me.

 

Re:So.... Why are there only two candidates?

[Guido del Confuso]

Because that's what the politicians want. It's what keeps them in power. We have a two party system in this country, and they have set themselves up to be diametrically opposed to each other on basically every major issue. There's no room for middle ground or alternatives, because that would open up the political system to third parties or independents, which would take away power from the established ruling parties.

As a result, you must either be for abortion rights, gun control, socialized medicine, gay rights, environmental protection, and non-interventionism, or be against all these things. Either way, you are out of necessity for more government regulation to promote your agenda, because if you don't pass a law on a given issue your opponents will. It's essentially a zero sum legislative proliferation game. If you would rather vote for a party that supports what you truly believe you are told you are throwing your vote away. So most people pick the issue that is most important to them, and ally themselves with the party they that agrees with them on that issue.

But the truth is it's not any better anywhere else, if you ask me. In some ways, the best political situation one can realistically expect is deadlock. Consensus can be a dangerous thing, because more often than not it represents an agreement that the population needs some new additional regulation or control for its own good (see, e.g., the USA PATRIOT Act or the Homeland Security Act, both of which enjoyed an broad bipartisan support).

The question is no longer whether new regulations are necessary, but rather which of two opposing viewpoints you hold as to what that regulation should be.

Re:This isn't Insightful.. It's disgusting...

[Jawnn]

His personal income (as reflected in his tax returns) does not reflect campaign contributions. But then, if you had half a clue about such things, you wouldn't be defending Republicans who are the telecom industry's bought-and-paid-for toadies. The "bank records" might better be interpreted as those records that indicate who paid what to whom and when in exchange for what no-bid contracts, etc., but the point is valid, nonetheless.

Re:This isn't Insightful.. It's disgusting...

[The End Of Days]

No, instead we should be defending Democrats bought by the Hollywood community who put draconian copyright restrictions into place.

Yeah, they're all scum. Even the ones you like.

Re:This isn't Insightful.. It's disgusting...

[R2.0]

"you wouldn't be defending Republicans who are the telecom industry's bought-and-paid-for toadies. "

And Jay Rockefeller, D (WV), is pushing telecom immunity because he truly believes the Telco's were the innocent victims here?

Re:

[m.ducharme]

Because of course, all people who take bribes report them on their Income taxes...

I don't know if McCain does or does not accept cash for votes, but I do know that if finding evidence of bribery were as easy as checking out income tax records, all the lobby groups in Washington would be out of business.

Opensecrets.org

[skwang]

I suspect the original poster is trying to imply an illegal link between the candidate and industry. I can't comment if one exists. But what I recommend is you go to Center for Responsive Politics [opensecrets.org] which will tell you where the source of campaign contributions of all presidential candidates.

The Web site aggregates company donations by industrial sector. Thus to see which candidate gets the most money from "Telephone Utilities" you can try clicking on this link: Telephone Utility Totals to Candidates [opensecrets.org] As you can see Sen. McCain has received $345,945 from said utilities while Sen. Obama has received $203,546.

Feel free to draw your own conclusions.

N.B. I should note that the last election fund-raising report was due on 20-May-2008 and that was for donations received in April, so the information on this Web site is usually two months old.

Re:Opensecrets.org

[Anonymous Coward]

This is 100% misleading.

All of Obama's money comes from individual donators. When you donate you are forced to include your employer, and are limited to $2300. So what you're seeing is the aggregate of all people that work for AT&T. Guess what? They're a big fucking company. That figure includes everyone from people on the board, to bottom level accountants and janitors.

Re:McCain is spot-on

[Cairnarvon]

ISPs are a natural monopoly, so your options are basically government regulation, a government-run monopoly, or the situation you currently have in the US.
And modern socialism works a lot better than you might think. Just look at Europe.

What about the 2nd?

[bluelip]

In my eyes, the most important issue is the preservation of the 2nd ammendment.

Re:What about the 2nd?

[Actually, I do RTFA]

One, that's hardly a geek issue. Two, I've asked on slashdot a bunch of times, but never gotten an answer: Why is the 2nd amendment more important than the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 13th, 14th, 15th, 19th let alone them combined? Third, other than showing respect for the Constitution, why is the 2nd useful? In other words, why not overturn it (assuming you read the preamble to it in the manner the NRA prefers.)? Your handguns aren't really going to allow you to compete with the US military, and every idiot cannot be trusted with a tank, so any forced overthrow arguement is crap. And while I believe in guns for hunting and home protection, there are a lot of restrictions that you can place on weapons that people seem to think violate the 2nd amendement without getting close to either one of those.

I'm really trying to figure out why anyone cares about this issue.

Re:What about the 2nd?

[Facetious]

Your handguns aren't really going to allow you to compete with the US military

Hear, hear! Groups with small arms have never been a match for a modern mil... Oh, wait.

Re:What about the 2nd?

[Notquitecajun]

The general rationale is that the 2nd amendment is the ultimate protection of all the others. You have a decent agreement that we're not really going to overthrow the government with civilian-held firearms, but that entire scenario is a bit of a stretch. However, I CAN defend certain aspects of some of my freedoms with my guns.

The other side of the argument is the bumper-sticker slogan "If guns are criminal, only criminals will have guns" which bears a certain amount of truth - criminals aren't going to disarm in America, and disarming those of us who are law-abiding only makes us more vulnerable to attacks on our life, liberty, and property.

Re:What about the 2nd?

[Sandbags]

Well, if you look at the statistics from Australia, Canada, and other countries who have enacted strict gun control laws, you'll see crime stays the same or even slightly declines, and in some rare cases, slightly increases. However, digging into the details of "armed robbery" you'll see that once the gun control came into play, although armed robbery stayed consistent, the percentage involving guns actually dropped dramatically, with the difference being replaced by knives and bats, etc.

Deperaate people commit crimes, some of them with guns. Removing guns does NOT precipitate more deperate people, therefore, there is no logical support for increases in gun crime. Wether yopu have a gun or not in your house or business, you're still likely 1) to have other weapons at hand, 2) alarms or a hpne for 911 to call cops, who have guns, 3) won't be home when being robbed, and 4) won;t be killed by your robber (less than 1 % of roberies involve a victim being killed by the crook).

What you WILL get, that is STRONGLY supported by statistics, is a sharp drop in sposes shooting each other, kids shooting people accidentally, suicides, and more. In fact, even where gun crime has increased by as much as 20%, the number of deaths from guns dropped as much as 300% at the same time, simply by limiting who can own a gun.

Look into the numbers. There are links in my other posts, or simply use Google.

This is not an argument, FACT: gun control saves an order of magnitude more lives than it places at risk.

This is also not an arguement: It is NOT against the constitution for them to limit guns. The constitution clearly reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." It is clearly laid out not as a right to bear arms for all citizens, but as a MEANS to a WELL REGULATED MILITIA. In other words, if you are not PART OF a WELL REGULATED MILITIA, then you DO NOT have a right to bear arms.

Re:

[Notquitecajun]

Taking guns out of criminal hands is EXACTLY what many lefties think is going to happen with all their anti-gun legislation. They often react rather vehemently when ever a gun crime is committed, and believe that simply outlawing firearms will somehow fix the problem. Criminals with guns may make them easy to identify, but it also makes them dangerous to the general populace, and I cannot depend on the police to protect me against an armed opponent.

Semi-auto firearms hold more bullets, and are easier t

Re:What about the 2nd?

[wizardforce]

Isn't there a reasonable center?

probably but have you ever known politics to concern its self with what is reasonable?

Re:

[mrchaotica]

Why is the 2nd amendment more important than the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 13th, 14th, 15th, 19th let alone them combined?

Because the 2nd Amendment is the one that gives us the ability to throw the reset switch if all else fails. And yes, that's exactly what it's for; all the bullshit reasons about (government-controlled) militias, self-defense, and hunting is just that: bullshit. The guys who wrote the Constitution had just finished violently overthrowing their government, so they wanted to expli

Re:

[Actually, I do RTFA]

The guys who wrote the Constitution had just finished violently overthrowing their government, so they wanted to explicitly reaffirm the right to do so again. Period

Every armed resistence in America worthy of the name, including the American Revolution, required stealing munitions from the military; Exception: the Whiskey Rebellion which was beaten into the ground in about as much time as it took to march troops to the battlefield.

Re:What about the 2nd?

[oodaloop]

The whole purpose of the 2nd amendment is to ensure military-grade weapons (flint-lock muskets at the time) remain in the hands of ordinary citizens. Today, that would include a lot more than just hunting rifles. It may seem scary to have such powerful weapons in the hands of ordinary citizens, but to me the opposite is much scarier: a disarmed, helpless society unable to defend itself from its government. Much is made of the growing trend of government intrusion into our privacy, warrantless arrests, et al, using quotes like, "When they came for___, I said nothing." Well, when they come for you, what are you going to do?

Re:What about the 2nd?

[k_187]

Well, when they come for you, what are you going to do?

Post on /., duh

Re:What about the 2nd?

[2short]

When we have a disagreement with one group of people, why don't we grab a gun and run off to the middle east to start a war with an entirely different group of people?

Duh. Because we're smarter than you.

Re:What about the 2nd?

[Notquitecajun]

Hmmm...taking up arms was the only solution to several problems - Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, and fascist Italy, the Afghanis kicking the Soviets out, getting the Brits to leave us the heck alone TWICE, defeating Napoleon, etc....

I get your argument, I really do, but I get a bit frustrated when vehement opponents of the war in Iraq who try and attach a "chickenhawk" label and claim it's such an injustice don't think that their cause is worth the ultimate sacrifice.

Re:What about the 2nd?

[spun]

Please reread the GP post. He was asking why the 'far left' do not go to Iraq and fight America, seeing as how they don't agree with US policy. Get that? He was advocating that peace activists use war to achieve peace, and stating that it was 'funny' that we don't. Yes, it's fucking hilarious. I mean, why doesn't the fire department just burn down buildings, that would certainly solve the fire problem.

Liar

[spun]

I've participated in more far left rallies than you have ever seen or heard about, and I can say with authority that you are a liar. I've been stomped on by police for trying to peacefully hand out free food to the homeless. We aren't the ones that start the violence against other people.

Re:What about the 2nd?

[2short]

"Try England's crime rate as an example."

OK, I did. I expected the case would be ambiguous, but WOW, get a new example buddy! Based on the first figures I could find, the UKs per-capita murder rate is about one fifth that of the US, and the majority of the murders in the US used guns, whereas almost none in th UK did.

"Quit trying to pick and choose which ones you agree with."

For Gods sake why? This isn't holy scripture, it was written by men who did their best, and did by-and-large a damn fine job. The Second Amendment was muddily written, and is badly obsolete.

Re:What about the 2nd?

[rsmoody]

I don't get your point. Are you trying to say that because some people are criminals that we should do away with the second amendment? Because that's really worked out quite well for the armed robbers in Australia since they banned law abiding citizens from owning weapons; armed robberies are up 44%. In Victoria, gun homicides are up 300%! Source: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=15304 [worldnetdaily.com]. Banning guns only disarms the law abiding citizens, the criminals don't care about one more law, never have, never will.

Now, if you are somehow saying that I would think that the Black Panthers should have not been allowed to have guns when they were trying to defend themselves against abusive cops, it all boils down to who was breaking the law. The cops were certainly out of line, but I am not convinced the use of deadly force was the correct response there. The time and place to use deadly force is narrowly defined, read "In the Gravest Extreme" for more information. Now, mark me as over-rated and flame bait.

Re:What about the 2nd?

[Anpheus]

An isolated instance. Correlation != causation. So one thing happened and another thing happened, but that doesn't necessarily mean one caused the other. In some parts of the world, restricted gun ownership has 'reduced' crime by your logic. (Note there's no proof, it's all correlation.)

On the other hand, I am a firm believer that Doom caused violent crime rates to drop in the United States. See, if you graph the release of several major First Person Shooters and the violent crime rate, you find that there's definitely a drop in crime. By your logic, that's proof right? Doom causes fewer crimes. So if we want to reduce crime, just re-release Doom! (It's GPL licensed now so you can go ahead and do that.)

Remember: CORRELATION IS NOT CAUSATION.

Repeat after me: CORRELATION IS NOT CAUSATION.

P.S.: CORRELATION IS NOT CAUSATION.

Re:What about the 2nd?

[Sandbags]

Actually, Armed robery in Australia, though up slightly in 2006 and 2007, is down more than 50% since 2000. Further more, numbering about 600 instances per month currently (http://www.aic.gov.au/topics/violence/robbery/stats/) The FAR majority of these are knife roberies, very few involve guns. Homicides involving guns in australia can be measured in the 10s per year, about 1/15th the frequency, per capita, of the USA (http://www.usyd.edu.au/news/84.html?newsstoryid=1502)

What I think would work here, and remain constitutional, would be to limit strictly the TYPE of firearms legaly owned, limit those further to licenced persons, and their carying in public to authorized citizens only. (the constitution provides owning handguns for the efficint creation of a militia, and says nothing about hunting, home security, or any other rights) If you're not active, or in some way military trained, or work for a local molitia (AKA police) or a private and legally licenced militia (private security) then you have no constitutionally protected rights toa firearm.

Beyond limitation of ownership, unless in uniform, and wearing a badge consistent with posession of a loaded gun, police should have loosened rules for being able to shoot at armed suspects. Having a concealed weapon, in any way, unless visibly identified as someone authorised to do so, should allow police leniancy for opening fire on you sooner. A gun in your hand is all they should need to empty their clip at you. If criminals are aware of this increased risk of death, they'll stop carying guns.

The big deal however is not even limiting crime, but limiting accidental deaths and crimes of passion. The bulk of gun releated deaths in the USA fall into these 2 categories. Take a look at statistics in Canada, clearly showing that as household gun ownership increases, so do gun deaths, and in areas where guns in homes are rare, the drop in accidental and other gun related injuries is very low. Homicides do seem to remain consistent. Suicides however are more than 10 times the number of homicides, and keep in mind, 75% of homicides are people that know each other (wives killing husbands, or their lovers, etc)

Re:What about the 2nd?

[floateyedumpi]

A University commissioned report on the effectiveness of the Australian gun buy-back program concluded as follows [wikipedia.org]:

In 2007, researchers at the Australian National University reported "There were on average 250 fewer firearm deaths per year after the implementation of the National Firearms Agreement than would have been expected,"

Statistics are funny things.

Re:What about the 2nd?

[VultureMN]

Jesus Christ, do you have any other tired, worn out, bullshit stereotypes to throw out?

Seriously. I'm a liberal. I know a lot of liberals. But I can't think of anyone I know who wants to ban guns. Hell, I'm a supporter of strong 2nd Amendment rights, and a lot of my friends are, also.

Newsflash: different people are different. You'll find anti-gun conservatives and you'll find pro-gun liberals, and vice-versa. If you insist on attempting to group together everyone left-of-center and claim we're all this-and-that-and-the-other, I reserve the right to call everyone right-of-center a violent hate-fulled homophobic racist backwards inbred uneducated dipshit redneck. I know that's not true, but hey, what's good for the goose, right?

Re:What about the 2nd?

[Mister Whirly]

Amen. I am in the same boat - fairly liberal (as far as personal rights are concerned) AND a gun owner and 2nd rights supporter. I also am vehemently opposed to all these ridiculous smoking bans too, unlike most other "liberals" (I am a non-smoker, so less biased). Can someone tell me how banning things is a "liberal" attitude?

Re:What about the 2nd?

[packeteer]

Actually there is no defense against a brutal cop. You are still breaking the law if you resist a cop whos breaking the law against you. You never have a legal right to resist a cop. You do however have a birthright to resist but that doesn't mean the courts wont throw your ass in jail.

Does the President have to know about this stuff?

[krog]

I'd much rather have a President who surrounds himself with well-informed advisors, than a President who weighs his own opinions on specialized topics more heavily than a specialist's opinion. Leadership is delegation.

Re:Does the President have to know about this stuf

[Ambiguous Puzuma]

True, but surrounding yourself with well-informed advisors requires the ability to recognize someone that is well-informed. This is difficult to do without having some level of knowledge yourself.

Oh HELL NO!

[khasim]

But at that point it's more about reading people than knowing the subject material.

Oh no it's not. Spend any time in IT and you'll find people who can spin wonderful fantasies without any real knowledge what-so-ever.

But they'll appear perfectly sincere and trustworthy.

Having a strong ethical foundation will also factor in.

And they can fake that as easily as they can fake technical knowledge. It's even EASIER.

There is NO substitute for personal knowledge.

Re:Does the President have to know about this stuf

[Rei]

That's not necessarily true. If two politicians felt they needed an expert on, say, managing the development of a large piece of code, one candidate might pick Linus Torvalds while another might pick Bill Gates. Both would certainly be qualified, but the one that would be selected is the one that lines up with your ideals on what the development should be like. If the candidate doesn't have an opinion on an issue that they're to be in charge of, that's especially dangerous, as they'll simply pick whoever exudes "qualified" the most, whether or not they're actually the best choice.

All executive power stems from the president, and all cabinet members serve at their discretion. The president's views are ultimately what matter.

Re:

[MoodyLoner]

Because that worked so well with the last guy.

Re:Does the President have to know about this stuf

[revscat]

Bush/Cheney value loyalty far, far more than intelligence, expertise, or performance. They appointed a plague of loyal idiots.

Re:Does the President have to know about this stuf

[krog]

Sorry, I should have said "well-informed advisors who deserve to live."

Re:Does the President have to know about this stuf

[eldavojohn]

I'd much rather have a President who surrounds himself with well-informed advisors, than a President who weighs his own opinions on specialized topics more heavily than a specialist's opinion. Leadership is delegation.

I concur. While it is a priority to us (the technically savvy), we are a minority.

I believe The Simpsons tackled this very subject in They Saved Lisa's Brain [wikipedia.org]--an episode in which Mensa gains control of Springfield. Horrible legislation ensues.

The president should represent the average person of the United States of America. Someone who compiles Linux is not your average person.

We should really pay attention to how they vote, who their delegate these issues to, who they listen to and--most importantly--how willing they are to bow to the companies for an extra buck.

Re:Does the President have to know about this stuf

[VeNoM0619]

The president should represent the average person of the United States of America.

So you're saying just pick someone off the street with poor knowledge of everything, someone who does repetitive physical labor day in and day out?

If the president is to have so much power, shouldn't he be knowledgeable about what he has power over? I don't want some average Joe coding my software. A president should be someone "special", if he is to be elected, he should be the role model of the average person, not the average person himself.

Re:Does the President have to know about this stuf

[Rei]

I loved Jon Stewart's comments on allegations of elitism. To paraphrase:

"Doesn't "elite" mean "the best"? You applying for a position that, if you do a good enough job, people may carve your face into the side of a mountain. If you don't think you're better than us, why are you running?"

The C students will rule the world

[mangu]

The president should represent the average person of the United States of America. Someone who compiles Linux is not your average person.

Unfortunately, what Harry Truman said is true: people with median skills and intelligence are more likely to be elected than geniuses. The median voter is afraid of geniuses.

However, this doesn't mean a person with average intelligence would make a better president than someone more intelligent. The ideal president would be intelligent, well informed, and have good advisors. After all, if the president isn't intelligent and well informed, how will he know which advice to follow?

Re:

[bkr1_2k]

The president should represent the average person of the United States of America. Someone who compiles Linux is not your average person.

So you're saying GWB was a good representative?

I'm being serious. If the President should represent the average person, I'd say Bush was a good candidate. I don't happen to think he has done this country any service, much less good service, but he does qualify as "average" in most aspects other than wealth.

Re:Does the President have to know about this stuf

[wytcld]

Someone who "compiles Linux" is average. Just as average as someone who rebuilds their car's engine, or does their own carpentry, or grows their own garden, or .... Most Americans have a few things they have at least a good amateur's expertise in, if not professional qualifications. And some of us have even mastered the arcane "./compile;make;make install".

Re:

[bkr1_2k]

The general reason is because more intelligent people tend to think they know more and are better qualified to determine "what's best", whether that's true or not.

Intelligence has absolutely nothing to do with the quality of laws we create. Common sense sometimes has something to do with the quality of laws and, unfortunately, common sense isn't.

Re:Does the President have to know about this stuf

[Dark Kenshin]

I agree with your basis, but it does help if they have at least a working knowledge of the topic they are making decisions on. In short, a "Jack of all trades, Ace of none" style of president would be ideal. They could support their short comings with experts in the field, yet still understand it enough to make informed, logical decision on the matter.

Re:Does the President have to know about this stuf

[jandrese]

This argument would be better if it wasn't one of the major arguments I heard repeatedly back in 2000 for George W. Bush.

Re:Does the President have to know about this stuf

[tji]

That was the argument for why Bush was an acceptable President. "It doesn't matter that he has no foreign policy knowledge, is not intelligent, and cannot string two sentences together. As long as he has good advisors, everything will be fine."

We see how that turned out.

Having excellent advisors is an absolute requirement. It is necessary, but not sufficient, for a good presidency. You definitely need someone at the top who is able to digest all the inputs and provide the guidance and accountability.

Re:Does the President have to know about this stuf

[barzok]

But are Bush's advisers really that good? Someone else pointed out that Bush is all about loyalty, not necessarily the right person for the job.

Bush picked cronies and yes-men above all else. Haven't we heard a number of stories of Bush refusing to listen to those who disagree, simply because they disagree?

Re:Does the President have to know about this stuf

[MacDork]

I'd much rather have a President who surrounds himself with well-informed advisors, than a President who weighs his own opinions on specialized topics more heavily than a specialist's opinion. Leadership is delegation.

JFK's advisors didn't suggest putting a man on the moon. [space.com] They were quite resistant to the idea. On the other hand, Iraq was a "slam dunk" according to Bush's advisors...

How can you identify a "well informed" advisor if you have no knowledge on the subject yourself?

Re:Does the President have to know about this stuf

[Woundweavr]

Well Obama is good friends with Lawrence Lessig.

On the other hand, I think McCain grew up with Alan Turing's Dad so...

I mean, is there really any doubt on which one is more "tech savvy"? If their ages don't make it completely obvious, look at Obama's website, his government transparency (available online), and his simple familiarity with the issues.

A 47 year old recent Constitutional law professor (universities tend to have a couple uses for the inter-tubes) whose campaign uses the Internet as its central tool vs a 72 year old guy who has been in the Legislature since 640K was enough for anyone?

Re:Does the President have to know about this stuf

[sm62704]

If their ages don't make it completely obvious

Spoken like a truly ignorant kid. Guys in their twenties come to me [kuro5hin.org] for advice on computers, kid. Can you write a battle tanks game in assembly and then hand-assemble it (without an assembler) and have it run, bug-free? I did.

And there are guys twenty and thirty years my senior, now retired, who used hollerith cards in their programming and make me look ignorant about computers.

You need to educate yourself. Your hatred of those with more experience than you limits your horizons and should be a great personal embarrassment to you.

Re:

[jellomizer]

These are not very difficult issues to understand.

Is it fair to have different speeds for different sites based if they paid _your_ ISP for faster speed.

How do we get faster internet connections to the rural comunites.

Should software be patented if so should there be different rules.

Is outsourcing tech workers best for America.

The issues are really people and policy issue (stuff that a president should be able to make decisions on themselfs) It is not as much on the details like what routers they should use

Re:Does the President have to know about this stuf

[bsDaemon]

I hear Bush gets his advice straight from Jesus... I would imagine that he would be informed, seeing as how he intelligently designed the universe -- but look where that's gotten us! /ducks.

Ultimaitely...

[neokushan]

Either one will be a lot more savvy in general than the current president. I bet both can even SPELL Technology.

Re:Ultimaitely...

[MightyMartian]

Either one will be a lot more savvy in general than the current president. I bet both can even SPELL Technology.

But can they locate it on a map?

Re:Ultimaitely...

[bigstrat2003]

I bet both can even SPELL Technology.

And I bet they can spell "ultimately", too!

Leave that to the future

[HalAtWork]

I don't even think it's on their radar, and the sad part is that it is becoming a huge issue, especially with the stupid hacking war between various countries, and the amount of control corporations want over software and data. The candidates are a lot older and have to know about a lot more things, and they try to take in the greater picture. How can they deal with the minutia of details that involve this fledgling of a political and human rights issue? How can they know about the implications? Even a lot of people that are deep in the tech industry don't even care about a lot of things, mostly because they work for corporations that are trying to steer the industry towards gobbling up all rights so they can secure revenue streams.

summary

[bornyesterday]

Net neutrality:
McCain - let the markets handle it
Obama - legislate it

Broadband Availability:
McCain - increased access via competition
Obama - re-define 'broadband', move toward universal service, increase availability at schools & libraries

H1B visas:
McCain - increase the number of them
Obama - full immigration overhaul, produce more American-born tech workers, make workers less dependent on their employers

Intellectual Property Protection:
McCain - gov't handles blatant abuses, works against protectionism
Obama - increase cooperation on international standards

Privacy:
McCain - immunity for companies that cooperated with warrentless wiretapping
Obama - expand the FTC to cooperate with international agencies to track cyber-criminals

Re:

[porcupine8]

McCain is also in favor of redefining broadband.

Overall, it's pretty predictable: The democrat wants more government regulation, the Republican wants less government involvement. Shockers all around. (Though the wiretapping issue is the one thing that's not so obvious.)

Nothing to see here folks

[DriedClexler]

Without reading the article, I can guess it tracks this format pretty closely:

Q: What would {Obama,McCain} do about $TECH_ISSUE?
Obama: Emphasises coming up with solution that works for ALL Americans by making impossible tradeoff. Says soundbite taken from Lawrence Lessig.
McCain: Emphasises coming up with solution that works for ALL Americans by making impossible tradeoff. Says soundbite taken from corporate lobbyist.

Does that about sum it up?

Re:Nothing to see here folks

[nickhart]

Does that about sum it up?

Not quite. You forgot to add the vast sums of money to the equation.

Obama [opensecrets.org]: $4,022,006 (TV/Movies/Music) + $3,060,630 (Computers/Internet) = $7,082,636

McCain [opensecrets.org]: $636,046 (TV/Movies/Music) + $629,315 (Computers/Internet) = $1,265,361

Gee, I wonder who's going to be listening harder to what the RIAA, telcos and other technology sector players have to say...

Re:

[irenaeous]

I found this interesting:

"While 47 percent of what Obama raised last year came from donors who gave less than $200, those small contributors made up just 15 percent of Clinton's donor base. In January, when Obama swamped Clinton by raising $32 million, compared to her $13 million, the vast majority of his total -- $28 million -- came over the Internet."

The quote is from a Washington Post Article [washingtonpost.com]. I am not an Obama supporter, but on Tech issues, he is vastly superior to the other two. His answers in T

Re:Nothing to see here folks

[Anonymous Coward]

Obama: 264 M total raised
McCain: 88 M total raised

calculated from opensecrets.org

Obama : 1.5% (TV/Movies/Music) + 1.1% (Computers/Internet) = 2.6%
McCain : 0.7% (TV/Movies/Music) + 0.7% (Computers/Internet) = 1.5%

I think the percentages kinda make your FUD lose a little steam

Re:Nothing to see here folks

[Manchot]

Wow, I just realized that the people I keep seeing spreading falsehoods about Obama are all the same person. Normally, I find point-by-point refutation to be anathema, but I'll make an exception for you.

The larger point is that all three major candidates have taken in over half a billion dollars, and while Obama may tout his plethora of tiny donations, it still only amounts to a fraction of the total he has received. Campaign finance is nothing more than open, legal bribery. There is a reason why corporations and the wealthy have far more influence in the government than workers, and why corporate interests trump public interests.

As I noted in my other reply to one of your posts, what you call a "fraction" of the total he has received being small is actually about half (where "small" is defined as $200 or less). Now, one half is technically a fraction, so I can't say that you're incorrect.

Obama is a case in point. One of his top contributors is Exelon, one of the US's largest nuclear power corporations. In exchange for hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions, Obama successfully watered down legislation that would hold nuclear power plant operators accountable to local governments in the case of leaks or other accidents. Quid pro quo, pure and simple.

You neglected to mention that the bill Obama "watered down" was his own. Politicians water down their own bills all the time in order to get them to pass, especially when the minority party is against it and you cannot overturn a filibuster.

Look at the $4 million he's raked in from the health care industry and you begin to understand why he opposes single-payer healthcare, an issue supported by over 60% of Americans. Obama's no different from other politicians--he just talks a better game.

This is the third time I've seen you repeat the mantra that because an industry is listed as having given donations on OpenSecrets, a candidate is bought and paid for. The simple fact is that when you donate to a candidate, you are required to list your employer. Everyone's donations, from the janitor to the executive, are lumped in the same category. Your $4 million figure includes everyone in the entire ****ing health care industry! Every doctor, nurse, dentist, and medical assistant is included as a "health care professional." Give me a break, and stop repeating that nonsense.

Re:Nothing to see here folks

[bartkusa]

When you send in political donations, they have to take down who your employer is. That's how they calculate donations by industry.

Realize, though, that not every donation is an attempt to curry favor. I donated a few hundred to Obama, and I develop a website for an online travel company, but that doesn't mean Obama is in the pocket of Big Travel or Big Internet. Similarly, if 1000 gas station attendants donate $20 to McCain, that will be logged as $20,000 coming from the oil industry, but don't tell me those attendants are buying influence.

$7 million from the entertainment and computer industries sounds suspicious, but it's not like the RIAA just cut him a seven-figure check. Obama is an inspiring liberal (as opposed to Kerry in '04 and Gore in '00), and he has really strong support amongst Democrats with higher education. This translates to affluent Hollywood actors and Silicon Valley professionals donating and fund-raising on Obama's behalf.

I'm not saying Obama is going to turn a blind eye to his financial backers; nobody is ignorant of where their support is coming from. But when both candidates are refusing money from federal lobbyists (I know Obama is, pretty sure McCain is) and taking it in small amounts from individual contributors, this kind of tallying isn't damning.

Millions of people [huffingtonpost.com] have donated to Barack's campaign, mostly in small denominations. How much more legit can hard-money donations from private individuals get? What, should only people who don't have employment be able to donate?

Put another way

[Ukab the Great]

How many blonde jokes involving computers would each candidate laugh at vs how many would they respond to with "What a coincidence--I do that, too".

NSFW...

[jonaskoelker]

Hopefully only Clinton leaves lipstick on the joystick.

No wait! That's Lewinsky... ;)

Dumb Question

[Shihar]

This question makes no sense to me. How "tech savvy" will the president be? The internet is basically just a series of tubes. How hard could it to be to understand? What could possibly go wrong?

At least we'll have a President

[MoodyLoner]

for whom "tech-savvy" isn't another term for "knows what order the crayons go back in the box".

The difference

[iXiXi]

One knows that the big red button makes big boom boom! The other knows how to read Internet Polls. Guess which one is which.

Lessig

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, Obamas people went directly to Lawrence Lessig for discussing tech policies. I think that says a lot.

Obama at Google

[Edward Kmett]

Well, apparently Obama knows enough not to use a Bubble Sort:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4RRi_ntQc8 [youtube.com]

Now, if he could just get some decent web developers. ;)

http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/05/31/2341201&from=rss [slashdot.org]

Get to the real issues

[slashname3]

The issues listed are so far down the list they should not be a factor. The Federal Governments job is to provide security for the country, not dabble in things that should be left to the states to decide. To much power has been given to the Federal Government. Why should the Feds have anything to do with anyone having access to broadband?

I think we are getting very close to the time when the government as it has become will need to be reset. Right now we have a two party system where we get pretty much the same no matter who is in power. They treat the population as a huge wallet that they extract money from. Then that money is paid to the lobbies and others that paid to get the officials elected. Sure there is some it spent to placate the masses, but bread and circuses only last so long.

The problem is we have no one to blame but ourselves. We created a system that has systematically evolved politicians into the sub-species that they have become. They are able to spew sound bites without ever doing anything concrete and are able to promise everyone exactly what they want to hear. At this point we are unable to elect someone that has the actual skills that are needed to lead this country the way it should be led. Once in power they will tax and spend just like they always have no matter who is in power.

Personally I think our only hope at the moment is to keep any single party from getting both congress and the White House at the same time. At least when they are held by different parties it prevents massive sweeping changes from being enacted. If a single party does control everything then it will be a sign that things are going to get really bad. There will be no stopping them from doing whatever they hell they want.

Regardless get ready for $10.00 a gallon gasoline and rampant inflation over the next four years. And I suspect we will start to see massive famines across the world and possibly in this country. And the endless debate that the other party caused all this.

Why?

[MSTCrow5429]

Why does it matter how familiar they are with "tech" issues? The position of President is an executive position. His job is to execute the laws that he deems Constitutional, not dabble in legislation. That anyone is asking such questions speaks to the fact that the US is in a state of prolonged decline, with a war of all against all.

Obama invented electricity

[gelfling]

And is the transdimensional messiah. He has no need of puny human devices like 'technology'.

Re:does it really matter

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, it does matter, and no, its not like 'barrel mod's...'; I have relatives that don't have high speed internet. And there is no plans to provide it in there area. There is no competition, and to make matters worse, state (and fed) rules prohibit competition, much less new growth.

To be closer to your analogy, one might say "Look at my new Desert Eagle", and McCain would say: "naw, I'm going to the beach today."

Re:Broadband Access

[pclminion]

It costs $10,000 to run a cable or fiber to my house. If we're waiting for "market competition" to make it happen, then it will NEVER happen, because there is no way Comcast or Verizon would ever recoupe their investment. "Whiz to Coho" says they can't get a wireless signal at my house 'cause of all the trees, and HughesNet satellite internet sucks! My only hope is some sort of universal access initiative. But then, I was going to vote for Obama anyway.

I see... You want ME to pay for YOUR broadband. No thanks dude. You want to live in the woods? Great -- sometimes I want to as well. But I don't expect to get 3 megabits down out there, and I certainly don't expect other people to have to pay to make that happen.

Re:Broadband Access

[MightyMartian]

I see... You want ME to pay for YOUR broadband. No thanks dude. You want to live in the woods? Great -- sometimes I want to as well. But I don't expect to get 3 megabits down out there, and I certainly don't expect other people to have to pay to make that happen.

Which is a pretty hypocritical attitude, considering that one way or the other, taxpayers and shareholders (ie. other people) have paid for your broadband.

Re:

[pclminion]

Which is a pretty hypocritical attitude, considering that one way or the other, taxpayers and shareholders (ie. other people) have paid for your broadband.

I seem to pay a bill each month... If it's being subsidized, I didn't ask for that. Tell me where to vote so that it's not subsidized, and I'll do it. If that makes it too expensive, then it's too expensive.

Re:Broadband Access

[Anonymous Coward]

You think a shareholder or taxpayer is paying for your fiber? I think you need to do some research on economics. A company wouldn't run a line to your neighborhood in hopes that taxpayers or shareholders would pay them back. They run it to the neighborhood so that they can gain marketshare, INCREASE the stock price, and gain monthly contracts which end up paying for that fiber. If you choose to live in an area where it isn't viable to run fiber since they will never recoup the costs, then I shouldn't have to pay for it through taxes. We are already taxed somewhere around 40% a year through income, state, local, property, etc...

In other words, get others to pay for it?

[Shivetya]

After reading your issue all I have to say is

You people suck.

Specifically, its people like you that give reason for this government to run us all over.

So, since you won't or cannot pay 10 grand its okay to let to government expend that money to connect your residence?

worse, you probably don't see the problem with it from the wording of your post.

The corporations are right not doing it, the government would be wrong to do so. When people put themselves into situations they should be responsible to get themselves out.

Selfish. Let me guess, I should pay for other people being fat, lazy, and drinking too?

Karma is good when you have so much to burn, but damn your type really pisses me off.

Re:In other words, get others to pay for it?

[DanOrc451]

I fail to see how supporting the building of a comprehensive and effective infrastructure is something that is horrible for a government to do. Should we also stop maintaining roads and bridges to locations which you decree irrelevant?