Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Privacy Government Security The Internet United States Politics

McCain Releases Technology Platform 479

Posted by Soulskill
from the version-0.982-beta dept.
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "John McCain has finally released a technology platform. Most of it is the same old stuff; lower corporate taxes, protect children from porn, and avoid Internet regulation unless 'necessary.' Alas, in his view, helping the RIAA's War on Sharing is necessary to stop the 'global epidemic' of piracy, while Net Neutrality is something he 'does not believe in.' Ars Technica has a review of McCain's platform." A brief analysis is also available from Federal Computer Week. In addition to the technology policy, McCain has also released a paper describing his stance on security and privacy. We've previously contrasted his views with those of Barack Obama. Obama's technology policies are also available online.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

McCain Releases Technology Platform

Comments Filter:
  • by thomasdz (178114) on Saturday August 16, 2008 @08:20AM (#24625567)

    Oh great. Yet another Linux distribution that www.distrowatch.org is going to have to track. "McCain-ix"
    Probably needs 1GB just to load. I'll stick with Obama-mama-ix thanks.

  • Worthless ... (Score:4, Informative)

    by ScrewMaster (602015) on Saturday August 16, 2008 @08:22AM (#24625575)
    Sounds to me like McCain's "platform" is centered around trying save a sinking ship. That's too bad. He's lost my vote on that issue alone.
    • Re:Worthless ... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 16, 2008 @08:58AM (#24625699)

      If you are basing your vote solely on technological issues in a presidential election, you really need to get out more. There are much more important issues that the President should be considered about (economy, jobs, defense, etc).

      • Re:Worthless ... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by iminplaya (723125) <iminplaya.gmail@com> on Saturday August 16, 2008 @09:15AM (#24625753) Journal

        And McCain is a big loser on all those fronts also. The economy is not his bag, man. Said so himself. Be ready to bail out another Lincoln Savings and Loan or three. And He's a warmonger. Not that the other guy is actually any better. Time to vote the party out.

        • Re:Worthless ... (Score:5, Interesting)

          by fugue (4373) on Saturday August 16, 2008 @11:39AM (#24626637) Homepage

          Why is it not OK for a presidential candidate to admit that he doesn't know something? I'm sick to death of people who think they have to pretend to know everything all the time.

          Not that McCain is worth the electrons I just encoded his name with, but in my book he scored one point for being aware of his ignorance. Seems a nice change from Republican policy. And Democratic policy, for that matter, although they are on average approximately 23% less ignorant than Republicans...

          • Re:Worthless ... (Score:5, Insightful)

            by kaiser423 (828989) on Saturday August 16, 2008 @11:54AM (#24626747)
            Because he knows so little that he hired Carly Fiorna as one of his chief economic advisers? Does not bode well...

            Doesn't need to be an expert on everything, but it would help if he could actually identify proper experts to hire.
            • Re:Worthless ... (Score:5, Insightful)

              by magus_melchior (262681) on Saturday August 16, 2008 @01:30PM (#24627397) Journal

              Don't forget he had Phil Gramm, who enabled Enron's outrageous business practices through deregulation-- the same deregulation law is suspected to be a major cause of the credit/subprime crises. Notice, Gramm tried to downplay "recession" hysteria because he helped draft and promote that bill! Gramm's history as far as his position in the campaign is concerned, but his overly business-friendly policies are generally still in place.

          • Re:Worthless ... (Score:4, Insightful)

            by blueg3 (192743) on Saturday August 16, 2008 @12:43PM (#24627093)

            The whole thing would go a lot faster if they'd just tell us who they were going to select as their various advisors and whether or not they were going to listen to them.

            Hopefully not too many people are deluded into thinking that the President actually makes his own decisions, rather than leaning heavily on advisors and other departments.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by KGIII (973947)

          I have been having this discussion with people older and wiser than I IRL for a while now.

          When I was younger I was able to vote FOR something or FOR someone, that seems to have gone away but it is likely that my blinders have been removed.

          I'd vote Libertarian or Green Party but, well, those people are often pretty insane. I'd vote Democratic because that was better, I thought, that Republican. In the last election I actually voted (not presidential) for Olympia Snowe because of what she has done and what sh

      • Really? (Score:4, Informative)

        by Nicolas MONNET (4727) <nicoaltiva@gmail . c om> on Saturday August 16, 2008 @09:29AM (#24625823) Journal

        Technology is my area of expertise, and I guess it's that of many slashdot readers. There is probably no other area where we can judge a candidate as well; therefore if his program sucks balls in this respect, it's probably just fair to extrapolate to the others.
        Besides, McCain is Bush III. He's pro war, pro war on terra, and so on.

      • Re:Worthless ... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Dr.Dubious DDQ (11968) on Saturday August 16, 2008 @10:58AM (#24626333) Homepage
        It's worth remembering that technology is a huge factor in the US economy, jobs, defence, (privacy/spying, civil rights, scientific progress...) etc. - so the topic is quite important.
    • by an.echte.trilingue (1063180) on Saturday August 16, 2008 @09:05AM (#24625727) Homepage
      I knew this kind of position was coming as soon as he said he didn't know how to use a computer. He obviously doesn't understand the issues, so naturally he is just going to default to his party's (or contributor's) position.

      If I were in his place and somebody asked me to formulate a position on farming, I would do the same thing. That's why it is important to look at what party a candidate belongs to and who is giving him money.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 16, 2008 @08:23AM (#24625583)

    Yay for contradictions?

  • John McCain on blogs (Score:5, Interesting)

    by jamie (78724) * Works for Slashdot <jamie@slashdot.org> on Saturday August 16, 2008 @08:25AM (#24625591) Journal

    In 2006, John McCain gave the commencement address at Jerry Falwell's Liberty University [thecherrycreeknews.com], and took the opportunity to mock individual expression:

    When I was a young man, I was quite infatuated with self-expression, and rightly so because, if memory conveniently serves, I was so much more eloquent, well-informed, and wiser than anyone else I knew. It seemed I understood the world and the purpose of life so much more profoundly than most people. I believed that to be especially true with many of my elders, people whose only accomplishment, as far as I could tell, was that they had been born before me, and, consequently, had suffered some number of years deprived of my insights. I had opinions on everything, and I was always right. I loved to argue, and I could become understandably belligerent with people who lacked the grace and intelligence to agree with me. With my superior qualities so obvious, it was an intolerable hardship to have to suffer fools gladly. So I rarely did. All their resistance to my brilliantly conceived and cogently argued views proved was that they possessed an inferior intellect and a weaker character than God had blessed me with, and I felt it was my clear duty to so inform them. It's a pity that there wasn't a blogosphere then. I would have felt very much at home in the medium.

    His contempt for citizens expressing their views is, presumably, why he introduced legislation that would basically have shut down comments on blogs and on sites like Slashdot. Under John McCain, if you are an individual blogger and you allow user comments or user profiles, you'd have to follow the same reporting rules as an ISP, but you'd be subject to even harsher penalties. The EFF called McCain's bill a "constitutionally dubious proposal ... made apparently mostly based on fear or political considerations [thinkprogress.org]."

    • by 4D6963 (933028) on Saturday August 16, 2008 @08:34AM (#24625619)

      "I was so much more eloquent, well-informed, and wiser than anyone else I knew" ... "With my superior qualities so obvious..."

      I knew it from the start! John McCain is a secret elitist!

      By the way, too bad he's not quite sooo eloquent anymore. It could have been useful, for stuff like, making people want to vote for him.

    • by howardd21 (1001567) on Saturday August 16, 2008 @08:41AM (#24625635) Homepage
      I think you missed the point. While it is nice of you to enhance the blogopshere comment with a bold font, that was not his subject. He was obviously speaking about the tendency of youth to dominate the conversation about anything and everything as if they knew the best approach and all others had nothing to offer. In fact, what he is implying here is that it is important to listen, especially to experienced individuals, but listen. That does not reduce the value of a blog, it puts it in context of "where, or from whom,do good ideas come from"?
      • by rockout (1039072) on Saturday August 16, 2008 @08:58AM (#24625703)
        I'd agree with you, except that right after the blog line McCain said he "would have felt very much at home in the medium", obviously taking a cheap shot at bloggers as people who "dominate the conversation about anything and everything as if they knew the best approach and all others had nothing to offer."

        The original poster very much got his point, methinks.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      It's funny because I generally agree with him. Many people, young or old, think they know what is best for others. They're inclined to step in and dictate how others should run their lives, how other countries should run their governments, and generally how the world would be so much better if either (a) people would just listen to their insights or (b) people would give them the power to enforce their insights on others.

      So, perhaps he had the right idea, that he himself didn't know everything. The probl

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by kklein (900361)

      Sorry, but you just quoted McCain being facetious as though he were serious, meaning you didn't get the joke. It's funny. Laugh.

      His technological platform, however... Not so funny.

      • by jamie (78724) * Works for Slashdot <jamie@slashdot.org> on Saturday August 16, 2008 @09:51AM (#24625931) Journal

        Sorry, but you just quoted McCain being facetious as though he were serious, meaning you didn't get the joke. It's funny. Laugh.

        McCain used exaggerated language to humorous effect. That part's hard to miss.

        What I find more important is that the target of his humor is the ceaseless argumentation on all matters, political and otherwise, that the citizenry engages in when permitted freedom of speech. Contrary to what career politicians would have us believe, there are things worth discussing beyond the pronouncements of our daily papers. There are wrongs to be called out and acts of courage to be heralded. We dredge up our politicians' histories, we compare and contrast, we insult and mourn and challenge not only our opponents' beliefs but our own. We're not polite, because unlike the self-righteous papers' hallowed halls of pretend-land, we talk the way real people talk. Sometimes we persuade, often not, but in large ways or small, we do learn from each other.

        The blogosphere is democracy at its most raw, a ceaseless conversation about the way things are and ought to be, led not from the "top" but by whatever ordinary people want to talk about each day. It's political conversation that, for the first time in thousands of years, actually comes from the people. That worries the entrenched media who for decades have built up undeserved reputations as the arbiters of the news cycle, and the politicians whose unspoken agreements with the media got them where they are.

        I've been a programmer for Slashdot for eight years now. I've spent much of that time writing code to quash abuse without censoring contributions, and support thoughtful comments while discouraging "omg roftl," because goddammit I believe there's something vital and important about what ordinary people have to say. I want to give those people a soapbox, and give their readers the tools to find the most interesting and thought-provoking comments. People with something to say don't need a lecture on prudence and humility from their betters, they need to be encouraged to stand up and join the conversation.

        And politicians like McCain mock them, and mock the way we argue. We're youngsters who show insufficient deference to the hard-won wisdom of our elders. Fuck that shit.

    • by Dhalka226 (559740)

      I have major problems with his bill if it is as you described, but I have no problems whatosever with the quote. That is absolutely how most people on the Internet behave and I think he conveyed it in a mildly humorous, tongue-in-cheek manner. To call it a "contempt for citizens expressing their views" seems entirely too harsh to me, at least based on what you quoted. I don't like McCain (or Obama, really) and I GREATLY support EVERYBODY's right to express their individual viewpoints--but that doesn't me

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by argStyopa (232550)

      Let me guess:
      You are a young man
      You are quite infatuated with self-expression, and rightly so because, you are so much more eloquent, well-informed, and wiser than anyone else
      You understand the world and the purpose of life so much more profoundly than most people.
      You believe that to be especially true with many of your elders, people whose only accomplishment, as far as you can tell, was that they had been born before you and consequently, had suffered some number of years deprived of your insights.
      You hav

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by jamie (78724) * Works for Slashdot

        Making fun of me is fine (and I think I'm all those things, except "young"!)

        McCain was mocking and denigrating unsanctioned argument as a whole.

    • by bmajik (96670) <matt@mattevans.org> on Saturday August 16, 2008 @09:59AM (#24625975) Homepage Journal

      Of Course. This _is_ the "McCain" in "McCain-Feingold" we're talking about, after all.

      Surely you're familiar with the McCain-Feingold "incumbency protection act", who's aim is to create a dubious "protected class" of people for whom the 1st amendment (which protects _political speech_ and no other type) still actually applies.

      For everyone else (people who aren't "real journalists") -- no more 1st amendment rights for you, anytime an election is 6 months (or wahtever the bill says) away.

      McCain Feingold is one of these ridiculous laws that, when examined, seems totally ridiculous and unconstitutional. As a practical matter, I don't think it has had a chilling effect on much of anything. As a theoretical matter, it's one of the reasons why libertarians don't like McCain.

      In many ways the '08 Election is a reverse of the '04 Election. In 04 the Democrats were running a "he's not Bush" candidate, and to be frank that was Kerry's only real qualification.

      McCain is someone who is neither pleasing to conservative republicans nor to libertarians who normally grudgingly fall into the republican camp. He's the "not Obama & not Clinton" vote. Almost everyone I've spoken with is much more interested in "not Obama" than "McCain".

      Oddly enough, the fact that McCain is not squarely in the conservative/republican camp may make him an acceptable president. He obviously doesn't care about pissing off other republicans, and he obviously jumps off traditional conservative/republican dogma when it suits him. The reality of the senate voting record is that McCain has jumped across the aisle to get something done with the Democrats far more often than Obama has broken rank with the progressive agenda to get some reasonably-centerist legislation done by cooperating with Republicans.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by pudge (3605) * Works for Slashdot

        Of Course. This _is_ the "McCain" in "McCain-Feingold" we're talking about, after all.

        Surely you're familiar with the McCain-Feingold "incumbency protection act", who's aim is to create a dubious "protected class" of people for whom the 1st amendment (which protects _political speech_ and no other type) still actually applies.

        For everyone else (people who aren't "real journalists") -- no more 1st amendment rights for you, anytime an election is 6 months (or wahtever the bill says) away.

        McCain Feingold is one of these ridiculous laws that, when examined, seems totally ridiculous and unconstitutional.

        Not for nothing, let's remember the fact that Democrats supported the bill 198-12, and Republicans supported it 41-176, in the House. In the Senate, it was 46-3, and 11-38. In the Congress, Republicans broadly opposed the "Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act," and Democrats almost universally supported it.

        So let us not pretend (not that you were doing so) that Obama, a Democrat, who has already proven to be unprincipled on campaign financing (saying he would do one thing out of campaign finance principles, and

      • 1st amendment (which protects _political speech_ and no other type)

        I see this assertion on Slashdot here now and again, and while I'll certainly agree that political speech was probably the type of speech which the Founders were most concerned with protecting, I see no basis for the assertion that that was all the First Amendment is meant to protect. Quoth the Constitution:

        Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

        Seems pretty broad and universal to me.

    • by fermion (181285)
      So what has changed. He still thinks he is better than anyone else, and still cannot conceive that someone who got into school without legacy and made a success of themselves without their daddy's help and without divorcing their first wife so they could marry into money might be more qualified as a role model to those of us who were not born into a legacy and had to work for a living. Pretty much he still seems to that ignorance, inexperienced, little boy who chooses not to believe that the world can be
    • by pudge (3605) * Works for Slashdot

      In 2006, John McCain gave the commencement address at Jerry Falwell's Liberty University [thecherrycreeknews.com], and took the opportunity to mock individual expression

      Incorrect, of course. Quite clearly, the quote shows that he is mocking people -- especially young people -- who think they are infallible and that know better than everyone else.

      Kinda like, well, you!

      I hope you are not intentionally misrepresenting what McCain said, and that you're being merely stupid.

  • by 4D6963 (933028) on Saturday August 16, 2008 @08:26AM (#24625593)

    I wonder how he'd go about doing that. Probably the same way they (most of the Republicans) go about protecting children from STDs, by preaching abstinence. Keeping children away from computers would probably work about as well.

    That would be ironic if they preached using parental protection software, which by analogy could be compared to using a condom. Cue the "it's not the same thing" replies.

    • by sakdoctor (1087155) on Saturday August 16, 2008 @08:31AM (#24625609) Homepage

      The problem is that adults forget what it was like being a kid, and try to hoard all the porn for themselves. This is totally misguided, and kids need porn just as much as the rest of us.

      • by 4D6963 (933028) on Saturday August 16, 2008 @08:40AM (#24625629)

        The problem is that adults forget what it was like being a kid, and try to hoard all the porn for themselves. This is totally misguided, and kids need porn just as much as the rest of us.

        But yet more alarmingly, children from unfavoured homes who don't have access to the Internet at home have no means to educate themselves with pornography, causing a dramatic gap in sexual education. Trust me, these days, you don't want to be the only kid on the playground who thinks that "golden showers" have anything to do with Scourge McDuck.

    • by owlnation (858981)

      I wonder how he'd go about doing that.

      It's really easy. We just use the "Just Say No" War-on-Drugs Model.

      Oh, wait...

      • by 4D6963 (933028)

        This is your penis *shows tiny pickle*

        This is your penis on porn *shows cucumber*

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      They work to the opposites.

      Teach your kid computers and you don't have to worry about STD's.

      Teach your kid about condoms and you don't have to worry about him messing around with computers.

      jk.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      go about protecting children from STDs, by preaching abstinence.

      Abstinence is the only proven method of not contracting STDs. The only way.

      I'm sorry, my friend, but if you're going to slut it up... you're going to pay the price. All the latex and gels in the world won't give you the same protection as abstinence.

      Keeping children away from computers would probably work about as well.

      This isn't about keeping children away from computers. This is about keeping porn from kids.

      You do realize that you can use a computer without accessing porn, I hope.

      Cue the "it's not the same thing" replies.

      Having access to a computer and having sex are different. Maybe you just don't get it?

      • by 4D6963 (933028) on Saturday August 16, 2008 @11:13AM (#24626445)

        Abstinence is the only proven method of not contracting STDs. The only way.

        I'm sorry, my friend, but if you're going to slut it up... you're going to pay the price. All the latex and gels in the world won't give you the same protection as abstinence.

        The problem is it only works in theory. In reality, on large scales, even kids with abstinence rings end up doing it, and getting pregnant or catching a STD. The reality is, most people just have to get laid, no matter what you say or what they say, they're gonna do it. All you can do is make sure the ones who will do it will do it properly. Pretending that it's as easy as not doing it is sticking your head in the sand. Abstinence alone isn't enough. You also need to be completely reliable, which is foolish to assume from anyone. Or very unattractive.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by nasor (690345)
        Abstinence has been REPEATEDLY shown to not be an effective way to control the spread of STDs or prevent pregnancy in populations. The problem is that people just aren't willing to be abstinent, even when they are educated about the risks of sex. It's certainly inconvenient that people aren't willing to be abstinent, but society needs to face that reality and deal with it, rather than continuing to fantasize that we can control the spread of STD and pregnancy with abstinence programs.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by NeutronCowboy (896098)

        Abstinence is the only proven method of not contracting STDs. The only way.

        And avoiding contact with all people is the only way of avoiding being killed by someone. Fact. Doesn't mean it isn't completely stupid and illusory. Sorta like communism. Right?

  • hypocrisy (Score:5, Informative)

    by je ne sais quoi (987177) on Saturday August 16, 2008 @08:50AM (#24625673)
    John McCain's stance on copyright infringement is hypocritical. The reason is that he is currently being sued by Jackson Browne for copyright infringement [chicagotribune.com] because he used the song "Running on Empty" without permission. This looks to be yet another Republican professing high fallooting morals but who by his deeds is shown to believe that morality is for the populace and doesn't apply to him.
    • Re:hypocrisy (Score:4, Informative)

      by Dhalka226 (559740) on Saturday August 16, 2008 @09:39AM (#24625869)

      Right from the article you linked:

      A McCain spokesman said the ad in question, which mocks Sen. Barack Obama, was put together by the Ohio GOP.

      The article isn't even 100 words, could you not make it all the way through? I know /.'ers are notorious for not reading the article, but one would think they wouldn't link it as support for a dubious claim without giving it a once-over.

      It isn't even being run by him or his campaign. Even if it were, it's entirely probable that he would have nothing to do with the ad other than a final "go ahead and run it." It would not be at all unreasonable to assume that even if he took note of the fact that they were using the song, that he assumed his staffers had done their job and obtained proper permission to do so. If I were a presidential candidate, I know I would have much more important things to do than micromanage my team.

      I haven't seen the ad in question, but if it's anything like most political ads it runs about 30 seconds long, which in my mind would also bring up a fair use question even if the song ran the entire duration. The article also doesn't mention anything about whether or not anybody was contacted with a request to stop using the song or compensate the artist or if he just went straight to lawsuit town.

      I'm not a McCain supporter by any stretch, but your post is just ridiculous. Then again it's patently obvious you made up your mind long ago and are inventing lame "issues" to try to lambast him with, so I suppose you'll just come back with a "zomg he's lying he's a politician lolerskatz."

      • Re:hypocrisy (Score:5, Informative)

        by remove office (871398) on Saturday August 16, 2008 @11:40AM (#24626661) Homepage
        Actually, both the McCain campaign and the RNC have gotten itself in hot water several times for using copyrighted music or video clips without permission during this cycle.

        A few examples:

        McCain was served with a cease and desist [nytimes.com] letter from Fox News after he used their broadcast footage in a commercial without buying it...

        McCain was sued by Mike Myers [latimes.com] after he used a clip from a skit from SNL without purchasing it or getting permission from Myers himself (Myers isn't the copyright owner, but that's irrelevant).

        McCain got yelled at [boston.com] by copyright owners for using the "Rocky" theme song in an ad without permission.

        One of McCain's YouTube videos have been hit with a copyright infringement claim [p2pnet.net] by Warner Music Group after the campaign used a song by Frankie Valli without permission.

        Of course, all of this is not to mention McCain's little plagiarism issue [cqpolitics.com] with Wikipedia...
  • I am not sure why I would trust a politician to protect my children. I know myself, and I don't take government money and use it to buy sex. Why would I let such perverted old farts baby sit my daughters? And as far as technology, I trust them less with technology and my freedom than I do with my daughters.
  • by HangingChad (677530) on Saturday August 16, 2008 @09:17AM (#24625763) Homepage

    Arguably one of the worst leaders in the tech industry. It's no wonder his technology positions don't make any sense. That's like picking Jeffery Skilling as an energy advisor...wait, he doesn't need him, he's got Phil Gramm. With the added advantage that Gramm isn't in federal prison...yet.

    Let's just pick the most incompetent, corrupt people from every industry we can find and bring them together in one party. It's no wonder his positions on technology don't make any sense. A classic case of the problem dictating the solution.

  • ... but what's his position on tubes, and whether a truck will fit in them or not? There's serious issues here which demand real answers!
  • by jopsen (885607) <jopsen@gmail.com> on Saturday August 16, 2008 @10:20AM (#24626105) Homepage
    I took a look around the different campaign sites it's clear McCain is EVIL!
    Links at McCain site:
    johnmccain.com/Blog/Read.aspx?guid=3d8ee2ad-d7f2-4f3d-ad9f-ffe1b41ca178

    Links a Obamas Site:
    http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/ [barackobama.com]

    Clearly, McCain is using a Microsoft server and Obama is using mod_rewrite or similar technology... Probably a rather none-evil technology...

    Also at validator.w3.org:
    McCain has: 124 Errors, 44 warning(s)
    Obama has: 8 Errors
    I'd say this proofs McCain is evil!
  • by dlur (518696) <dlur@iwTEA.net minus caffeine> on Saturday August 16, 2008 @10:21AM (#24626111) Homepage Journal

    How does either candidate expect to move interest in science forward in the US when you can no longer: a) buy a home chemistry set, b) you end up with government agents raiding your house if you have a LEGAL home chemistry lab (ala Mass.), c) experimenting with home-built fireworks or small-scale explosives is now an act of "terrorism"?

    No kids are going to get interested in science anymore because all of the cool things we did as children to pique our interest in science are now illegal or acts of international terrorism.

  • This is more reason to vote for Obama who has for sanity on these issues. McCains positions are designed to help corporations, and basically screw the people. He supports regulations on the internet wherever it benefits big corporations. Only an idiot would call net nuetrality "regulation", but in McCains twisted mind it is, and he opposes it because it would help the people and assure their free speech rights, but it does not help corporations. Net nuetrality would in fact prohibit regulation of the intern

  • My Scorecard (Score:5, Interesting)

    by davide marney (231845) <(davide.marney) (at) (netmedia.org)> on Saturday August 16, 2008 @10:36AM (#24626197) Journal

    My scorecard for the McCain platform. Rated on a uninflated A-F grading scale, where a "C" means the norm.

    John McCain Supports Risk Capital For Investment In American Innovation

    Grade: C. OK; nothing specific to the tech sector, though.

    John McCain Will Not Tax Innovation By Keeping Capital Gains Taxes Low.

    Grade: C. A good idea in general, but not of particular help to technology.

    John McCain Will Reform And Make Permanent The R&D Tax Credit.

    Grade: B. Good idea.

    John McCain Will Lower the Corporate Tax Rate To 25 Percent To Retain Investment In U.S. Technologies.

    Grade: C. Again, a good idea for the economy in general, but doesn't do anything to specifically address technology.

    John McCain Will Allow First-Year Expensing Of New Equipment And Technology.

    Grade: B. Good idea.

    John McCain Will Ensure Technology And Innovation Is Not Hampered By Taxes On Internet Users.

    Grade: C. OK, fine, but I'm not buying the rationale at all here. I think this is code for "no government regulation". A vast amount of bricks-and-mortar commerce has been moved onto the Internet. If we accept taxation of commerce, we should have no problem accepting taxation of it on the Internet.

    John McCain Opposes Higher Taxes On Wireless Services.

    Grade: C. OK, lower taxes, yeah, but what we are buying with our taxes in the first place?

    America Must Educate Its Workforce For The Innovation Age.

    Grade: B. Grants for higher ed are a good bargain for taxpayers.

    Fill Critical Shortages Of Skilled Workers To Remain Competitive.

    Grade: B. Good idea. More flexibility on H-1B visas will help.

    John McCain Has Been A Long And Ardent Supporter Of Fair And Open World Trade.

    Grade: C. Nice to know.

    Competition Has Been A Great Strength For America -- Offering Opportunity, Low Prices, And Increased Choice For Our Citizens. Markets work best when there is robust competition.

    Grade: D. McCain had a chance to address the real problems of non-competitiveness that plague the technology sector, and ducked.

    John McCain Will Protect The Creative Industries From Piracy.

    Grade: D. Another disappointment. The "creative industries" already have plenty of money, lawyers, lobbyists, and memberships in the exclusive clubs needed to get the protection they need. Who's giving the people the protection they need? Not the government, apparently.

    John McCain Will Push For Greater Resources For The Patent Office.

    Grade: C. Obviously needed; basic good management.

    John McCain Will Pursue Protection Of Intellectual Property Around The Globe.

    Grade: C. OK, fine; more good management.

    Provide Alternative Approaches To Resolving Patent Challenges.

    Grade: B. Some innovation here is long overdue. Good idea.

    John McCain Will Preserve Consumer Freedoms.

    Grade: B. Freedom is good, and additional attention in this area is needed to keep a level playing field.

    When Regulation Is Warranted, John McCain Acts.

    Grade: C. OK, that's the right pattern, but McCain seems to not get the fact that the tech sector really needs some tough love from the government right now. If regulation is not warranted now, when would it be?

    John McCain does not believe in prescriptive regulation like "net-neutrality," but rather he believes that an open marketplace with a variety of consumer choices is the best deterrent against unfair practices.

    Grade: F. The telco marketplace is anything

  • Serious Question... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by RocketScientist (15198) * on Saturday August 16, 2008 @11:21AM (#24626513)

    There were two parts of the platform related by Ars Technica. The first part was increased copyright enforcement, and the second was patent reform.

    The question's coming up, bear with me, some setup involved.

    There are, basically, 3 industries that benefit from copyright: Music, Movies/TV, and Software. Copyright enforcement helps all 3, but (at least for short term profits) patent reform is not good for the software industry. So overall, this part of McCain's platform really only helps the Music and Movies/TV industries.

    That's part 1 of the setup. Here's part 2:

    The Music and Movies/TV industries are populated *mostly* by people who support Obama. Furthermore, the Christian Right in this country very much hates those two industries and would like to see them die in fires of hell for promoting vice. Oh, and the Christian Right hates the software industry, because all they do is make games full of murdering.

    That's part 2. Here's the question:

    Is there a reason that McCain's platform serves to (1) increase the profits of industries that hate him and give TONS of money to his opponent, and (2) Provides legal protection for industries that his primary voting base despises?

  • by nasor (690345) on Saturday August 16, 2008 @12:18PM (#24626895)
    Has it ever been scientifically demonstrated that porn is harmful for children? Just curious - if it has, I would be genuinely interested to heard about it.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Reziac (43301) *

      Good question. In my experience, *normal* children seem to have exactly one reaction to porn: they go "Eugh, gross!", gawk for a few moments (the same way anyone will when confronted with something they consider freaky), then quickly lose interest and go on to other normal childhood pursuits.

      I'm wondering if the only "harm" from porn comes to children who are already psychologically abnormal (maybe liking porn at an early age predicts a tendency toward sexual abberations as an adult?), or are being sexually

Prototype designs always work. -- Don Vonada

Working...