Internet Co-inventor Vint Cerf Endorses Obama 713
SEAActionFund writes "Vint Cerf, Google's Chief Internet Evangelist who also happens to be credited with co-founding the Internet, submitted a video to our AVoteforScience YouTube challenge. In it he discusses the importance of net neutrality and endorses Barack Obama specifically because he supports net neutrality (John McCain does not.)
The AVoteForScience challenge calls upon scientists to upload videos to YouTube explaining who they are voting for and why. The first two videos were by Cerf and the 2008 Nobel Prize winner in Chemistry Marty Chalfie. Any Slashdotters game for explaining who they are voting for and why?" Still waiting for one of the campaigns to ask for my endorsement, which is totally available to whichever campaign offers me the better cabinet seat.
Re:hum? (Score:2, Informative)
Non-neutral net:
It's basically treating someone else's (especially VoIP) packets like red-headed step-children, and giving your (especially VoIP) packets express treatment. That way, your "real-time" services rock, and the competition's suck wind.
Re:hum? (Score:4, Informative)
It boils down to: can content carries make cost changes to providers or content.
For example (totally made up):
Comcast and AT&T really like Disney, Disney made a large 'Donation' to AT&T: In a net-newtral world, there is not a lot anyone can do, or notice, however *without* it: Comcast / AT&T can give priority to Disney / NBC content over say, NickJr.com.
It also allows them to charge Google big$ because 'oh my god, they use all our bandwidth answering search requests' The fallacy there (and what the lawmakers seems to be missing) is that Google *already pays* for a connection from their data centers to the Tubes...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality [wikipedia.org] :)
for all the gory details
Re:Watch me get modded troll. (Score:3, Informative)
Write in votes are only counted as "write-in" and not as a write in for a specific person. The only exception to this is if someone files the paperwork to have their write in's counted, or they could make a difference. So a write in vote for Ron Paul isn't really different than a write in for Elmer Fudd. You will probably send a stronger message by voting for Bob Barr.
Re:Watch me get modded troll. (Score:5, Informative)
http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/3513.041
Actually looked up the code in Ohio here and right in the 1st paragraph it says:
Write-in votes shall not be counted for any candidate who has not filed a declaration of intent to be a write-in candidate pursuant to this section.
This being true ... I don't understand why you got modded down to zero.
Re:Watch me get modded troll. (Score:2, Informative)
A message to who? I'm don't think I'm incorrect in thinking that Dr. Paul would rather you vote for Barr than write him in.
You know what would really send a message? For the LP to get federal funds for the next election cycle.
I'm just saying.
Re:def (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Pundit (Score:3, Informative)
JaRule is likely endorsing whoever promises to legalize marijuana.
Ron Paul?
He didn't "invent the Internet" (Score:3, Informative)
ACM link [acm.org]
(shamelessly stolen from the Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] article on Vint Cerf)
Re:Obama (Score:1, Informative)
Obama is trolling for votes with his bribes of free health care and 'tax rebates' Mod him down!
Re:Pundit (Score:4, Informative)
I know one bitter Clinton supporter who claims she is going to vote for McCain. She can't come up with one valid reason why she is giving her support to Sarah Palin - who is the absolute polar opposite of her views. I just don't get it.
Re:i am voting for barack obama (Score:1, Informative)
Wrong. Not all votes are created equal.
Until the Electoral College is gotten rid of, and the President is elected by popular vote, not all votes are created equal, and in 40+ states, it doesn't really matter anymore.
Re:Obama (Score:4, Informative)
i keep posting this, hoping it will sink in. (Score:2, Informative)
Why I will not vote for McCain, from his own mouth:
"I would rather have a clean government than one...where 'First Amendment rights' are being respected that has become corrupt. If I had my choice I'd rather have a clean government."
source [reason.com]
OK, so a clean government is, to McCain, far more important than our first amendment rights. Odd, to say the least, but possibly understandable.
Or at least it is until you look a little closer. Charles Keating. A campaign staffed and run by lobbyists. An affair with a lobbyist. The pick of Palin, who abused her position as governor for personal ends.
Alone, his stated position that a clean government is more important than our first amendment rights gives me great pause. Combined with his actions, which make it seem that he doesn't really give a damn about clean government, i find it rather frightening.
How can you vote for someone who sneers at the first amendment?
Re:Obama (Score:5, Informative)
One of McCain's close friends is G Gordon Liddy (documented a bit on Wikipedia), who McCain claims to admire. This is after Liddy masterminded Watergate, planned assassinations of anti-Republican politicians for Nixon, the firebombing of political enemies, and advocated the murder of federal agents. The association between McCain and Liddy is much closer than the one between Obama and Ayers, includes Liddy fund raising for McCain, and Liddy is much worse of a terrorist than Ayers ever was.
Re:Obama (Score:3, Informative)
I guess they are mistaken: Did Sarah Palin make rape victims pay...? [factcheck.org]
Re:Obama (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_sarah_palin_make_rape_victims_pay.html [factcheck.org]
Re:It's obvious.... (Score:3, Informative)
Barack Obama and Joe Biden's Plan [barackobama.com]
* Protect the Openness of the Internet: A key reason the Internet has been such a success is because it is the most open network in history. It needs to stay that way. Barack Obama strongly supports the principle of network neutrality to preserve the benefits of open competition on the Internet.
* Encourage Diversity in Media Ownership: Barack Obama believes that the nation's rules ensuring diversity of media ownership are critical to the public interest. Unfortunately, over the past several years, the Federal Communications Commission has promoted the concept of consolidation over diversity. As president, Obama will encourage diversity in the ownership of broadcast media, promote the development of new media outlets for expression of diverse viewpoints, and clarify the public interest obligations of broadcasters who occupy the nation's spectrum.
* Reform the Patent System: A system that produces timely, high-quality patents is essential for global competitiveness in the 21st century. By improving predictability and clarity in our patent system, we will help foster an environment that encourages innovation. Giving the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) the resources to improve patent quality and opening up the patent process to citizen review will reduce the uncertainty and wasteful litigation that is currently a significant drag on innovation. As president, Barack Obama will ensure that our patent laws protect legitimate rights while not stifling innovation and collaboration.
* Safeguard our Right to Privacy: The open information platforms of the 21st century can also tempt institutions to violate the privacy of citizens. As president, Barack Obama will strengthen privacy protections for the digital age and will harness the power of technology to hold government and business accountable for violations of personal privacy.
* Invest in the Sciences: Barack Obama and Joe Biden support doubling federal funding for basic research over ten years, changing the posture of our federal government from being one of the most anti-science administrations in American history to one that embraces science and technology. This will foster home-grown innovation, help ensure the competitiveness of US technology-based businesses, and ensure that 21st century jobs can and will grow in America.
* Restore Scientific Integrity to the White House: Good policy in Washington depends on sound advice from the nation's scientists and engineers and decision-making based on the needs of all Americans. Obama and Biden will restore the basic principle that government decisions should be based on the best-available, scientifically-valid evidence and not on the ideological predispositions of agency officials or political appointees.
Re:Obama (Score:4, Informative)
One of McCain's close friends is G Gordon Liddy (documented a bit on Wikipedia), who McCain claims to admire.
Which, the parts marked "[citation needed]" or the part marked "This article or section may contain original research or unverified claims."?
Ayers not only doesn't feel any remorse about bombing federal buildings, he published memoirs about it! And Obama didn't just go on his radio show, Obama actively worked with him in politics!
Libby didn't try and kill people. Ayers did. Trying to equate the two is beyond ridiculous.
Well, AC, if you look at the Wikipedia article under "Relationship with Senator John McCain" there are two citations, one of which is a quotation from McCain himself. Neither "citation needed" nor "unverified claims" appears there. Maybe you were thinking of someone else named "Libby," but I was discussing Liddy.
Obama condemned Ayers' actions, and his "active work" with him in politics was working in a charity organization partially funded by McCain's some of McCain's political allies (notice that McCain doesn't attack the charity, since he and Obama both support it). Let's just let the well cited Wiki article speak for me here:
"The two met "at a luncheon meeting about school reform."[41] Obama was named to the Chicago Annenberg Challenge Project Board of Directors to oversee the distribution of grants in Chicago. Later in 1995, Ayers hosted "a coffee" for "Mr. Obama's first run for office."[42] The two served on the board of a community anti-poverty group, the Woods Fund of Chicago, between 2000 and 2002, during which time the board met twelve times.[42] In April 2001, Ayers contributed $200 to Obama's re-election fund to the Illinois State Senate.[41] Since 2002, there has been little linking Obama and Ayers.[42]"
Obama was involved in various good causes in his neighborhood and Ayers was involved in one of them. Obama didn't ever give Ayers anything, didn't put him on the board of this organization, and never said anything about his terrorist past other than condemning it.
Liddy did specifically try to murder people, though indirectly. He wanted other people to do it for him. Just because his personal physical presence was limited (as far as we know) to breaking and entering in order to win a presidential election and extend a war in Vietnam doesn't mean that his detailed plans for murder and drawn up for Nixon and given to the public at large after the Waco nonsense in the 90s didn't have a bigger negative effect on people's lives than Ayers' non-lethal (but absolutely evil, and they easily could have been lethal) insane attacks.
Ayers is a grass roots whacko, while Liddy was (and still is) backed by corrupt politicians. They both did terrible things, and Obama has condemned Ayers while McCain said he's proud of Liddy. Note the citation in that Wiki article. I agree with the Obama campaign, however, in that I don't believe McCain's "association" with Liddy is relevant to the election. I only bring it up to show that the pot is calling the kettle black.
Re:Pundit (Score:3, Informative)
No concrete differences? Well other than abortion rights, health care, tax strategy, foreign policies, education, and separation of church and state you are absolutely right - I can't see a difference
Ok, let's take them one at a time.
Abortion rights: Mccane hasn't had much to say about it in the general election but in the past his attitude has been essentially, "I'm against abortion but also against making it illegal". He does seem to flipflop on it from time to time depending on who he is pandering to at the moment which to me means it really isn't a priority to him either way. In practice that means that abortion laws would likely stay the same under both candidates. See this Youtube clip for a sample: http://hk.youtube.com/watch?v=DpGUiEWZDUI [youtube.com]
Health Care: I'll concede there is a difference here but this is something that is going to be decided mainly by Congress.
Taxes: Once again, mainly something that will be decided by Congress. Anyway, they both want to increase spending. Obama wants to get the money from the rich and McCain want's to borrow it. Either way it's money that won't be available to the private sector since even borrowed money has to come from somebody.
Education: Both seem in favor of more Federal interference in local schools. I don't see a winner here.
Foreign Policy: Besides for the question of weather we talk to our enemies or yell at them I don't see much difference. They both want to commit far more troops than we actually have on various expeditions around the world. McCain seems worse here and Obama more thoughtful but then again so did Jimmy Carter.
Church and State: Both claim to be for seperation but both support "Faith based initiatives".
To be honest, it would be hard to find a better example of two fundamentally diametrically opposed female politicians as Clinton and Palin.
???? Clinton isn't running for anything and the Vice President has pretty limited decision making athority.
Re:Marty Chalfie vote also for Obama (Score:4, Informative)
The poor tend not to remain poor, and the highest earners tend to turn over quite a bit as well. And here's a hint: the poor who improve their standings are the ones who don't rely on forced redistribution of wealth through taxation.
Let's talk about the real world.
The poor in the US do tend to stay poor, and the rich stay fairly rich, in general. There isn't as much churn as you imply. In fact, 40% of the population controls less than 1% of the wealth. And here's a hint: that 40% works very hard, in general, simply to maintain shelter and food.
Just in case you intended to imply that working hard makes you financially successful: that's not supported by evidence. In fact, the evidence suggests that those that are well-off by birth tend to have a much higher financial success rate than those that are not well-off by birth.
However, it's rare a poor person can become financially-successful by sitting on their ass, either.
This is very sad. (Score:3, Informative)
I think it's very sad that people are arguing over whether the government, which includes law enforcement, should be paying for rape kits which cost $1200 when they must be used. I challenge somebody who is arguing that the government should not bear the cost to add up how much is spent on rape kits in the US per year and divide it by the number of taxpayers.
Do these people have the slightest idea how immeasurably tiny that amount is in the grand scheme of things (taxes)? This isn't just sad, it's disgusting. Does human greed know no bounds?
Cue dirty commie accusations in 3,2,1...
Re:Not like it matters much ... (Score:3, Informative)
The one good point with McCain is that we are in zero danger of him having extra marital sex. There isn't a female alive who would sleep with that old fool.
Really? Considering that he met his current wife a year before divorcing his previous wife and then married her a month later? I think that's a pretty good sign that he's probably cheated once before.
I seriously doubt that McCain would do it again, but it's not as unlikely as it might be for someone who never had cheated before.