Presidential Candidates' Science and Tech Policies 413
gracey1103 writes "Popular Mechanics has put together an easy-to-follow matrix of where the '08 presidential candidates stand on different science, tech and environment issues. Everything is cited and links back directly to each candidate's published policy pages so you can get more info."
Not every candidate (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not every candidate (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not every candidate (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Not every candidate (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Not every candidate (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Not every candidate (Score:4, Insightful)
http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/11/ron-pauls-record-in-congress.html [blogspot.com]
That's what he's been up to in congress.
Ammending the constitution to define a zygote as a peson is not in any a consistent with a libertarian position on liberty.
If you read the above link you'll see he's opposed to federal funds for all family planning efforts, not just abortion. He's also opposed to gay equality.
There's a reason he's a republican. Libertarians consider the right to be left alone and unmolested sacred. They wouldn't let him get away with using elected office to impose his religious views on the country.
Re:Not every candidate (Score:4, Insightful)
I find this topic very interesting--it seems to me that more and more people (primarily on the left, but certainly on the right as well) are so used to a huge and all encompassing federal government, that many people DO, like you, get confused that cutting federal funding is the same as making something illegal. We saw the same thing with stem cell research. Even on slashdot, a place full of generally well informed geeks and science wonks, you see statements like "bush made stem cell research illegal." That's not remotely close to the truth, and quite frankly, FUD--just as your post is.
I'm mixed on the zygote issue. I do think that abortion is killing a life and that it's a horrible thing to have to do... but... sometimes it's gotta happen, and for utilitarian reasons, probably better that it does. That doesn't make someone that thinks life starts at conception a cook. If libertarians / objectivists view an individual life as of great importance, is it any wonder that new lives are considered as important as old lives? You're viewing the issue of an abortion solely through the lens of "it's a woman's freedom to control her body." He's looking at the issue through the lens of "there's a new life with a right to live." I really hate this kind of "you're either with us, or you're against us" politics...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Not every candidate (Score:4, Informative)
Don't know why otherwise intelligent people don't get this simple fact. Whether you use paper money or gold or diamonds or cigarettes or whatever, they can only stand-for or represent or reflect the true wealth in the economy. They are not wealth by themselves.
Not that I support the gold standard, but I think currency (and the value of currency) should be set by market forces and not by some unaccountable bureaucrats who create inflation while also pretending to 'fight' it.
Not that I'm complaining - I made (and continue to make) a lot of money courtesy of helicopter Ben and his clueless pals.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Not every candidate (Score:5, Insightful)
I support Paul and Obama at the same time. It goes something like this:
"I'd like the government to curl up and die [Paul], but if I can't have that I'd rather it be in competent hands with interesting ideas [Obama] than incompetent or malevolent ones [most other Democrats, all other Republicans]."
Re:Not every candidate (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Not every candidate (Score:5, Informative)
Nope.
There is precisely one argument for Instant Runoff Voting, and that is that it is easier to explain to voters how IRV votes are counted than it is to explain how Condorcet votes are counted. But based on that argument Approval Voting beats out IRV.
Our current Plurality Voting system is just about the worst of all known voting methods. IRV is better than our current system, but that just merely makes it less bad than out current system. If we are going to change our election system we really should change it to the best known system, and mathematicians have studied election methodology in depth and determined that that the best available system is Condorcet voting. Casting votes in Condorcet is identical to casting votes in IRV, and the behind the scenes election mechanics of handling those votes is much better than IRV, and the results of Condorcet are better than IRV (in some cases IRV can elect clearly the "wrong" person"), and in most cases explaining how Condorcet elected a candidate is dead simple (this candidate would clearly and simply beat any of the other candidates in a 1v1 race).
The only problem with Condorcet is that it is possible that none of candidates would beat each and every one of the others in 1v1 races. A situation like:
Adam would beat Betty by 60 million votes to 40 million votes in a 1v1 race,
Betty would beat Chuck by 58 million votes to 42 million votes in a 1v1 race,
and Chuck would beat Adam by 52 million votes to 48 million votes in a 1v1 race.
A sort of three way (or more) "tie" from that initial simple count. In that case you have to do math-type-stuff examining the numbers more closely to pin down the winner who most closely reflects the will of the voters. And unfortunately that final "tie breaker step" is not so simple to explain. Anyone comfortable with math or software can follow along with written "tie breaker" method to validate the election results, but typical Aunt Clueless is just going to say "Huh?" about the tie breaker method.
The math says Chuck has the weakest support so in the tie breaker Chuck gets eliminated first leaving Adam the winner. If it is a four of five or more way "tie" then solving the tie breaker will take extra steps.
Condorcet is not the simplest election method, but it is hands down the most accurate. Instant Runoff and other methods can run into oddball situations and oddball vote counts where they go haywire and clearly elect the wrong person.
An example comparing Condorcet to Instant Runoff. Imagine there's four candidates Adam Betty Chuck and Dave.
34 million people vote Adam as their first choice and Dave as second choice.
33 million people vote Betty as their first choice and Dave as second choice.
33 million people vote Chuck as their first choice and Dave as second choice.
No one votes Dave as their first choice.
In Instant Runoff Dave gets eliminated first (for having no first rank votes), and Adam wins.
Condorcet sees that Dave would beat each and every opponent by 2-to-1 in a head to head election. In particular Dave would beat Adam 66 million votes to 34 million. Dave is EVERYONE's second choice and has by far the broadest support. Dave is the centrist choice. Condorcet elects the most centrist candidate with the broadest support.
-
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm also not sure that "many people won't understand" is a valid reason to not use a better system. It's a matter of presentation. A well-designed ballot that clearly states what the voter is to do should be easily handled by most people. And if you go electronic (ignoring for the m
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Competent and interesting ideas like more taxation, more spending, and bombing an ally?
Taxation: yeah, I'm not crazy about it either, but since all candidates but Paul are likely to bring the practical tax burden higher overall, I'd rather someone who had some ideas of what to do with the money rather than just dump more and more into military contracts.
Spending: coming off of the taxation line, yeah. He has ideas like using money to make government transparent (online documentation, minutes of dept. m
Not so conventional. (Score:3, Insightful)
Even if you parse some particular meanings of (1) and (2) -- that he's likely to be considerably more thoughtful and effective than the current president, and he doesn't have a 16 years of culture war political baggage which Clinton has -- this doesn't seem like an apt summary to me.
Once you get past those admittedly great points in his favor, all you have left is an utterly conventional politician.
If nothing else, one reason peopl
Re:Not every candidate (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, Paul is the exception to his statement. With his policies, he's so likely to run the the country into the ground that no amount of military budget reduction can offset it (unless he completely eliminates the military altogether, allowing the people to revolt against the quagmire government he'll create).
And you're against this...why? A government should be "weak" enough that it cannot survive a determined effort from its citizens to change its form. I sincerely doubt that Paul's policies will "run the government into the ground", but even if they managed to I can't see myself getting very worked up about it. Government has been running people into the ground for so long, it might do for a teensy change...
Re:Not every candidate (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm afraid he could never carry Megachurch America.
I'm voting for him just because any funny looking little guy who's not rich and can get a hot piece of ass wife like Kucinich's got who actually seems to be in love with him must have some serious Mojo. I know this sounds funny, but that's exactly the kind of guy we need to deal with the Iranians and Chinese.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Not every candidate (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Not every candidate (Score:4, Insightful)
Welcome to the wonderful world of modern US politics. If you aren't in the pockets of the multiple corporate overlords then the corporate owned media will spin you into oblivion...if they mention you at all. I'm not sure what the solution is.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not a bug, it's a feature (Score:5, Funny)
? Ron Paul's on the list now (Score:2)
On the other hand, Kucinich isn't there.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Huh? That doesn't make sense; is there a word missing or something?
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
In other issues in recent months/years I've seen editorials and articles explaining the problems with DRM and the like.
Those don't sound pro-corporate to me.
Re: (Score:2)
Kucinich
Principled man with a cute wife, but he doesn't have a chance in hell of winning.
Gravel
Who?! (This is what's called a rhetorical question.)
allowed more Republicans on the list than Democrats
Boo-hoo! Every fringe candidate wasn't on the list! And there's more of one party! Sniffle, sniffle, sniffle. Shut up and do something about it. Something constructive.
I heard Alan Keyes (again, a principled man... not sure how hott his wifey is, tho) is running, again, but he's not on the list.
This seems a bit biased to me.
You seem like a wimp or a troll to me.
Re: (Score:2)
One of these things is not like the others (Score:5, Insightful)
o Digital/Tech
o Climate/Energy
o Environment
o Gun control
o Infrastructure
o Science/Education
o Space
WTF??
Re:One of these things is not like the others (Score:5, Funny)
o Auto
o Digital/Tech
o Climate/Energy
o Environment
o Cowboy Neal
o Infrastructure
o Science/Education
o Space
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The only thing "geeky" about guns is that they are a lot more mechanical than the two aforementioned issues. They're more biological (yuk!).
Re:One of these things is not like the others (Score:5, Insightful)
Freedom of Speech,
habeas corpus and
Civil rights
Also needed is Immigration all of these up together.
Re: (Score:2)
It does seem a lot more specific and is the only "social science" issue. Still, it is amusing to see candidates try to justify their stances while trying not to let science enter the equation as to what their stance is.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The inclusion of Gun Control in this matrix is as peculiar as the absence of trade and labor issues.
Re: (Score:2)
It's an inverse Schrödinger thing. Dead people make no observations, therefore handguns are anti-scientific.
Hm, the phrase "co-Schrödingerisation argument" is sparky. I have to start using it in my gibberish.
Re:One of these things is not like the others (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Popular Mechanics compiled these links to make it easier to compare leading presidential candidates on several issues of interest to our readers, primarily in areas of science and technology.
The article does not limit to science and technology. That is a simplification made in the summary and the /. post's title.
How about the latest advances in "firearms"? (Score:2)
- Current research into Railguns (safer alternative to current naval cannons, far greater range, no need for tons of explosive material)
- Boeing's current chemical laser research
Certainly geek stuff
Give a couple of years and the above *might* be available to your local street ganger...
ZombieEngineer
Re: (Score:2)
What are you talking about? The Supreme Court hasn't yet ruled on the Appeals Court decision that the DC handgun ban violated the 2A.
Personally, I don't much care. If we ever get to the point where the 'ammo box' is necessary to protect from anything but foreign invaders, we're co
Re: (Score:2)
Something that has continued to be true to this day.
Americans were so much better off with Reagan than they would have been under Thatcher.
And Bush vs Blair... phew... well...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I never said "Supreme Court" (Score:4, Informative)
Disappointment (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't know how willingness to spend confiscated funds on research became a qualification for office, but I am completely convinced that this point of view is part of the problem, not the solution.
-Peter
Where's the column (Score:5, Funny)
Make it easier (Score:2)
not easy to follow at all (Score:5, Insightful)
"Easy to follow matrix"? Not exactly. At first, I thought the matrix indicated endorsements, but it doesn't -- checkmarks simply indicate that they were able to find out where a candidate stands. If you actually want to know what that stance is, you sometimes have to click through many screens to get to it.
Great idea, mediocre execution. (And why is gun control on a list of science and technology issues, but not stem cell research?)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
or for that matter, what is their stance on whether or not we should ignore the constitution in regard to intelligent design being taught in schools? [probably been answered but hey what else on this list hasn't either?] seems like a rather important thing to know about a potential POTUS- whether or not they intend to inject religion into science education and all... It was rather
Re: (Score:2)
Because recent advances have eliminated the necessity of an ethically-controversial method of acquiring them?
Pretty widely-carried news recently. [wired.com]
I can't really picture the most conservative of conservatives being against it on this basis. So, maybe the people choosing the issues for the grid saw it as a nonissue at this point as well.
Re: (Score:2)
From your link: "This is early-stage research. We should not abandon other areas of stem cell research. It's by no means certain they'll differentiate in the same way as a normal embryonic stem cell."
Additionally, you said:
I can't really picture the most conservative of conservatives being against it on this basis.
Based on his past statements, it is likely that Ron Paul would still oppose it [ronpaul2008.com].
Re:not easy to follow at all (Score:4, Interesting)
Good point, though.
Re:not easy to follow at all (Score:5, Informative)
Has anyone actually come out against stem cell research?
Democrats all seem to favor stem cell research. But among Republicans it's mixed:
Source: The Pew Forum [pewforum.org] (except the Ron Paul parenthetical).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The list tells us plenty, because Ron Paul is the only one for which the distinction matters (and he does make the distinction for Ron Paul).
Re: (Score:2)
As far as I know, only the "King of Spammers" has said that he is opposed to Federal funding of stem cell research, and would vote against any bill that proposed any Federal regulation of it.
Other than that, AFAIK, all the other candidates are as ambiguous on that issue as all the other issues: just pandering for votes from both moderates and fanatics, answering no one in the process.
Re: (Score:2)
At least, that's what I look for in a candidate. To each their own, though.
Re: (Score:2)
What was silly about the post?
Admittedly I was not highlighting the distinction between a position on funding stem cell research versus a position on stem cell research per se. But among Republicans, only Paul treats those as separate issues. For others who are opposed, their position against funding embryonic stem cell research derives from a pro-life moral stance. Fred Thompson has referred to "unborn children" in discussing embryonic stem cell research, Tom Tancredo has called it "morally reprehensible,
Affirmatives only? (Score:3, Insightful)
So the chart is a mildly intersting way of presenting a limited amount of information on candidates stances, but not particularly useful for comparing them. A better approach (although still imperfect) would have been to attempt to determine sides of an issue and divide the candidates that way.
For example: Should federal government increase spending on internet infrastructure projects? *
Biden: No
Clinton: Yes
Edwards: No
Obama: Yes
Richardson: No
* (answers randomly assigned)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Even on something as controversial as gun control, I challenge you to find something supporting all-out gun control on any of the Dem's websites. (It may be there; I don't have time to check now, but I seriously doubt it.) Why? Because the Dems know that gun control
5 IT questions going to the 08 candidates - help! (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Not directed at the parent, I just felt noticed myself hestitating before clicking
DMCA rollback (Score:2)
Re:5 IT questions going to the 08 candidates - hel (Score:2)
Meaningless drivel (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Obama is quite specific (Score:4, Interesting)
Hillary said a bunch of stuff but it was the kind of stuff that a politician would say. I really liked that Obama was specific. That makes his proposals much more likely to happen.
A pie chart would have been just as usefull (Score:2, Insightful)
Or am I not geek enough to just scan over the chart and go: "Aha! Now it all makes sense." Typical dumbed down politics. Everything is so black and white at this point that a fucking check-mark is all you need to see in order to make up your own simplistic bl
Re: (Score:2)
The check marks simply mean that PM has a source link to provide with info on the candidates stance in that category. The check mark is the link. If there is no check mark it means PM doesn't have reliable source to point you to.
Granted it's certainly not "easy to follow" but after figuring it out and actually following the links I found it to be pretty informative.
Republican Categorizer (Score:2)
"Gun Control"? Which Republican picked those categories? What does gun control have to do with science policy? Does _Popular Mechanics_ have a firearms classifieds section or something?
Kucinich? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I was pleasantly surprised... (Score:3, Insightful)
How counter-intuitive is that? The tick implies approval (not to mention it implies that the candidate made the right choice).
Re: Guns? WTF? (Score:2)
Actually they don't want to steal your hat; they just want to make you wear it shiny-side down.
Re:Guns? WTF? (Score:5, Funny)
>In what universe does the topic of gun control belong on a list of issues important to geeks
It's just a matter of degree. Your regular gun nut wants his Colt Python, full auto M16, and a K-bar knife. Your geek gun nut feels better with a BFG-9000, plasma cannon, chainsaw, and a backup Death Star if at all possible. It's all about who you think is after you.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Geeks for Fred Thompson (Score:4, Insightful)
Auto
Wow, there's a well-thought-out plan!
Digital/Tech
Nothing to disagree with there!
Energy/Climate
Wow, that's a great idea! I wonder why no other candidates say stuff like that?
Science/Education
Joke elided for fear of sounding like a broken record.
You read this stuff and it reaffirmed your faith in this guy? I knew absolutely nothing about his platform or views before. Now, I know he doesn't have any actual ideas or plans. I checked his website just to make sure I wasn't missing anything profound, and there's really *nothing* there other than vague hand-waiving. Given his "platform", I don't see why he's even bothering to run.
Re:Geeks for Fred Thompson (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Like you said, there's not much there with which one can disagree. All of the things he listed are viewpoints that most people would agree with. Of course renewable energy and getting off of foreign oil is good. Until he lays out an exact plan for how to do so, which may or may not be c
Re: (Score:2)
Why would any Slashdotter support him?
Re:Geeks for Fred Thompson (Score:5, Insightful)
That's not true. He does have plans; you're just not reading into it cynically or deeply enough to see them:
"I intend to pay lip-service to environmentalism while doing as little as possible to actually improve things, because if I really cared I'd have more to say about the issue."
"I support filtering by ISPs and libraries. OMG, think of the children! Oh, and by "child pornography" I really mean 'music, movies, and subversive speech' too. Anonymity is bad, mmkay?"
"I support 'securing our energy' by subjugating the Iraqis, and I support 'increasing domestic supply' by drilling in protected wilderness areas."
"Just like the environment, I don't give a shit about this issue either."
By the way: I don't have anything against this Thompson fellow; in fact, I know nothing about him except these excerpts. Any candidate that says the same kinds of things should be suspected of having the same real positions.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
How true. Even Thomas Jefferson [trivia-library.com] turned into a cunt when he was sworn in.
That's all well and good... (Score:2)
despite NASA's charter... (Score:5, Insightful)
One of their major problems was obtaining components for avionics and for handling cryogenic liquids. These were made mainly by the companies who contracted to NASA for various parts of the (very lucrative) shuttle program.
One of their contacts told them that a NASA administrator had let them know that if they supplied any parts to a private rocket company they wouldn't be supplying any more for the shuttle.
The company thus had to make do without components that had been developed with tax money, and (on their shoestring budget) develop their own from scratch or convert stuff intended for other purposes - none of them space-rated.
They did some amazing stuff on that shoestring. But it was the failure of one of those re-purposed parts that ended up trashing their effort and running them out of money.
Now NASA was SUPPOSED to be ENCOURAGING the private development of space capability, as they had air flight. But the government space programs had put them in a position where doing so would undercut the funding for their own programs. So it was in their interest to keep the suppliers on a short leash and kill off any company trying to assemble and operate their own craft.
Pulling the plug on NASA as the government-run space transportation company (and boondoggle) would, IMHO, not just open up the field to private companies, but is a necessary step in getting to affordable private space travel in what remains of my lifetime.
Which is not necessarily to say kill it off completely. But putting it out of the transportation business and back to R&D, with private enterprise actually running the spacelines, seems to me to be a necessary minimum for turning space exploration from a government-funded boondoggle (ala Columbus) to an ongoing enterprise (ala private cargo and passenger ships crossing the Atlantic and Pacific ocean).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I kind of like Ron Paul, but he would make government so small that programs like NASA, SBIR, NSF, etc. would be eliminated.
I agree with some of Ron Paul's platform and disagree with other parts of it. I think he ignores the important benefits socialist programs have brought around the world as well as the correlation between some of these programs and quality of life (of he knows but opposes it on principal anyway). That said, it is a bit of a stretch to say he would make the government small, as if the president had the power to do that. Out system places a lot of power in many different hands and the office of the president
Re:Ron Paul and NASA (Score:5, Insightful)
I think it's safe to vote for him because there's no way he'd actually accomplish all that, but he would manage to prevent the Federal government from bloating further.
Ron Paul on /.? (Score:4, Interesting)
What I don't understand is