Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
Government Politics News

Best Super Tuesday Candidate for Technology? 549

Petey_Alchemist writes "With Super Tuesday coming up and the political field somewhat winnowed down, the process of picking the nominees for the next American President is well underway. At the same time, the Internet is bustling through a period of legal questions like Copyright infringement, net neutrality, wireless spectrum, content filtering, broadband deployment. All of these are just a few of the host of issues that the next President will be pressured to weigh in on during his or her tenure. Who do you think would be the best (or worst) candidate on Internet issues?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Best Super Tuesday Candidate for Technology?

Comments Filter:
  • A Good Reference (Score:5, Informative)

    by longacre ( 1090157 ) * on Saturday February 02, 2008 @02:19PM (#22274374) Homepage
    Popular Mechanics' Geek The Vote '08 [] has a nice rundown of each candidate's tech policies.
    • Pity one has to go through 50,000 page views to read it.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Stradivarius ( 7490 ) has candidate interviews [] on technology policies.
  • I hope to be wrong, but apparently it's impossible to run for president without the support of the same people and companies that are damaging the development of internet.

    If you need funding from companies that would shut down internet if they could, how can you possibly do anything that actually helps internet development?

    Any candidate that has received money (directly or indirectly) from a RIAA/MPAA affiliate or a telco (for example) is out of the question when it comes to internet matters.
    • Re:None of them (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Yvanhoe ( 564877 ) on Saturday February 02, 2008 @02:38PM (#22274560) Journal
      The talent of a political candidate is proportional to the strength of the reality-distortion field s/he can maintain during the whole campaign. An genuinely idealist with a clear line of action that never ever bends facts or his/her opinions is sure to never get elected.
      • Re:None of them (Score:5, Interesting)

        by cduffy ( 652 ) <> on Saturday February 02, 2008 @02:44PM (#22274618)

        An genuinely idealist with a clear line of action that never ever bends facts or his/her opinions is sure to never get elected.
        Yes, I agree that Ron Paul has no chance.

        However, there's a different between being unbending in one's ideals and being unbending in one's understanding of the world; the latter leads to an inability or unwillingness to understand or empathize with the motivations of one's opponents, and that leads to the political environment we have today. Much of what makes Obama appealing is his willingness to think things over from perspectives other than his own and strike considered compromises that still accomplish his intended goals while making people who disagreed feel like they weren't completely steamrolled. Hillary strikes me as the win-at-any-cost type -- but winning at any cost means making the other side lose, and that leads to still more division and partisan hatred.
        • Re:None of them (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Jane Q. Public ( 1010737 ) on Saturday February 02, 2008 @03:11PM (#22274858)
          If Paul has no chance, it will be precisely because of all the otherwise well-meaning people who keep saying "Paul has no chance".

          The "wasted vote" is a myth, or at best a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you do not vote for who you WANT to win, then someone you do not want will win. Period. It is as simple as that. Thinking about it any other way is nothing more than second-guessing, or mental jerking off.
          • Re:None of them (Score:4, Informative)

            by cduffy ( 652 ) <> on Saturday February 02, 2008 @03:28PM (#22275018)
            Support IRV [] and there really will be no such thing as a wasted vote. Right now, however, the spoiler effect [] is very very real.
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            The problem is you vote for who you want to win, with no ability to say who you don't.
            Random numbers and names pulled out of my ass as an example:
            30% of the people wanted Ron Paul to win and hated Romney
            30% of the people wanted Obama to win and hated Romney
            40% of the people wanted Romney to win.

            More people didnt want Romney to be president, yet under our system he would win.
            Arguably this is what got Bush in office.

            Now I'm not saying you shouldn't vote for Paul, just that it isn't as simple as voting for who
          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            If Paul has no chance, it will be because his positions are interesting at best, and laughable at worst. I like libertarian approaches to a lot of things, but there are some things that a government has to provide if it doesn't want the nation to slide into feudalism.
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by cathars1s ( 974609 )
            Paul has no chance because the majority of Americans disagree with him on major substantive issues like his foreign and monetary policies.
    • by cduffy ( 652 )

      Any candidate that has received money (directly or indirectly) from a RIAA/MPAA affiliate or a telco (for example) is out of the question when it comes to internet matters.

      If that's your concern, wouldn't the candidate getting his funding from a much larger number of small-money individual donations make more sense than the candidate getting most of her money from a smaller number of bigger donors? (Damn English, not having grammatically correct genderless singular pronouns).

      It's not like receiving any mone

  • Al Gore (Score:5, Funny)

    by ryanisflyboy ( 202507 ) * on Saturday February 02, 2008 @02:27PM (#22274454) Homepage Journal
    He did create the thing, you know.

    During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet.
  • by polin8 ( 170866 ) on Saturday February 02, 2008 @02:27PM (#22274456) Homepage
    I was impressed by Obama's technology issues page: []

    The summary points are:

            * Ensure an open Internet.
            * Create a transparent and connected democracy.
            * Encourage a modern communications infrastructure.
            * Employ technology to solve our nation's most pressing problems.
            * Improve America's competitiveness.

    The list is pretty much "policy speak" but the detailed initiatives indicate a good grasp of the issues and a reasonable stance on the direction we need to move.
    • by ccguy ( 1116865 ) *

      Check the candidate web sites
      Yeah, we can't be bothered to follow TFA link (let alone read TFA) when there is one and here you are asking us to do the research ourselves :-)
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      And he knows his complexity theory [].
    • by Lemmy Caution ( 8378 ) on Saturday February 02, 2008 @03:08PM (#22274846) Homepage
      Technology is part of culture, too. And I believe Obama is probably the best candidate from the perspective of overcoming a lot of the old blue-state/red-state cliches and antagonisms. It may sound hackneyed to say this, but I actually did feel stirrings of patriotic (in the sense of commitment to a community, not in terms of jingoism, nationalism, or "national branding") feeling after his South Carolina speech. So much of the divisive rhetoric we see in forums are really perpetuations of crude stereotypes and tired arguments which rely on them.

      If there is anything Obama connotes to me, above and beyond his policy positions (which I am generally OK with - though I'm also OK with a lot of HRC's positions, but can't stand her) its the return of a culture of listening, of not seeing conservatives or liberals as "the enemy", but as fellow citizens. It's an idealistic position, but maybe I'm a little tired of cynicism. "Cynicism is the only form in which base souls can approach honesty." - F. Nietzsche.

    • Let's check the candidates registrar, web hosting provider and server platform. This should be interesting. Maybe not meaningful, however. (Speaking of not meaningful...the lameness filter doesn't want lists of facts for comparison so I have to add length to the lines.)

      First, let's look at Obama (he's the magical negro, the man not from Hope but offering hope to America, the ethical campaigner compared to ruthless Clinton):

      Domain Name: BARAKOBAMA.COM
      Registrar: FABULOUS.COM PTY LTD.

      (Obviously going for the "Fabulous" vote there...)

      Web host: Saavis
      Server: Apache

      Saavis -- expensive. No game playing here. Says Apache, but doesn't say what the OS is. Smart move.

      Now, McCain (the Hero, the maverick republican who shares a platform more like Clinton than other Republicans, he's the anti-establishment establishmentarian):

      Domain Name: JOHNMCCAIN.COM
      Registrar: GODADDY.COM, INC.

      (Going for the "home vote" and, while it sucks ass, is indigenous to AZ)

      Server: Microsoft-IIS/6.0

      Never heard of them... Bold move, Mr. McCain -- using a web host no one's heard of.

      Now, Romney, the Northeastern governor (the Mormon who was, until recently, pro-choice; son of a one time popular Republican; good-looking but flip-flopping candidate):

      Domain Name: MITTROMNEY.COM
      Registrar: GODADDY.COM, INC.

      (He's Mormon so perhaps UT has not registrars so he's pandering to the regional vote by using AZ-based GoDaddy?)

      Web host, Ltd.
      Server: Apache/2.0.52 (Red Hat)

      Rackspace! Heavy advertiser on Slashdot, employer of more RHCEs than Red Hat, ... tech savvy move! And running on LAMP. Nice.

      Now, Clinton (the Senator who offers 8 more years of old-time change-- huh? A return to the future that was 1992-2000. Another opportunity for Bill to get some intern love in the Oval Office; a chance to catch Osama Bin Laden and correct a mistake from the last Clinton presidency):

      Registrar: NETWORK SOLUTIONS, LLC.

      The establishment candidate using the establishment registrar, I see. (Change is ... hard to find with HRC).

      Web host, Ltd. - sub-assignment of IPs to Paul Holcomb
      Server: Microsoft-IIS/6.0

      So, also Rackspace, but made to look like Paul Holcomb...kind like a lot of the positions HRC takes -- looks like this but really is that. no surprise. Oh, even though at Rackspace using a Microsoft solution. Always playing both sides doesn't she?

      And, of course, what about Ron Paul (he's the Libertarian that is really, really a Republican this time, Ok?; the pro-legalizing drugs, anti-war on terror candidate; the one who says things worth cheering and jeering in the same debate)?

      Domain Name: RONPAUL2008.COM
      Registrar: SCHLUND+PARTNER AG

      Awesome. Using a Germany/EU registrar. How...Godwin of him...

      Web host, Ltd., with IPs sub-assigned to Terra Eclipse Media Design
      Server: Apache/2.0.52 (Red Hat)

      Also at Rackspace! And, obfuscating the netblock owner like Hillary. Interesting...but boldly announcing Apache and Red Hat as the platform.

      Let's not forget Huckabee...(oh that we could, though, forget this Kevin Spacey look-a-like)

      Domain Name: MIKEHUCKABEE.COM
      Registrar: DOMAINPEOPLE, INC.

      Sounds populist. I wonder if DOMAINPEOPLE are evangelicals?

      Web host HostMySite
      Server: Microsoft-IIS/6.0 a $5/mo web host. Huh. And running on IIS. Wonder if its a s

  • by abburdlen ( 131870 ) on Saturday February 02, 2008 @02:29PM (#22274472)
    If Obama is good enough for xkcd [] then he's good enough for me.

    I imagine Huckabee is the worst on technology issues unless of course they were mentioned in the bible.
    • by urbanriot ( 924981 ) on Saturday February 02, 2008 @02:39PM (#22274568)
      I agree, Obama actually understands technology, patent issues and creative rights. I'm Canadian, so my vote doesn't matter however I've noticed other candidates seem to be less educated in these areas, or relying on basic knowledge; however Obama seems to have personal knowledge in these areas.
  • Ob. Quote: (Score:5, Funny)

    by earthbound kid ( 859282 ) on Saturday February 02, 2008 @02:32PM (#22274498) Homepage
    Don't blame me, I voted for Cowboy Neil.
  • Barack Obama (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Doug52392 ( 1094585 ) on Saturday February 02, 2008 @02:33PM (#22274514)
    Check out the Technology section of his website. He knows what's up with net neutrality and privacy laws, and vows to change it (although that's what everyone says, I think he could really help the tech world)

    Hillary Clinton, however, could possibly crash the global economy. She wants to crack down on violent video games, which, due to the pins and needles the economy is on right now, could devastate the economy if a major sector of the gaming industry would collapse. She even supports "media literacy" in the United States (aka censorship).

    In my opinion Obama could do a lot of good for America. He is not a conservative, so he would be more likely to reform and change stuff that is in dire need of it.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by tomhudson ( 43916 )

      Hillary Clinton, however, could possibly crash the global economy.

      Too late for Clinton to claim that - Bush has prior art with the housing bubble.

      Housing prices have fallen every month for the last 11 months []. Predictions for the next 3 years are more of the same - with the bottom anywhere from 25% to 50% from their peaks.

      That's a lot of people who will be upside-down on their mortgages, with a trillion dollars of bad debt still to work its way through the system.

      This isn't news - for more than a ye

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by russotto ( 537200 )

        This isn't news - for more than a year, its been predicted that more than 2 million people will lose their homes.
        Mostly people who took out variable-rate loans when interest rates were at historic lows and housing prices at historic highs. This definitely sucks for them, but shouldn't stupidity have consequences sometimes?
  • ronpaul (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Doc Ruby ( 173196 ) on Saturday February 02, 2008 @02:33PM (#22274516) Homepage Journal
    Ron Paul thinks anything the government does is socialism. He would never have let the government invest in the Internet the way that it did, and we wouldn't have one now (certainly not the equal-access Internet that's getting everyone online). He wouldn't do anything to stop telcos from blocking or slowing traffic that competes with theirs, or doublecharging servers and consumers (quadruplecharging, really) who already pay for bandwidth, but must pay extra for "on-time" bandwidth ("Network Neutrality").

    Ron Paul would let corporations do whatever they want with the Internet, which includes AT&T's plans to violate Net Neutrality and snoop on content (to police for "piracy"), avoid equal access for competition, and every other dirty trick they invent in what passes for their "innovation".

    The Internet is one of the most obvious places where the people need the government as our collective representative to protect ourselves from the powerful exploiters of the people. There aren't a lot of monarchs in a position to hurt the American people anymore, but we've got plenty of dictatorial, aggressive, imperial corporations. And Ron Paul's government would stay out of the business of protecting us from them.
    • Moderation 0
          30% Insightful
          30% Underrated
          20% Flamebait

      PaulBot trollMods don't want to talk about Ron Paul's abdication of our government power [] to protect us from corporations. They don't even want to admit it. They just want a stampede to corporate anarchy.
    • Re:ronpaul (Score:5, Insightful)

      by vertinox ( 846076 ) on Saturday February 02, 2008 @03:24PM (#22274990)
      Ron Paul would let corporations do whatever they want with the Internet, which includes AT&T's plans to violate Net Neutrality and snoop on content (to police for "piracy"), avoid equal access for competition, and every other dirty trick they invent in what passes for their "innovation".

      Umm... I though RP wanted to kick corporations out of the Federal Government. Hence, there would be no NSA ATT wiretaps or kickbacks to the telco/cable monopolies or FCC regulations as we know them now.

      I think people forget that empowering the Federal Government just means that it leads to corporations investing more control over it. Although I disagree on Paul on many social issues, I will agree that the current situation in DC is pretty much forgone. The problem is that the Federal government is being used to solve problems which ends up being lucrative to a subset of parties.

      I suppose what I'm trying to say is that you will never acheive a neutering of corporations without fixing the root core of the problem which is "corporate personhood" which Ron Paul is highly against.

      So yes, in theory Ron Paul would never support network neutrality legislation, but don't you think its very strange that many Google employees are highly supportive of him []?

      Simply arguing over who is going to pass bills that support technology or wedge issues is ignoring the 9 trillion dollar white elephant in the room along with the billion dollar war that appears to have no end in sight.

      Unfortunately, neither of the major parties seem to acknowledge that we are in for some hard times and that the current economic and political system has some major issues that might be insurmountable in the near future.

      I'm tired of people saying "I like 'X cannidate's' message! It inspires me!"

      Not to goodwin this, but Hitler inspired people too and we really need to be pragmatic about the next leader. If not Paul, then someone else who at best is nothing more than good technocrat and not an ideologist who's going to drag us down even further.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Doc Ruby ( 173196 )
        No, you're the one saying wiretapping is just the NSA wiretapping, and reducing all the Internet violations I mentioned to that one item Paul says he's against. Which, BTW, is exactly what Paul supporters typically do with their favorite Paul position, like ending the Iraq War, while ignoring his other positions that they should hate (like his opposing the church/state separation, or eliminating public education, or any of his other harebrained schemes).

        Paul would let AT&T "police the Internet for pirac
    • Absolute Nonsense (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Jane Q. Public ( 1010737 ) on Saturday February 02, 2008 @03:29PM (#22275030)
      You do not understand Libertarianism. You are confusing it with anarchy. They are very different things.

      Others here have confused Fascism with anarchy ("corporate anarchy"). They are very different things.

      Libertarians support the FREE MARKET. Free markets do not operate where monopoly or oligopoly exist. Libertarians do not support a corporate-run, completely unregulated economy! That is simply not a free market.

      Also, a truly free market accounts for real costs as part of its operation. Therefore, in a real free market, producers bear the cost of the societal problems they cause (pollution, etc.), rather than that burden being borne by the taxpayers. Is there anything wrong with that? And the reason things are not done that way NOW, is because of corporate interests being too involved in government and thereby subverting the free market process. Contrary to what many people are saying, Libertarianism addresses and strives to solve that issue. It is the current corporate-state that preserves and worsens it.

      I could go on for quite a while... but I strongly urge you to do some real research about a topic -- especially if it is a major political party -- before you go around spouting such nonsense as the above. I am not trying to say you are an idiot, but it sure makes you look like one.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Doc Ruby ( 173196 )
        Where's Ron Paul's Net Neutrality policy statement? His votes to intervene against market manipulation and monopoly during his long House career?

        I am not trying to say you are a liar, but blanket assertions about the Ron Paul your personal version of "libertarianism" imagine him to be sure make you look like one.

        BTW, if Paul were a "Libertarian", he wouldn't be a member of the Republican Party. Even when he ran as the LP nominee, he didn't leave the RP or join the LP, and that was 20 years ago. He's at best
  • by damiam ( 409504 ) on Saturday February 02, 2008 @02:35PM (#22274532) []

    An excerpt:

    First, and again, I know him, which means I know something of his character. "He is the real deal" has become my favorite new phrase. Everything about him, personally, is what you would dream a candidate should be. Integrity, brilliance, warmth, humor and most importantly, commitment. They all say they're all this. But for me, this part is easy, because about this one at least, I know.

    Second, I believe in the policies. Clearly on the big issues -- the war and corruption. Obama has made his career fighting both. But also on the issues closest to me. As the technology document released today reveals, to anyone who reads it closely, Obama has committed himself to important and importantly balanced positions.

    First the importantly balanced: You'll read he's a supporter of Net Neutrality. No surprise there. But read carefully what Net Neutrality for Obama is. There's no blanket ban on offering better service; the ban is on contracts that offer different terms to different providers for that better service. And there's no promise to police what's under the technical hood (beyond the commitment already articulated by Chairman Powell): This is a sensible and valuable Net Neutrality policy that shows a team keen to get it right -- which includes making it enforceable in an efficient way, even if not as radical as some possible friends would like.

    Second, on the important: As you'll read, Obama has committed himself to a technology policy for government that could radically change how government works. The small part of that is simple efficiency -- the appointment with broad power of a CTO for the government, making the insanely backwards technology systems of government actually work.

    But the big part of this is a commitment to making data about the government (as well as government data) publicly available in standard machine readable formats. The promise isn't just the naive promise that government websites will work better and reveal more. It is the really powerful promise to feed the data necessary for the Sunlights and the Maplights of the world to make government work better. Atomize (or RSS-ify) government data (votes, contributions, Members of Congress's calendars) and you enable the rest of us to make clear the economy of influence that is Washington.

    After the debacle that is the last 7 years, the duty is upon the Democrats to be something different. I've been wildly critical of their sameness (remember "Dems to the Net: Go to hell" which earned me lots of friends in the Democratic party). I would give my left arm to be able to celebrate their difference. This man, Mr. Obama, would be that difference. He has as much support as I can give.
  • Ron Paul (Score:2, Informative)

    by d3ik ( 798966 )
    - Only person running that voted against the Patriot Act(s)

    - Only person running that voted against Sarbanes-Oxley

    - Opposes the DMCA

    - Opposes the national ID card

    - Has never voted to raise taxes

    - Returns a portion of his congressional budget to the treasury every year

    - He is a Republican who opposes the Iraq War on moral and economic grounds

    There's a lot of FUD out there about Ron Paul, and there are a lot of fanatics on the internet who work against him sometimes, but if you look at his voti
    • And how does he feel about "big government" going after people who abuse their monopoly position?
      • by d3ik ( 798966 )
        He doesn't have a stated position on monopoly enforcement that I'm aware of. His default position is a "hands off" libertarian policy of letting the market handle most things.

        I'm divided on this, to tell you the truth. I think the market addresses most concerns, but this may be one of those exceptions where intervention is needed. On the other hand, most monopolies are government sponsored. Also, look at how the "big government" approach of the EU fining Microsoft daily. That doesn't seem to really s
        • Re:Ron Paul (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Lemmy Caution ( 8378 ) on Saturday February 02, 2008 @03:32PM (#22275052) Homepage
          Don't you think it's telling that the one sector of the economy on which you have the most knowledge and interest is, for you and many libertarians, the one place where you conceive of an "exception" to the presumption of the optimality of non-intervention?

          Perhaps if you had as abiding an interest in agriculture, manufacturing, and transportation, for example, you would see more "exceptions" to the idea that regulation is bad.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Brandybuck ( 704397 )
        Monopolies are nearly all caused by big government. Without the special privileges government gives them it would be extremely difficult to get into a monopoly position, and once there they would have to keep prices low and provide good service, lest new firms arose to compete for that pie.

        Big government encourages big business with regulatory and tax structures that encourage bigness. When it takes an army of accountants and lawyers to do business, only those firms large enough to afford an army of account
    • Re:Ron Paul (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Improv ( 2467 ) <> on Saturday February 02, 2008 @02:51PM (#22274694) Homepage Journal
      For every problem, there's a solution that's simple, neat, and wrong. That's Ron Paul, who would dismantle vital institutions of our society.
      • by d3ik ( 798966 )
        You name institutions that you feel are vital that you think Ron Paul would like to dismantle, and I'll explain his position on each and every one.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by mikethicke ( 191964 )
      - Wants to wall off the country and deport millions.

      - Wants to let states ban abortions.

      Ron Paul has some admirable positions, but his supporters should recognize that when it comes down to it he is effectively a social conservative and his policies if implemented completely would, if they didn't destroy the economy right off the bat, probably turn the country completely over to corporate rule.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by bcrowell ( 177657 )
        Yeah, I'm a libertarian, but Ron Paul makes me shudder. It was an interesting exercise to go through the US Libertarian Party platform [] and compare with all Ron Paul's positions that I think are way wrong. On every single one (abortion, free trade, anti-immigrant xenophobia), his positions are the opposite of the party's planks.
        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by d3ik ( 798966 )
          This is a reply to you and the grandparent.

          On the abortion issue, half the country wants a constitutional amendment that bans abortion and half the country wants a constitutional amendment that allows abortions. I would say this is a perfect example of a divisive issue that should be left up to the states. The grandparent said "He would allow states to ban abortion"... I would also add "He would enable states to *allow* abortion", even though he is personally opposed to it after being an obstetrician (s
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      He did vote against net neutrality though. []
    • by WaZiX ( 766733 )

      - Only person running that voted against Sarbanes-Oxley
      And that's a good thing? Want other Enron/Woldcoms?
  • I'm going to plug my little non-partisan politics page [] that features substantial interviews with each of the candidates. There is an interesting crop of people to choose from this time, moreso than in the past couple elections, it seems. Or maybe it's just because the stakes seem so much higher now?

    I'll refrain from my opinion.

  • Well, I admit it's tangental, but the fight to fully legitimize Internet poker is a tech issue, of a sort.

    To that end, the Poker Players Alliance has put together a guide to the presidential candidates' stances [] on the issue.

  • It seems terribly shortsighted, in a time where foreign policy is so critical and calls for changes in domestic arrangements (particularly health care) are powerful, to be voting on such narrow issues as technology positions. I won't say these things are unimportant (and would love as much as anyone else here to see someone who would have us withdraw from WIPO and end most IP protection), but by comparison there are far more important things to focus on.
  • by at.splat ( 775901 ) on Saturday February 02, 2008 @02:58PM (#22274768)

    I was on the fence last summer and fall as to whether Obama was "the real deal." That is, I was until I saw the Q&A portion [] of his November 2007 talk at the Google campus. This was my true turning point.

    It is a typical question and answer session with some pretty advanced questions lobbed by the Googlers and moderated by Eric Schmidt. It is, beyond any combative debate or stump speech, a truly (+5) insightful conversation about his views on technology.

    (As others have mentioned, Senator Obama's Technology [] page is also a helpful peek at what he stands for in case you don't have the patience for the ~20 min. video)

  • A while back i remeber seeing a survy of what webservers each canidate was running. You can find it here []

    but to summerise:

    Hillary Clinton - Windows Server 2003, Microsoft-IIS/6.0 by Paul Holcomb
    Barack Obama - FreeBSD, Apache by pair Networks

    Mike Huckabee - Windows Server 2003, Microsoft-IIS/6.0 by LNH Inc.
    John McCain - Windows Server 2003, Microsoft-IIS/6.0 by Smartech Corporation
    Ron Paul - Linux, Apache by Rackspace
    Mitt Romney - Linux, Apache by Rackspace

    Worth Mentioning:
    Al Gore (Democra
  • wrong question (Score:4, Insightful)

    by bcrowell ( 177657 ) on Saturday February 02, 2008 @03:37PM (#22275098) Homepage
    It's disturbing to me that anyone would even think of basing their vote in this presidential election on tech issues. My god, we're involved in a ruinous war, and when it comes to civil liberties we're sliding down the slippery slope into fascism.
    • Test What You Know (Score:3, Insightful)

      by weston ( 16146 )
      I don't think it's so far out. Tech issues underly quite a few other issues of economics and liberty, and those are certainly as important as foreign policy.

      But I think there's an even bigger reason why tech workers *definitely* should be looking at how candidates understand and address issues they understand. Because this is the arena where *you* may actually know enough, as a professional, to really gauge a candidates policy acumen. I doubt most slashdotters are experts in military tactics or nation build
  • by mrfibbi ( 695943 ) on Saturday February 02, 2008 @04:17PM (#22275386)
    Not only does Lawrence Lessig endorse Obama, he's actually advising him on copyright policy. This could bring about the single biggest policy shift in Washington on copyright, IP, and free culture that we've seen in years.
  • Strange Priorities (Score:3, Insightful)

    by bitspotter ( 455598 ) on Saturday February 02, 2008 @04:41PM (#22275604) Journal
    Asking about technology policy with all this other stuff going on is like asking:

    "But other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?"

Happiness is twin floppies.