Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

How Tech-Savvy Will the Next President Be?

CmdrTaco posted more than 6 years ago | from the let-the-debate-begin dept.

Government 715

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

cancel ×

715 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Showing his age... (5, Funny)

smitty97 (995791) | more than 6 years ago | (#23669475)

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

Re:Showing his age... (5, Funny)

Rei (128717) | more than 6 years ago | (#23669791)

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

Re:Showing his age... (2, Funny)

profgood (1107841) | more than 6 years ago | (#23669905)

Nah . . . great knowledge of algorhytms from studying with Liebnitz.

lol mccain (5, Insightful)

Brian Gordon (987471) | more than 6 years ago | (#23669479)

McCain: Supports increased broadband access via competition rather than government regulation.
This literally made me laugh out loud. I don't even know what to say.

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

Re:lol mccain (5, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 6 years ago | (#23669523)

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


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

This isn't Insightful.. It's disgusting... (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23669811)

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


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

I'm waiting...

Re:This isn't Insightful.. It's disgusting... (1, Troll)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 6 years ago | (#23670059)

Alright, he's just a fucking Bush-like moron instead of corrupt. Either way, he's not acting in the interests of the American people, but rather trying to cover the Telcos' asses.

Take your pick; cheating bastard or mental retard.

Re:lol mccain (0, Troll)

wsanders (114993) | more than 6 years ago | (#23669943)

Banks records, meh. Simpleminded knee jerk cynicism is not necessary. A casual examination of his disappointing record as a toady for the Bush administration is all that is necessary. He used to think on his own, but now he has to get elected.

What about the 2nd? (4, Interesting)

bluelip (123578) | more than 6 years ago | (#23669501)

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

Re:What about the 2nd? (1)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 6 years ago | (#23669839)

Yeah, the hell with the rest, right? I wonder if you would have felt that way when the Black Panthers were trying to defend themselves against the abusive cops.

Re:What about the 2nd? (1, Troll)

DaveV1.0 (203135) | more than 6 years ago | (#23669999)

You mean when the Black Panthers were setting bombs and killing cops [slashdot.org] ?

Re:What about the 2nd? (4, Informative)

rsmoody (791160) | more than 6 years ago | (#23670151)

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


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

Re:What about the 2nd? (1)

nguy (1207026) | more than 6 years ago | (#23669901)

Not in my eyes. Should it ever get to the point in the US where the 2nd Amendment is needed for the purpose that its proponents purport it's there for, I frankly would rather shoot myself. I have no interest to live through a major US revolution and then live in a nation of gun-wielding rednecks.

Re:What about the 2nd? (1)

Notquitecajun (1073646) | more than 6 years ago | (#23670015)

Wow, thanks for the over-generalization. Why don't you take a look and see how many of those "rednecks" actually commit crimes with guns?

Re:What about the 2nd? (1)

Broken scope (973885) | more than 6 years ago | (#23670145)

Glad to know I am a "redneck".

what does that have to do with tech issues? (1)

Reality Master 201 (578873) | more than 6 years ago | (#23669909)

Don't get me wrong, I'm a strong supporter of second amendment rights, but that's not the topic here.

Re:What about the 2nd? (4, Insightful)

Actually, I do RTFA (1058596) | more than 6 years ago | (#23669941)

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

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

Re:What about the 2nd? (0, Flamebait)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 6 years ago | (#23670031)

my handgun is just an augmentation for AR15, AK-clones, FAL, etc.

The next revolution won't be in the model of the American Revolution. It will be in the model of Cuba and Ireland. It will be guerrilla and the pocket-pieces will definitely help.

The problem is that the American "left" are a bunch of violence-adverse hippies who are too pussy to be real revolutionaries, and most of the people who actually have the guns are too dumb to figure out how to run a guerrilla campaign -- starting with not declaring intentions that are impalletable to the majority of the population whom you will rely upon for support.

Re:What about the 2nd? (5, Funny)

Facetious (710885) | more than 6 years ago | (#23670039)

Your handguns aren't really going to allow you to compete with the US military
Hear, hear! Groups with small arms have never been a match for a modern mil... Oh, wait.

Re:What about the 2nd? (4, Insightful)

Notquitecajun (1073646) | more than 6 years ago | (#23670073)

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

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

Re:What about the 2nd? (1)

linuxpng (314861) | more than 6 years ago | (#23670089)

because people in iraq are giving our military a really hard time with handguns and various things that we could buy here. (and we can buy assault rifles too)

the problem is the handguns in private citizens hands do not increase violent crime. I think there are enough places on the web where you can find information to back up that claim I made. Try England's crime rate as an example.

i wouldn't say it's more important, but it's listed as one of them. Quit trying to pick and choose which ones you agree with.

Re:What about the 2nd? (1)

schnikies79 (788746) | more than 6 years ago | (#23670149)

They can't compete with the U.S. military?

Tell that to the Iraq insurgency.

Re:What about the 2nd? (1)

dave420 (699308) | more than 6 years ago | (#23670129)

Right. Whatever you say. I bet your second most important issue is the right to not see black people.

Does the President have to know about this stuff? (5, Insightful)

krog (25663) | more than 6 years ago | (#23669509)

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

Re:Does the President have to know about this stuf (5, Insightful)

Ambiguous Puzuma (1134017) | more than 6 years ago | (#23669613)

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

Re:Does the President have to know about this stuf (1, Insightful)

krog (25663) | more than 6 years ago | (#23669679)

But at that point it's more about reading people than knowing the subject material. Having a strong ethical foundation will also factor in.

Oh HELL NO! (4, Insightful)

khasim (1285) | more than 6 years ago | (#23669825)

But at that point it's more about reading people than knowing the subject material.
Oh no it's not. Spend any time in IT and you'll find people who can spin wonderful fantasies without any real knowledge what-so-ever.

But they'll appear perfectly sincere and trustworthy.

Having a strong ethical foundation will also factor in.
And they can fake that as easily as they can fake technical knowledge. It's even EASIER.

There is NO substitute for personal knowledge.

Re:Oh HELL NO! (1)

krog (25663) | more than 6 years ago | (#23669973)

I can see through most of those people. And I want a President who's better at reading people than I am. Personal and political skills are the foundation of a President, and can make up for most other shortcomings.

Re:Does the President have to know about this stuf (4, Insightful)

Rei (128717) | more than 6 years ago | (#23669975)

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

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

Re:Does the President have to know about this stuf (1)

krog (25663) | more than 6 years ago | (#23670071)

From our point of view -- as technical folk -- the decision would be about selecting "the one that lines up with your ideals on what the development should be like." As informed people on this subject, we can do that.

But I'd prefer the President make the selection based on real world factors over his technical tastes; in your example, he might consider that Linus Torvalds has mobilized and reigned as consensus leader over tens of thousands of hackers for over a decade, and that Bill Gates made his fortune by ramming his company's products down consumer's throats, and use information like that in his decision.

Re:Does the President have to know about this stuf (1)

Jekler (626699) | more than 6 years ago | (#23669939)

I completely disagree. Leadership requires specialization in its own areas of knowledge, most of which can be summed up under the label of metacognition. Surrounding oneself with well-informed advisors only requires you be able to reliably gauge other people's metacognitive ability. If you're not the best at x, you need to know someone who's the best at x, and if you don't, all you need to know is someone who can tell you who the best at x is. If you're wrong, the process has a very fast feedback loop because your critics will quickly illuminate you on how routinely poor your decisions and appointees are.

Of course that assumes you don't insulate yourself with sycophants which makes the entire process a moot point because an egotistical person who's only interested in hearing good things about himself really has no interest in being a good leader anyway, only in hearing that he's a good leader.

Re:Does the President have to know about this stuf (1)

xtracto (837672) | more than 6 years ago | (#23670139)

Nope, this is generally done with head-hunters and other suitable recruiters.

The problem with that is that, if you employ people who is good on whatever non-political issue, but is by itself non political, your government adversaries will screw him because the poor guy won't know how to "defend".

This is in part what happened to the people Vicente Fox put as secretaries when he entered (I know first hand account of the tourism and environment delegates cases).

Re:Does the President have to know about this stuf (3, Insightful)

MoodyLoner (76734) | more than 6 years ago | (#23669627)

Because that worked so well with the last guy.

Re:Does the President have to know about this stuf (4, Insightful)

revscat (35618) | more than 6 years ago | (#23669743)

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

Loyal idiots (1)

Per Abrahamsen (1397) | more than 6 years ago | (#23670085)

Well, some of the idiots only stayed loyal as long as Bush had none-lame power. So maybe they weren't loyal idiots after all, just amoral opportunists.

Re:Does the President have to know about this stuf (3, Funny)

krog (25663) | more than 6 years ago | (#23669865)

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

Re:Does the President have to know about this stuf (3, Insightful)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 6 years ago | (#23669637)

I'd much rather have a President who surrounds himself with well-informed advisors, than a President who weighs his own opinions on specialized topics more heavily than a specialist's opinion. Leadership is delegation.
I concur. While it is a priority to us (the technically savvy), we are a minority.

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

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

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

Re:Does the President have to know about this stuf (5, Insightful)

VeNoM0619 (1058216) | more than 6 years ago | (#23669703)

The president should represent the average person of the United States of America.
So you're saying just pick someone off the street with poor knowledge of everything, someone who does repetitive physical labor day in and day out?

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

Re:Does the President have to know about this stuf (1)

vux984 (928602) | more than 6 years ago | (#23669907)

A president should be someone "special", if he is to be elected, he should be the role model of the average person, not the average person himself.

Well... the US has elected some 43 of them so far. How many count as the 'role model of the average person'?

Re:Does the President have to know about this stuf (1)

rootofevil (188401) | more than 6 years ago | (#23670125)

less than half, give or take a handful.

true for everyone, although the set wont necessarily be the same.

Re:Does the President have to know about this stuf (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 6 years ago | (#23670141)

People are much more average than you seem to think.

Ummm, that's a comedy. (1)

khasim (1285) | more than 6 years ago | (#23669893)

I believe The Simpsons tackled this very subject in They Saved Lisa's Brain--an episode in which Mensa gains control of Springfield. Horrible legislation ensues.
Far be it from me to contradict the political astuteness of a cartoon comedy ... but you are aware that that is a cartoon comedy, aren't you?

Why would more intelligent politicians pass worse laws than less intelligent politicians?

I believe that more intelligent politicians would pass more intelligent laws (all other factors being equal).

Re:Does the President have to know about this stuf (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23669915)

Since when The Simpsons is an authority in politics?, don't try smart people in goverment because in They Saved Lisa's Brain the results were disastrous?.

Re:Does the President have to know about this stuf (1, Insightful)

MacDork (560499) | more than 6 years ago | (#23669949)

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

Anecdotal evidence is one thing, but basing your opinion on a cartoon portrayal of what "might" happen is extreme even for /.

Re:Does the President have to know about this stuf (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23670109)

The president should represent the average person of the United States of America. Someone who compiles Linux is not your average person.
Really? Why? Why should I expect the average person in America to be really and truly informed on certain major issues, when only about half [wikipedia.org] can be bothered to vote at all.

For many things, it is up to POTUS to represent the interests of the country as a whole. But for many others (like with the Civil Rights Movement) it should be the President leading the country to do what's right, even if it's not popular immediately.

Sadly, that's gotten us into some trouble [wikipedia.org] recently, but when we're led by an intelligent, ethical person, it works out well.

Re:Does the President have to know about this stuf (4, Insightful)

Dark Kenshin (764678) | more than 6 years ago | (#23669639)

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

Re:Does the President have to know about this stuf (2, Informative)

jandrese (485) | more than 6 years ago | (#23669665)

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

Re:Does the President have to know about this stuf (1)

physman_wiu (933339) | more than 6 years ago | (#23669699)

Leadership is delegation.
That is completely true. How often do you find someone who is tech savvy and totally great with people. Not that there aren't many, but those who really know what's best tend to be on the 'I'm going to complain about it, but not get out of my chair to organize a huge campaign to change things' boat. Me being one of them.

You tend to rely on information more from your friends then you do from the guy trying to push money your way.

Re:Does the President have to know about this stuf (1)

Woundweavr (37873) | more than 6 years ago | (#23670065)

I have people skills! I deal with the god damn voters so the experts don't have to!

Re:Does the President have to know about this stuf (1)

dintech (998802) | more than 6 years ago | (#23669779)

However it is, let's hope his specialists are of the "Blue Genie" variety instead of the "Grand Vizer" variety.

Re:Does the President have to know about this stuf (4, Insightful)

tji (74570) | more than 6 years ago | (#23669797)

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

We see how that turned out.

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

Re:Does the President have to know about this stuf (4, Insightful)

barzok (26681) | more than 6 years ago | (#23669883)

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

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

The answer is "yes". (1)

khasim (1285) | more than 6 years ago | (#23669983)

But are Bush's advisers really that good?
Since Bush did not have the expertise needed to evaluate REAL competence, he went with what he DID know. Loyalty. His advisers scored high on the loyalty test.

Someone else pointed out that Bush is all about loyalty, not necessarily the right person for the job.
Again, since Bush was not capable of evaluating their knowledge, he went with what he COULD evaluate.

An idiot cannot tell an expert from a charlatan. So the idiot chooses based upon criteria that he CAN evaluate. Whether those criteria have anything to do with the knowledge or not.

Bush picked cronies and yes-men above all else.

Yeah, see my statement above.

Re:Does the President have to know about this stuf (3, Insightful)

MacDork (560499) | more than 6 years ago | (#23669815)

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

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

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

Re:Does the President have to know about this stuf (4, Interesting)

Woundweavr (37873) | more than 6 years ago | (#23669967)

Well Obama is good friends with Lawrence Lessig.

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

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

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

Re:Does the President have to know about this stuf (2, Insightful)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 6 years ago | (#23669985)

These are not very difficult issues to understand.

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

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

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

Is outsourcing tech workers best for America.

The issues are really people and policy issue (stuff that a president should be able to make decisions on themselfs) It is not as much on the details like what routers they should use or how to setup something.
That is the problem with IT today in america IT People think they are so smart that the average joe has no understanding on what is going on. The average joe knows more then you think, and is able to make good decisions without a tech guy going to them Hey try this it is really 7337 or hey man don't be a n00b and go that way.

Re:Does the President have to know about this stuf (1)

Malevolyn (776946) | more than 6 years ago | (#23670005)

I'd say our next president (and any other government official for that matter) will be about as tech-savvy as the board of directors at any tech company. (Hint: not at all.)

Re:Does the President have to know about this stuf (1)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 6 years ago | (#23670021)

You mean like this [gizmodo.com] ?

Re:Does the President have to know about this stuf (3, Funny)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 6 years ago | (#23670053)

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

Ultimaitely... (3, Funny)

neokushan (932374) | more than 6 years ago | (#23669511)

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

Re:Ultimaitely... (3, Funny)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 6 years ago | (#23669553)

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


But can they locate it on a map?

Re:Ultimaitely... (1)

TheNucleon (865817) | more than 6 years ago | (#23669913)

Not to mention, "nuclear".

Re:Ultimaitely... (4, Funny)

bigstrat2003 (1058574) | more than 6 years ago | (#23669677)

I bet both can even SPELL Technology.
And I bet they can spell "ultimately", too!

How tech savy? (1, Insightful)

Facetious (710885) | more than 6 years ago | (#23669519)

Totally inadequate.

Re:How tech savy? (1)

JCSoRocks (1142053) | more than 6 years ago | (#23669823)

Seriously, I can't wait for DMCA part II to happen. It's not a matter of if, but when, we end up with another ridiculous law that takes away consumer rights. Clinton (obviously no longer in the running) said she didn't discuss net neutrality because she didn't even consider it a priority. How is effectively making it so that you can take a freeway to get to a big box store and a freaking gravel road with potholes to get to a mom & pop store not important? Does she not realize that small businesses continue to employ over half of our country [census.gov] ? My cousin runs a small music shop. She is able to compete with big companies like Guitar Center by making about half of her sales through her website... but if it takes 2 minutes to load her site - no one will go there.

The real problem is that not only are the candidates clueless about the technology but they're clueless about the cause and effect relationships.

Leave that to the future (2, Interesting)

HalAtWork (926717) | more than 6 years ago | (#23669527)

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

does it really matter (1, Insightful)

Brigadier (12956) | more than 6 years ago | (#23669529)



This is like the NRA saying I wander how familiar the new president will be with regards to the barrel modification on my new Desert Eagle.

That's why he has advisor's, who typically are leaders in their field. With all due respect in the light of the state of the economy, housing, petroleum, national security this stuff matters not. The new president will be so busy trying to clean up more important stuff that things like net neutrality will probably never come up as an issue until term two if that happens.

Re:does it really matter (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23669635)

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

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

We can only hope (1)

jrwr00 (1035020) | more than 6 years ago | (#23669569)

For the most part, the question should be, do they even care? if most of the mass has no idea what Net neutrality even is... thats the big question what is it good for the general public, if they can still access myspace / porn sites, some might even say, Think of the kids! Protect the USA lets filter everything!

On a purely I.P. issue let me say (1, Informative)

Maxo-Texas (864189) | more than 6 years ago | (#23669577)

thank goodness Hillary wasn't elected. she sounds totally in the pocket of hollywood.

Re:On a purely I.P. issue let me say (1)

oahazmatt (868057) | more than 6 years ago | (#23669881)

thank goodness Hillary wasn't elected. she sounds totally in the pocket of hollywood.
Don't worry, nobody has been elected yet. :)

Re:On a purely I.P. issue let me say (1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 6 years ago | (#23669919)

She's gonna be VP, so Hollywood will have their control.

Aug-2009.. in a bold move to protect the United states people, Pres Obama signs Hillarys bill to add the death penalty to downloading a movie.

"Americans can rejoice knowing that the evil downloaders will be killed for downloading their movies. This will encourage creativity just like my copyright extension to 10,000 years will!"

Oh yeah, I see dark days ahead.

Re:On a purely I.P. issue let me say (1)

Maxo-Texas (864189) | more than 6 years ago | (#23670143)

I do not think Hillary + Obama is electable vs McCain.

Hillary is best served by stepping aside, supporting Obama like hell, Moving solidly to the center in the Senate and mending fences with all the people who would vote for anyone against her.

She might have a chance to be president in 8 years but not today. She would take Obama down with her as a V.P.
OTH, she can really boost Obama if she chooses too (and convert some anti-Hillary people in the process).

I was impressed with her doggedness and fighting spirit. We need that kind of grit in a president. I just don't like how far left she is. I don't mind left wing policies per se, it's just that we can't afford them any more. The til is empty due to the republican overspending.

summary (5, Informative)

bornyesterday (888994) | more than 6 years ago | (#23669587)

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

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

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

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

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

Re:summary (2, Insightful)

porcupine8 (816071) | more than 6 years ago | (#23669813)

McCain is also in favor of redefining broadband.

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

Re:summary (0, Troll)

alta (1263) | more than 6 years ago | (#23669951)

Close, but the store reads more like this:

Net neutrality:
McCain - let the markets handle it
Lord Obama savior of the univers - legislate it, legislate it, legislate it, legislate it, legislate it, legislate it, legislate it, legislate it, legislate it, legislate it....

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

H1B visas:
McCain - increase the number of them
Obama, whom women swoon over - full immigration overhaul, produce more American-born tech workers, make workers less dependent on their employers, full immigration overhaul, produce more American-born tech workers, make workers less dependent on their employersfull immigration overhaul, produce more American-born tech workers, make workers less dependent on their employersfull immigration overhaul, produce more American-born tech workers, make workers less dependent on their employersfull immigration overhaul, produce more American-born tech workers, make workers less dependent on their emplo....

Intellectual Property Protection:
McCain - gov't handles blatant abuses, works against protectionism
Obama for a change, in ANY direction, so long as it's change! - increase cooperation on international standards, increase cooperation on international standards, increase cooperation on international standards, increase cooperation on international standards, increase cooperation on international standards, increase cooperation on ....
Privacy:
McCain - immunity for companies that cooperated with warrentless wiretapping
Obama, oh, my preacher said what for the last 20 years? I was sleeping. Oh, my wife said WHAT last month? You took it out of context. And btw, don't talk smack about my wife... But that jackass my opponent is married to is fair game - expand the FTC to cooperate with international agencies to track cyber-criminals, expand the FTC to cooperate with international agencies to track cyber-criminals, expand the FTC to cooperate with international agencies to track cyber-criminals, expand the FTC to cooperate with international agencies to track cyber-criminals, expand the FTC to cooperate with international agencies to track cyber-criminals, expand the ....

Nothing to see here folks (4, Insightful)

DriedClexler (814907) | more than 6 years ago | (#23669597)

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

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

Does that about sum it up?

Re:Nothing to see here folks (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 6 years ago | (#23669723)

I think that probably sums it up for just about every candidate on any issue for the last hundred years or so.

Re:Nothing to see here folks (5, Informative)

nickhart (1009937) | more than 6 years ago | (#23669859)

Does that about sum it up?

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

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

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

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

Put another way (3, Funny)

Ukab the Great (87152) | more than 6 years ago | (#23669601)

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

Dumb Question (2, Funny)

Shihar (153932) | more than 6 years ago | (#23669625)

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

Re:Dumb Question (1)

Irish_Samurai (224931) | more than 6 years ago | (#23669749)

What could possibly go wrong?
They start pouring liquid plumber into their routers, modems, and jacks to speed up their data transfer rates?

At least we'll have a President (4, Funny)

MoodyLoner (76734) | more than 6 years ago | (#23669659)

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

Broadband Access (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23669691)

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

Re:Broadband Access (5, Insightful)

pclminion (145572) | more than 6 years ago | (#23669747)

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

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

Re:Broadband Access (4, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 6 years ago | (#23669845)

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


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

Re:Broadband Access (2, Interesting)

pclminion (145572) | more than 6 years ago | (#23669903)

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

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

In other words, get others to pay for it? (5, Insightful)

Shivetya (243324) | more than 6 years ago | (#23669827)

After reading your issue all I have to say is

You people suck.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re:In other words, get others to pay for it? (4, Insightful)

DanOrc451 (1302609) | more than 6 years ago | (#23670083)

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

Tech savvy? Are you kidding me? (1)

Lilith's Heart-shape (1224784) | more than 6 years ago | (#23669741)

I'll be grateful if we get a president that knows how to work the seatbelt in Spaceball One's escape pods.

The difference (3, Funny)

iXiXi (659985) | more than 6 years ago | (#23669753)

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

Lessig (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23669773)

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

On the question of privacy (2, Interesting)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 6 years ago | (#23669789)

McCain has already laid bare his position. You don't get any. However, the subject of Obama's name will rule the day. Please help make civil liberties the issue it needs to be. It is a given that McCain is a big loser in that department and they will steadily lose out to his special interests he so vehemently denies. Obama's choices for VP and a cabinet will indicate how serious he is. There is only one choice if you care at all about your rights, even though the choice might not amount to anything. But it is clear that McCain is not interested in the subject. It will be to his detriment any time it ever comes up.

Biased? (0, Troll)

alta (1263) | more than 6 years ago | (#23669817)

Wow... this is a 5 page promo for the obama campaign. For those who don't want to read, let me summarize, each page reads the same.

Issue:
Clinton - has a liberal idea, lets write a short sentence about it.
McCain - Has a conservative idea, lets write another short sentence.
Obama - Obama is the darling of all media and can do no wrong even if he has belonged to an anti-american church for the last 20 years. Lets talk about his GREAT idea, how it's going to feed the hungry, house the homeless and generally promote world peace. Then we'll talk about how his idea is the best, why everyone else is ignoring the issue and oh yeah, CHANGE! Lets talk about CHANGE! It doesn't have to be change for the better, in fact, it'll probably be worse, but as long as WE'RE GETTING SOME CHANGE!!!

Oh, and continue that for about 12 paragraphs, and throw in some links to back it up. Don't forget, all big corps are evil.

Uborema (0, Troll)

heroine (1220) | more than 6 years ago | (#23669819)

Ubama's plan for NASA is boring. Back to low Earth orbit, basic science, divert the latest moon program to yet more entitlement programs. More of the same. Not very creative.

WAIT...! It ain't over yet... (1)

jxliv7 (512531) | more than 6 years ago | (#23669843)

Just because the media and political talking heads want to count delagates doesn't mean it's a done deal.

Never, never, NEVER, N*E*V*E*R count your delagates before they vote...!

Same principal (it ain't over 'til it's really over) applies to eggs, bug fixes, love, the Mars Rovers, and NASCAR races.

Real issue: Intellictual property reform (1)

GodWasAnAlien (206300) | more than 6 years ago | (#23669873)

The only real issue missed the important part of that question.
"Issue: Intellectual Property Protection"

asks "how can corporations protect their treasure?"

The missing issue:
"Issue: Intellectual Property Reform"

asks the opposite question.

"How can the public domain and fair use be protected against corporate efforts to limit and extinguish them?"

Really, how many centuries of protection does a corporation need?

at the very least .. (1)

rs232 (849320) | more than 6 years ago | (#23669969)

At the very least the President [wikipedia.org] should be able to read an Atlas, or as First Lady Bunny [wikipedia.org] refers to it as, that little picture book, so as he can find all those countries he needs to Nuke [tv.com] .. :)

No Mr. President... (1)

multi-flavor-geek (586005) | more than 6 years ago | (#23670027)

That BIG RED BUTTON is not the any key. Please, please, just hit the space bar or something.

Most of thoes thing (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 6 years ago | (#23670123)

are a congressional matter. Contact your congress persons.

Contrary to what are current president thinks, the president is not a king.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>