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!

McCain Releases Technology Platform

Soulskill posted about 6 years ago | from the version-0.982-beta dept.

Privacy 479

I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "John McCain has finally released a technology platform. Most of it is the same old stuff; lower corporate taxes, protect children from porn, and avoid Internet regulation unless 'necessary.' Alas, in his view, helping the RIAA's War on Sharing is necessary to stop the 'global epidemic' of piracy, while Net Neutrality is something he 'does not believe in.' Ars Technica has a review of McCain's platform." A brief analysis is also available from Federal Computer Week. In addition to the technology policy, McCain has also released a paper describing his stance on security and privacy. We've previously contrasted his views with those of Barack Obama. Obama's technology policies are also available online.

cancel ×

479 comments

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

First Amputee! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24625553)

Frosty pisshole... I'm McCain's third leg.

Re:First Amputee! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24625677)

I don't get it. Who is the amputee and what has been amputated? Also, "third leg" is typically used as a euphemism for "huge dick". Are you saying John McCain has a huge dick? First Post isn't free; you have to be literate and make sense, otherwise people will just ignore you. Better luck next time.

Lame (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24625557)

f15tp0s7

RE: McCain Releases Technology Platform (5, Funny)

thomasdz (178114) | about 6 years ago | (#24625567)

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

Re: McCain Releases Technology Platform (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24625721)

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

I can't wait for the Barack Software Distribution. There's no way in hell McCain-ix can beat BSD.

Re: McCain Releases Technology Platform (4, Funny)

urcreepyneighbor (1171755) | about 6 years ago | (#24625895)

I'll stick with Obama-mama-ix thanks.

That's still vaporware. :)

Worthless ... (4, Informative)

ScrewMaster (602015) | about 6 years ago | (#24625575)

Sounds to me like McCain's "platform" is centered around trying save a sinking ship. That's too bad. He's lost my vote on that issue alone.

Sinking ship? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24625683)

Maybe you haven't noticed, but Obama is the one who has been losing ground to McCain. They're now virtually dead-even in the polls. And Obama is set to pick Kerry as his running mate, virtually guaranteeing a loss. And if Obama does win by some miracle, he'll stand by his stance of executing children who accidentally escape the abortionist's, knife. But hey, at least you'll have your free MP3s.

Re:Worthless ... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24625699)

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

Re:Worthless ... (5, Insightful)

iminplaya (723125) | about 6 years ago | (#24625753)

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

Re:Worthless ... (1)

Jorophose (1062218) | about 6 years ago | (#24626469)

No, he's not a big loser on every front.

A lot of his positions are reasonable and are the best paths. However this is the last straw, imho, because the rest of his stances could be adopted by Obama. Namely listening to the generals in Iraq before withdrawing so quick, to see how many to remove and when to start the withdrawl. Of course that's within the few-months-of-being-elected window, not years.

Mission will never be complete. "They"'ve already won with Europe cultural and the US's mind as their battlefield. As much as we hate to deny it this isn't even war, it was a fucking massacre in all the wrong ways.

Really? (4, Informative)

Nicolas MONNET (4727) | about 6 years ago | (#24625823)

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

Re:Really? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24626265)

If you were really such a nerd, maybe you would realize the the logical fallacy in your post. [wikipedia.org]

I just destroyed you.

Re:Worthless ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24626071)

Yeah, and any responsible leader would employ people who understand the technology they are about to regulate. McCain is another one of those who fall awe struck to bar codes..... He needs to be in a retirement home, not the Whitehouse.

Re:Worthless ... (3, Insightful)

ScentCone (795499) | about 6 years ago | (#24626401)

He needs to be in a retirement home, not the Whitehouse

Yes, we're much better off with a president who thinks we should have the UN Security Council issue Very Stern Words towards Russia over their actions in Georgia... you know, a president who doesn't understand that Russia has a veto-enabled seat there, and can simply shut such things down. It's that sort of clueless grasp on foreign relations and international issues that makes an inexperienced smoke-blower like Obama a non-starter. Compare their initial reactions to that turn of events. McCain spoke his mind immediately, and has not changed it. Obama started out with a "why can't we all just get along - they need to show restraint" comment, and complained that McCain was "shooting from the hip" and being too aggressive in criticizing Russia. A day later? Obama had "refined" his position to echo exactly what McCain (who actually understands what's going on and who the players are) had already articulated.

Doesn't matter, right? Change! All we need is Change! Doesn't matter from what, or to what, of course. Just CHANGE! Change we can "believe in!" What a bunch of vague, useless, pandering crap. When forced to actually talk detailed substance, Obama has to give in face real issues realistically, and it annoys his leftist supporters who like him most when he's a blank slate that they think will do what they tell him to. If he actually gets the job, they're in for a real shock, because even though he's going to fall on is face learning as he goes, by the time he actually gets around to doing the job of C-in-C, he's going to have to do a lot of back pedaling on his vaporous campaign semi-promises.

Being old enough to know how things work and what's actually at stake is bad as far as you're concerned? I'm sure you'd rather the office of president was available to college freshmen.

the technology they are about to regulate

Do you actually even understand what Congress does, and which party is running it? Maybe if you weren't so old, your mind would be clearer.

Re:Worthless ... (4, Insightful)

Dr.Dubious DDQ (11968) | about 6 years ago | (#24626333)

It's worth remembering that technology is a huge factor in the US economy, jobs, defence, (privacy/spying, civil rights, scientific progress...) etc. - so the topic is quite important.

Did he ever have your vote? (4, Insightful)

an.echte.trilingue (1063180) | about 6 years ago | (#24625727)

I knew this kind of position was coming as soon as he said he didn't know how to use a computer. He obviously doesn't understand the issues, so naturally he is just going to default to his party's (or contributor's) position.

If I were in his place and somebody asked me to formulate a position on farming, I would do the same thing. That's why it is important to look at what party a candidate belongs to and who is giving him money.

Re:Did he ever have your vote? (4, Funny)

NicknamesAreStupid (1040118) | about 6 years ago | (#24626427)

Not true, I heard that his first girlfriend was Ada Lovelace.

Re:Worthless ... (-1, Flamebait)

crmarvin42 (652893) | about 6 years ago | (#24625729)

You post on slashdot... That means you have a greater that 80% chance of thinking Obama isn't liberal enough, never mine McCain!

Besides, it's pretty safe to assume that if you are a single issue voter, neither candidate will make you happy.

Re:Worthless ... (1, Insightful)

dangitman (862676) | about 6 years ago | (#24626001)

You post on slashdot... That means you have a greater that 80% chance of thinking Obama isn't liberal enough, never mine McCain!

Uhhh, please explain. Slashdot is generally pretty right-libertarian leaning. Hardly 80% strongly liberal.

Re:Worthless ... (4, Insightful)

crmarvin42 (652893) | about 6 years ago | (#24626093)

Maybe I'm just reading different posts than you are but I can't recall the last time I saw a post supporting a conservative view point that didn't get flamed.

I'm a registered Republican, so maybe I'm just focusing on the posts I agree with that get tarred and feathered, and the ones I strongly disagree with that keep getting modded +5 insightful.

Re:Worthless ... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24626349)

I'll reply to this as an AC rather than moderating you then. The average political post seems to center around a few things...

1. Protection of the little guy - stop allowing big corporations to use the law/lobbying to create an unfair environment. See DRM, Patent trolls, subsidies given without stipulation and no-bid contracts. Most think it's ridiculous you can patent a seed to which you found in a government vault, which they obtained from the wild. You can.

Enforcing a free market is a conservative value.

2. Government staying out of our personal lives. This would fall under the small government category/give us personal freedoms. These are views in keeping with the constitution/bill of rights. I'd say that the constitution has a Libertarian feel to it. This isn't the viewpoint of the Republican party, so you have us there.

3. Most of us don't seem to be for most welfare in it's current state, view SS and medicade as a fiscal disaster in need of much revamping, etc. Conservative/Libertarian.

I think in general we're all for a competent government, whatever form that may be, so long as it will stay competent/for the people. As a Republican you do realize that in the past 20 years, your party has changed drastically. Government debt goes up the most during your terms, often setting new records. Not fiscally conservative.

In terms of the past 8 years, we're tired of the government being very competent at taking away the rights we're guaranteed to have in that "goddamned piece of paper". We're tired of how competent they are at lying, but incompetent they are at leading. They're experts at returning favors for those who gave them money or ran their political party, but they fail horribly of their ONLY responsibility, which is to uphold and defend that piece of paper. They spit on the hundreds of thousands who have died to defend this country and its ideals and the people who have given them the power in the first place.

Maybe that's why we appear liberal. We cannot stand the current adminstration, and if your quote is any indication, you are a traditional republican. I suggest you check out the Libertarian party's main points, http://www.lp.org/platform [lp.org] , as they are more in line with traditional Republican viewpoints. The one main area you might disagree on is the US's role in the world.

Re:Worthless ... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24625885)

KKK Republitards are trying to force us to swallow this Dinosaur... I think they still haven't understood that American democracy is a dead corpse. Have you ever walked through any American ghetto and saw the number of Automatic Rifles Black and Latino people are carrying on their hands? The only option to Obama is a bloody civil war. My Black and Latino friends told me that if Obama doesn't win they gonna start to ride White Trash trailer parks and White Rich neighborhoods, shooting at will with their Kalashnikovs. Thanks to you GOP-Tards our nation is broken from within and American Brother HATES American Brother...

Re:Worthless ... (1)

urcreepyneighbor (1171755) | about 6 years ago | (#24626003)

My Black and Latino friends told me that if Obama doesn't win they gonna start to ride White Trash trailer parks and White Rich neighborhoods, shooting at will with their Kalashnikovs.

1) The Democrats selected Senator Obama as their candidate, so you're completely off base attacking the Republican party.

2) You have friends that would engage in a race war? Man, that says a lot about you. The fact that you haven't brought this to the attention of the police shows you're a coward and an accomplice.

Now, go back to you bridge. :)

"protect children from porn, and avoid regulation" (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24625583)

Yay for contradictions?

Re:"protect children from porn, and avoid regulati (4, Insightful)

fedos (150319) | about 6 years ago | (#24625843)

How about, "I'll protect the American consumer, and I'm against net-neutrality[sic]"?

grr. (0, Troll)

apodyopsis (1048476) | about 6 years ago | (#24625587)

well.. I am not American and hence I cannot vote, but if I could my vote would be to go tell him to shove it up his ass.

and this is on the basis of only one point of his platform - helping the MPAA and RIAA.

Fortunately the legal system is increasingly thinking otherwise.

Re:grr. (5, Informative)

chuckymonkey (1059244) | about 6 years ago | (#24625691)

Sadly when it comes to things such as network neutrality, MAFIAA litigation, censorship of the internet, and understanding how the internet has the potential to be an unstoppable force of intellectual freedom most U.S. citizens are woefully ignorant. They care about gas prices, making sure that they are not responsible for raising their kids, ensuring that gay couples are not recognized as a legal union, and which religion the candidate subscribes to. They have forgotten that there is a reason the the freedom of speech was the very first amendment, I have met very few that ever read the Federalist Papers, hell half of the people that I talk to have never even read the constitution or have the most basic understanding of how our government works. The internet has the power to be the most perfect force for the first amendment which is essential to the rest of the Constitution and in all honesty I don't think the GOP really wants the average citizen to have that kind of power.

Re:grr. (2, Insightful)

iminplaya (723125) | about 6 years ago | (#24625769)

I don't think the GOP really wants the average citizen to have that kind of power.

And don't believe for a New York second that the democrats are any better. Both are authoritarians who think that ignorance is strength.

Re:grr. (1, Flamebait)

ScentCone (795499) | about 6 years ago | (#24626447)

And don't believe for a New York second that the democrats are any better

The difference is that Democrats will get more votes from young people who think that only chumps (and old people like McCain) should have to pay for movies, and who capable of compartmentalizing their "respect" for their favorite musicians separately from their willingness to happily rip them off.

The hypocrisy is stunning. They don't want to be told what they can and can't do online (including burning a huge portion of the available bandwidth while ripping off entertainment), but they want the ability to tell a business that builds and sustains a network how they should operate it.

John McCain on blogs (5, Interesting)

jamie (78724) | about 6 years ago | (#24625591)

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

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

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

Re:John McCain on blogs (5, Funny)

4D6963 (933028) | about 6 years ago | (#24625619)

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

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

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

Re:John McCain on blogs (1)

Boss Sauce (655550) | about 6 years ago | (#24626303)

I sort of saw it as sarcasm on his part-- the confidence of youth, etc. Whatever, you kids and your internet machines-- I want to know about his policies regarding developing new technology to deal with the impending whale oil crisis...

Re:John McCain on blogs (1)

Dr.Dubious DDQ (11968) | about 6 years ago | (#24626369)

"John McCain is a secret elitist!"

That is just not true!

"secret" is the opposite of "blatant".

Re:John McCain on blogs (4, Insightful)

howardd21 (1001567) | about 6 years ago | (#24625635)

I think you missed the point. While it is nice of you to enhance the blogopshere comment with a bold font, that was not his subject. He was obviously speaking about the tendency of youth to dominate the conversation about anything and everything as if they knew the best approach and all others had nothing to offer. In fact, what he is implying here is that it is important to listen, especially to experienced individuals, but listen. That does not reduce the value of a blog, it puts it in context of "where, or from whom,do good ideas come from"?

Re:John McCain on blogs (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24625695)

Mod parent up.

Re:John McCain on blogs (4, Insightful)

rockout (1039072) | about 6 years ago | (#24625703)

I'd agree with you, except that right after the blog line McCain said he "would have felt very much at home in the medium", obviously taking a cheap shot at bloggers as people who "dominate the conversation about anything and everything as if they knew the best approach and all others had nothing to offer."

The original poster very much got his point, methinks.

Re:John McCain on blogs (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24625745)

I'd agree with you, except that right after the blog line McCain said he "would have felt very much at home in the medium", obviously taking a cheap shot at bloggers as people who "dominate the conversation about anything and everything as if they knew the best approach and all others had nothing to offer."

The original poster very much got his point, methinks.

Riiight.

More like YOU have missed McCain's point - which was poking fun at the intolerance shown in online conversations.

Oh, say, like the intolerance Slashdot shows to those that stray from the pro-Obama groupthink that permeates these pages.

Re:John McCain on blogs (1)

FishWithAHammer (957772) | about 6 years ago | (#24625977)

I don't think you quite get the idea of a tongue-in-cheek remark.

Re:John McCain on blogs (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24625641)

Come on, now; don't be intellectually dishonest. He's not mocking individual expression; he's mocking what many people perceive to be the stereotypical self-important blogger attitude. I suppose it's fitting that your reaction seems to fit this stereotype. I am not voting for him, but I found that whole diatribe fucking hilarious. There are more than enough legitimate things to criticize McCain over; this excerpt from his speech is not one of them.

Re:John McCain on blogs (4, Insightful)

ericspinder (146776) | about 6 years ago | (#24625765)

he's mocking what many people perceive to be the stereotypical self-important blogger attitude.

I believed that to be especially true with many of my elders, people whose only accomplishment, as far as I could tell, was that they had been born before me,

What I believe he was implying is that children should be seen and not heard. Of course his definition of 'children' seems to extend to all bloggers, regardless of age. Of course the First Amendment gives freedom the press, but doesn't tell us the definition of "Press", but I really doubt if the Framers meant "Government sanctioned and licensed persons"

Re:John McCain on blogs (2, Insightful)

Dhalka226 (559740) | about 6 years ago | (#24625989)

He's implying--stating fairly clearly, in fact--that children think they know everything. I'm only 24, but in my experience, even looking back on my own actions, that tends to be true. I'd like to think I'm past it, but who knows if I'll think the same of myself a few more years down the road. Regardless of its truth, though, it's a societal meme in the same vein as "teenagers think they're invincible," so I wouldn't go so far as to ascribe anything to it specifically.

To be honest, I'm not even sure the comment about bloggers should be considered more than a joke. It's two sentences at the end of a fairly long paragraph; twenty words out of two hundred--out of 3500 if we're counting the entire text of the speech. I checked out the link to the whole speech and while I didn't read it all, that wording is at the end of a paragraph with the next paragraph about him not being so sure of himself as an older man. It would have helped to hear the delivery, I think, but at the moment everything points to it simply being a joke.

Re:John McCain on blogs (2, Insightful)

10101001 10101001 (732688) | about 6 years ago | (#24625671)

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

So, perhaps he had the right idea, that he himself didn't know everything. The problem is that he took that insight and, still assuming he knew everything, extrapolated that out to be an issue of age and wisdom. A wise man knows he is a fool. He does not force his foolishness on others. Instead, it is in his wisdom that he only answers the questions of those who seek him out. For even if he gives a foolish answer, he is merely provided what is asked of him. Such is the paradox of politics and having wise men as leaders in a democracy.

Re:John McCain on blogs (2, Funny)

kklein (900361) | about 6 years ago | (#24625697)

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

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

Re:John McCain on blogs (5, Interesting)

jamie (78724) | about 6 years ago | (#24625931)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re:John McCain on blogs (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24626091)

I've been a programmer for Slashdot for eight years now. I've spent much of that time writing code to quash abuse without censoring contributions, and support thoughtful comments while discouraging "omg roftl," because goddammit I believe there's something vital and important about what ordinary people have to say.

You mean, you wrote code giving unlimited mod points to editors and the ability to 'bitchslap' people they don't like.

It sounds so much nicer when you say it...

Re:John McCain on blogs (2, Interesting)

pudge (3605) | about 6 years ago | (#24626251)

What I find more important is that the target of his humor is the ceaseless argumentation on all matters, political and otherwise, that the citizenry engages in when permitted freedom of speech.

You are implying McCain believes people need to be "permitted" freedom of speech.

You are, of course, completely making that up. There is no truth to it. It's odd that you feel the need to lie about McCain; if he's so bad, why don't you just stick to truth?

The sad thing is that YOUR guy, Obama, has attacked "the blogosphere" at least as much as McCain, but you apparently ... don't care. He has blamed "blogs" and the Internet [nytimes.com] for "driving up" his negatives. How dare he attack this "democracy at its most raw!"

Come to think of it, you've done the same thing on MANY occasions.

The point, of course, is that it is one thing to attack certain expressions on the Internet, and another to condemn the Internet in general. You, Obama, and McCain have all criticized certain expressions, not the whole thing.

And politicians like McCain mock them, and mock the way we argue.

No, he only criticizes SOME of the way they argue, such as pretending to be superior and making stuff up. And good for him. And good for you and Obama for doing the exact same thing.

Fuck that shit.

Fuck your overtly partisan hypocrisy.

Re:John McCain on blogs (1)

Dhalka226 (559740) | about 6 years ago | (#24625889)

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

Really, the only shame here is that he singled out the blogosphere for any particular blame. Happens all over the Internet through many different mediums.

Re:John McCain on blogs (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24625941)

Wow, that also describes half the people on slashdot... Holier than Thou but not religious...

Re:John McCain on blogs (2, Insightful)

argStyopa (232550) | about 6 years ago | (#24625963)

Let me guess:
You are a young man
You are quite infatuated with self-expression, and rightly so because, you are so much more eloquent, well-informed, and wiser than anyone else
You understand the world and the purpose of life so much more profoundly than most people.
You believe that to be especially true with many of your elders, people whose only accomplishment, as far as you can tell, was that they had been born before you and consequently, had suffered some number of years deprived of your insights.
You have opinions on everything, and you are always right.
You love to argue, and you can become understandably belligerent with people who lacked the grace and intelligence to agree with you.
With your superior qualities so obvious, it is an intolerable hardship to have to suffer fools gladly. So you rarely do.
All their resistance to your brilliantly conceived and cogently argued views proves is that they possess an inferior intellect and a weaker character than God has blessed you with, and you feel it is your clear duty to so inform them.
You and your Floppy, Hoppy Bunnies feel very much at home in the blogosphere.

Gee you're right, he must be TOTALLY wrong. I'm convinced.

Re:John McCain on blogs (2, Insightful)

jamie (78724) | about 6 years ago | (#24626219)

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

McCain was mocking and denigrating unsanctioned argument as a whole.

Re:John McCain on blogs (3, Interesting)

bmajik (96670) | about 6 years ago | (#24625975)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re:John McCain on blogs (2, Informative)

pudge (3605) | about 6 years ago | (#24626301)

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

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

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

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

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

So let us not pretend (not that you were doing so) that Obama, a Democrat, who has already proven to be unprincipled on campaign financing (saying he would do one thing out of campaign finance principles, and then rejecting that principle and pretending what he was doing was following that principle), would not be in favor of McCain-Feingold too.

Re:John McCain on blogs (1)

fermion (181285) | about 6 years ago | (#24626065)

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

Of course 90% of what is said on blogs is crap, just like 100% of what McCain has said since winning the nomination is crap. But that does not mean that he does not have the right to say it.

Re:John McCain on blogs (1, Funny)

pudge (3605) | about 6 years ago | (#24626309)

100% of what McCain has said since winning the nomination is crap.

Then why has Obama adopted so many of McCain's positions, including on Iraq?

Re:John McCain on blogs (1)

pudge (3605) | about 6 years ago | (#24626189)

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

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

Kinda like, well, you!

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

Protect children from porn (3, Interesting)

4D6963 (933028) | about 6 years ago | (#24625593)

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

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

Re:Protect children from porn (5, Funny)

sakdoctor (1087155) | about 6 years ago | (#24625609)

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

Re:Protect children from porn (4, Funny)

4D6963 (933028) | about 6 years ago | (#24625629)

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

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

Re:Protect children from porn (4, Funny)

4D6963 (933028) | about 6 years ago | (#24625647)

Trust me, these days, you don't want to be the only kid on the playground who thinks that "golden showers" have anything to do with Scourge McDuck.

Crap, neither do you want to sound like you read a BDSM version of Scrooge McDuck comics.

Re:Protect children from porn (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24625681)

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

Now there's a cause we can all get behind, free porn for the less fortunate. There should be government funded programs to provide free access to porn sites for low income people. There should be a write off for porn and government subsidies for the porn industry like the oil companies. Who needs it more big oil companies that are earning record profits or small struggling porn producers that can only hire ugly chicks and overweight guys with hairy chests?

Re:Protect children from porn (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24625665)

Keeping your dick in your pants has always been the best way to avoid STDs. Sorry, but that's the way life is.

Re:Protect children from porn (2, Interesting)

4D6963 (933028) | about 6 years ago | (#24625717)

Keeping your dick in your pants has always been the best way to avoid STDs. Sorry, but that's the way life is.

Yeah, the tiny flaw in that plan is the "keeping your dick in your pants" part. It seems people find it more difficult than it sounds and when they do what they thought they wouldn't do they don't have a clue how to stay as safe as possible.

Re:Protect children from porn (1)

urcreepyneighbor (1171755) | about 6 years ago | (#24626123)

Yeah, the tiny flaw in that plan is the "keeping your dick in your pants" part.

Where does personal responsibility - specifically, facing the consequences of your actions - enter in your world?

Re:Protect children from porn (1)

4D6963 (933028) | about 6 years ago | (#24626461)

Where does personal responsibility - specifically, facing the consequences of your actions - enter in your world?

lol.. wtf

Re:Protect children from porn (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24625929)

Yeah we can all live the safest life if we don't take any risks, but in the real world we need to be thinking about risk/safety compromises.

Re:Protect children from porn (1)

owlnation (858981) | about 6 years ago | (#24625839)

I wonder how he'd go about doing that.

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

Oh, wait...

Re:Protect children from porn (1)

4D6963 (933028) | about 6 years ago | (#24626023)

This is your penis *shows tiny pickle*

This is your penis on porn *shows cucumber*

Re:Protect children from porn (2, Funny)

Albert Sandberg (315235) | about 6 years ago | (#24626015)

They work to the opposites.

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

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

jk.

Re:Protect children from porn (2, Informative)

urcreepyneighbor (1171755) | about 6 years ago | (#24626097)

go about protecting children from STDs, by preaching abstinence.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re:Protect children from porn (5, Insightful)

4D6963 (933028) | about 6 years ago | (#24626445)

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

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

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

Net neutrality won't work (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24625607)

Guess what comes first?

The government must define neutrality.

Guess how many millions of pages of regulations on the internet that will mean?

Net neutrality -> the only winners are the lawyers.

Because we all know government regulation makes things soooo much better.

Re:Net neutrality won't work (1)

something_wicked_thi (918168) | about 6 years ago | (#24625651)

Oh, do tell. What does government regulation do to make things so terribly bad? Please cite your sources. And do tell us how much better things are now that the cable and telephone companies are less regulated than they used to be.

McCain is using Abacus (1)

ilovesymbian (1341639) | about 6 years ago | (#24625639)

Actually, McCain is using the Abacus for his daily work. Someone just introduced him to a $5 Sharp calculator.

Re:McCain is using Abacus (1)

4D6963 (933028) | about 6 years ago | (#24625661)

Unlike Mike Huckabee who uses his supporter Chuck Norris to punch the numbers into the calculator.

Re:McCain is using Abacus (1)

iminplaya (723125) | about 6 years ago | (#24625807)

I challenge anybody with a calculator to come up with net assets at the end of the month faster than the guy who really knows an abacus. The calculator (and the spreadsheet) only makes it easier to come up with more useless information needing more boxes of fanfold(paperless society anyone?).

very disappointed (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24625645)

Reading this makes me feel like my party is outmoded. Any other candidates out there, Deep Blue? Enough with humans ruling over us, bring on the machines.

Just to clarify things (-1, Flamebait)

amRadioHed (463061) | about 6 years ago | (#24625663)

I know he takes a lot of flak because of it, but when John McCain said he invented the wheel, what he really meant was that he was responsible for obtaining the funding for development of the wheel. It's all just a little misunderstanding.

Re:Just to clarify things (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24626407)

You, sir, are a hero.

hypocrisy (5, Informative)

je ne sais quoi (987177) | about 6 years ago | (#24625673)

John McCain's stance on copyright infringement is hypocritical. The reason is that he is currently being sued by Jackson Browne for copyright infringement [chicagotribune.com] because he used the song "Running on Empty" without permission. This looks to be yet another Republican professing high fallooting morals but who by his deeds is shown to believe that morality is for the populace and doesn't apply to him.

Who takes platforms seriously in an election? (1)

BitterOldGUy (1330491) | about 6 years ago | (#24625751)

Of course there's going to be contradictions. Every candidate (maybe except Barr (L)) will say whatever he thinks his current audience wants to hear. So, if an audience of parents who've seen "To Catch A Predator" want to hear something about stopping all those pedophiles and child porn on the Internet and we need regulation, the candidate will say it. If he's in front of an audience of folks who want complete freedom, he'll say that to.

In regards to this issue, it's safe to say that once in office, McCain or Obama (I'm still voting for Barr) will do what the big corporate money wants and throw in a little something for the "regulate the pedophiles" crowd - to keep the hysterical parents and bible thumpers happy.

Re:Who takes platforms seriously in an election? (5, Informative)

rtb61 (674572) | about 6 years ago | (#24625859)

The most wildly blatant contradiction, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation and he doesn't know how to use a computer. Man, you guys can really pick them, now I know how you managed to have both shrubs running the CIA and why the CIA made such a hack job of collect evidence on all those so called terrorists in GITMO.

The really lamest part of course is 'Educate Its Workforce For The Innovation Age', all the lamest politicians the world over have been rabbiting on about exactly the same thing and then in the next breath, global marketplace and free trade, with the net result that all those job are outsourced to countries that pay one tenth the wage and you have a flood of people in the food services industry with tech degrees. Either that or cannon fodder for the military industrial complex.

Re:hypocrisy (3, Informative)

Dhalka226 (559740) | about 6 years ago | (#24625869)

Right from the article you linked:

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

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

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

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

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

No Agenda in the Summary (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24625675)

The Summary: "Net Neutrality is something he 'does not believe in.'"

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

The Summary: "helping the RIAA's War on Sharing is necessary to stop the 'global epidemic' of piracy"

The Website: "While the Internet has provided tremendous opportunity for the creators of copyrighted works, including music and movies, to distribute their works around the world at low cost, it has also given rise to a global epidemic of piracy. John McCain supports efforts to crack down on piracy, both on the Internet and off."

The Summary: "avoid Internet regulation unless 'necessary.'"

The Website: "Keep the Internet and entrepreneurs free of unnecessary regulation" and "John McCain understands that unnecessary government intrusion can harm the innovative genius of the Internet. Government should have to prove regulation is needed, rather than have entrepreneurs prove it is not."

Re:No Agenda in the Summary (1)

fractic (1178341) | about 6 years ago | (#24625849)

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

Wow that's a point I totally support. Now where can I find John McCain's plan to create such a marketplace?

Re:No Agenda in the Summary (1)

Eddi3 (1046882) | about 6 years ago | (#24626293)

I think I know his plan...

He's going to use the Internet.

Re:No Agenda in the Summary (1)

Wildclaw (15718) | about 6 years ago | (#24625853)

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

So he believes in last mile regulation, because that is the only way you are going to get a open marketplace. Having each competitor lay down their own last mile to each house is simply not efficent use of resources, so instead they wil split up which houses each competitor gets, resulting in local monopolies or duopolies. Somehow I don't think he has thought that far though.

"John McCain supports efforts to crack down on piracy, both on the Internet and off."

So he supports cracking down on a large part of the population (including a very huge part of the young) and he support the anti free market regulation known as copyright and patents, and probably in their current interpetation that have gone far overboard.

"Keep the Internet and entrepreneurs free of unnecessary regulation" and "John McCain understands that unnecessary government intrusion can harm the innovative genius of the Internet. Government should have to prove regulation is needed, rather than have entrepreneurs prove it is not."

Common sense. Don't create unnecssary laws. Of course, the real problem is the next step which is to determine what is nescessary and what isn't. That is where the different political sides differ in opinion, thinking that their view is the only correct one.

Sharing? (-1, Flamebait)

DaveV1.0 (203135) | about 6 years ago | (#24625719)

Violating other people's legal rights is not "sharing".
Grow the fuck up, asshole.

Re:Sharing? (2, Insightful)

tepples (727027) | about 6 years ago | (#24625783)

Violating other people's legal rights is not "sharing".

Granting legal rights of excessive scope and duration is not "good government" either, especially when sites such as opensecrets.org demonstrate the bribery that prompted things like the Bono Act and the DMCA.

Grow the fuck up, asshole.

Nor is comparing somebody to an anus "civil".

Re:Sharing? (1)

iminplaya (723125) | about 6 years ago | (#24625827)

"Legal" doesn't always mean right.

Apply your sig to yourself.

In whom do I trust (1)

moteyalpha (1228680) | about 6 years ago | (#24625755)

I am not sure why I would trust a politician to protect my children. I know myself, and I don't take government money and use it to buy sex. Why would I let such perverted old farts baby sit my daughters? And as far as technology, I trust them less with technology and my freedom than I do with my daughters.

He picked Carly Fiorina as an advisor (5, Insightful)

HangingChad (677530) | about 6 years ago | (#24625763)

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

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

I modded you up for your AWESOME SIG (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24625967)

Apartments are designed by people who live in houses. -- HangingChad [slashdot.org]

(posted AC but you can visit me here [slashdot.org] ).

It's coming... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24625841)

>"and avoid Internet regulation unless necessary".

Remember this one when you're filling in your Licenced Internet User forms this time next year.

That's all well and good... (1)

dangitman (862676) | about 6 years ago | (#24625957)

... but what's his position on tubes, and whether a truck will fit in them or not? There's serious issues here which demand real answers!

Ones got to hope for Obama! (1)

jopsen (885607) | about 6 years ago | (#24626045)

I'm not American, but I took at look at the two programs... And McCain is clearly the dumbest of those two (no offense, just plain sense)... :)
I got quite a laugh from reading his weapon policy... And the rest of the "isues" aren't that smart either... Just look at the top of the page, if anyone my country looked in the air next to a sign that said "Country First", I'd probably find myself violating Godwin's law :)
(And I'm not German).
Anyway, Obama isn't quite socialistic enough for me... But I guess he'd get my vote, if I was American...

Just look at the URLs :) (5, Interesting)

jopsen (885607) | about 6 years ago | (#24626105)

I took a look around the different campaign sites it's clear McCain is EVIL!
Links at McCain site:
johnmccain.com/Blog/Read.aspx?guid=3d8ee2ad-d7f2-4f3d-ad9f-ffe1b41ca178

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

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

Also at validator.w3.org:
McCain has: 124 Errors, 44 warning(s)
Obama has: 8 Errors
I'd say this proofs McCain is evil!

Encouraging scientific education (3, Insightful)

dlur (518696) | about 6 years ago | (#24626111)

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

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

More McCain insanities (1)

Eravnrekaree (467752) | about 6 years ago | (#24626175)

This is more reason to vote for Obama who has for sanity on these issues. McCains positions are designed to help corporations, and basically screw the people. He supports regulations on the internet wherever it benefits big corporations. Only an idiot would call net nuetrality "regulation", but in McCains twisted mind it is, and he opposes it because it would help the people and assure their free speech rights, but it does not help corporations. Net nuetrality would in fact prohibit regulation of the internet by corporations, but he only sees corporations as having rights, people dont have rights, and McCain is elected by and only respond to corporations, people mean nothing to him , the only concern he and other republicans have about the people is to trick and lie to the people enough to make them think republicans care about them, when all their care about is corporations and the super rich. So something which takes away peoples freedom and gives more power to corporations (quasi-government) is not regulation, in McCains twisted mind.

His idea of "protecting children" means "lets censor the internet for consenting adults and arrest consenting adults for accessing porn of consenting adults". It is just another trick by republicans to take away more freedoms and rights from people, infringe on their free speech, and broaden their powers to incarcerate people for non violent non-crimes which hurt no one (pornography).

My Scorecard (4, Interesting)

davide marney (231845) | about 6 years ago | (#24626197)

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

John McCain Supports Risk Capital For Investment In American Innovation

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

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

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

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

Grade: B. Good idea.

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

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

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

Grade: B. Good idea.

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

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

John McCain Opposes Higher Taxes On Wireless Services.

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

America Must Educate Its Workforce For The Innovation Age.

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

Fill Critical Shortages Of Skilled Workers To Remain Competitive.

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

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

Grade: C. Nice to know.

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

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

John McCain Will Protect The Creative Industries From Piracy.

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

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

Grade: C. Obviously needed; basic good management.

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

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

Provide Alternative Approaches To Resolving Patent Challenges.

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

John McCain Will Preserve Consumer Freedoms.

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

When Regulation Is Warranted, John McCain Acts.

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

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

Grade: F. The telco marketplace is anything but "open", which is why we're in 14th place on broadband adoption worldwide (for two years running, now).

The slap against "prescriptive" regulation is more code-speak from Big Content. There's nothing wrong with being prescriptive. Here's a famous example: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

John McCain Will Pursue High-Speed Internet Access For All Americans.

Grade: B. Several good ideas here. BUT, on the topic of rural broadband, we've already been paying taxes for this for over a decade now. By some estimates, the telcos have already received over $200B in credits and payments. We paid our money -- where's our network?

John McCain Would Place A Priority On Science And Technology Experience.

Grade: C. OK, fine. Everyone should hire people who know what they're doing.

John McCain Would Ensure That The Federal Government Led By Example.

Grade: B. Several good ideas here, from a national policy office, to a promise to really have a national first responder's network up within the first term.

John McCain Would Support The Federal Government As An Innovator.

Grade: B. Cooperative R&D with the private sector is a good idea provided that the public gets free access to the IP. If not, it would be just another corporate handout.

John McCain Would Make Sure that All Citizens Can Participate In The Technology Revolution.

Grade: C. OK, fine, we'll continue helping the disabled use technology. Glad to help.

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>