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!

Internet Co-inventor Vint Cerf Endorses Obama

CmdrTaco posted about 6 years ago | from the time-to-play-that-game dept.

Politics 713

SEAActionFund writes "Vint Cerf, Google's Chief Internet Evangelist who also happens to be credited with co-founding the Internet, submitted a video to our AVoteforScience YouTube challenge. In it he discusses the importance of net neutrality and endorses Barack Obama specifically because he supports net neutrality (John McCain does not.) The AVoteForScience challenge calls upon scientists to upload videos to YouTube explaining who they are voting for and why. The first two videos were by Cerf and the 2008 Nobel Prize winner in Chemistry Marty Chalfie. Any Slashdotters game for explaining who they are voting for and why?" Still waiting for one of the campaigns to ask for my endorsement, which is totally available to whichever campaign offers me the better cabinet seat.

cancel ×

713 comments

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

Pundit (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25382017)

...because no one is better qualified to make a decisiono on politics than someone whose expertise is in a completely unrelated field. I wonder who JaRule is indorsing.

Re:Pundit (3, Funny)

Bicx (1042846) | about 6 years ago | (#25382137)

It's like asking Al Gore how he would build the internet. Oh wait...

Re:Pundit (5, Insightful)

Sir.Cracked (140212) | about 6 years ago | (#25382159)

If you think ANY field is "unrelated" to politics, you arn't paying attention.

Re:Pundit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25382293)

If you think ANY field is "unrelated" to politics, you arn't paying attention.

Yes, everything can be related to politics. But Obama's political spectrum and priorities far outweigh any relation an internet engineer could bring to the table. Seriously, if the fact that this dude is endorsing Obama ends up swaying a voter, then I think it can only be qualified as laughable -- not newsworthy.

Re:Pundit (5, Insightful)

Remloc (1165839) | about 6 years ago | (#25382385)

[...]Obama's political spectrum and priorities far outweigh any relation an internet engineer could bring to the table. Seriously, if the fact that this dude is endorsing Obama ends up swaying a voter, then I think it can only be qualified as laughable -- not newsworthy.

The great unwashed masses hardly vote rationally. Witness the "P.U.M.A"s who were for Clinton but now plan to vote McCain (a diametric opposite) simply because Clinton losing hurt their feelings.

Re:Pundit (3, Insightful)

Genjurosan (601032) | about 6 years ago | (#25382273)

Following this logic would disqualify nearly every person in the United States. This is why we have the electoral college IMO.

Re:Pundit (2, Insightful)

Colin Smith (2679) | about 6 years ago | (#25382601)

This is why we have the electoral college IMO.

And look at the fine job it has done for you.

 

Re:Pundit (4, Insightful)

darkvizier (703808) | about 6 years ago | (#25382333)

JaRule is likely endorsing whoever promises to legalize marijuana. Vint Cerf is likely endorsing the person that best represents his values. Since he is (presumably) a leader in technology and slashdot is a place for geeks, his opinion may well be relevant for the readers of this site.

Stick around for logical fallacies 101.

Re:Pundit (4, Insightful)

imstanny (722685) | about 6 years ago | (#25382437)

JaRule is likely endorsing whoever promises to legalize marijuana. Vint Cerf is likely endorsing the person that best represents his values. Since he is (presumably) a leader in technology and slashdot is a place for geeks, his opinion may well be relevant for the readers of this site.Stick around for logical fallacies 101.

The problem is that this engineer's should be extolled for endorsing Obama based on the qualified reasoning and logic behind his endorsement, even if those reasons are strictly based on the internet and technology. Instead, he's being extolled for endorsing Obama based on the fact that he invented the internet. It makes for a catchy headline, but it's not logical at all.

Re:Pundit (1)

Phil06 (877749) | about 6 years ago | (#25382493)

Yeah! Like what has he done lately?

Re:Pundit (1, Funny)

iminplaya (723125) | about 6 years ago | (#25382579)

JaRule is likely endorsing whoever promises to legalize marijuana.

Then I'm endorsing JaRule.

ya because (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25382379)

appointing someone who ran an Equestrian center to run FEMA was a smart decision..

You don't have to be an expert in every field to know whether someone is competent or not. You just need to surround yourself with smart people who well verse in their own fields... rather political ass suckers..

a vote 4 maccain... (-1, Troll)

airdrummer (547536) | about 6 years ago | (#25382019)

is a vote 4 the american taliban:-( don't b a palin-drone;-)

Re:a vote 4 maccain... (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25382149)

Because Obama has a middle name that is middle eastern he is a terrorist? When Bush Sr. gives Bin Laden power because he gives him weapons and money to fight the Russians in Afghanistan or when Rumsfeld is seen shaking hands with Saddam because they are good friends that's OK. Obama was once on a school board with a guy who was a terrorist and he's paling around with terrorists. What should we say about the McBush group then?

http://www.nsm88nj.com/images/saddam_rumsfeld.jpg [nsm88nj.com]

I hear Obama uses Windows and McCain uses Linux and a Mac AT THE SAME TIME!!!

McCain = Endless War. (0, Troll)

FatSean (18753) | about 6 years ago | (#25382315)

The upside of Endless War is that the more gullible of our rural tax-consuming citizens will offer their lives to a government that doesn't care about them.

The downside is the cost, death and destruction.

But given the 'salt of the earth' I've been hearing at McCain/Palin rallies...which is the lesser of the two weevils?

Yay (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25382045)

First Comment

Not like it matters much ... (5, Insightful)

CrackerJackz (152930) | about 6 years ago | (#25382067)

A staggering number of people in this country dont believe results that these scientists / engineers come up with, I don't think the (Quoting Palin) *ahem* 'Joe Six Packs' of this nation care.

This election is going to come down to what it always does, who has: 'who's the candidate I can see having a beer with'

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=17316144 [npr.org]

Re:Not like it matters much ... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25382479)

A staggering number of people in this country dont believe results that these scientists / engineers come up with...

So things like cars, telephones, and computers are just a figment of their imagination?

Re:Not like it matters much ... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25382561)

This election is going to come down to what it always does, who has: 'who's the candidate I can see having a beer with'

Not this time. This time it's more like 'who's the candidate I can see saving my job so I can still afford beer'

Re:Not like it matters much ... (5, Funny)

SoundGuyNoise (864550) | about 6 years ago | (#25382623)

John McCain is probably a mean drunk.

def (5, Interesting)

jDeepbeep (913892) | about 6 years ago | (#25382073)

I was under the impression that neither candidate has *defined* what they mean by NN. If either has defined it well and I've missed it, let me know. Until then, meh.

Marty Chalfie vote also for Obama (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25382077)

Subject says it all. Looks like smart people are going for Obama, shocking.

Re:Marty Chalfie vote also for Obama (0, Flamebait)

tha_mink (518151) | about 6 years ago | (#25382487)

Looks like smart people are going for Obama, shocking.

Well he is, after all, the chosen one.

Re:Marty Chalfie vote also for Obama (3, Interesting)

bbhack (98541) | about 6 years ago | (#25382535)

Subject says it all. Looks like smart people are going for Obama, shocking.

This time, it's not about being "for" anything. It's completely sufficient to be "against".

Any Slashdotters game for explaining .... (-1, Offtopic)

thrillseeker (518224) | about 6 years ago | (#25382079)

you must be new here ...

Obama (4, Interesting)

PunkOfLinux (870955) | about 6 years ago | (#25382083)

"Still waiting for one of the campaigns to ask for my endorsement, which is totally available to whichever campaign offers me the better cabinet seat." My, you sure do like the spoils system, huh?

Anyway, I'm voting for Obama - he doesn't believe in charging women to get rape exams; he is pro-choice; he is for net neutrality; he didn't pick his running mate based on tits and ovaries (And I don't mean McCain picked Palin because she has nice ones. I mean he picked her because she just HAS tits and ovaries); he doesn't support abstinence only education; his economic plan makes more sense to me.

Also, all these people who are like "OMG his name is Barack Hussein Obama, he's a terrorist!" really should go read about a) the muslim religion b) why he has that name.

Re:Obama (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25382115)

Yeah, I really like his plan to spread the wealth around because it's fair. I also like the plan where he prints money and gives it to me after I don't pay any taxes in the form of a tax rebate. That's so nice of him. He doesn't have to bribe me at all to vote for him.

Re:Obama (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25382171)

PUKE!!!! Have you ever been with a woman?

Re:Obama (0)

PunkOfLinux (870955) | about 6 years ago | (#25382213)

Yeah, more than most of slashdot combined.

Re:Obama (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25382309)

He means without paying.

Re:Obama (-1, Flamebait)

Blimey85 (609949) | about 6 years ago | (#25382221)

Not wanting to start anything but I'm just curious who should be paying for the rape exams if not the people who are actually using them? Sure in an ideal world the rapist would be billed but while I can't recall the exact stats, I do remember that most rapes go unreported and of the ones that do, obviously not all are successfully prosecuted. Therefore someone else needs to foot the bill. Why should that be the general taxpayer? I'm not out raping people and I don't feel that I should have to foot any portion of the bill, through my tax dollars. Then again, I don't think the victim should have to pay either, for obvious reasons.

Maybe we could get the company currently making them to donate the tech and setup a program so prisons could begin making them. And they could make other stuff to sell in order to raise money for the materials for the rape kits. Thereby allowing victims access to the kits at no charge. I fully support putting prisoners to work to better society in whatever ways possible.

Re:Obama (2, Insightful)

PunkOfLinux (870955) | about 6 years ago | (#25382365)

The problem with charging women up to 1200 dollars for a rape exam is that it discourages legitimate claims.

I actually like your idea of how to fix this, but it'll never work. There's too much money involved for common sense to be useful.

Also, wrt your comment "I'm not out raping people and I don't feel that I should have to foot any portion of the bill, through my tax dollars." People who don't have kids in school still pay that part of the tax. The whole reason we have taxes beyond what is necessary to run a skeletal government is to provide for the public good - education, criminal justice, things like that.

I just had another thought of how to get the money back. Let's say 1 out of 10 rapists is caught. That's 12000 dollars that someone has to pay - make the one rapist pay it. Basically, charge them to make up for however much is being spent without result. And, in cases of women crying 'wolf' (claiming rape when it didn't happen) charge the women who make false claims.

Re:Obama (5, Insightful)

samkass (174571) | about 6 years ago | (#25382369)

Not wanting to start anything but I'm just curious who should be paying for the rape exams if not the people who are actually using them?

Okay, so... The state is using them, so the state should pay for them. It is criminal evidence, not a medical procedure. We don't make murder victim's estates pay for gathering murder evidence, either. It's in the general good to prosecute criminals, and it's been accepted that evidence gathering is the responsibility of the police and paid for by the state. Why rape should be any different is beyond me.

Re:Obama (4, Interesting)

Hyppy (74366) | about 6 years ago | (#25382465)

Uhm... You pay for every other part of a police investigation. Why punish a woman who has been raped?

Re:Obama (5, Insightful)

Big Nothing (229456) | about 6 years ago | (#25382519)

"who should be paying for the rape exams if not the people who are actually using them? [...] Why should that be the general taxpayer?"

I got 5 mod points, but I can't help but replying instead of using the points.

The mere fact that people that like you exist in the same world as me scares the living shit out of me. Whatever happened to having even the slightest touch of basic human compassion? Is the financial bottom line really THAT important to you, that you cannot fathom spending a few bucks on a fellow human being? Why should the tax payers pay for rape exams you ask? Because it's the fucking decent fucking thing to do, that's why!

GAWD! If I ever wished there was a way to stab someone in the face over the internet, now is the time. I hope you die from something painful.

Re:Obama (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25382615)

Not wanting to start anything but I'm just curious who should be paying for the rape exams if not the people who are actually using them?

We usually consider that the criminal justice system and the process of prosecuting criminals acts in the public good, with the aim of protecting the public from criminality. Prosecuting a rapist doesn't offer any direct benefit to the victim - she can't be un-raped - but it offers a benefit to the other members of the public who now won't be raped by the incarcerated criminal, or would have been raped by someone who got scared off by the thought that he might get caught and punished.

Re:Obama (0)

LWATCDR (28044) | about 6 years ago | (#25382311)

I don't think I am voting for McCain because I don't like his energy policy.
He doesn't support Nuclear fuel recycling which the UK, France, and Japan have done for years.
His support for Nuclear power is at best luke warm.
And his policy on nuclear waste management is none existent. Since they both support solar and wind which is good. They both seem to support ethanol which I think is highly questionable. Obama does really seem to be pushing for "flex" fuel cars which I think is really not useful. I say McCain's energy policy is better.
So what?
Why should I care what YOU THINK and why should anyone care what I think. As to your tits comments ever think those are just as nasty and useless as anything that has been said about Obama?

If you must post anything about politics and I would be happy if NO ONE EVER DID AGAIN. Then why not just post FACTS and POLICY STATEMENTS and not insults?
Or better yet. Go read all you can and vote and don't talk about it at all!

Re:Obama (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | about 6 years ago | (#25382319)

Sorry I blew it. I meant that I don't think I am going to vote for Obama because of his energy policy. I got so ticked at this stupidity I hit post too soon.

Re:Obama (3, Insightful)

InvisblePinkUnicorn (1126837) | about 6 years ago | (#25382389)

Moreover, he's the only candidate willing to make the tough decisions. If you make a mistake, ever, in your life, don't worry. He will rescue you. Get a loan you can't afford? No problem! Make bad decisions that lead to failure? Glad to help! Want a free lunch? Here you go! Short-sighted? Your vision's fine - it's the long-sighted that need glasses!

The only people that have to worry are those greedy bastards who only care about profit, efficiency, and getting good, reliable workers for their money. You don't need an expert to build a bridge - the labor force is the one that does all the work, after all.

[/sarcasm]

I would no sooner vote for McCain, either. They both would sooner hang your rights in effigy than make a promise that reality says can be kept.

Re:Obama (0, Flamebait)

methuselah (31331) | about 6 years ago | (#25382583)

Wow op was considered insightful. Should we get to obama's only real qualifications? Lets see he is great at running for office. Not that he has ever spent any time there. He is eligible for preference under affirmative action. That pretty much sums him up. Oh and he's clean and articulate too...

Re:Obama (4, Insightful)

kellyb9 (954229) | about 6 years ago | (#25382625)

Voting for a candidate because they are either prolife or prochoice is the dumbest decision ever. In 8 years, none of that is going to change regardless of who's president. Social issues are meant to distract the American public from the things that are really important. They are used as rallying cries, but in the end, little will change with any one of them. Believe me, they will still be issues meant to rally the Republican and Democrat base in 8 years. You as an Obama supporter and a likely democrat should know this simply because you may have lost the election 4 years ago because of the prolife vote. Everytime a candidate appeals to his base, I lose a little bit of respect for them. I'd rather them speak their mind about issues that they can do something about.... but they rarely do.

My mother (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25382091)

Co-inventor of me, concurs. So what?

Barr (5, Insightful)

Jaysyn (203771) | about 6 years ago | (#25382093)

I'm voting for Barr because neither one of the Republicrat candidates represent my views.

It is my belief that representing you views is the only reason you should vote for any candidate, but the voting population has been gamed for so long they are like Pavlov's dog.

Re:Barr (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25382165)

I wish I could vote for Bob Barr, but I live in Oklahoma where we have some of the tough ballot access laws.

Re:Barr (5, Insightful)

PunkOfLinux (870955) | about 6 years ago | (#25382183)

I think a lot of people here on slashdot would like to vot for a third party. It's just that if we act sincerely, we end up more fucked than if we act strategically. Nader got, what, half a million votes? If those votes had gone to Gore and then Kerry, we wouldn't have had 8 years of Bushy shitness. Sure, those people might have liked Nader better, but instead of their candidate, or even the next best candidate in their view, we get ... dubya.

Re:Barr (4, Insightful)

Abreu (173023) | about 6 years ago | (#25382325)

Sure, those people might have liked Nader better, but instead of their candidate, or even the next best candidate in their view, we get ... dubya.

True.

I don't vote on the american elections, however their results affect the entire world.

So I would also like to remind slashdoters that the entire world is hoping that we don't end up with an american president who believes that the earth is 6000 years old and who believes that living a few hundred miles away from siberia gives you foreign policy experience.

(Because seriously, McCain is not going to last more than two years... Not with the pressures of being president!)

Re:Barr (1)

Jaysyn (203771) | about 6 years ago | (#25382517)

No doubt. If somehow he is elected, McCain will be the William Henry Harrison of our time.

Re:Barr (1)

Jaysyn (203771) | about 6 years ago | (#25382433)

I understand that. That's the "being gamed" part I was speaking of.

Re:Barr (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25382533)

Nader got, what, half a million votes? If those votes had gone to Gore and then Kerry, we wouldn't have had 8 years of Bushy shitness.

What makes you think they would have went to Gore or Kerry? That's just a Democratic excuse for having shitty candidates. Gore really doesn't want to be President and never has. My proof? He's following his passions and really starting to shine.

I don't like McCain nor Obama. I'm voting third party. If it weren't for Barr, I wouldn't be voting.

Growing up.. (4, Insightful)

bigattichouse (527527) | about 6 years ago | (#25382097)

Growing up, my parents had the same answer to the two following questions: 1. How much money do you make? 2. Who are you voting for? The answer? None of your damn business.

Re:Growing up.. (2, Interesting)

TheSpoom (715771) | about 6 years ago | (#25382283)

Good for them. If they don't want to share, that's their prerogative. If Vint Cerf or anyone else does want to share, that's their prerogative as well. Or don't you believe in free speech?

Re:Growing up.. (1)

bigattichouse (527527) | about 6 years ago | (#25382349)

I absolutely agree with free speech, I just don't find it mandatory that I must always tell you what I'm thinking.

Re:Growing up.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25382303)

that leads to bad things. especially the money part.

hum? (1)

Fackamato (913248) | about 6 years ago | (#25382101)

Could someone explain in simple terms what net neutrality is? I mean, if you don't have net neutrality, is it the same as censorship? Or does it mean that no one should be able to control the internet in the way of shutting down/messing with vital parts?

Re:hum? (2, Informative)

bbhack (98541) | about 6 years ago | (#25382231)

Non-neutral net:

It's basically treating someone else's (especially VoIP) packets like red-headed step-children, and giving your (especially VoIP) packets express treatment. That way, your "real-time" services rock, and the competition's suck wind.

Re:hum? (4, Informative)

CrackerJackz (152930) | about 6 years ago | (#25382281)

It boils down to: can content carries make cost changes to providers or content.

For example (totally made up):

Comcast and AT&T really like Disney, Disney made a large 'Donation' to AT&T: In a net-newtral world, there is not a lot anyone can do, or notice, however *without* it: Comcast / AT&T can give priority to Disney / NBC content over say, NickJr.com.

It also allows them to charge Google big$ because 'oh my god, they use all our bandwidth answering search requests' The fallacy there (and what the lawmakers seems to be missing) is that Google *already pays* for a connection from their data centers to the Tubes...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality [wikipedia.org]
for all the gory details :)

Single issue votes are incorrect. (4, Insightful)

AuralityKev (1356747) | about 6 years ago | (#25382109)

I think a vote for or against someone because of a single view, be it abortion stance, environmental stance, or net neutrality stance is not exactly the best way to go about things. If you boil things down to one really narrow issue and vote solely on that you run the risk of voting in 9 evils for the 1 "good" idea you're passionate about.

Re:Single issue votes are incorrect. (1)

alfoolio (1385603) | about 6 years ago | (#25382627)

My choice to vote on a single issue should clearly tell you that I don't care about those other 9 'evils'. ;)

Does this actually work? (2, Funny)

Blimey85 (609949) | about 6 years ago | (#25382125)

Are there people who cast their vote based on crap like this? One one hand it's cool to know why someone is supporting someone, so this is somewhat different than the usual "I support Joe" stuff we see plastered all over. I'm tired of all the signs everywhere showing me who the sign owner is supporting. You drive down the street and see signs for every candidate and it does absolutely nothing to further any particular candidate. It serves only as an eyesore. This is why I don't plaster my car with bumper stickers supporting anyone or anything. I live several sports teams but I don't need to announce that to the world on my bumper. In this race I once again can't stand either candidate (the last candidate I really supported in a presidential race was Reagan) and just wish we could get this over so the bloody signs will get taken down.

Re:Does this actually work? (1)

Lally Singh (3427) | about 6 years ago | (#25382363)

No, it takes a fairly intelligent person's views and makes them public. The idea is this: everyone figures out what they want the government to do/be. Then they find the closest mapping, out of 2 options. If your views are similar to this exemplar (e.g. Cerf), then his reasoning should be useful to you. If not, then not.

...credited with co-founding... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25382131)

From someone who co-founded the Internet with Al Gore, who else would you expect him to endorse?

It's Exposure to One Side that Causes Me to Vote (5, Interesting)

eldavojohn (898314) | about 6 years ago | (#25382151)

I live in Virginia in the Washington D.C. metro area. I've been exposed to avid fans from both sides and have decided I won't be voting for McCain. Why? Read the fifth paragraph down in this article [time.com] to get an idea of what one sometimes has to deal with. And all I need to do is peruse factcheck.org [factcheck.org] to see who's lying about what.

Call me stupid & naive for desiring a non-manipulative president but I've been nonplussed with the McCain campaign (and Fox News for that matter). Both candidates twisted each others words but I haven't been exposed to many negative ads against McCain. I wish I didn't have to vote for either of them, we'll still be at war four years from now regardless of who wins--it's probably just a matter of how many countries we'll be at war with.

Re:It's Exposure to One Side that Causes Me to Vot (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | about 6 years ago | (#25382469)

In the UK, in 1992, the Conservatives ran an election campaign with the slogan 'New Labour, New Danger' with Tony Blair portrayed as the devil. This was widely credited with losing them the election. I can only hope that the 'Obama is a terrorist' campaign will have the same effect in the USA.

Re:It's Exposure to One Side that Causes Me to Vot (0)

Notquitecajun (1073646) | about 6 years ago | (#25382621)

Except there really isn't an "Obama is a terrorist" campaign outside of some idiotic right-of-center types. McCain hasn't been harping on how he isn't from around here, he's been poorly harping on Obama's economics mostly. Frankly, after the encounter with the plumber the other day, McCain has some PERFECT fodder for getting small businesspeople on his side.

way to play it safe (1)

scientus (1357317) | about 6 years ago | (#25382181)

hes only doing this because Obama is allreay going to win.

According to this site (not a bs-site) it is currently as 96% change for Obama

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/ [fivethirtyeight.com]

Well that does it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25382189)

Well that does it, I will give up my benighted plans to vote for Bob Barr. I will embrace the pure hope and change that is Obama. I can already feel the tingling in my body as the pure love of Obama flows into it. I can also feel the cold, hard, floor as I bow in worship to His Hopefulness.

Florida voter: (5, Funny)

philspear (1142299) | about 6 years ago | (#25382191)

I really liked the last 8 years of Bush rule, so I'm going to vote for Nader again.

Gore, the other co-inventor... (-1, Troll)

duh_lime (583156) | about 6 years ago | (#25382199)

is another idiot whose "endorsement" matters ZERO. Why does non-news crap like this get posted to /. ? If /. wanted to discuss *real* issues, we'd have a story on the rampant voter fraud, and what the /. community could do to prevent it. Surely, there must be *some* techno ideas out there? Or, are we so totally bankrupt of ideas and fairness that we settle for bogus non-stories like this - and pretend that voter fraud doesn't exist. Give me a break. (Or, do you accept voter fraud so long as it's tilted towards *your* candidate?)

Re:Gore, the other co-inventor... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25382495)

Why does non-news crap like this get posted to /. ?

Maybe Digg was down?

he didn't invent the internet (0, Redundant)

namoom (926916) | about 6 years ago | (#25382215)

Al Gore did

Watch me get modded troll. (3, Insightful)

JeepFanatic (993244) | about 6 years ago | (#25382235)

No joke but I'm planning to write in Ron Paul. I don't like either of the major party candidates.

I like Obama's stance on Net Neutrality and the War. But I am pro-gun and anti-taxes and the Democrats historically as a party don't agree with my positions.

On the other hand, I've never cared for McCain (even in 2000). I don't like the statement he made during the primary campaign about leaving troops in Iraq for 100 years. He would be more likely to support my gun and tax positions but I think it would pretty much end there. He's not a true fiscal conservative nor does he seem to be a defender of individual liberties and I believe we'd get another 4 years of intrusive huge government.

I've been considering voting for Bob Barr but I think the Ron Paul write-in sends a better message.

Re:Watch me get modded troll. (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25382329)

Write in votes are only counted as "write-in" and not as a write in for a specific person. The only exception to this is if someone files the paperwork to have their write in's counted, or they could make a difference. So a write in vote for Ron Paul isn't really different than a write in for Elmer Fudd. You will probably send a stronger message by voting for Bob Barr.

Re:Watch me get modded troll. (1)

JeepFanatic (993244) | about 6 years ago | (#25382443)

Thanks for the info. I didn't know that write-in votes weren't counted individually. The Bob Barr vote sounds more appealing now.

Re:Watch me get modded troll. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25382507)

I found out about this after a write in vote in the last election. I kept checking for my vote, and it didn't appear in the official results. So I did a little research. This was in California, so it could be different in your district, but I doubt it.

Re:Watch me get modded troll. (4, Informative)

JeepFanatic (993244) | about 6 years ago | (#25382577)

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/3513.041

Actually looked up the code in Ohio here and right in the 1st paragraph it says:

Write-in votes shall not be counted for any candidate who has not filed a declaration of intent to be a write-in candidate pursuant to this section.

This being true ... I don't understand why you got modded down to zero.

Re:Watch me get modded troll. (1)

kellyb9 (954229) | about 6 years ago | (#25382351)

wow, you'll probably get modded up, but it makes a hell of a lot of sense. I remember waiting for years for the privledge to vote. Now that I can, there's nobody worth voting for... period.

Re:Watch me get modded troll. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25382429)

Ditto! I'll be writing in Ron Paul in Indiana.

Re:Watch me get modded troll. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25382525)

Ron Paul seconded. Except I will actually vote for McCain since 3rd parties don't stand a chance in our current 2 party system.

Obama tries to come off like a smooth player, but it seems incredibly fake to me. Especially from a guy with basically 0 experience leading. I also don't trust people that never show their angry emotions, they are the ones that statistically have irrational outbursts that often have severe repercussions.

Obama's style of speaking (imho) is heavily modeled after one of histories best and most achieved black speakers, MLK Jr. Hearing Obama speak makes my skin crawl. The more I hear Obama speak the more I think he is positioning himself to become an anti-Christ.

I will vote for someone who understands the NEED for violence and war. I will vote for someone who understands that psychopathic religious fanatics cannot be reasoned with. I will vote for someone who has been a TRUE leader for over a decade.

Got a brain? Vote for McCain!
Ditch the ZERO, vote for the HERO!

Re:Watch me get modded troll. (2, Informative)

Jaysyn (203771) | about 6 years ago | (#25382603)

A message to who? I'm don't think I'm incorrect in thinking that Dr. Paul would rather you vote for Barr than write him in.

You know what would really send a message? For the LP to get federal funds for the next election cycle.

I'm just saying.

Re:Watch me get modded troll. (1)

JeepFanatic (993244) | about 6 years ago | (#25382617)

Really good point about the Libertarians. I forgot that you get matching funds if you have a certain percentage of the vote.

Re:Watch me get modded troll. (1)

magamiako1 (1026318) | about 6 years ago | (#25382629)

Oh I know this will become flame bait...

Why are you "anti-taxes". Taxes do a lot of good things. Regardless of the cherry picked issues that people like to pull out on where taxes go, there are still a lot of good things that taxes do for you, your surroundings, and the environment.

For example, National and State parks are funded by taxes. They are protected lands and pay for your ability to get out of the house. Sure, not all of the funding to these areas are tax-related, but taxes help keep the costs of enjoying them down.

Instead of paying $20 to get into the park, you pay $5. In some cases, there are areas you can go to and not even pay.

They are used to pay for police and firefighters. Taxes are used to pay for roads, for city cleanup crews, and everything along those lines.

You take all of these services for granted because they've "been there" since you've known. But take away even a city's trash cans or paying the extra police force to patrol certain areas, and within months you would find a completely different story.

Private development is not always the way to go. For example, if roads were privately owned you would find that you would be charged to drive on them and often times at a higher rate than publicly owned roads. You would also encounter a lot more tolls. On top of that, the pricing would vary and the amount of bills you would pay would have to go up.

Inevitably, you may also end up paying for roads you don't use if the company that owns the road also owns other tolls. For example, a toll company from Australia has purchased roads in the US. They did this on Australian money. Inevitably, a similar thing would happen here with a private company. If there was a road that needed maintaining, but the local toll wasn't enough money to actually clean the road and make it safe, they would funnel money from people in other regions. Rather than lowering your rate, because "you can pay more", they will charge you more.

And finally, at the end of the day--your money would ultimately go into the hands of a greedy shmuck. They would get to charge whatever they wanted until you get to the breaking point, raising costs as a result of average incomes going up, and almost never dropping them unless people started using alternative routes. But here's the catch, in many areas, there aren't any decent alternative routes to use. In most places the highways and the main roads are really the only efficient way to get somewhere. Knowing this, they would be able to pull money from your wallet as bad as the gasoline companies.

Sorry, I'll stick to my tax paid-for roads and a couple of bucks for a toll here and there.

I'm waiting too ... (4, Funny)

richg74 (650636) | about 6 years ago | (#25382263)

Still waiting for one of the campaigns to ask for my endorsement, which is totally available to whichever campaign offers me the better cabinet seat.

So am I. I mean, Sarah Palin claims to understand foreign policy because she can see Russia from Alaska. I've actually lived in a couple of other countries -- even one where (gasp!) they don't speak English. So I certainly should be Secretary of State -- or Ambassador to the UN, at the very least.

Or maybe I can be Secretary of Agriculture. After all, I know how to ride a horse, and I milked a cow once.

Re:I'm waiting too ... (1)

MrMr (219533) | about 6 years ago | (#25382529)

Or maybe I can be Secretary of Agriculture. After all, I know how to ride a horse, and I milked a cow once.
No way buddy, that smells of potential marginal competence in a relevant field.
We can offer you the finance department however, because history shows that you couldn't possibly go wrong there.

WHY SETTLE FOR THE LESSER EVIL? (3, Funny)

Ralph Spoilsport (673134) | about 6 years ago | (#25382275)

Vote for Chthulu!!!

Re:WHY SETTLE FOR THE LESSER EVIL? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25382639)

Vote for Chthulu!!!

You misspelled the name of the great Cthulhu! You will be eaten first!

Why Obama has to get mad for us to win (1, Insightful)

David Gerard (12369) | about 6 years ago | (#25382285)

"Us" being the news media. [today.com] Quite simply, he needs to create a more compelling narrative on change and get angry about something. Our ratings depend on it. Attack ads! Push polls! We need material!

We need the argument that this is an election with two choices - not just one popular dynamic guy and one old past-it guy. That's not a compelling media narrative!

Obama's 2:1 advantage in the Electoral College is far too confusing for our viewers. We need to re-run polls until we get one with a 1% change, never mind the 3% error margin. It's sooo close! Experts say it's a wake-up call! Better keep your eyes glued to the screen! Oh my goodness!

If Obama can just pull ahead between now and November 4, he may become President Barack Obama ... Or not! Who knows? You need to keep watching! Right here! Stay tuned!

fed buying up worth less stock markup paper (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25382341)

so 'we' don't look too bad all at once. however, that dough is disappearing as fast as they can put it in. as though just closing the betting parlors (even temporarily) is unthinkable, whilst pi**ing away our dwindling resources is the right thing to do, leaving US with yet another unrepayable debt. better days ahead?

Wait a second... (1)

TehBrando (1332991) | about 6 years ago | (#25382353)

Now you're telling me that Al Gore and Vint Cerf invented the internet!?

Net neutrality is not a pivotal issue (2, Interesting)

camg188 (932324) | about 6 years ago | (#25382367)

Net neutrality is around #75 on my priority list of important issues to consider when electing a president.

Besides, net neutrality would be legislated by the congress, not the president. The next president will have very little impact on net neutrality.

Both majors suck hard (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25382425)

And this is just another example in a long line of a non-choice elections between 2 duds.

And the MSM coverage of the third parties seems to be the lowest ever. Just at a time we need real choices, not this phony dog and pony show.

Even Frontline's "The Choice" (ha!) was a steaming load. I rarely agree with Frontline's left tilt, but they always go real deep to put you into the middle of a problem in an attempt to give real insight. And they failed to mention there are more than 2 people running.

Will their next iraq show fail to mention the sunni or shia because it might get too confusing for the viewers?

Speculating on Sarah Palin's academic history. (0, Flamebait)

Abies Bracteata (317438) | about 6 years ago | (#25382435)

1) Declare a major in veterinary science or animal husbandry.

2) Flunk freshman biology.

3) Transfer.

4) Declare a major in business/finance.

5) Flunk introductory economics.

6) Transfer.

7) Declare a major in communications.

8) Flunk English composition.

9) Transfer.

10) Declare a major in political science.

11) Flunk introductory government.

12) Transfer to a really easy low-tuition college.

13) Declare a major in journalism.

14) Flunk Intro to journalism.

15) Start sleeping with the department chair.

16) Graduate with journalism degree (2.1 GPA)

and that's important because...? (1)

wmeyer (17620) | about 6 years ago | (#25382475)

So Cerf having invented something of value, years ago, makes him a reliable commentator on things political?

This cuts to the core of our problems: responsible exercise of the franchise can't be left to the uninformed. I'm not speaking of Cerf, but of those who would change their minds simply because of his -- or any other -- endorsement.

Re:and that's important because...? (1)

Abies Bracteata (317438) | about 6 years ago | (#25382553)

Cerf isn't just some sort of closeted programming nerd. He is an industry-recognized leader who is fully cognizant of the implications of policy decisions on the use and growth of the Internet.

He most certainly is someone folks should pay attention to.

And frankly, I consider the views of Cerf and folks like him to be far more relevant than the views of inbred Alaska militia members.

i am voting for barack obama (4, Insightful)

circletimessquare (444983) | about 6 years ago | (#25382485)

but that doesn't matter

what matters is i VOTE

anyone reading this who is not going to vote, i have nothing for you but the most withering disgust i can muster

there are many arguments as to why it is important for you to vote, but here's probably the best one i can think of right now:

2,912,790 to 2,912,253 [state.fl.us]

it gave us the last 8 years of fail

in these numbers, are those responsible for our worst president ever [state.fl.us]

next election, don't let the source of our failure be you

W.P.O.A.T. (0, Troll)

MarkvW (1037596) | about 6 years ago | (#25382497)

Last year I was convinced he was worse than NIXON.
He's easily worse than HARDING and COOLIDGE.
And I think he just beat BUCHANAN.

He is . . . the Worst President of All Time. Bush talks about the tax and spend Democrats, but he spends like a hallucinating-drunk Democrat. After spending all that money, he--like Obama and McCain--talk about tax cuts. And what does Bush have to show for it? Zipoleum. Any president would look good after him.

McCain would be 76 years old should he finish his term. Palin stands in the wings. This is a time of crisis, and all they chant is Drill, Drill, Drill. Substitute heroin for oil and it makes a pretty picture.

Gotta vote Obama. No real choice.

Advice (3, Insightful)

robmv (855035) | about 6 years ago | (#25382505)

The only advice I can give to any voter without trying to endorse anyone, Do not cast a punishment vote (vote for A because B from the other party did X). Think what offer each one, think what is doable and what is a complete lie or impossible promise, and vote for the one you think will do the best

Wow (1)

kellyb9 (954229) | about 6 years ago | (#25382523)

You know, I couldn't care who endorses who. When I go into the voting booth, I'm going to vote for who I think will do the best job. I've always thought that who you vote for is a personal decision between you and the lever that you pull down. Of course, maybe this is because I'm sick of listening to hollywood types and intellectuals telling me how I should vote. They're either pushing their agenda or stroking their ego. Which, in turn, makes them less qualified to make MY decision.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?