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!

Julius Genachowski To Head FCC

kdawson posted more than 5 years ago | from the meet-the-new-boss dept.

Government 177

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The US President-elect, Barack Obama, has selected Julius Genachowski to lead the Federal Communications Commission. This appears to bode well for a forward-looking (or at least clued) Internet policy, since Genachowski is credited with running Obama's internet-based election campaign, and, according to 'Fierce Telecom,' 'has an impressive record working with technology and communications companies: He was Chief of Business Operations at InterActiveCorp; he's co-founder of Rock Creek Ventures, which currently backs 11 internet-based start-ups, and he's also served on the boards of numerous technology and new media companies, including The Motley Fool, Web.com, Truveo, and Rapt'."

cancel ×

177 comments

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

COOL (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26437601)

Julius Genachowski gave me head last night.

Great (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26437651)

What has he done for me lately?

Sweet victory (1, Insightful)

unity100 (970058) | more than 5 years ago | (#26437659)

after all those years of telco induced horror, good news from u.s. government regarding internet at last.

Re:Sweet victory (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26437811)

As opposed to the news of the new "fuck everybody" "Global Climate Change Czar", who was the one responsible for the Clinton-era ozone changes that had no scientific basis, then joined up as a high-ranking member of Socialist International, and has a husband who's head of an energy-policy lobbying firm...

I mean, sheesh. The word "graft" has taken on an entirely new meaning and Obama's not even sworn in yet. First the MafiAA guy, then the Socialist in a "new position" designed to be sure she doesn't have to go through Senate confirmation hearings... what's next?

Mod Parent Up (0, Flamebait)

Moryath (553296) | more than 5 years ago | (#26437889)

There's been far too little scrutiny of a number of Obama appointees... he seems to be stacking the cabinet with nothing but extreme left-wingers every chance he gets.

So much for people who thought he was "honest" or "centrist."

One other thing to consider... (1, Insightful)

Moryath (553296) | more than 5 years ago | (#26437927)

Just imagine if someone in the Bush administration had acted like this [washingtontimes.com] .

Wouldn't you be screaming bloody murder? Wouldn't you be demanding an investigation into what was being hidden?

What's the difference?

Re:One other thing to consider... (2, Informative)

KovaaK (1347019) | more than 5 years ago | (#26438205)

We do scream bloody murder [zdnet.com] . Politicians suck.

Re:One other thing to consider... (3, Insightful)

falcon5768 (629591) | more than 5 years ago | (#26438343)

The difference is timing and nature. She did it when the Internet was still a seldom used tool that hardly got a notice in fact the whole of records of email for the Clinton era probably could fill a 100gig drive and still have a ton of room left over. Also she flat out admitted the reason why, because a email of hers she had forgotten about came back to haunt her in Florida, you have to remmeber at the time email had barely even been used in court cases, no one knew email was for all purposes like putting it down on paper. Hell I know a company who had a very similar thing happen in regards to AIM around 98, a IM chat cam back to haunt a manager. Thus ended the companies allowance for using AIM.

Bush's administration used it and used in leu of the publicly paid for system to deceive the public. they for all purposes created a shadow organization to prevent people from seeing through the official records what they where really up to. In their case we are talking about whole Library of Congress sized amounts of data secretly being sent back and forth through all branches of government and people of intrest, especially since by this point email supplanted voice and paper record for doing things.

But then you knew that before you posted this and went ahead with it anyway.

Re:One other thing to consider... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26438603)

Wow, I never knew e-mails had physical mass. How many comprise a ton?

Re:One other thing to consider... (3, Informative)

falcon5768 (629591) | more than 5 years ago | (#26439251)

a Library of Congress is a term of data size roughly equivalent to 20 terabytes of data. Not actually accurate since the Library has much more than that and it was estimated to be this much based solely on books and not other media, but it is a somewhat used unit of measurement in terms of data size when not speaking scientifically.

Re:One other thing to consider... (1)

Rei (128717) | more than 5 years ago | (#26438881)

That's a good point, though. Today, we're in an environment where emails have been ruled to have the same constitutional privacy as telephone conversations. Back in the 90s, that wasn't the case.

Re:One other thing to consider... (2, Funny)

Tiber (613512) | more than 5 years ago | (#26438935)

wow I never knew Bush had access to the tinfoil hat illuminati superjew government.

Re:One other thing to consider... (5, Insightful)

Sethus (609631) | more than 5 years ago | (#26438947)

If you read the article you just posted, she simply didn't want to be in a position where she would be accountable for what she said. Sounds bad right?

My dad works in a high position in an international company and me, getting into the working world the last year, and him sat down to have one of our many talks about office politics. I showed him some of my many notebooks I use to document all the projects I have to do. He responded in kind of a story about his company being sued over a project he had been involved in; at the time he kept similar paper notebooks. He was terrified at being called in to testify.

Now I should explain, my dad is about as straight shooting, honest son-of-a-gun you ever knew. To this day he does not allow people to put mp3s on his computer. He paid a speeding ticket when he went to Panama, a country where it's common and accepted as Status Quo to bribe the cop who pulled you over. So why would be he scared to be called to testify?

Lawyers for one, they're professionals at twisting words and documents to their stories. You just don't know how they'll take your simple notebooks and use it against you; and you could then be held PERSONALLY liable. Needless to say, after the trial, my dad destroyed those notebooks.

Point is, just because you have nothing to hide, doesn't mean you won't be found at fault.

Re:Mod Parent Up (5, Insightful)

gad_zuki! (70830) | more than 5 years ago | (#26438049)

Wait, competent people from the startup-world with real success are "extreme leftists" but Bush's pick of fucking lawyer with no tech business experience is "good business sense?" Get off it already, no one but the Rush Limbaugh echo chamber believes these talking points.

Re:Mod Parent Up (1)

R2.0 (532027) | more than 5 years ago | (#26438407)

I believe he was speaking about a different Obama appointee, Carolyn Browner.

Re:Mod Parent Up (1)

amRadioHed (463061) | more than 5 years ago | (#26439305)

No, he was making a statement about all the Obama cabinet appointees. A laughably dumb statement Obamas cabinet.

Re:Mod Parent Up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26438465)

Huzzah! Give him what for!

Fine, "On Topic" then: (0, Flamebait)

Moryath (553296) | more than 5 years ago | (#26438057)

Here's A Bio of the guy [wikipedia.org] .

Note why he's really being hired:

- Schoolchum of Obama
- Clerked for an odd combination of judges (wonder why?)
- "Common Sense Media" - anything but, a thinly veiled left-wing group aiming to further tilt the media. Also involved in several highly anti-common sense issues regarding video games.

This isn't a rosy pick. Of course, I could be wrong. He might walk in first day, declare the RIAA/MPAA/MAFIAA to be a bunch of jerks, re-implement the necessary media-channel ownership laws so that we actually get competition (as opposed to the current ongoing death of local radio, thanks to relaxation of rules that took us from over 5000 station owners to a mere 5 conglomerates owning 99% of the market in a mere two years during the '90s), and recommend the DMCA be tossed out for the useless, anti-innovation pile of shit that it is.

But seeing his resume, I really doubt it. He looks like a lobbyist masquerading as a public servant and as Obama's already proven by appointing people whose spouses are lobbyists elsewhere, "the federal cash register is open for some 'honest graft [panarchy.org] ' ka-ching!"

Re:Fine, "On Topic" then: (4, Insightful)

Rycross (836649) | more than 5 years ago | (#26438327)

Graduated from Columbia College and Harvard magna cum laude, was a senior official in the FCC, was on the board of directors for various companies, some utilizing the internet heavily (expedia.com), and was part of the working group that created Obama's technology and innovation plan. That's hardly what you portrayed, that he's a purely political pick without any credentials.

On a perusal of Common Sense Media's site, it seems that they offer ratings and tools for parents to help parents control what their kids watch. Oh the horrors! I can see how that's super-left-wing *eye roll*. A private org focusing on parental responsibility is EXACTLY the sort of thing I'd like to see from an FCC official.

In summary, I see nothing here that would suggest that he was a bad pick, and on the contrary, by your own link, he seems to be a good pick. I get it: you don't like Obama. But the amount of spin you're throwing into this is intellectually dishonest at best.

Re:Fine, "On Topic" then: (1)

Rei (128717) | more than 5 years ago | (#26438945)

I despise Common Sense Media. Their email opt-out system is broken. I've had to twice threaten them with the CAN SPAM act to get off their mailing list. The first time, they took me off... and then I magically reappeared on it six months later.

Re:Fine, "On Topic" then: (4, Informative)

Etrias (1121031) | more than 5 years ago | (#26438675)

You have a dim view of this. How is it that I see the link you posted of his biography entirely different than you?

Harvard Law grad, with honors. Not everyone can say this. Might be a friend of Obama's but doesn't necessarily exclude him from being qualified.

Your statement on clerking is off the mark. My wife clerked for two judges, both of them pretty conservative guys, one at the district level and one on the circuit level (my wife, btw, is not even close to being a conservative). Clerking for any judge is a competitive position, usually sought after by hundreds of applicants. Clerking for the USSC is a highly sought after position and a huge honor. Wouldn't serving for a conservative and a liberal judge at least show an ability to work across the aisle? Plus, having clerking experience really can pay off to know how the court thinks and what they demand in terms of what arguments make the grade.

Did you skip over the part about Barry Diller and IAC? You know Barry, the guy who helped start Fox Broadcasting [wikipedia.org] ? His involvement with Common Sense Media seems somewhat balanced out with some of the other companies who's boards he has served on.

Of course you skipped right over the part where it said he previously worked for the FCC as General Council and all, denoting a level of experience with the organization he's being appointed.

The ultimate judge of this guy will be the positions he takes and the moves the FCC make during his reign, but to say that he only got this because he was Obama's buddy (which he is) and that he's not qualified (he's far more qualified than the last few FCC chairs we've had) is missing the forest for the trees.

Re:Fine, "On Topic" then: (1)

kentrel (526003) | more than 5 years ago | (#26438867)

Do you have any more information on how those 5000 stations became 5? Not saying its not true, but just I never heard of it, since I don't live in America, but I'm interested in reading more about it. "Media-channel ownership" doesn't tell me much in google.

Re:Mod Parent Up (5, Informative)

pthisis (27352) | more than 5 years ago | (#26439159)

There's been far too little scrutiny of a number of Obama appointees... he seems to be stacking the cabinet with nothing but extreme left-wingers every chance he gets.

Aside from low-level appointments to things like HUD and the EPA, this is pretty much backwards. The major positions are being filled by some moderate Democrats (with Napolitano and Richardson being the only thing to approach "extreme left-wingers"), some independents, and some Republicans.

More than half of the major defense, foreign affairs, and economic appointees served in significant positions in Republican administrations (mainly under George W. Bush and/or Ronald Reagan)

Of the "big 3" cabinet positions, 2 are Bush appointees:
Secretary of State: Hillary Clinton (D). Leftie, but hardly extremist.
Secretary of Defense: Robert Gates (R). Republican, Bush cabinet member
Secretary of Treasury: Timothy Geithner (I). Generally conservative. Bush appointed him chairman of the New York Fed.

Of the "next 2", one's a Reagan appointee:
Attorney General: Eric Holder (D). A moderate Democrat, Holder is a Reagan appointee (Superior court) most famous for prosecuting Dan Rostenkowski (D).
Secretary of Commerce: Bill Richardson (D). Somewhat of a leftie.

Other major appointments
The other major names on his economic team are Reagan CEA member Lawrence Summers and Reagan Fed Charman Paul Volcker

The other major defense names are 4-star general Jim Jones (recipient of multiple Bush administration appointments and special Middle East envoy under Condaleeza Rice) and Arizona Gov Janet Napolitano.

Napolitano, Richardson, and Hillary Clinton are the 3 most "leftie" of the major appointees.

The other 6 (Gates, Geithner, Holder, Summers, Volcker, and Jones) are all significant Reagan/Bush adminstration figures.

Re:Sweet victory (2, Interesting)

Rei (128717) | more than 5 years ago | (#26439185)

As opposed to the news of the new "fuck everybody" "Global Climate Change Czar", who was the one responsible for the Clinton-era ozone changes that had no scientific basis,

Amazing the anti-science idiocy that grows on this site like weeds. "95% of peer-reviewed papers on the subject say one thing, but the remaining 5% are the ABSOLUTE TRUTH and action on the other 95% has no scientific basis!"

Not So Fast (4, Interesting)

mpapet (761907) | more than 5 years ago | (#26437899)

You, and the no-doubt +5 Insightful modding to follow will lead to crushed expectations.

1. This poor bloke doesn't stand a chance against the telco's lobbying. His years running VC are not comparable to years running government, defending attacks from the Telcos and Cable Co's.

2. Government changes very slowly. This is part of the human condition more than anything else. One guy, even with the temporary backing of an Administration doesn't have much to work with.

3. The political system we have will create a great deal of friction preventing it from changing. Telco's and cable co's will screw this guy out of a job if he runs too far afield of their goals to capture the media distribution market.

Don't be disappointed when it doesn't go well.

Re:Not So Fast (3, Interesting)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 5 years ago | (#26439097)

Don't be disappointed when it doesn't go well.

Don't worry, I won't be. I'm aware of all the real-life problems you bring up and more. No matter who is in what position, there's a huge political machine to be dealt with.

So I'm not expecting it to go well. But with someone heading the FCC who doesn't seem bound and determined to fuck us over, I'm confident it will at least go better.

Yes... but... (1)

Rei (128717) | more than 5 years ago | (#26437701)

Does his appointment know who our base are belong to? [kotaku.com]

I love having a presidential nerd [dailykos.com] . ;)

Re:Yes... but... (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 5 years ago | (#26438165)

I love having a presidential nerd. ;)

First, I woudn't go so far as to call Obama a nerd, although compared to the guy he's replacing... Second, there was one President in my lifetime who was a bona-fide nerd; the man held a degree in nuclear engineering. But Carter was a terrible President; I never thought I'd see a worse one, although with Bush I did.

Using a blackberry and checking email doesn't make you a nerd. Ever see the movie Apollo 13? That was a movie about nerds (note the pocket protectors).

Re:Yes... but... (1)

BigGar' (411008) | more than 5 years ago | (#26438793)

Hell yeah.
I had a Math teacher once that worked for NASA as a Mathematician during the Apollo years. One can see him in a documentary of the Apollo 13 incident that includes footage shot in the control room and there's an actor playing the same part in the Tom Hanks movie, albeit a nonspeaking role. Anyways all that to say that guy was an uber nerd of the tenth order. Obama's got nothing on this guy in the world of nerdery. Obama might be a step up that ladder from what we've had in the past, but he's not that far up, given how tall the ladder is.

Re:Yes... but... (1, Informative)

Rei (128717) | more than 5 years ago | (#26438803)

Using a blackberry and checking email doesn't make you a nerd.

Nice pick and choose there. To sum up:

  * One of the first things Barack Obama did when he became president-elect was to post his own Web site
  * At the Al Smith dinner, Obama made a relatively obscure joke about Superman, cracking that his real father's name was Jor-El.
  * Not only did Obama pose for a photo in front of a statue of Superman in Metropolis, Illinois, he went even geekier and posted the photo at his Senate Web site (since deactivated).
  * Appointed nerds to key cabinet posts, including the appointment of a Nobel Prize-winning physicist to be secretary of energy.
  * Obama was supported by nerd icon Leonard Nimoy during his campaign, getting donation money (in Quatloos, no doubt) from Mr. Spock himself. According to some reports, he's been known to flash the Vulcan salute.
  * At a campaign rally, Obama joked that John McCain was Kato to George W. Bush's Green Lantern.
  * According to Newsweek, after a campaign event Obama and his wife Michelle were making jokes about one another's wardrobe. Barack leaned close to Michelle's belt and tapped it, saying, "It's the (di)lithium crystals! Beam me up, Scotty!"
  * According to the London Telegraph, he's also read every single Harry Potter book
  * Obama is a gadget guy, making use of devices like the Blackberry, the iPod, and (by some reports) the Zune. His tech addiction is causing a minor dust-up, as his security personnel are trying to convince him to part with his beloved PDA.
  * Not only has the president-elect admitted to collecting Spider-Man comics, he's actually going to play a role in an upcoming comic book starring the noted webslinger.
  * There's a secondhand report that Obama, when an intern quipped "All your base are belong to us", he leaned over, cocked an eyebrow, and responded, "What you say?"

Re:Yes... but... (1)

tcolberg (998885) | more than 5 years ago | (#26439063)

Obama is a gadget guy, making use of devices like the Blackberry, the iPod, and (by some reports) the Zune. His tech addiction is causing a minor dust-up, as his security personnel are trying to convince him to part with his beloved PDA.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Don't mention the Zune, he might lose the respect of the whole country: http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2008/12/8/crisis/ [penny-arcade.com]

Re:Yes... but... (1, Insightful)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 5 years ago | (#26439509)

  • One of the first things Barack Obama did when he became president-elect was to post his own Web site, and everyone has one of those. A web site doesn't make you a nerd. Writing javascript for it MIGHT.
  • At the Al Smith dinner, Obama made a relatively obscure joke about Superman, cracking that his real father's name was Jor-El. Watching Superman movies doesn't make you a nerd either. And knowing that Superman's father's name was Jor-el is hardly obscure.
  • Not only did Obama pose for a photo in front of a statue of Superman in Metropolis, Illinois, he went even geekier and posted the photo at his Senate Web site (since deactivated). See the above.
  • Appointed nerds to key cabinet posts, including the appointment of a Nobel Prize-winning physicist to be secretary of energy. That doesn't make him a nerd himslelf, but it does show he may not be incompetent at his new job.
  • Obama was supported by nerd icon Leonard Nimoy during his campaign, getting donation money (in Quatloos, no doubt) from Mr. Spock himself. According to some reports, he's been known to flash the Vulcan salute. An actor in a science fiction TV show/movie series is not a nerd, and getting that actor's support doesn't make you a nerd.
  • At a campaign rally, Obama joked that John McCain was Kato to George W. Bush's Green Lantern. Again, reading comic books doesn't make you a nerd. Many non-nerds enjoy comics.
  • According to Newsweek, after a campaign event Obama and his wife Michelle were making jokes about one another's wardrobe. Barack leaned close to Michelle's belt and tapped it, saying, "It's the (di)lithium crystals! Beam me up, Scotty!" Watching Star Trek doesn't make you a nerd, although participating in a Star Trek convention in costume does make you a dork. And Obama was ony two years old when Scotty first beamed up Kirk.
  • According to the London Telegraph, he's also read every single Harry Potter book Jesus, man, how many Heinlein, Doctorow, Clarke, Asimov, etc books has he read? Potter, Superman, Star Trek, have become very popular fiction. They may be popular among nerds, but they are also popular among non-nerds.
  • Obama is a gadget guy, making use of devices like the Blackberry, the iPod, and (by some reports) the Zune. His tech addiction is causing a minor dust-up, as his security personnel are trying to convince him to part with his beloved PDA. Nerds don't just use tech, nerds design, disassemble, hack, mod, and otherwise interact with their bare metal. Businessmen use the technology like iPods and Blackberries that nerds design.
  • Not only has the president-elect admitted to collecting Spider-Man comics, he's actually going to play a role in an upcoming comic book starring the noted webslinger. *Sigh*
  • There's a secondhand report that Obama, when an intern quipped "All your base are belong to us", he leaned over, cocked an eyebrow, and responded, "What you say?" That suggests to me that he has never heard the phrase.

You might ask yourself if YOU are truly a nerd. Have you ever built a ham radio, or a guitar amplifier, or hacked a transistor radio into a guitar fuzzbox? Written computer programs (or at least shell scripts)?

Have you used the <li> operator for bullet points rather than using an asterisk?

There are 10 kinds of people - those who know binary, and those who do not. The latter may be nerds, the former surely are.

Obama is intelligent, but he's no nerd. Carter was a nerd, and a shitty President. He was better than Bush, who was kind of an anti-nerd.

Julius (-1, Offtopic)

IceCreamGuy (904648) | more than 5 years ago | (#26437763)

My name is also Julius, so I support this decision.

What's his stance on censorship? (5, Interesting)

FortKnox (169099) | more than 5 years ago | (#26437815)

With the ridiculous fines being handed down on censorship, I'd like to know where our new FCC chief stands. Are we to continue being the ass backwards country when it comes to censorship (nudity is bad, but violence is ok!), or will he take steps to allow parents to determine what their kids can and cannot see?

Re:What's his stance on censorship? (3, Insightful)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 5 years ago | (#26437851)

or will he take steps to allow parents to determine what their kids can and cannot see?

Why is that even a job for Government? I have a novel idea: supervise your kids when they are watching TV or using the internet.

Re:What's his stance on censorship? (1)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 5 years ago | (#26437977)

Supervise and/or...

  • Don't have TV
  • Get your TV company to turn off these or those channels
  • Install this or that filter on computer
  • ...

The novel idea of supervision does seem to escape most people. I guess it's the government's job to educate, supervise, instill morals, AND otherwise pay for their kids...

Re:What's his stance on censorship? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26438155)

Learn how to use the v-chip you already have in your TV

Re:What's his stance on censorship? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26438339)

What v-chip?

My TVs are 17+ years old, and refuse to die, and I won't replace them until they do.

Got my digital converters months ago. For the amount of over-the-air TV I watch, that's just fine. No, I don't have cable. For the rest there's Hulu and Netflix.

Re:What's his stance on censorship? (1)

Muad'Dave (255648) | more than 5 years ago | (#26438419)

I think the converter I got has a v-chip in it.

Re:What's his stance on censorship? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26438439)

What v-chip?
My TVs are 17+ years old, and refuse to die, and I won't replace them until they do.
Got my digital converters months ago. For the amount of over-the-air TV I watch, that's just fine. No, I don't have cable. For the rest there's Hulu and Netflix.


If your TVs are too old to have the v-chip, your recently acquired digital converters have them. Learn how to use them if you want something protecting your children.

Re:What's his stance on censorship? (1)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 5 years ago | (#26438179)

Don't have TV

That's my vote. I've seen kids that are absolutely mesmerized by the TV. They stare at it for hours on end. If they aren't watching Cartoon Network they are probably playing video games. And people really wonder why we have a childhood obesity problem?

At the very least, ditch the cable TV service and go with over the air broadcasting only. This accomplishes three things:

1) Cuts down on the number of shows your kids are going to care about and encourages them to do other things.
2) Encourages them to watch PBS, which has a lot more redeeming value (in my experience) than most of the crap they'll zone out on with cable.
3) Saves you a shitload of money.

Install this or that filter on computer

Also a good idea. Combined with supervision it works really well for younger children. Older children can no doubt figure out a way to bypass most filters -- but hopefully by then you've instilled them with enough values that you don't have to worry as much about them anymore. I'd also make an argument for putting the computer in a public area. My kids won't be browsing the internet behind closed doors......

Re:What's his stance on censorship? (1)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 5 years ago | (#26438425)

That's my vote. I've seen kids that are absolutely mesmerized by the TV. They stare at it for hours on end. If they aren't watching Cartoon Network they are probably playing video games. And people really wonder why we have a childhood obesity problem?

My thoughts exactly. I grew up with computers and played video games... too much, most likely. But I also played outside, loved playing basketball, skated, went skiing (weird word. :P), etc. My house, growing up, never had anything other than TV coming in from the aerial, which where we lived, meant two to four channels. I occasionally watched cartoons Saturday morning and Spiderman at 4:30, if the channel came in. We watched football on Sunday/Monday, depending on who was playing.

As far as bypassing filters, by the time they can learn to do that, there are probalby other things they are learning to be able to do as well, so by then if I haven't done the whole parenting thing that well, it's probably too late.

Re:What's his stance on censorship? (1)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 5 years ago | (#26438705)

so by then if I haven't done the whole parenting thing that well, it's probably too late.

Amen to that.

Re:What's his stance on censorship? (1)

KovaaK (1347019) | more than 5 years ago | (#26438781)

That's my vote. I've seen kids that are absolutely mesmerized by the TV. They stare at it for hours on end. If they aren't watching Cartoon Network they are probably playing video games. And people really wonder why we have a childhood obesity problem?

It depends on the age group, but there are multiple sides to this - particularly with video games. In certain areas, sometimes the only perceived alternative to doing stuff at home is doing illegal stuff (underage drinking/drugs) with friends elsewhere.

Would you rather have a child:
a) Be a nerd/gamer on the internet who potentially learns how to program, or at the worst has better hand-eye coordination.
b) Potentially start to rely on drugs/alcohol for entertainment and develop serious issues in the future.

I fully realize that option b) doesn't happen every time, but the chances seem much higher. Also, I know there are many other outcomes for both paths, but I would just like to say that you shouldn't be so quick to dismiss certain things (video games, in particular) as completely destructive to a child's development.

I was talking to one of my closest online friends yesterday, and he talked about how much it bugs him that his girlfriend obviously grew up and followed the second path. Despite the fact that she's a great woman, her past/friends are making him question things. Talking to him made me grateful that I didn't spend so much time with my group of highschool druggie^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hfriends. Being a nerd helped me avoid that sort of life, and in its place, I had a head start on my education (Computer Engineering) in many ways.

Re:What's his stance on censorship? (1)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 5 years ago | (#26439107)

Potentially start to rely on drugs/alcohol for entertainment and develop serious issues in the future.

If that happens then you probably should have been paying closer attention to what they were doing.....

I would just like to say that you shouldn't be so quick to dismiss certain things (video games, in particular)

I didn't say video games were bad. I think the tone of my post was that playing them to excess is bad. If your kids are playing video games to the exclusion of doing anything else then wouldn't you say that you have a problem? If video games are part of a healthy mix of recreational activities (that hopefully includes some amount of physical/outdoors activity) then I don't see a problem.

I grew up playing video games. My Mom did go out of her way to get me games with what she perceived to be educational value. My favorite one was probably Sim City. Got into the classic version of that on the SNES and eventually wound up getting the newer versions when we bought our first PC. She never would have let us have games like Halo, GTA, Mortal Combat, Lethal Enforcers, etc, etc. Mind you, as an adult I don't have a problem with such games (I'm not with the Jack Thompson lunatic crowd) but I definitely wouldn't buy them for my kids.....

Re:What's his stance on censorship? (1)

KovaaK (1347019) | more than 5 years ago | (#26439299)

I'm curious then - How would you view games with social networks? For example - if your child grew an interest in World of Warcraft, would you prevent him from playing it?

What is your criteria for not allowing certain games? Online social interactions not allowable under a certain age? Violent games not allowable under a certain age?

Re:What's his stance on censorship? (1)

redxxx (1194349) | more than 5 years ago | (#26438737)

Supervise and/or...

  • Don't have TV
  • Get your TV company to turn off these or those channels
  • Read the tv's manual and turn on the V-chip that has been mandated for almost a decade.

Re:What's his stance on censorship? (1)

_xeno_ (155264) | more than 5 years ago | (#26438261)

The idea is fairly simple, actually - the government requires TV shows to have ratings (sort of like they do now) and parents can use government-required technology in their TVs (sort of like the V-Chip) to filter out shows they are objectionable. In return, broadcasters can broadcast anything they want, as long as it's properly rated. (OK, so not anything, but, well, almost anything...)

Several "parents groups" have claimed this is what they're demanding from the government, and that once it's in place, they'll have no problem with uncensored content being broadcast, as long as it's properly marked.

Somehow I find it hard to believe, considering that the technology exists and they still won't shut up about "filth on TV," but the idea behind "tak[ing] steps to allow parents to determine what their kids can and cannot see" is essentially a compromise between censorship and freedom of speech. It's a pragmatic solution, not a perfect solution.

Re:What's his stance on censorship? (1)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 5 years ago | (#26438337)

The idea is fairly simple, actually - the government requires TV shows to have ratings (sort of like they do now) and parents can use government-required technology in their TVs (sort of like the V-Chip) to filter out shows they are objectionable. In return, broadcasters can broadcast anything they want, as long as it's properly rated. (OK, so not anything, but, well, almost anything...)

See, to my way of thinking the bigger problem isn't the violence/sex on TV (although the v-chip is certainly helpful with that) but the sheer amount of TV aimed at children. How many different cable networks are aimed at kids? They can literally zone out in front of the TV from the time they wake up in the morning to the time they go to bed at night.

I grew up in the middle of nowhere. We received a grand total of three channels (CBS, ABC and PBS) with our aerial antenna. Consequently we wound up (*gasp*) playing outside a fair amount. The only time I really remember watching TV much was Saturday mornings. I ditched cable a long time ago. I've tried to encourage my friends to do the same and the response is invariably "But my kids like it". Yeah, so? Your kids aren't going to be traumatized if they can't zone out in front of Cartoon Network for six hours a day during the week and 12 hours on weekends.....

Re:What's his stance on censorship? (1)

value_added (719364) | more than 5 years ago | (#26438409)

I have a novel idea: supervise your kids when they are watching TV or using the internet.

I don't think you can lump TV and the intarwebs into a single category. TV (and TV stations) has to have rules that enforce some sort of community standards. I don't think even the most idealogical Slashdotter would agree that allowing sexual or violent programming during prime-time is a wise idea for family households. You can argue what those standard should be, of course, but that's a different matter.

The internet, on the other hand, is a different beast, so different rules have to apply.

I'd agree that parental supervision is the best approach. However, here we have another problem. Most families need 2 wage earners just to get by. That has been a fact of life for some time. So without the time to do what the stay-at-home mom did in past generations, and a combination of over-worked and over-stressed lifestyles, parents find it anywhere between difficult and impossible to supervise a child properly. It shouldn't be any surprise that out of this is the tendency to pass those responsibilities to the rest of society. That means more laws and more government involvement.

I'm sympathetic with advocating parental responsibility, and society might be better off with frequent clue-bat reminders, but offering up that admonition as The Solution isn't helpful. At least no more helpful than telling women to leave the workforce to stay at home to make sure the kids are being raised properly.

Re:What's his stance on censorship? (1)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 5 years ago | (#26438609)

I don't think even the most idealogical Slashdotter would agree that allowing sexual or violent programming during prime-time is a wise idea for family households

I would agree if you are talking about over the air broadcasts. I would disagree if you are talking about cable TV. Cable TV requires that you opt-in and pay money for it. Anybody with a pair of rabbit ears can tune into OTA.

Most families need 2 wage earners just to get by.

Then move somewhere with a cheaper cost of living. Or seek help from your expanded friends and family network. Most families have someone (Grandma or Grandpa?) whom isn't working. Why rely on the TV to supervise your kids after school if you have a family member or friend to fall back on?

It shouldn't be any surprise that out of this is the tendency to pass those responsibilities to the rest of society. That means more laws and more government involvement.

If you resign yourself to more government involvement it would seem to me that it would be better to have it involved in solving the problem of needing two wage earners to afford to live than to have it involved in regulating what can go on TV. Maybe that's just me though.....

but offering up that admonition as The Solution isn't helpful

It's a bigger part of the solution than expecting government or Hollywood to do it for you.......

Re:What's his stance on censorship? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26439163)

Community standards? Why should your community (presumable the bible-thumpers) be able to dictate what I am allowed to watch? Babysit you own damn kids.

Re:What's his stance on censorship? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26438637)

or will he take steps to allow parents to determine what their kids can and cannot see?

Why is that even a job for Government? I have a novel idea: supervise your kids when they are watching TV or using the internet.

It's their job because they are the ones with the power to ensure that the V chip is included in all TVs sold, and the american people demanded that they be able to protect their children from objectionably material on TV.

If enough people demand they do something, the government is going to do it unless their is a good reason not to. Not being a power enumerated in the Constitution stopped being a good reason a very long time ago.

'The People' scream to be protected from all sorts of things: Porn, Terrorism, Naught Words, whatever. The government takes steps to protect them via the only avenue available to the by creating legislature.

Unfortunately, the only thing new legislature can do only take away more rights from 'the people'.

Re:What's his stance on censorship? (1)

aztektum (170569) | more than 5 years ago | (#26438941)

Why is that even a job for Government?

Because their job is no longer to do for the public good. Their job is to bring in votes.

Re:What's his stance on censorship? (-1, Flamebait)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 5 years ago | (#26437949)

Soon we will end GWB reign of terror. Soon we will be in a new order of terr...ific policies.

Few, I though I was about to write terror.
No Me.

Re:What's his stance on censorship? (1)

tnk1 (899206) | more than 5 years ago | (#26438245)

I'm sure the Obama administration will correct the double standard you are bringing to light by ensuring that violence gets fully censored as well.

Re:What's his stance on censorship? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26438293)

Are we to continue being the ass backwards country when it comes to censorship (nudity is bad, but violence is ok!), or will he take steps to allow parents to determine what their kids can and cannot see?

First comes public standards. Instead of making grand assumptions how about you go out and take a poll and see what parents feel about 14 year old Johnny seeing on prime time TV. So far the history of TV in America shows that adults are much more comfortable with violence than nudity. If you need proof of this go to the FCC complaints department. Don't think that network TV doesn't test the waters with their toe from time to time, they just never get very far.

And something that troubles me about the upbeat tone of the blurb is the very false assumption that just because this guy has a technology background that he's going to do what's 'right' in the eyes of the majority opinion around here. I'm not saying that he isn't but it's a sad sign that people around here think that if someone doesn't do what they feel is best they're automatically labeled as a dullard. Just because someone doesn't march to the beat of your drum neither makes them stupid nor wrong.

I think Americans are going to be in for a wicked eye opening with the next administration. I only hope that if it does happen that we're smart enough to stop this game of accusing others of being the fools and acting like we knew what was happening all along. We had a 70% approval rating for an invasion of Iraq the evening before the actual invasion happened. Today you can't find 3 people honest enough to admit that they were for it. It's time to be honest about what we do and do not know.

Re:What's his stance on censorship? (2, Informative)

Rycross (836649) | more than 5 years ago | (#26438539)

Well, apparently he's involved with Common Sense Media [commonsensemedia.org] which seems to provide ratings, tools, and advice for parents with concerns to the media. It seems to be fairly parental-responsibility oriented. However, their "Common Sense Belief" sections contains a couple of statements you might be interested in:

# We believe in media sanity, not censorship.

We believe that the price for free and open media is a bit of extra homework for families. Parents need to know about media content and need to manage media use.

# We believe appropriate regulations about right time, right place, and right manner exist. They need to be upheld by our elected and appointed leaders.

# We believe ratings systems should be independent and transparent for all media.

Seems like they'd support some government toe-stepping in the form of mandatory ratings and enforcement of time-slots, but stop short of outright censorship.

Re:What's his stance on censorship? (2, Insightful)

idiotnot (302133) | more than 5 years ago | (#26438625)

He'll be forced to enforce and expand it. Google for "fairness doctrine."

Re:What's his stance on censorship? (1)

Rycross (836649) | more than 5 years ago | (#26438665)

No one is advocating bringing back the fairness doctrine. This is a right-wing/libertarian talking point. Let it go, ffs.

Re:What's his stance on censorship? (1, Interesting)

Curunir_wolf (588405) | more than 5 years ago | (#26439039)

No one is advocating bringing back the fairness doctrine. This is a right-wing/libertarian talking point. Let it go, ffs.

How about Schumer and Pelosi [broadcastingcable.com] ? Or Sen. Jeff Bingaman [freerepublic.com] ? Then there's the fact that it was included as part of the Democratic Party Platform [freedomforum.org] in 2000. Oh, then there's this article [humanevents.com] quoting Nancy Pelosi's support of it. Illustrious leader Dick Durbin [thehill.com] has also advocated its reinstatement.

Just because they're paranoid, doesn't mean there's nobody out to get them.

Why is nudity vs violence backwards? (5, Funny)

tjstork (137384) | more than 5 years ago | (#26438795)

Sorry, but, you know, this whole hippy thing of nudity is love and violence is evil is just stupid.

Nudity has nothing to do with love. Sticking your dick into some slut's snatch and gushing it around until she says she loves you doesn't do anything for the country at all. Unless she decides she's up for breeding some good old babies for Jesus, otherwise, it's useless.

On the other hand, violence is plenty useful. It can get you more oil, access at the bargaining table with the great powers, AND, most of all, it can get your more broads to ram that fuckstick of yours into.

I know what Jesus said and all, but, the reality is different. If you want to be a big pussy and wish you had a girlfriend, value nudity. But, if you want to have tons of oil and power, then be violent, as you'll get tons of pussy to boot, and, they'll all be cranking out your genetic destiny in the form of children.

Who would you rather be, Ghandi, living impoversished in a tent, and getting shot in the end by some punk. Or, would you rather be Ghengis Khan, with an empire the size of Asia and the Middle East, tons of loot, and more women than you can name colors?

Re:Why is nudity vs violence backwards? (0, Offtopic)

Tiber (613512) | more than 5 years ago | (#26439077)

Oh my god I wish I could +1 you.

Also in this day and age, Ghandi would be raped to death by some punk who was never prosecuted because in our society, gay rape is love!

Re:Why is nudity vs violence backwards? (1)

fm6 (162816) | more than 5 years ago | (#26439335)

You're talking about real life. We're talking about television.

Re:What's his stance on censorship? (2, Insightful)

cayenne8 (626475) | more than 5 years ago | (#26438815)

"With the ridiculous fines being handed down on censorship, I'd like to know where our new FCC chief stands. Are we to continue being the ass backwards country when it comes to censorship (nudity is bad, but violence is ok!), or will he take steps to allow parents to determine what their kids can and cannot see?"

Well, let's don't do away with violence...just allow more nudity.

I think it'd be a shame if they couldn't show Dirty Harry on TV (I think they censor it too much as it is). Let's just allow nudity too.....

Re:What's his stance on censorship? (1)

fm6 (162816) | more than 5 years ago | (#26439459)

Nudity is bad because people complain about it. Violence is OK because people don't complain about it. And violence is more than OK, because it's a sort of representational sex. Consider the fight scene at the end of the second TOS. Are William Shatner and Gary Lockwood fighting or making love? It's not all that obvious.

Unlikely choice (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26437859)

Much [goatse.fr] more appropriate.

Re:Unlikely choice (3, Funny)

Farmer Tim (530755) | more than 5 years ago | (#26438063)

I'm pretty sure that's the previous head of the FCC. Or his hat, anyway.

It is still just one person (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26437897)

Instead of having single individuals be in charge of huge chunks of policy, are we not now technologically mature enough to have an open process [metagovernment.org] whereby everyone can participate as they please?

Re:It is still just one person (0, Troll)

Score Whore (32328) | more than 5 years ago | (#26438053)

participate as they please?

Because a lot of people who participate "as they please" are living on other people's money and have a lot more spare time to "contribute" to ensuring that they can continue to live on other people's money.

Re:It is still just one person (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 5 years ago | (#26438395)

I think there is a misunderstanding in the role. FCC chair should be in charge of implementing and advising the President's policy. George Bush delegated (I say abdicated) much of this that to the FCC chair. The result has been 2 largely controversial [wikipedia.org] if not ineffectual [wikipedia.org] FCC chairmen. I think under Obama there will be more of a clearer focus about what the FCC should do rather than have it under the whim of the Chairman.

Don't blame me, I voted for Twitter Sockpuppet #3 (0)

redxxx (1194349) | more than 5 years ago | (#26438991)

I think that would work almost as well as meta moderation works here. Actually, it would probably be closer to Digg, with lobbyists playing the role of 'Power Users'.

Anything would be an improvement (4, Informative)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 5 years ago | (#26438027)

The FCC is probably the least competent of all our federal government's departments right now. Have you ever filed an FCC complaint? I have (against a toll-free RespOrg, and then against another one when the owner of the number in question moved). When you file a complaint, the response is a form letter telling you the FCC cannot do anything. And then when you call the FCC for more information on how they came to that conclusion you wait for half an hour on hold before someone tells you they can't do anything, either; and they won't tell you if you can find out who read your complaint (if it was read at all).

Frankly they could put a lobster in charge of the FCC and it would be just as well off as it is at this moment. So any sentient being will likely be an improvement.

The FCC is so frustrating I went to go stand in line at the DMV afterwards because I wanted to feel like I accomplished something that day.

lobster + FCC = (4, Funny)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 5 years ago | (#26438655)

Frankly they could put a lobster in charge of the FCC and it would be just as well off as it is at this moment.

It occurred to me after writing that rant that if a lobster were indeed in charge of the FCC, it could then be the Federal Crustacean Commission.

Thank you, and don't forget to tip your server.

Re:Anything would be an improvement (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 5 years ago | (#26439443)

The FCC is undoubtedly a runaway bureaucracy, but there are some good apples there. Kevin Martin has been in favor of net neutraility, anti-government censorship, pro-competition, and Michael Copps understands exactly where the FCC has screwed up [bfccomputing.com] on high-speed Internet policy.

I know, that's two out of how many, but some guys there deserve kudos; there's been some progress in the past couple years.

Credentials aren't so hot (3, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 5 years ago | (#26438109)

I'd rather have someone who didn't spend their life in management making decisions about how the internet should work. And that's all this guy has... Funding, venture capital, management. So he's great at money! Good--I'm sure he'll make a bunch of businesses very rich. But does he know what TCP/IP is? Does he understand what makes effective QoS policy? How about the difference between bandwidth and latency or (shudder) the OSI 7 layer [burrito] model of networking? Bluntly stated -- does this guy give two sh*ts about consumer interests?

This guy will be head of the FCC. Isn't that organization also very much about engineering, not just policy. If the FCC has become a policy-making organization and left its engineering roots, well how shall I say -- "Houston, we have a problem." And yes, the comparison to NASA I think is fitting, given it was another engineering-based governmental body that later become all about policies and management and has now sent two shuttles smashing into the ground because of it.

Change we can believe in. Heh--Yeah. Right. Looks like more of the same to me.

Re:Credentials aren't so hot (4, Insightful)

Reality Master 201 (578873) | more than 5 years ago | (#26438169)

You'd make an awful manager.

Re:Credentials aren't so hot (2, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 5 years ago | (#26438631)

You'd make an awful manager.

Probably, but the same could be said of Scotty. And without Scotty, Kirk wouldn't have a ship.

Re:Credentials aren't so hot (1)

Rycross (836649) | more than 5 years ago | (#26438713)

Without Kirk, Scotty wouldn't have a ship either. It worked because Kirk was a good leader and listened to his team, not because Kirk was intimately familiar with the technology his ship used.

Re:Credentials aren't so hot (2, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 5 years ago | (#26438807)

We need both managers and engineers, the problem is... Where are the engineers in the FCC and why don't they have a voice in how things are going? Because a lot of the FCC's decisions lately seem to be rolling out the doors with glaring implementation problems. Do they even employ them anymore?

Re:Credentials aren't so hot (3, Insightful)

Rycross (836649) | more than 5 years ago | (#26438435)

Management is a different skill set than technology. Whats important in a leader is being able to listen to people who are experts, learn from them, and then make a reasoned decision. Its not so concerning if he's not a techy if he has a track record of listening to informed techies and making good decisions based on that information. A track record of leading companies that effectively utilize the internet is such a track record.

Re:Credentials aren't so hot (1)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 5 years ago | (#26439353)

Management is a different skill set than technology. Whats important in a leader is being able to listen to people who are experts, learn from them, and then make a reasoned decision. Its not so concerning if he's not a techy if he has a track record of listening to informed techies and making good decisions based on that information. A track record of leading companies that effectively utilize the internet is such a track record.

That's an excellent point. But I don't think the credentials listed so far speak to that. It only speaks to him knowing where and how to invest. That isn't leadership ability, that's financial know-how. What is there here that speaks to his ability to lead?

Re:Credentials aren't so hot (1)

Rycross (836649) | more than 5 years ago | (#26439543)

Good point. He does have senior level experience in the FCC. He was on the Board of Directors for a lot of companies, and Chief of Business Operations at another. I would assume that the only way to determine if he is a good leader or not is how he participated in these positions, but I don't have access to that information.

Re:Credentials aren't so hot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26438449)

insightful? wtf. There's a world of difference between public policy and QoS policy, between Secretary of the Interior and a construction worker.

Re:Credentials aren't so hot (2, Informative)

tnk1 (899206) | more than 5 years ago | (#26438453)

In defense of managers, you don't make money managing technical firms by being ignorant about the business you are in.

That's not to say all managers in tech are successful managers.

The FCC is a federal regulatory group. It's there to make policy, not engineering decisions. If they wanted engineering decisions, they form an IEEE working group. Now, you may argue that the scope of their authority should be limited to regulation of the spectrum proper, and not what goes over the spectrum, but policy is definitely one of their roles.

Re:Credentials aren't so hot (1)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 5 years ago | (#26438719)

My point isn't that policy is one of their roles. My point is that it is not their only role and putting someone in charge that only knows the policy side of the equation will not make effective decisions about implementation of those policies. His policies could be the best thing since sliced bread but if the implementation is crap it doesn't matter. And given that the FCC has legal power over just about every electronic device sold, used, and produced in the United States... I'd like to know the man has some fundamental grasp of how they actually work. If not, well.. here's some history for you:

"The wireless music box has no imaginable commercial value. Who would pay for a message sent to nobody in particular?" --David Sarnoff's associates in response to his urgings for investment in the radio in the 1920s.

Re:Credentials aren't so hot (4, Interesting)

keithjr (1091829) | more than 5 years ago | (#26438521)

Bluntly stated -- does this guy give two sh*ts about consumer interests?

The guy pretty much wrote Obama's tech plan [barackobama.com] , the motto of which is "Open Government, Open Networks, Open Market." And he's an advocate for 'Net Neutrality.

The FCC isn't charged with creating standards and products, it's about policy. Technology policy, but policy nonetheless. It is a regulatory body [wikipedia.org] . Nothing more, nothing less.

I know it's the cool thing today to be cynical about Obama's decisions, and I haven't agreed with many of them lately as well, but this is a good pick.

Re:Credentials aren't so hot (1)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 5 years ago | (#26439239)

The guy pretty much wrote Obama's tech plan

That page doesn't indicate he authored it. And the page you gave looks like a power-point presentation, not a policy paper. That does not inspire my confidence.

The FCC isn't charged with creating standards and products, it's about policy.

Flip over whatever you typed that with. There should be a sticker there that says "Part 16, FCC rules." Read it.

I know it's the cool thing today to be cynical about Obama's decisions, and I haven't agreed with many of them lately as well, but this is a good pick.

I'm not cynical about his decisions, I'm cynical about his administration. He hasn't been sworn in yet, so he hasn't made any decisions yet per-se.

Re:Credentials aren't so hot (1)

sohp (22984) | more than 5 years ago | (#26438599)

Yep. He's not a geek, he's a suit. A suit who happens to be involved in money-making geek-ish business, but a suit.

Change we can believe in (4, Insightful)

MikeRT (947531) | more than 5 years ago | (#26438133)

How about Obama surprise everyone by doing something radical like announcing that he is going to make the FCC's only responsibility the licensing of spectrum and enforcement of (future?) federal cable and telecom franchising laws?

He is what the new FCC head should do: (4, Funny)

jackspenn (682188) | more than 5 years ago | (#26438157)

Simply abolish the FCC and replace it with a citizen run mod point system.

Re:He is what the new FCC head should do: (1)

sricetx (806767) | more than 5 years ago | (#26438547)

replace it with a citizen run mod point system.

I nominate...Slashdot!

Re:He is what the new FCC head should do: (3, Funny)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 5 years ago | (#26438833)

Simply abolish the FCC and replace it with a citizen run mod point system.

Does that mean Olbermann will get cut off on the days that the right-wingers have mod points and O'reilly will get cut off on the days that the left-wingers have em? ;)

Nepotism? (1)

retech (1228598) | more than 5 years ago | (#26438239)

I'm sure none of his companies will directly benefit from his appointment.

Re:Nepotism? (1)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 5 years ago | (#26438911)

Nepotism? (Score:2) by retech (1228598) on Tuesday January 13, @02:52PM (#26438239)

I'm sure none of his companies will directly benefit from his appointment.

Even if they do, that's not nepotism, unless his companies are run by his family members.

I believe the phrase you are looking for is Modern American "Democracy".

Any ideas on LPFM? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26438617)

The FCC (aka Friends of Clear Channel) has been holding this one up FOREVER. Will he support LPFM or keep the status quo?

Crashing this Obama parade! (4, Interesting)

tjstork (137384) | more than 5 years ago | (#26438619)

You guys are all giving each other high fives over Obama's FCC pick, and what you do not get is that commercially, he's going to be a very strong IP guy and a lot of you are going to be disappointed in that.

Think, people! How does a man who does venture capital for web startups NOT wind up being strongly in favor of copyright enforcement, software patents, and all the litigation that this board has come to despise?

I see a lot of media companies that did Obama a lot of favors, and Obama's bill for them is coming due. I would expect to see an Obama administration have -stricter- regulation than Bush's administration ever did, all to protect the big city newspapers, publishing houses, record companies, movie studios and other enterprises that form the economic backbone of what we would call the "liberal economy". I would expect to see increased liability on telcos for copyrighted content, a federal bureacracy to handle copyright claims, greater pressure on the rest of the world to get on board, and what's France going to do, when their own newspapers, movie studios, and more, are telling them to do the same thing. Bush had to sell out to Exxon and Halliburton, but Obama is a sellout to Time Warner and the New York Times. Every President, regardless of political party, has a business constituency that they whore out too, and in Obama's case, its the publishing industry. Bush brought us $4/gallon gasoline to appease his corporate masters, and Obama's going to kill the open internet, to do the same.

Crash! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26439561)

Wow, you sure crashed their parade.

I also find that hysterical half-mad tirades are the best way to inject skepticism into a discussion. But I'll depart from that tradition to give you some insight:

1) Web startups do not like having to pay tribute to software patents owned by companies that can afford to amass them.

2) I don't think liberal economy [wikipedia.org] means what you think it does.

3) Some of us don't see regulations such as net neutrality as a bad thing. If that's going to "kill the open internet" for you then you can throttle your own connection and pretend your ISP is doing it.

4) Quit it with the Bush == Obama nonsense. It's possible for a president to be better than Bush. (In fact, it has happened 42 times already!) Let's wait and see!

Motley fool?! YAY I CAN SUE HIM FOR SPAM! (1)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 5 years ago | (#26438899)

A long time ago I gave my email to register on this site and poke around.

I have since been receiving more traffic from motley fool than the mplayer mailing list in digest form.

I have requested removal from their lists to no avail.

I'm glad to see there is now a high profile target I can torpedo with lawsuits.

Anonymous Donations (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26439359)

So-- was this the same guy that was responsible for setting up Obama's internet fundraising? You know-- the one that let anyone (anywhere) with a credit card donate $200 or less without requesting (or checking) for things like Citizenship, etc.

I can't buy $200 at Newegg without my Name and Address matching the Credit card.

I wonder how many Visa Gift cards George Sorros bought last year....

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>