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!

Presidential Candidates' Science and Tech Policies

samzenpus posted more than 6 years ago | from the where-do-you-stand dept.

Politics 413

gracey1103 writes "Popular Mechanics has put together an easy-to-follow matrix of where the '08 presidential candidates stand on different science, tech and environment issues. Everything is cited and links back directly to each candidate's published policy pages so you can get more info."

cancel ×

413 comments

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

I voted.... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21758768)

I voted for the winner and the loser [tinyurl.com]

Re:I voted.... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21758852)

Everyone running for office in this election is a cunt, and like bush, whoever wins will be a cunt when he/she is elected.

Re:I voted.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21758990)

> Everyone running for office in this election is a cunt, and like bush, whoever wins will be a cunt when he/she is elected.

American Politics: Where "Flamebait, Insightful, Troll, Informative" are all the same thing.

Re:I voted.... (3, Informative)

Curien (267780) | more than 6 years ago | (#21759450)

Everyone running for office in this election is a cunt, and like bush, whoever wins will be a cunt when he/she is elected.

How true. Even Thomas Jefferson [trivia-library.com] turned into a cunt when he was sworn in.

The matrix (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21758780)

Neo is that you??? [tinyurl.com]

Walmart (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21758798)

You recommended Walmart? ::shudder::

Your money is like your vote. You should only give it to the people you'd like to have it.

Walmart has done as much to advance the conservative agenda in America as any Congressman or Senator has, yet people who would never vote for the right-wing fascists queue up every day to give their money to one.

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

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 6 years ago | (#21759484)

But I have to ask: Who, or what, were you replying to? I don't see a "parent", and I certainly didn't see any mention of Walmart in TFA. Maybe I missed it?

PM (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21758802)

I own a mintage issue of popular mechanics and have pictures of the entire issue here [ripway.com]

Re:PM (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21758872)

fucking nigger

Win money by sharing original pictures, movies and (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21758824)

Not every candidate (3, Insightful)

LGagnon (762015) | more than 6 years ago | (#21758850)

They didn't mention Kucinich or Gravel, and allowed more Republicans on the list than Democrats. This seems a bit biased to me.

Re:Not every candidate (2, Insightful)

Ada_Rules (260218) | more than 6 years ago | (#21758920)

Wow you are right it is totally biased. They totally left out the 3 candidates for the Libertarian Party nomination. Wayne Allyn Root Michael Jingozian Daniel Imperato

Re:Not every candidate (4, Insightful)

morari (1080535) | more than 6 years ago | (#21759082)

The media has been doing and wonderful job of either making Kucinich look like a nutcase or just outright ignoring his existence. Being the best candidate for the people quickly earns enemies though, I suppose.

Re:Not every candidate (3, Insightful)

Entropius (188861) | more than 6 years ago | (#21759236)

Kucinich gets my support simply because he wants to reduce the military budget. I don't care how much of a nutcase you are or what other bad ideas you have, it's hard to make an error that'll offset the hundreds of billions a year saved.

Re:Not every candidate (4, Insightful)

PresidentEnder (849024) | more than 6 years ago | (#21759338)

So does Paul get your support, too? (Kucinich is my other favorite, of course).

Re:Not every candidate (1, Interesting)

Entropius (188861) | more than 6 years ago | (#21759714)

No, because he opposes reproductive rights.

Re:Not every candidate (2, Insightful)

coaxial (28297) | more than 6 years ago | (#21759842)

Well if Kucinich would actually have some real proposals rather than simply spouting sophmoric hippie clap-trap like creating a "Department of Peace" (whatever that means), then perhaps he'd have better traction.

Re:Not every candidate (4, Interesting)

bckrispi (725257) | more than 6 years ago | (#21759916)

Well he's had at least one proposal [washingtonpost.com] that no-one else in Congress has had the guts to initiate. You've gotta give some credit there.

Selected Based on Polling Numbers (1)

StevisF (218566) | more than 6 years ago | (#21759152)

"As poll numbers change, we will attempt to expand our selection of candidates to include any who rise into the leading ranks."

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/research/4237333.html?series=46 [popularmechanics.com]

Re:Selected Based on Polling Numbers (1)

buswolley (591500) | more than 6 years ago | (#21759552)

Obama is Lincoln Returned to reunite America. Obama '08

Re:Not every candidate (1)

superwiz (655733) | more than 6 years ago | (#21759292)

Ah, why couldn't they allow the second candidate on the list that cared about space... maybe aliens. Maybe someone who has seen a UFO! You are right! Kucinich totally should have been there.

Re:Not every candidate (1)

Lost Engineer (459920) | more than 6 years ago | (#21759470)

Funny, I can't see the bottom of the list. I think it's a conspiracy by Firefox to ignore Ron Paul.

Re:Not every candidate (1, Flamebait)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 6 years ago | (#21759840)

Popular Mechanics has had a very obvious pro-corporate and pro-Republican bias for quite a while. You mean you hadn't noticed? It is pretty blatant sometimes.

My candidate is missing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21758858)

PM seems to have overlooked Dennis Kuccinich

One of these things is not like the others (4, Insightful)

Curien (267780) | more than 6 years ago | (#21758862)

o Auto
o Digital/Tech
o Climate/Energy
o Environment
o Gun control
o Infrastructure
o Science/Education
o Space

WTF??

Re:One of these things is not like the others (5, Funny)

Oriumpor (446718) | more than 6 years ago | (#21758932)

let me fix that:

o Auto
o Digital/Tech
o Climate/Energy
o Environment
o Cowboy Neal
o Infrastructure
o Science/Education
o Space

Re:One of these things is not like the others (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21758938)

The obviously meant this GUN. [wikipedia.org] Some of their tech needs controlling.

Re:One of these things is not like the others (1)

wizardforce (1005805) | more than 6 years ago | (#21758976)

you're right, it has little to do with the other topics although it's a very polar issue between the political parties and a lot of people feel strongly about one side or the other. It seems appropriate that this be addressed in the comparison. That is however, assuming that they actually end up doing what they say they are rather than what suits them as POTUS...

And the check boxes are confusing... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21759098)

The check boxes are confusing, too. At first, I thought the check box meant, for example, that they opposed gun control (or whatever). In actuality, it just means that their campaign had given a statement on that issue. Although to a limited extent, it might as well have been support. No campaign was going to give a statement they thought people didn't like. So all the gun comments I saw were pro-gun ownership to some degree, for example. Those opposed or who had no position at all generally did not give statements.

As for gun control, I guess that the Libertarian contingent might weigh on the side of it being a 'geek' issue. Think of ESR, for example.

But given the court ruling recently that the 2nd Amendment only concerns the states' right to keep a "well-regulated" militia, it's just about a non-issue. The gun voters are the only thing standing in the way of total regulation.

Personally, I don't much care. If we ever get to the point where the 'ammo box' is necessary to protect from anything but foreign invaders, we're completely hosed. Who do you shoot? Your neighbors? I'll stick to the soap, ballot & jury box, thanks.

Re:And the check boxes are confusing... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21759372)

But given the court ruling recently that the 2nd Amendment only concerns the states' right to keep a "well-regulated" militia, it's just about a non-issue. The gun voters are the only thing standing in the way of total regulation.


Which ruling do you mean? How recent? There is a Supreme Court case currently being heard that will address the 2nd Amendment through DC's gun ban. Has that been decided? Or are you full of shit?

Re:And the check boxes are confusing... (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 6 years ago | (#21759418)

But given the court ruling recently that the 2nd Amendment only concerns the states' right to keep a "well-regulated" militia, it's just about a non-issue. The gun voters are the only thing standing in the way of total regulation.

What are you talking about? The Supreme Court hasn't yet ruled on the Appeals Court decision that the DC handgun ban violated the 2A.

Personally, I don't much care. If we ever get to the point where the 'ammo box' is necessary to protect from anything but foreign invaders, we're completely hosed. Who do you shoot? Your neighbors? I'll stick to the soap, ballot & jury box, thanks.

Oh, please. For one, the ammo box is necessary to protect yourself from violent criminals, not just the government. The police aren't there to protect you; their job is to put up tape around the crime scene, collect evidence, and investigate the crime and bring the perpetrator to justice. They can't prevent crimes from happening, and they're not your personal bodyguard. If you want protection, you have to protect yourself (or hire a bodyguard).

And second, the ammo box is definitely useful for overthrowing bad governments. It happened here about 230 years ago, after all, and it's happened elsewhere. The French had a rather bloody revolution as I recall. It's a lot easier to overthrow the government when you're armed. You seem to be saying that revolution is worthless and that all hope is lost; again, most of the revolutions I can recall turned out rather well. The American colonists were definitely much better off ruling themselves than under British rule.

Re:And the check boxes are confusing... (1)

myowntrueself (607117) | more than 6 years ago | (#21759452)

The American colonists were definitely much better off ruling themselves than under British rule.

Something that has continued to be true to this day.

Americans were so much better off with Reagan than they would have been under Thatcher.

And Bush vs Blair... phew... well...

Re:And the check boxes are confusing... (1)

sethstorm (512897) | more than 6 years ago | (#21759838)

Americans were so much better off with Reagan than they would have been under Thatcher.
That's a matter of counting a worst of two evils - they both wrecked their own nations to "save" them.

And Bush vs Blair
One was the puppet master of another's foreign policy.

Re:One of these things is not like the others (4, Insightful)

megaditto (982598) | more than 6 years ago | (#21759102)

You are right: while all the other listed issues are interrelated, this "Gun Control" stands on its own. To fix the list, we need to add:

Freedom of Speech,
habeas corpus and
Civil rights

Also needed is Immigration all of these up together.

Re:One of these things is not like the others (1)

Unending (1164935) | more than 6 years ago | (#21759142)

It is sorta a geek issue IMO. Along with freedom of speech etc. Note the check marks are right where they should be on the people who at least claim to support the second amendment.

Re:One of these things is not like the others (1)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 6 years ago | (#21759156)

It does seem a lot more specific and is the only "social science" issue. Still, it is amusing to see candidates try to justify their stances while trying not to let science enter the equation as to what their stance is.

Re:One of these things is not like the others (2, Interesting)

WindowlessView (703773) | more than 6 years ago | (#21759232)

The inclusion of Gun Control in this matrix is as peculiar as the absence of trade and labor issues.

Re:One of these things is not like the others (1)

porpnorber (851345) | more than 6 years ago | (#21759348)

It's an inverse Schrödinger thing. Dead people make no observations, therefore handguns are anti-scientific.

Hm, the phrase "co-Schrödingerisation argument" is sparky. I have to start using it in my gibberish.

Re:One of these things is not like the others (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21759400)

duh, crypto

Re:One of these things is not like the others (3, Insightful)

jank1887 (815982) | more than 6 years ago | (#21759678)

No, it fits. This is a PopularMechanics list. They are quite proud of the fact that guns are a significant topic with their readership. they run ads for gunmakers, and don't apologize. they print both sides of letters to the editor about guns, gun control, gun ads, etc. gun control as a topic is likely high on the list of interest to the readership, along with tech/science/etc.

Re:One of these things is not like the others (1)

Curien (267780) | more than 6 years ago | (#21759798)

OK, that makes sense. I don't read the magazine regularly; but I've seen plenty of covers, and I never suspected guns were a main focus.

Geeks for Fred Thompson (0)

Ada_Rules (260218) | more than 6 years ago | (#21758870)

Granted I've only skimmed over the about half of the entries in the writeup but I supported Fred before I read this and support him after I read it. I suspect this will be true (i.e. no change in position) for everyone that looks at this article. It is pretty low on detail and then links back to full proposals but it is not a particularly user friendly format.

Re:Geeks for Fred Thompson (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21759054)

Have you actually investigated Fred's record? Cuz from what I've seen what he says and what he does doesn't match up.

Re:Geeks for Fred Thompson (3, Insightful)

Curien (267780) | more than 6 years ago | (#21759166)

I'm intrigued, and I'm always willing to listen to a fellow Ada appreciator, so let's take a look.

Auto

Invest "in renewable and alternative fuels to promote greater energy independence and a cleaner environment."

Wow, there's a well-thought-out plan!

Digital/Tech

Parents need to be empowered to protect their children from inappropriate matter, whether on TV, in video games, or on the computer. And we must do all we can to fight the explosion of child pornography over the Internet. [empahsis added]

Nothing to disagree with there!

Energy/Climate

committed to a balanced approach to energy security that increases domestic supplies, reduces demand for oil and gas, and promotes alternative fuels and other diverse energy sources ... [and] places more emphasis on conservation and energy efficiency

Wow, that's a great idea! I wonder why no other candidates say stuff like that?

Science/Education

Encourage students to pursue careers in science, technology, engineering and math.

Joke elided for fear of sounding like a broken record.

You read this stuff and it reaffirmed your faith in this guy? I knew absolutely nothing about his platform or views before. Now, I know he doesn't have any actual ideas or plans. I checked his website just to make sure I wasn't missing anything profound, and there's really *nothing* there other than vague hand-waiving. Given his "platform", I don't see why he's even bothering to run.

Re:Geeks for Fred Thompson (5, Funny)

Entropius (188861) | more than 6 years ago | (#21759272)

Thompson's platform is basically "I am more like Ronald Reagan than any of the other candidates, including the advanced age and partial dementia. Thus, since you are a good Republican and fellate statues of Reagan on a daily basis, you should vote for me."

Re:Geeks for Fred Thompson (1)

alvinrod (889928) | more than 6 years ago | (#21759374)

There really isn't a lot of substance to what he has to say on any particular view point. Then again it's pretty damned hard for one of the other candidates to attack your point of view if you haven't made it specific enough.

Like you said, there's not much there with which one can disagree. All of the things he listed are viewpoints that most people would agree with. Of course renewable energy and getting off of foreign oil is good. Until he lays out an exact plan for how to do so, which may or may not be crap, criticizing him for any reason other than "he seems to have a very broad message with no particular specifics" would only make the person attacking him look stupid.

Personally, I don't think I'd vote for him simply based on the fact that he hasn't really gone into detail. It's nice that you want to do all of those things, but what indication is there that you have a plan for doing them or are even capable of formulating one. I don't feel like a gambling man when it comes to choosing the leader of the nation.

Re:Geeks for Fred Thompson (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21759406)

Yes, we don't have enough federal government telling me what to do. We definitely need much more of our society to be molded by Fred.

Re:Geeks for Fred Thompson (1)

QCompson (675963) | more than 6 years ago | (#21759594)

That is astonishing. The first thing this guy thinks of with tech issues is "OMG think of the children!!!"?

Why would any Slashdotter support him?

Re:Geeks for Fred Thompson (1)

Dragonslicer (991472) | more than 6 years ago | (#21759674)

Yeah, but his wife is a FLILF.

Spammer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21758890)

What's with the spammer with the site? Does slashdot delete those?

Re:Spammer (1)

renegadesx (977007) | more than 6 years ago | (#21758934)

They dont delete anything unless its something like death threats, alleged links to child p0rn, terroist threats stuff like that

Spam just gets modded, not deleted and they are most likley the same guy just going through different proxies.

Re:Spammer (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21759040)

Most of the spam gets refered to here.... [ripway.com]

Guns? WTF? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21758896)

In what universe does the topic of gun control belong on a list of issues important to geeks, scientists and environmentalists? I know this is slashdot where many think owning a hand gun will stop the guvment from stealing your tin foil hat but WTF.

- Anonymous because questioning gun-nuts usually results in death threats.

Re:Guns? WTF? (1)

link5280 (1141253) | more than 6 years ago | (#21759030)

When your PC becomes self aware and tries to kill humans you will be able to fight back. Every nerd needs gun, just in case!

Re:Guns? WTF? (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 6 years ago | (#21759902)

Guns rights are a big thing if people did not have them the king of england can just come in to your house and boss you around.

Re: Guns? WTF? (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 6 years ago | (#21759062)

know this is slashdot where many think owning a hand gun will stop the guvment from stealing your tin foil hat
LoL

Actually they don't want to steal your hat; they just want to make you wear it shiny-side down.

Re:Guns? WTF? (4, Funny)

Kozar_The_Malignant (738483) | more than 6 years ago | (#21759384)

>In what universe does the topic of gun control belong on a list of issues important to geeks

It's just a matter of degree. Your regular gun nut wants his Colt Python, full auto M16, and a K-bar knife. Your geek gun nut feels better with a BFG-9000, plasma cannon, chainsaw, and a backup Death Star if at all possible. It's all about who you think is after you.

Disappointment (3, Insightful)

pete-classic (75983) | more than 6 years ago | (#21758902)

This seems to assume that 1. you only care about "mainstream party" candidates and 2. spending is the primary measure of support.

I don't know how willingness to spend confiscated funds on research became a qualification for office, but I am completely convinced that this point of view is part of the problem, not the solution.

-Peter

Where's the column (5, Funny)

joeflies (529536) | more than 6 years ago | (#21758908)

on whether the candidate supports PS3 or XBOX360? Or BluRay vs HDDVD? Or KDE vs GNOME?

not easy to follow at all (4, Insightful)

yali (209015) | more than 6 years ago | (#21758930)

"Easy to follow matrix"? Not exactly. At first, I thought the matrix indicated endorsements, but it doesn't -- checkmarks simply indicate that they were able to find out where a candidate stands. If you actually want to know what that stance is, you sometimes have to click through many screens to get to it.

Great idea, mediocre execution. (And why is gun control on a list of science and technology issues, but not stem cell research?)

Re:not easy to follow at all (1)

pete-classic (75983) | more than 6 years ago | (#21759042)

Has anyone actually come out against stem cell research?

-Peter

Re:not easy to follow at all (4, Informative)

yali (209015) | more than 6 years ago | (#21759176)

Has anyone actually come out against stem cell research?

Democrats all seem to favor stem cell research. But among Republicans it's mixed:

  • Giuliani favors expanding stem cell research.
  • McCain and Romney oppose research using cloned human embryos but not embryos left over from fertility treatments.
  • Huckabee only favors continuing research with existing lines.
  • Hunter, Keyes, Tancredo, and Thompson oppose embryonic stem cell research.
  • Paul opposes funding stem cell research (but for econo-libertarian reasons rather than religious/moral ones. If you generalize from his stated position about stem cells [ronpaul2008.com] , he apparently would oppose most federal funding for science and medicine).

Source: The Pew Forum [pewforum.org] (except the Ron Paul parenthetical).

Re:not easy to follow at all (1)

dada21 (163177) | more than 6 years ago | (#21759186)

Has anyone actually come out against stem cell research?

As far as I know, only the "King of Spammers" has said that he is opposed to Federal funding of stem cell research, and would vote against any bill that proposed any Federal regulation of it.

Other than that, AFAIK, all the other candidates are as ambiguous on that issue as all the other issues: just pandering for votes from both moderates and fanatics, answering no one in the process.

Re:not easy to follow at all (1)

fimbulvetr (598306) | more than 6 years ago | (#21759414)

You're generalizing too much, I think. It's not a question of whether is one "for" or "against" SCR, it's whether it's going to be federally funded or not. Their personal opinions should not interfere with their presidency actions, and they shouldn't be able to control private research into SCs, etc.

At least, that's what I look for in a candidate. To each their own, though.

Re:not easy to follow at all (1)

pete-classic (75983) | more than 6 years ago | (#21759580)

I was actually trying to point out the silliness of the post I was replying to. You and Adam sort of got it.

*shrug*

-Peter

Re:not easy to follow at all (1)

yali (209015) | more than 6 years ago | (#21759896)

What was silly about the post?

Admittedly I was not highlighting the distinction between a position on funding stem cell research versus a position on stem cell research per se. But among Republicans, only Paul treats those as separate issues. For others who are opposed, their position against funding embryonic stem cell research derives from a pro-life moral stance. Fred Thompson has referred to "unborn children" in discussing embryonic stem cell research, Tom Tancredo has called it "morally reprehensible," and Alan Keyes says that it violates equal rights. All three (and several others) are pro-life and would outlaw abortion if they could. Their language suggests they would define embryos as human life and thus be inclined to ban embryonic stem cell research as part of a broader ban on abortion.

So to give a serious answer to your question: Yes, several candidates are against embryonic stem cell research.

Re:not easy to follow at all (2, Interesting)

wizardforce (1005805) | more than 6 years ago | (#21759092)

Great idea, mediocre execution. (And why is gun control on a list of science and technology issues, but not stem cell research?)
or for that matter, what is their stance on whether or not we should ignore the constitution in regard to intelligent design being taught in schools? [probably been answered but hey what else on this list hasn't either?] seems like a rather important thing to know about a potential POTUS- whether or not they intend to inject religion into science education and all... It was rather dissappointing to see that clinton was the only one to say anything about her plans for the country in regard to space exploration.

I think they meant (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21759138)

Easy to follow like the Matrix Trilogy.

Re:not easy to follow at all (1)

Empiric (675968) | more than 6 years ago | (#21759320)

...but not stem cell research?

Because recent advances have eliminated the necessity of an ethically-controversial method of acquiring them?

Pretty widely-carried news recently. [wired.com]

I can't really picture the most conservative of conservatives being against it on this basis. So, maybe the people choosing the issues for the grid saw it as a nonissue at this point as well.

Re:not easy to follow at all (1)

yali (209015) | more than 6 years ago | (#21759590)

From your link: "This is early-stage research. We should not abandon other areas of stem cell research. It's by no means certain they'll differentiate in the same way as a normal embryonic stem cell."

Additionally, you said:

I can't really picture the most conservative of conservatives being against it on this basis.

Based on his past statements, it is likely that Ron Paul would still oppose it [ronpaul2008.com] .

Re:not easy to follow at all (3, Interesting)

Empiric (675968) | more than 6 years ago | (#21759676)

Yeah, Ron Paul likely would, but probably largely because of his economic stance. "Against stem cell research" and "against federally-funded stem cell research" (your link) are different statements, with different drivers for evaluation involved.

Good point, though.

Not the First (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21758952)

This has been done previously by MIT, in a much easier to follow format [dwarfurl.com]

Affirmatives only? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21758962)

I didn't go through all of them, but it seems the matrix only shows which topics a candidate has an affirmative stance on. If they do, then a checkmark links to an explanation of the stance. If not, no information is given. For example, all of them except Giuliani and Huckabee were "in favor" of digital technology. I assume that Giuliani and Huckabee weren't taking the Amish approach, but rather they hadn't made any clear statements on the matter.

So the chart is a mildly intersting way of presenting a limited amount of information on candidates stances, but not particularly useful for comparing them. A better approach (although still imperfect) would have been to attempt to determine sides of an issue and divide the candidates that way.

For example: Should federal government increase spending on internet infrastructure projects? *

Biden: No
Clinton: Yes
Edwards: No
Obama: Yes
Richardson: No

* (answers randomly assigned)

Re:Affirmatives only? (1)

geminidomino (614729) | more than 6 years ago | (#21759178)

* (answers randomly assigned)
Nitpick: That's pseudo-random at best, and even that is statistically doubtful. The selected candidates were the democrat slugs, and the yes/no answers just alternate...

Re:Affirmatives only? (1)

Curien (267780) | more than 6 years ago | (#21759280)

How do you know? He could have thrown dice or used some other good source of random data. Just because a sequence has a pattern (and it's a short sequence, at that) doesn't mean it's non-random.

Re:Affirmatives only? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21759532)

No. check mark just means the candidate has a policy on it. May be For or Against.
the whole matrix is confusing & stupid. Not at all easy to follow.

Re:Affirmatives only? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21759670)

Oh how I love slashdot. Thanks statistics nitpicks. Both you and the GP gave me a chuckle.

And are thrown dice actually random, either?

Re:Affirmatives only? (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 6 years ago | (#21759534)

There's a big problem with your idea: the article only looks for places where that candidate's campaign has expressed a position on that issue. So they would have to find negative positions to do as you request, and that's not going to happen.

Even on something as controversial as gun control, I challenge you to find something supporting all-out gun control on any of the Dem's websites. (It may be there; I don't have time to check now, but I seriously doubt it.) Why? Because the Dems know that gun control is a major issue for many voters, and will cause them to lose votes. It happened to Gore in 2000, arguably costing him the election. So for issues where they have a negative position, candidates generally just won't say anything if they think it'll cost them too many votes.

Let's look at the other issues:

Auto: what candidate is seriously going to say "I oppose alternative fuel usage, and think we should stick with oil no matter what."? Of course they're all going to support energy independence, alternative fuels, etc. The devil's in the details, however; what would they really do in support of that?

Digital/Tech: this isn't exactly a pro/con issue, either, unlike gun control (where you're usually for it or against it). Who's against technology? What candidate is going to say "I plan to ban all new technology, and take us back to an agricultural economy"? "Digital/Tech" isn't even an issue, per se.

Climate/Energy: who's going to say "I don't believe in this global warming mumbo jumbo at all, and think we should just consume fossil fuels as much as we want."?

Environment: again, who's going to say "Screw the environment! I plan to let megacorporations dump pollutants wherever they want!" Here again, the devil's in the details, and also in the voting records.

Science/Education: who's going to say "I'm against science and education"? The devil's in the details, though: different people have different definitions of the word "science". For some, it involves religious beliefs about the origin of the species, the age of the earth, etc. "Education" too, is different for different people. Some people want mandatory religious education in public schools.

In summary, gun control is actually the ONLY issue there that's really a for-or-against issue.

Election 2008 USA: Asshat vs Penishead (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21758972)

What are the views of these 2 political sockpuppets? [myminicity.com] on science and tech?
Asshat [myminicity.com] [tech] or
Penishead [myminicity.com] [science]

5 IT questions going to the 08 candidates - help! (4, Informative)

apachetoolbox (456499) | more than 6 years ago | (#21759002)

http://www.copyrightreform.us/2008-presidential-candidates [copyrightreform.us] has something much better going on. Help out by suggesting IT related questions to ask the candidates. Replies and scans of the letters they send back will be posted as they come in. Help us figure out some good questions.

Re:5 IT questions going to the 08 candidates - hel (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21759248)

My Question... What is your stand on pr0n neutrality? Shouldn't we all have free and open access to pr0n?

Re:5 IT questions going to the 08 candidates - hel (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21759266)

www.myfreepaysite.com + disposable email.

Re:5 IT questions going to the 08 candidates - hel (1)

JackieBrown (987087) | more than 6 years ago | (#21759720)

Am I the only one starting to get afraid to follow links posted here (at least at work?)

Not directed at the parent, I just felt noticed myself hestitating before clicking

Meaningless drivel (5, Insightful)

Normal_Deviate (807129) | more than 6 years ago | (#21759036)

Every election year, people get caught up in the candidates' "positions" as if they meant something. Face it: the Presidential election is the world series of lying, and you are not wise enough to detect it. In a political debate, you may safely ignore any sentence that does not begin with "When I faced this problem before, I ..." Remember, under Jimmy Carter we got deregulation of trucking, airlines, and natural gas. Under Nixon we got actual wage and price controls (!), and the EPA.

Re:Meaningless drivel (2)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21759234)

The exception this year is Ron Paul. Even those who disagree with him can't fault his honesty or consistency.

Re:Meaningless drivel (1)

Curien (267780) | more than 6 years ago | (#21759362)

Or, on the other side, Kucinich. Both of those men have class and integrity. I would be happy to vote for either.

Re:Meaningless drivel (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21759620)

Consistency? *cough* DOMA *cough*

Obama is quite specific (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21759126)

I was interested in the difference between Obama and Hillary. Obama's strategy depends heavily on Cellulosic ethanol [wikipedia.org] . One of the advantages of cellulosic ethanol is that there are a couple of major ways to make it. That makes it a pretty safe bet that the necessary technology will develop. The other advantage is that it can be made from agricultural waste.

Hillary said a bunch of stuff but it was the kind of stuff that a politician would say. I really liked that Obama was specific. That makes his proposals much more likely to happen.

Re:Obama is quite specific (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21759352)

Yeah, but at the same time Obama is hard-core anti-nuke. While increasing biofuels will certainly be helpful he conveniently ignores the effect of coal and gas fired plants on the environment. Sadly, none of the Democrats have come out with a pro-nuke position which leads me to believe that all of them are just giving lip service to the issue of global warming. It looks like this election is going to be the turd sandwich against the giant douche again.

Yeah, he had the best answers overall. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21759480)

Obama definitely had the most thought-out positions of anyone I read (though I didn't read them all, by any means). I'm a little troubled that he thought we needed stronger copyright enforcement, though, even if he was for patent reform. Still, that he thought any kind of reform was needed at all is heartening when compared to the other candidates. I doubt we'll find anyone who is willing to advocate a deep enough reform there to be meaningful, anyhow.

It's good enough that I'll probably cross party lines to vote for him. Not that a Republican registration is even meaningful with the pathetic crop of candidates we have to choose from. Sorry Ron Paul fans, but while I agree with him on a considerable number of points, it's for all the wrong reasons.

This tells me very little (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21759148)

While some of the links tell me some information about the candidates, I still don't know where they stand on topics like DRM, DMCA and all of the other topics that matter to a consumer and technology minded voter.

bah humbug (1)

FudRucker (866063) | more than 6 years ago | (#21759258)

politicians can change their minds and flip flop on policies at a whim that what they support today will not be what they support after the election...

A pie chart would have been just as usefull (2, Insightful)

YU5333021 (1093141) | more than 6 years ago | (#21759350)

This is the dumbest chart I have ever seen. A check-mark? What does that mean? The candidate is aware/unaware of the issue? Is pro/con with the issue? Just dumb. And where is Kusinich? He'd probably have the most checks (whatever they may stand for).

Or am I not geek enough to just scan over the chart and go: "Aha! Now it all makes sense." Typical dumbed down politics. Everything is so black and white at this point that a fucking check-mark is all you need to see in order to make up your own simplistic black or white opinion on any subject.

Free abortions for all!!!...err...No abortions for anybody!.....er..... Abortions for some and bestbuy vouchers for others.

Re:A pie chart would have been just as usefull (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21759926)

The check mark means they have information on that particular subject. Click it to see the information they put together.

Republican Categorizer (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 6 years ago | (#21759370)

Categories:

Auto Digital/Tech Energy/Climate Environment Gun Control Infrastructure Science/Education Space


"Gun Control"? Which Republican picked those categories? What does gun control have to do with science policy? Does _Popular Mechanics_ have a firearms classifieds section or something?

Science Policies (1)

endlessoul (741131) | more than 6 years ago | (#21759438)

Okay, fine. These candidates tell us what their current motives are.

But how many are going to actually follow through and actually carry out these plans?

Faith Based Science Policies are Neither! (-1, Troll)

itsybitsy (149808) | more than 6 years ago | (#21759624)

Since it's next to impossible for a reality based person to be elected president due to the overwhelming prejudice among the faith driven belief nuts it's quite an oxymoronic statement to suggest that a faith based presidential candidate could even possibly have a real "science" policy. For if they did have a real science based policy they'd have to give up their precious and sad devotion to whacked out unprovable beliefs in their own thinking.

Yes, it's not possible for a person of faith or belief to make decisions in the area of science. They simply are not qualified due to their inability to give up their belief in that which can't be tested. Any policy they create regarding science would be faith based due to their inability to distinguish reality from their "god" delusional fantasies.

Reality is the cure. Try it out for a change in your life. It's a harsh mistress but it's worth it. When you realize that you get only one life life becomes infinitely more valuable. Decisions take on a more important role. A reality based President would be a much more careful and caring person.

By the way Mitt Romney broke the law - if not the spirit of the law - of Separation of Church and State when he made his prejudicial speech last week against atheists. If he becomes President he would immediately need to be impeached for violation of the US Constitution and Laws regarding this.

Religion and Beliefs Poison Everything.

MSNBC beat them to it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21759770)

Hold on a second here (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21759816)

Wait, is this a pro-Ron Paul article or not? Tell me now, before I read it, so I can know whether to bash it or not.

Kucinich? (1)

Telepathetic Man (237975) | more than 6 years ago | (#21759942)

Is there some reason why Kucinich is regularly left out of all Presidential debates and comparisons? Is there some reason that everyone is afraid of him? Don't tell me a congressman isn't good enough to be a President. Only Senators can become president this time around?
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>