Why do all the hackers embrace Obama? It seems like every tech web site I see has an Obama sticker on there. I would have thought that people who want to start businesses would be Republican, because they have always been the ones who want to make it as painless as possible to start and own a profitable business.
Firstly, not all hackers are founding or interested in founding businesses.
Secondly, the difference between the democrats and republicans on the policy towards small business is really not all that different. There are small, honestly insignificant differences in taxes which might be effected. And capital gains isn't exactly on people's minds when they found a business. It's mostly float or sink.
But, thirdly, the republicans routinely have the least progressive attitude towards software patent reform, public domain status, copyright reform, and tend to enforce monopolies in, for example, media.
Four, Obama embraces technology, has a technology policy, and is altogether seen as progressing away from the old paper bureaucracies.
Fifth, a huge number of hackers are from immigrant populations, whose livelyhood is increasingly threatened by the demand for visas and protectionist immigration and freetrade policies.
Finally, for many hackers, questions of economic policy are almost completely irrelevant compared to the promise of a more pacifistic war policy, more widespread civil liberties, and a government that doesn't act as if American citizens, and American citizens alone, are god's chosen people.
Many hackers are outsiders, who would bare the brunt of an assault on civil freedoms. Most hackers are familiar with moral reasoning. Most hackers could only get their start by disobeying the system somewhat, and are routinely familiar with doing illegal acts that nonetheless cause no harm. Thus hackers find themselves in opposition to authoritarian structures, and the republicans have, in the public consciousness, been most likely to exercise their might in this manner.
(I've only just realized that HN's guidelines contain the admonishment 'no politics')
> But, thirdly, the republicans routinely have the least progressive attitude towards software patent reform, public domain status, copyright reform, and tend to enforce monopolies in, for example, media.
Huh? The record and movie company donations almost all go to Dems. Repubs don't care.
> Fifth, a huge number of hackers are from immigrant populations, whose livelyhood is increasingly threatened by the demand for visas and protectionist immigration and freetrade policies.
The amnesty and expanded immigration proposal, McCain-Kennedy, was pushed by Bush and McCain.
The protectionist stuff is all from Dems. What little free trade stuff there is comes from Repubs.
It's simple really. People don't exclusively vote their economic interest. For example, Mississippi has the strongest correlation between income and voting and yet 30% of its voters in the poorest income level voted Republican (i.e. against their economic interest). Further, the richest states (CT, MA, CA, etc.) trend Democratic. Here's a good academic study on the topic in case you're interested... www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research/published/rb_qjps.pdf
I'm not sure it's a forgone conclusion that poor people voting for non-democrats is a vote against their economic interests. Legions of economists would disagree with you on that. To be sure, legions more would agree, but you can hardly take it as a given.
People who start businesses want to run them in places where there is political stability and the social contract is relatively intact...
4 more years of (failed|insane|irresponsible) policies will not only bankrupt the nation, but will alienate us from the rest of the world; this is not good for business.
This breed of Republican (laissez-faire, I think it is spelled) is, in my estimation, not the best for small business. It apparently translates to "might makes right" in practice.
Personally, I think it's more obnoxious than awkward. I can't see anyone's political views being positively influenced by a WiFi network named "Obama2008".
He not only can't type, he can't tie his shoes, or comb his hair. It happened during a vacation at a Vietnamese hotel.
A smart guy like you, who can type and all, could have used a "google" to find this out. But, if you had, you wouldn't have been able to make a witty comment.
I used this thing called "google" to find a handwriting sample. I'd argue if his hands work well enough to write this, they work well enough to do everything you claim he doesn't do himself.
You made an assertion. I provided evidence to the contrary. I'd thought a hacker was interested in truth. I think the only way to find truth is by the scientific method, however i also think water is wet.
I'm not only interested in the truth, I'm interested in spreading it far and wide.
However, you must admit that the handwriting argument isn't airtight. If we're going to smite evil, what's wrong with bringing in the big guns? Or, are you suggesting that we use something more conclusive than medical tests? (Of course, said tests should be performed by a neutral party, preferably recorded. Should it be broadcast as well?)
BTW - When do we get to ask Obama about the Annenberg Challenge? After all, it was one of the highlights of his community organizing days.
Part the first. The desire to spread the truth creates a bias that makes it far more difficult to accept new data with a reasonable weight, because you have a big investment in the old model.
For example, it was only yesterday, 1822 that the catholic church finally accepted that the earth revolves around the sun. It took something like 300 years and amazing evidence to reevaluate their position on planetary motion -- spreading the word is an acceleration that results in inertia.
So, you should probably stop doing that, or people will think you're very vocal and often wrong.
For point number two, handwriting isn't an argument. It's evidence. they are different things. McCain didn't say he couldn't use his hands -- you did. You've been proven wrong and will neither muster an argument against the evedence nor change your opinion. I don't care what McCain can or can't do. I only care that you've been demonstrated to be wrong, and haven't brought any arguments to defend yourself. Frankly, you should be attacking the evidence. Your failing to do so means YOU ARE LOSING! OH NOES!
Part 3. How about right now? If somebody is preventing you from asking that question, lmk and i'll call the cops for you d00d. this is america, we gots the freedoms de speeches.
^ it's probably best to ignore this post if you don't breath through your mouth. ^^
^^ yes. i just made an indirect ad-homonym attack. therefore i rule. QED. ^^^
^^^ i have to apologize for my non hacker rambling - my editor has been sacked. ^^^^
^^^^ the remainder of this post shall be about mooses.
apparently '*' is a special character. the mooses have replaced them all with '^'
the mooses have informed me tom Brocaw types with one finger -- in your face!
> The desire to spread the truth creates a bias that makes it far more difficult to accept new data with a reasonable weight, because you have a big investment in the old model.
Huh? I was suggesting spreading "the truth" as you asserted it. I suggested that we demand a conclusive test of McCain's physical abilities and spread the word. If he actually can type in a significant way and yet doesn't read e-mail, Obama's charge gets greater distribution.
If, on the other hand, he can't type and/or does use e-mail, the demand and publicity may have a political downside. But, that's shouldn't bother you because you're certain that you're correct.
> McCain didn't say he couldn't use his hands -- you did.
Except that I didn't. As one can see above, I wrote that he can't do certain things and nothing has contradicted that. (See the Forbes article quoted below.)
We've now seen that the argument using the handwriting evidence was wrong - McCain does have trouble typing. It was a dumb argument anyway - a handwriting sample doesn't prove that he can write for a significant period of time.
However, you're in good company. Obama's ad was wrong - McCain does use e-mail. He surfs the web. He just doesn't type lengthy responses - he dictates instead, because his hands don't work very well.
Do you really want to argue that typing >30WPM for more than 10 minutes is a necessary requirement for the presidency?
1. spreading the truth is silly. 1pt jfoutz
2. if he can write, then he can X. you never addressed that point. clearly he can write, you've implicitly accepted that evidence. therefore he can comb his hair, and all the other things you asserted he can't do. 1pt jfoutz
3. you're certain that you're correct -- i'm one of the most open minded people you'll ever meet. you would be shocked by the positions i have flip-floped on. 1pt. jfoutz
4. McCain does have trouble typing. my dad surfs the net, he types with his right index finger. sophistication != manual dexterity. tom brocaw. hell, i don't know how to explain it to you. 1pt jfoutz
5. who gives a fuck about Obama? 1pt - jfoutz
6. typing == presidency? this is subtle and I'm not sober enough to address it adequately. The argument goes something like -- if you can't type, you don't understand computers. if you can't understand computers (demonstrated by lack of typing) it's unlikely you can understand large bureaucracy (afaik that's the fed.) if you can't understand that how can you be an effective president?
you may be right, i don't think so, and i'm not really able to construct an stellar argument right now, so 1pt anamax
5 vs 1. jfoutz wins. totally fixed. i sympathize because i'm a liberal. and also i won so i'm feeling magnanimous.
anywho. if you're ever in albuquerque, drop me a line. jfoutz@gmail.com. honestly, i'd love to get in this discussion in person. I'll buy the beer. heck, i think i owe you one anyway.
I'm going to claim victory now, because it's time to play guitar hero. I'll take the absence of response as acceptance of your failure to support any argument, and any response whatsoever as a desire to buy me beer.
That sure sounds like Republican propaganda, probably in response to a recent Democratic ad. No mention of it on his wikipedia page (it says "His injuries left him permanently incapable of raising his arms above his head"), and I had no problem finding pictures of him pointing with
an extended index finger:
The "can't type but does use e-mail" stuff is at least as old as McCain's 2000 campaign. I've posted a 2000 link to the "uses e-mail" below. Here's a 2000 source for "McCain's severe war injuries prevent him from combing his hair, typing on a keyboard, or tying his shoes."
He hasn't made a big deal of it. That's somewhat understandable - if he can't work a keyboard, there are some other things that he probably can't work and some of them are somewhat embarrassing. Or, he's lying. Or, he's been waiting to spring this, the crafty, scheming old bastard.
What do you think that you can accomplish by arguing this point?
BTW - "can't type" is a Dem talking point, propaganda if you will. Feel free to explain why "it's Repub propaganda" is relevant and "it's Dem propaganda" isn't.
In general, I'm sometimes sympathetic to the right wing point of view - less government is a good idea. But I generally see the Republican party as willing to sacrifice honesty at almost every opportunity, and it offends me.
And I very much doubt that when the Democratic party decided to run an ad questioning John McCain's lack of computer literacy, that they didn't research the possibility of him being physically handicapped.
So my natural impulse is to believe that it's more of the same, morally equivalent to WMDs in Iraq.
So, you're going with "he's lying". Let's demand a medical report to seal the deal.
FWIW, the "they're too smart" argument tells us that Hans Reiser is innocent.
BTW - Feel free to cite a prominent Dem who believed that there weren't WMDs. Yes, during the Clinton administration counts. (Unless you want to argue that stupid Bush was distorting intelligence reports from Texas.) Also, what counts as WMDs? If I have everything ready to go.... (And, Iraq did have yellow cake - the sale and shipment was in the news earlier this summer.)
That link shows McCain using e-mail and quotes him saying "I read e-mails all the time", which is what the Obama advert said that he couldn't or didn't do.
I don't know that I'd call thumbing a blackberry as "typing", but if that makes you happy....
Let's rewind to 2000. According to http://www.forbes.com/asap/2000/0529/053_print.html , "McCain is an inveterate devotee of email. His nightly ritual is to read his email together with his wife, Cindy. The injuries he incurred as a Vietnam POW make it painful for McCain to type. Instead, he dictates responses that his wife types on a laptop. "She's a whiz on the keyboard, and I'm so laborious," McCain admits."
I just watched the commercial, and they don't actually say anything resembling "can't type." They say he "can't send an email."
But letting politics intrude here is probably bad, especially when I don't actually live in the US anymore. We have our own neo-con party to deal with up here in Canada.
As I understand it, it's not that he couldn't reach a keyboard, but that it would be pretty uncomfortable for long stretches.
I'm sure he could dictate to a computer if he really wanted to, but given that he's constantly surrounded by secretaries, assistants and minders, why would he bother? It's much faster to dictate to a person than to a computer.
Although I can easily talk at a speed of 120 words per minute, I often found the program waiting for me to choose my next word because conversational speech and written language are different.
However, that was a pleasant reversal from past reviews when the program lagged far behind me.
Speech recognition and other assistive technologies work well enough that if he wanted to use a computer, he could (see Stephen Hawking for an example).
I find that using the clan tag to prepend your preferred candidate is quite effective. I am known as [RonPaul2008]cookiecaper in Quake Wars, and have a Ron Paul spray in TF2. I've heard three or four people say Ron Paul clan signs and sprays influenced them to learn about the dude, so it seems at least somewhat effective.
