Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Technology

Cell Phones and Broadband 'Net Win in S. Korea 177

Posted by CowboyNeal from the politics-the-next-generation dept.
McLuhanesque writes "The Globe and Mail has an interesting column on how text messaging and the use of effective broadband internet content helped propel an obscure lawyer, Mr. Roh Moo-hyun, from a perpetual also-ran to become South Korea's new president. 'With the world's highest penetration of high-speed and mobile Internet services, South Korea is at the cutting edge of technology that is transforming the political system, making it more open and democratic. It could be a preview of the shape of Western democracy,' the article says."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Cell Phones and Broadband 'Net Win in S. Korea More

Cell Phones and Broadband 'Net Win in S. Korea

Comments Filter:

  • Technology is good... (Score:5, Funny)

    by acehole ( 174372 ) on Friday January 03, 2003 @01:36AM (#5004398) Homepage
    Just someone has to tell the koreans that 86 hours straight is a little on the excessive side. Even if you are camping....

    • Good article.

      A politician getting elected without corporate
      political bribe money. Using the internet, and
      democratic grass root principles... wow..
      maybe that will make him more accountable to
      the voters unlike the USA, where they are only
      accountable to the special interests who write
      the donation checks.

      Why don't we try to get some of our own elected
      here, in the USA too..?

      Maybe slashdot would be a good place to start this from..

      Then we would have a fighting chance to stop all
      this bought & paid for legislation like the DMCA..etc..etc.

      Maybe we should hurry before the establishment buys a law forbidding this! (which I am sure they will try..)

  • South Korea is at the cutting edge of technology that is transforming the political system, making it more open and democratic

    Maybe GWB should bribe the North Koreans with cell phones if they'll quit doing nuclear weapon shiznit. I'll start by donating my Nokia piece of crap!

  • look at the difference (Score:5, Insightful)

    by der_saeufer ( 139759 ) on Friday January 03, 2003 @01:40AM (#5004413)
    South Korea, through capitalism and foreign trade, has built itself into an industrial and technological powerhouse. Flip over any electronic device, and it was probably made in Korea, Taiwan, or Japan. Korea today is in a similar place to Japan in 1980--trying to gain a good name in Western markets. No one drove Hondas in 1980, and Hyundais aren't too popular today. I bet, though, that in 2010 there will be Korean cars all over American streets. (Not European streets, tho. The only really successful Japanese car maker there is Mitsubishi, and that's because they build Mitsubishis in Europe, often alongside European makes, i.e. Volvo S40/Mitsubishi Carisma).

    Now look where North Korea is... trying to build nukes and pissing off everyone in the world except bin Laden and Hussein.

    You tell me which is the better system.
    • Hyundai is an extremely popular brand in Australia. So is Toyota. So is Mitsubishi. So is Ford. Cars are cars unless you're a 'riceboy' [riceboypage.com].
      • There are a couple reasons to favor Honads/Toyotas over less established brands. Because they're more established and well known, you're more likely to get a higher resale value for those cars (though things can always change given 5 years). Also, toyota and honda in particular try very very hard to get top spots in consumer satisfaction surveys since they're neck-and-neck elsewhere, so if something really major goes wrong with those cars, even if the warranty has run out, you can get them to replace it on their dime because they don't want to lose you and your friends' loyalty.

        Not that Honda/Toyota/other established brands are by any means necessarily the best, just that brand recognition can factor into a buyer's decision, and there's no reason to poo-poo that.

    • Now look where US is... trying to build *more* nukes and pissing off everyone in the world except Bin Laden.
      • Now look where US is... trying to build *more* nukes and pissing off everyone in the world except Bin Laden.

        The US is increasing its stockpile of nukes? Got a source for this? Because nukes aren't much use against terrorists.
        • Please note that I was only trying to show the irony in the previous posters' comment and whatever question you have about my comment -- you can ask the same question to the previous poster. In any case, I didn't realize that anyone would be pedantic enough or manipulative enough, to ignore the general meaning of my words, but now that you did, you've given me the license to become as pedantic as you are.

          We are indeed reducing some of our stockpile for our bigger nukes, that's correct, but we are also developing and producing lots and lots of smaller tactical nukes, so in the end, the answer is no. The total number of nukes is indeed "probably" rising. I say "probably", because our current number of smaller nukes seems to be around 1,100, our ability to make smaller and smaller nukes is improving, and since Bush wants more and more of them -- our overall number of nukes is "probably" rising.
    • DISCLAIMER: *DEFINITELY* offtopic

      I hate to be a typical liberal with the "nothing's as simple as that" message, but I can't help it. :)

      My take on this current "crisis" is that North Korea's been building nukes (or trying to build nukes, depending on whether you buy CIA's report) largely for defensive purposes. Let's indulge the following for a minute.

      The joint Team Spirit exercise [globalsecurity.org] by South Korean and US forces between 1976 and 1993 was halted in 1994 in an effort to dissuade North Korea from continuing its nuclear development. During these 17 years, however, North Korea had to *annually* find itself in the cross-hair of the most advanced military weapons in the world. Though no real aggression was done, you have to wonder what psychological damage these "excercises" wreaked on North Korean sense of its security. Given the receding Chinese military support for its security, North Korea understandably (albeit dangerously) wants some form of military safeguard against the perceived threat from the US and South Korea. The 37,000 US troops stationed in Seoul doesn't help the situation from their perspective, I'm sure.

      I'm not defending either Kim Jong-Il's ill treatment of his critics or his dogmatic insistence on sticking to failed policies of communism. I merely want to point out the complexity of the current situation. As long as North Korea perceives the US as a potential aggressor (which the US's past actions somewhat justify) it cannot help but divert a large portion of its limited resources into maintaining its armed forces while simultaneously persuing the only guarantee against the *perceived* American nuclear threat, i.e. its own nuclear program. Given its already meager resources, there's no way they can have a productive economy of any kind under these circumstances...

      South Korea's prosperity came at the heavy price of decades of US-friendly military dictatorship, and I'm much more prone to credit South Korea's "fortune" in allying itself with the US, its economy, and its powerful military forces than South Korea's commitment to capitalism and foreign trade. Of course, South Koreans worked hard to get where they are. I'm not denying that. At the same time, one cannot overlook the geo-political fortune that their alliance with the US and the Western world has afforded them. In the same vein, neither can we overlook the geo-political misfortune that got North Korean into this paranoid *Cold-War* arms race with which few other countries are still engaged. If they didn't see the need to maintain one-million-strong army and their nuclear program(s), North Koreans might have some resources left over to feed their people and develop their economy. In fact, that's exactly what they appear to want out of the US at the moment. And they have also been on the track to some semblance of economic recovery through their "special economic zones" initiative in Shinuiju and Kaesong.

      Yeah, I'm rambling now... But I worry that a rather simplistic "good vs. evil" global paradigm that seems to dominate much of the current American foreign policy might create more problems than solve them.
      • from one liberal to another . .. .

        1)Bill Clinton's (he's the man!) revelation of the strikes that would've followed failure of the Agreed Framework accords is one of the reasons they are being so agressive right now.

        2)N. Korea would sell a nuke to feed itsself for the winter, and is irrational enough to use one on their peninsula.

        3)they are extremely paranoid and prone to a realpolitik analysis of the security dilemma.

        4)Good or Evil be damned, there is still not a permanent peace treaty from the Korean War, that's why there's the DMZ.

        5)S. Korea stands to lose the most from another war, Seoul is Very close to the DMZ.

        Add it all up, there is alot of potential for a realist approach to N. Korea. Unfortunately, they hold some really nasty cards, and the political will to cause damage to their neighbor, and by extension the global economy and us. They take the only advantage they can, one that this country feared for 40 years of cold war. N. Korea is a starving country, their population is dying of hunger and cold, admittedly by their own hand. They have little left to lose, and even less fear of losing it.

    • I bet, though, that in 2010 there will be Korean cars all over American streets.

      No. Korea's advantage is that they can manufacture products cheaper than anyone else... When it comes to quality, they are behind (I know a KIA employees that won't drive their own cars).

      In many places, the American mindset is to buy the cheapest items, no matter how bad the quality. I don't believe that situation will last much longer as worse and worse items are manufactured, and many factors make returns more difficult.

      South Korea is doing very well, but so has every other country when there was a huge influx of money... History has shown that it will be short-lived. It's only a matter of time before their economy flattens out, and what happens at that time will determine the long-term status of the country.
    • It's not all that glamorous. There is rampant corruption in all levels of the government and industry [washtimes.com], women still have very little access to good jobs [jinbo.net], racism [geocities.com] and a lot of other things that need to be fixed. Trade and technology are all fine from an armchair perspective, but try to go there and sell a product. Its a whole different ball game if you're a foreigner.

      Friends of mine in the US Govt would laugh about how the Korean students would spend most of their year in front of the embassy.. half the year throwing rocks and the second half of the year applying for student visas.
    • They even made my underwear, AS WELL as my palm pilot. What an clever little country
      • They assembled it - it was made somewhere else. It's like my MS assembler. I write the assembly code, and it goes off and mindlessly turns it into something else. What skill! What style! What class! (Interestingly North Korea and assembly language have about the same future in store!)
    • I don't know that I would call it capitalism, more like government subsidized powerhouses. See, So. Korea has this nasty little problem of giving subsidies and government backed loans to all their companies to get them going. Some work out (such as Samsung), some do not (LG Semiconductor, Hynix). In fact just this week the government sponsored banks gave a $4 billion bailout to Hynix. I don't know that I would call that capitalism!

      Also, the system really doesn't even work as a few years ago all the banks got in way over their head and the IMF (funded by your tax dollars) bailed them out with trillions of dollars.

      This is the shining example for Western Democracy? Without the other governments stepping in they would have gone into chaos. Not to mention the fact that if it wasn't for us North Korea would run right over them.

      I don't think I would call that being built through capitalism and foreign trade - at least not in the pure sense of capitalism. What ever happened to the governments practicing laissez faire?
  • Could the north koreans have faked this by wardriving along the border?

  • hehehe (Score:2, Funny)

    by spdycml ( 625849 )
    huh-huh....huh-huh-huh...huh-heh....he said penetration.....huh-huh...cool

  • Now why .... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Snoopy77 ( 229731 ) on Friday January 03, 2003 @01:46AM (#5004430) Homepage
    didn't Al Gore use the internet in his campaigns? He did invent it didn't he?
    • Get your facts straight and/or stop plagurizing SNL skits!
      • Exact statement used by gore in an interview with Wolf Blitzer from this Source [firstmonday.dk]

        Quote "BLITZER: I want to get to some of the substance of domestic and international issues in a minute, but let's just wrap up a little bit of the politics right now. Why should Democrats, looking at the Democratic nomination process, support you instead of Bill Bradley, a friend of yours, a former colleague in the Senate? What do you have to bring to this that he doesn't necessarily bring to this process? Clearly, Blitzer is asking Gore to offer an explanation of how he differs as a politician from other politicians in general, and his rival at the time, Bill Bradley, in particular. Here is Gore's entire response to Blitzer's question: GORE: Well, I will be offering - I'll be offering my vision when my campaign begins. And it will be comprehensive and sweeping. And I hope that it will be compelling enough to draw people toward it. I feel that it will be. But it will emerge from my dialogue with the American people. I've traveled to every part of this country during the last six years. During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system. During a quarter century of public service, including most of it long before I came into my current job, I have worked to try to improve the quality of life in our country and in our world. And what I've seen during that experience is an emerging future that's very exciting, about which I'm very optimistic, and toward which I want to lead."

        There that settles that. He said he took the initiative in creating the internet. If you want to interpt that as inventing then yes he said he invented it. If you want to take it like exaggeration then yes you are right he just funded it.

        • Well, he's a bit of an idiot for his choice of words, but it's not a complete fabrication. I remember fairly well over 10 years ago when he first became VP. At the time the Internet was research only, no commercialism allowed. At the time Gore was pushing for a "similar" internet for the public and described fairly well the benefits it could bring to business and the public. He called it at the time the "information super highway" (gack) and at the time it was thought that this new public internet would be separate from the academic internet. It was also supposed to use a different protocol, OSI, instead of TCP/IP. (Not that he knew what OSI was, that was just the conventional wisdom at the time).

          He was also instrumental in supporting the academic internet during his years in Congress when all other people in Congress didn't have a clue about these things.

          I know first hand about this because I was in IT at the time -- yes, I'm old -- and worked in a community college where we were debating whether or not we should halt the rollout of our TCP/IP network and switch to OSI because we were a two-year college and more tilted to serving business and not research and maybe the upcoming information super highway thing would be better than hooking to the then non-commerical Internet.

          Now, as it turns out, the separate networks never materialized, OSI fizzled, and the non-commerical Internet became the Internet we know today and serious research institutions are going off on their own with Internet 2.

          So, he's a tithead, but he *was* the leader in congress in understand the benefits of an internet (of some sort) and that commercialization of the internet is what was a large factor for the economic boom of the 90s.

          Remember, no one outside of academia heard of the Internet before like 1992. The first mass media cartoon regarding the internet was in the new yorker in 1993 (the "no one knows your a dog on the net [unc.edu]" one) which we all, at the time, were amazed (and scared) that mass media noticed the Internet.

          p.s. I find it interesting, however, that conservatives are so quick to jump on someone's bad choice of words when their own people who can't choose good words in speeches are somehow to be given understanding, ala Bush and former VP Dan Quayle (and visa-versa of course).

          Some more on this at snopes.com [snopes.com]

      • No, Al Gore did not fund the internet. I know most democratic office holders are multi-millionaires, but even Gore and his Daddy combined weren't rich enough to fund the creation of the internet.
        • made the decision to spend our money on the internet?
          • He made the decision that we should fund the internet and convinced enough politicians to actually get our money to support the net.
            • Actually, the internet was already around by the time the politicians voted to spend money on it. It may not have been called the internet, and it may not have had all the technical characteristics it does today, but it was there.

  • As I recall he invented cell phone messaging!

    Really, though this is a good story in some way, but the spam aspect does worry me. I hate spam in my email even if it's for a good cause. On the other hand it does sound like a good person won the race.

    -- James Dornan

    • Several other posters mention SPAM, but I didn't get the impression from the article that SPAM was necessissarily the primary means of pushing this. I'm sure there was some, but the impression I got was that this was a combination of word of mouth, "sign up for updates on our website" and articles on political news sites and blogs. Sending 800,000 unsolicited text messages, just before voting time would likely piss people off and result in you losing by a landslide... not winning. I suspect that most of these people signed up for updates or reminders.

  • How many times... (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    ...do we have to go through this?

    1. South Korea is a small country with the vast majority of it's population in a high density urban area (Seoul).

    2. And probably more importantly, South Korea has just recently become industrialized, therefore the communications infrastructure is quite modern compared to other Western, developed countries.

    Do we really need to hear about this on a weekly basis? I guess the slashdot editors don't read their own site.
    • As far as I can see, there were only two main modes of communication used: The Internet(alongwith email) and Mobile text messaging. Now, that's also possible in most of the countries I know of! Isn't it?
    • 1. South Korea is a small country with the vast majority of it's population in a high density urban area (Seoul).
      Not true. Seoul is dense but so is Pusan, Kwangju etc. Lots of dense cities but many folks in small towns/farms.
      2. And probably more importantly, South Korea has just recently become industrialized, therefore the communications infrastructure is quite modern compared to other Western, developed countries.
      South Korea has been building infrastructure since the Korean War. The wired communications system is built like most of Asia - very haphazardly over many years. The wireless infrastructure started out behind the U.S. but SK has passed the U.S. by in wireless communications - as have many other countries. This is mostly due to the Japanese/Korean style of cooperation between govt. agencies and private corporations.

      • But the population of Pusan is roughly the same as chicago. Seoul's population is usually enough to place it in the top 5 most populous urban centers in the world.

        Look here [citypopulation.de]

        See Seoul at number 3, and pusan and 78?
      • I don't think it was very haphazard at all. I think with most countries that have less "Urban sprawl" as compared to the US, wireless just makes since. One of my friends who lives in Kazakstan (sp?), said that wireless has high penetration there as well, but for different reasons. Because its easier/cheaper to set up cell towers than to run cables into every hut in the village. I would think Korea is the same. Its mostly a flat country with not many mountainous areas. I mean the highest mountain there is like only 6,000 ft high, at it isn't even in the peninsula, but on Cheju island. (if memory serves)... So I think cell towers make even more sense...
        • I live in the Dolomites (that's part the Italian Alps), and I assure you, that each mountain peak (~ 10,000 ft high) is covered by a cell. If you go climbing or hiking, you are advised to carry your cell-phone with you - one never knows.

          Finland is not densely populated, but they have excellent cell-coverage an broadband too.

          3 years ago I was on holiday in Maitius (that's an island in the Indian Ocean, near South Africa), and there's fill coverage for GSM too.

          The Philippines are maybe number one in sending SMS over GSM-phones.

          It's really only the USA, which is behind in adoption of GSM-phones and maybe broadband Internet.

          ms

        • Uhm, "mostly flat country"? You haven't been there have you? Yes, the western and southern EDGES of the country are "flat" but the middle to eastern part is pretty rough terrain. The maximum heights aren't high because the area is small, but the terrain is incredibly rough. Heck, there were guerillas hiding out in some mountains 10 fucking years after the Korean War. To quote from the CIA World Book entry "Terrain: mostly hills and mountains; wide coastal plains in west and south" [cia.gov]. Or how about another source with a map [atlapedia.com] and description: [atlapedia.com]"Around 80% of the Korean Peninsula is covered by mountains while South Korea has a rugged and mountainous terrain... Only 15% of the land area is covered by plains, which are mostly located along the coast."

          The reason its cheap to set up cells is simple population density. Also makes it cheap to run Broadband to every house in the country. AFAIK, South Korea put down fiber optic (I think 6 or 10 fibers) alongside every single power line over the last 10 years (new and retrofit). The power company then leases out those lines in a relatively non-discriminatory manner. Makes for a very cost effective high speed network.

          EnkiduEOT

          • I have been to s. korea numerous times. The last several times, I have even had the displeasure of driving there. I have only driven to Pusan from Seoul twice, but I have been taken around the southern peninsula. Granted, I may have been sleeping for much of that trip, but I do remember visiting many villages on the way.

            2 points:

            1.) My definition of flat is not literal. I mean flat as in compared to over here, where we have several 14,000 ft mountains nearby, with glaciors year round. Did I mention the tallest mountain in S. Korea is Hallasan [korea.com]? Its only 5850 ft high, and not even on the peninsula. I don't care how many rolling hills you have, that is still "flat" in my book. The coast range here is like 2 to 4 thousand feet high, and I don't consider that mountainous. The rockies, thats mountainous.

            2.) When I said the country was mostly flat, I was also referring to where the majority of the population was.
            • Seoul is flat? Uhmm. NO. Seoul is COVERED wit and SURROUNDED by hills. And not "rolling hills" with low gradients, but steep hills. Would you call San Francisco flat just because the highest point (Twin Peaks) is less than 1000 feet? Seoul is way more mountainous than most major U.S. cities (New York, Chicago, Boston, Los Angeles etc.) Like I said, just because the peaks aren't high doesn't mean that the gradients aren't steep. Did you look at the map? Here's a sample contour map [omnimap.com]. This place has another click through sample on this page [cartographic.com].

              You seem to be confused as to the relation between altitude and gradient. If you have a steep slope that goes up and down over 10 miles (In Korea), it's going to be alot shorter in overall height than one that goes up and down over 200 miles (the Rockies). That still doesn't mean that the first mountain is less steep (and rough) than the second. And plus, how many cities in the U.S. have 14,000 foot peaks "nearby" (less than 2 hours drive).

              Didn't you have to go through tunnels in Seoul (There's quite a few). Did you go to Namsan Tower? How much did you drive in Seoul? How about this quote from a 5th grade study outline "A physical relief map will reveal that the north and east parts of Korea are very mountainous while the south and west have more fields. It is said that you can see a mountain from everywhere in Korea. Have students speculate on the amount of land that would be available for agriculture in such a mountainous country. (Only about one fourth of the land comprising the Republic of Korea is arable)." (source [gov.sk.ca]. Or how about this page [seoulnow.net]. Don't you think they would know?

              Look, obviously, you have experienced Korea (and you have my sympathies if you chose to drive). What I'm saying is that the perceptions which remain from your experience are flawed. Are you saying that all these sources have a distorted view of the terrain of Korea and your view is correct? Ask your guide in Korea. Ask anyone who has done more than "visit" Korea. Trust me: No one (especially not a cable or antenna engineer) is going to call much of South Korea "flat". Not even Seoul or Busan.

              EnkiduEOT

              • Unless there was too much smog when I was there...

                From the top of Namsan you can see almost the entire city. Same can be said when I was at the viewing deck of the 63 tower.

                I suppose you are right tho. I'm remembering driving down the olympic highway, and there being a steep cliff on one side of the highway. I guess I spent too much time in the subway to realize the hills. All the smog must have hidden the hills. Kinda like in LA. During heavy smog days, (which is like 70% of the time), you can't see the San Gabriel mountains even if you were practically at its base.....

                I know what you mean about the driving. Only reason I was driving was because my cousin thought it would be "funny". (And I thought LA traffic was bad)... I suppose I was too busy trying to control my natural tendency for road rage, to take in the landscape :)

                I think I'll be going there this spring anyways, so I'll pay closer attention this time ;)

                PS: When I flew to cheju with my uncle I could've sworn korea was flatter then it was. I guess I just had a crappy view out the window.
                • Don't sweat it. Heck, you aren't a geographic surveyor, are you? Yeah, and I would NEVER EVER drive in Korea, except perhaps on cheju island, or for a jaunt to the country. L.A.? Manhattan? Hah! I laugh at their wimpy traffic. Seoul traffic puts hair on a man's chest (and leaves him bald because he's torn all of his head hair out). Subways (during non-rush hours) aren't bad though.

                  And yes, the smog is pretty bad. In fact, I think the air is better in the subways than above ground in Seoul.

                  Cheers. EnkiduEOT

          • Looking at that map:

            Seoul is in the "flat" part on the top of the country, and Pusan, in the "flat" part on the bottom. When I drove from Seoul to Pusan, I remember the toll highway being flat, so I"m guessing it cut through the mountain in a diagonal fashion. I remember there being two tunnels as well. We then drove west and then north. That could also help explain why from my memory I saw the country being more flat then it is. Others are listed in my other post.
  • Well, great, not only will we be able to make our penis size bigger and make that extra million by doing nothing but selling to other people how to make a million,

    but we get to get mail from would-be-presidents-of-whatever.

    Think about, if this does catch on, then on top of whatever spam we usually get, we will get political email/popups/popunders/im's etc...
  • Then the love of technology would be one of the worst sins possible. So if any manufactor would like contribute some technology to an upstanding person as myself i would be glad to hate it for them. You know to like balance karma or something.

  • OMG! (Score:4, Interesting)

    by xintegerx ( 557455 ) on Friday January 03, 2003 @02:16AM (#5004519) Homepage
    I was just thinking about how much people like you and I are played by this "Western Government". The deal is, I went to my state's web site to try to figure out how to run for Senator, Governor, etc. Yes, maybe I'm not old enough yet, but there was still no information! The best way (only way) right now is to be an intern and watch over some guy who did that too and move up.

    What if you're just a simple decent qualified person who wants to run for Selectman/Mayor/Rep/Senator/Governor/President? I went to the Senate's web site [senate.gov], for instance (and many others using google) trying to find out HOW TO RUN! This information is just not on the internet (at least not for my state.)

    Just yesterday I thought it would be sweet if there was a web site people could go to to see how to run for political leadership in their state. At least paperwork and deadlines would be greate, but procedures, rules, and regulations in addition, would be excellent!

    Seriously, at least 100 million people in the USA are qualified to run for those positions I mentioned (at least by the age rule set in the constitution.)

    I want to see competition, I want to see REAL people running! What would REALLY be sweet would be a law by the Senators to make States maintain a web site like I described and one that would also show WHO is running and what they DO and what they have DONE. This would be so sweet. And each candidate would have his own web site hosted (or just linked.) FAIRNESS IN EVERY WAY!

    Nobody votes because theres a bunch of bums we don't know anything about who have a gazillion of ties and responsibilities, once in office, to the people who got them there!!!

    This would be a pretty cheap way for equal spending that everybody keeps pushing for, good for communicating at least with voters that have access to the internet (the majority.)
    • Check your secretary of state's web page, in all the states I have lived in so far, that has been the office you register with to run. It usually involves a form and a small filing fee.
      Generally the secretary of state also has a list of candidates, including those from the smallest parties, and non-partisan candidates, sometimes they even link to the candidate's home page. Most state representatives or city officers have even lower age requirements (if any at all), it would depend on your state's constitution. As a young person who wants to affect policy, your best bet would probably be to get on an elected official's staff. These are the tireless employees who read the bills, might write the actual bill the senator sponsors, and generally act as the eyes and ears of the elected official. You will want to be squeaky clean and prepared for anything in your past that could even imply that you are not perfectly upstanding to be made public, if you start to pick up steam.
    • If you want more "real people" running for office, start doing so yourself.

      You can find all the information you want on the web--just not on the government sites right now. The best records I've seen are at opensecrets.org. You might also want to look at the webpages of individual politicians. They will usually tell you how they voted on recent issues.

      Re you're comment on voter turn--out, I've always favored a tax on people who don't vote. :)
    • "Just yesterday I thought it would be sweet if there was a web site people could go to to see how to run for political leadership in their state. At least paperwork and deadlines would be greate, but procedures, rules, and regulations in addition, would be excellent!"

      i will never vote for someone who needs a `dummys guide to democracy` to work out how to get into office! If you were really interested, you`d already know, or you'd find out for yourself.
      • If you were really interested, you`d already know, or you'd find out for yourself.

        Huh? The original said "Wouldn't it be great to have the information online", to which you replied that those who wanted the information would "find out for yourself". How? Telepathetic prediction?

        Having the information online is another way of disseminating the information to people who are looking to "find out". It's a hell of a lot better than a barrier to entry obscure system that encourages in-breeding and barriers to entry (which is how most of those systems work).
    • Go to the library. There's plenty of documentation on what you need to do to run for office. It's all codified into the laws, y'know.

      And before you go off half-cocked trying to run for President or something, aim a little lower and more realistically. Run for your town's board of freeholders or something.

      You have to work your way up the ladder -- not because The Man is trying to hold you down, but because that's the only way to build up enough experience to be competent in higher office. When was the last time we had a President that had not previously been either a Governor or a Congressman?
    • "The best way (only way) right now is to be an intern and watch over some guy who did that too and move up."

      You must live in the wrong state. When I ran for the US House last year (decided on very short notice), Google pointed me to the Louisiana Department of State [state.la.us], I found out there what was needed ($600 payed to the Department of State), filled out the paperwork, mailed in the money order, and that was that. The rest was figured out from the numerous and frequent mailings I ended up getting (and still get) from the state and the Federal Election Commission.

      And it's not like Louisiana is world renown for its internet presence and connectivity or anything.

      "What if you're just a simple decent qualified person who wants to run for Selectman/Mayor/Rep/Senator/Governor/President? I went to the Senate's web site [senate.gov], for instance (and many others using google) trying to find out HOW TO RUN!"

      Of course they won't. If you bothered to peruse the US Constitution a little, you'd realize that it is not the federal government's place to tell the states how exactly their elections should be run. Different states have different requirements (beyond the lone federal requirement of "You must be over 30") and different qualifications.

      "Just yesterday I thought it would be sweet if there was a web site people could go to to see how to run for political leadership in their state."

      Find your state's Department of State. That's usually the best place to start.

      "States maintain a web site like I described and one that would also show WHO is running"

      Like this? [state.la.us]

      "and what they DO and what they have DONE"

      You have two options. One is to go to the congresscritter's website in question and look at the legislation they sponsor and/or co-sponsor, and to THOMAS [loc.gov] to see how they voted on legislation.

      The other is to go to non-partisan information sources like Project Vote Smart [vote-smart.org], who attempt to make the information more digestable.

      "And each candidate would have his own web site hosted (or just linked.) FAIRNESS IN EVERY WAY!"

      Fair to everybody except for the taxpayers. As a former independent candidate and as a taxpayer, I do not want tax dollars going to pay for private political campaigns. Candidates (especially for federal office) get enough free attention from the press as it is that it really isn't needed.

      "Nobody votes because theres a bunch of bums we don't know anything"

      Because the information isn't there to know, or because they don't bother trying to find out?

      "This would be a pretty cheap way for equal spending that everybody keeps pushing for,"

      First off, it would be even cheaper if the taxpayers didn't have to pay any of it.

      Secondly, the problem isn't "equal spending," the problem is things like "truth in advertising" and "honesty about campaign fundraising and spending." And if you need a law to require candidates to register this information with, say, the FEC, it's already too late. If you need to twist their arms to get them to share this information, they shouldn't be in office to begin with.
  • With Reliance Group promising a mobile and broadband internet into every home in India
    you might as well take this article, multiply all numbers in it by 100, change Roh Moo-hyun to Ram Mohan Roy and you'll have a new article for the future...

  • Not the only amazing thing... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by suchire ( 638146 ) on Friday January 03, 2003 @03:01AM (#5004624)
    What the news article fails to mention is the astounding rally that the youth made in Korea. Seven hours before the polls closed, a close supporter of Roh in his coalition withdrew his support, and so there was a real danger of him not getting elected. In about 11 minutes or so, a bunch of Roh's supporters rallied on his website, through email, IM's, messageboards, etc. and encouraged each other to go out to vote (and Roh's fan website got about 3 million hits in four hours) making a record turnout for young voters, about 60%.

    Amazing...
  • "The Internet allowed Mr. Roh to liberate himself from "black money" -- corporate donations that are South Korea's traditional form of campaign financing. Largely through Internet-based campaign groups, Mr. Roh raised the equivalent of about $1-billion from more than 180,000 individual donors."

    Maybe all representatives could have an account set up to where people can donate over the internet. Then the government could ban soft money donations altogether. But there would be so much opposition to it from corporate interests it would be shot down day one. But I can hope...
  • Mr. Roh raised the equivalent of about $1-billion from more than 180,000 individual donors.
    One billion dollars devided equally amoung 180 thousand dollars comes out to over 5500 dollars. That's suspiciously high considering the claim of all individual investors. Me thinks there were a couple of special donors, the kinds with big pockets.

    • Re:Not Dollar But Won (Score:1, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      $1 amounts to some 1200 korean won

    • Re:Wait a minute (Score:2, Informative)

      by nulleffect ( 457194 )
      According to Roh's site [knowhow.or.kr], he made 7,278,135,098 Won (about USD 6,000,000) from 203,764 donations, not CAD 1,000,000,000 (about USD 640,000,000) from 180,000 donors, as the article says.
    • Mr. Roh raised that equivalent of that amount of cash is what they're saying. I haven't read the article but it sounds like they mean that he got enough coverage from the internet and what not that would be worth 1 billion...

      No, wait scratch that the articles author is on drugs or something. Maybe that's supposed to be in korean currency or something.
  • ...how much of this article reminded me of William Gibson's books.



    "The Internet has become the most popular way of organizing street rallies, political and otherwise -- including that of the estimated seven million South Koreans who swarmed into the streets after the stunning success of their national soccer team in last summer's World Cup."

    reminds me of the lo-rez fanclub funeral that was triggered from the fan site



    "Not all South Koreans are happy about the dramatic rise of the Internet. Critics say that the on-line games create "zombie" teenagers who do not know how to interact with the real world."

    reminds me fo the gomi who game all of the time and cheat their way through school. They also help to build walled city.



    "About 25 million of South Korea's 48 million people are regular Internet surfers. All across Seoul, high-rise towers and corporate headquarters are emblazoned with their Web-site addresses in huge letters or neon signs. About 30 million South Koreans have cellphones, and 10 million of these cellphones have Internet connections -- again, a world-leading number."

    Reminds me of Gibsons landscapes : the sprawl, Night City.




  • Superstar politics = less corruption (Score:4, Interesting)

    by ites ( 600337 ) on Friday January 03, 2003 @04:19AM (#5004781) Journal
    One interesting aspect of this kind of election is that it starts to resemble the viewer-elections we see on reality shows. We are starting to see something that looks like instant democracy. Now, what's cool about this is that it breaks the back of the traditional political system.
    I've noticed that those famous and/or powerful people who are not corrupt are invariably those elected by rapid popular vote, namely superstars of pop, sports, and so on.
    A long, slow election process just gives all parties time to negotiate with interest groups. Slow elections generate corrupt politicians, and the semi-permanent election process we see in certain countries just creates completely corrupt political parties.

    Electing politicians like this is going to annoy the established political parties. It's also going to raise a generation of politicians who have popular support but no real political network. But it's hard to see what the impact of this will be.

    • Re:Superstar politics = less corruption (Score:5, Insightful)

      by sql*kitten ( 1359 ) on Friday January 03, 2003 @05:17AM (#5004918)
      One interesting aspect of this kind of election is that it starts to resemble the viewer-elections we see on reality shows. We are starting to see something that looks like instant democracy. Now, what's cool about this is that it breaks the back of the traditional political system.

      The problem is that it breaks everything else too. With instant voting, the US would have nuked Kabul hours after September 11th... totally missing those responsible and slaughtering millions of (relative) innocents. Latency in the system is there for a reason.

      I've noticed that those famous and/or powerful people who are not corrupt are invariably those elected by rapid popular vote, namely superstars of pop, sports, and so on.

      There is one lesson that Tony Blair and New Labour learned too late: it is easy to be incorruptible when you have no real power. That's why, in Opposition, they could be "whiter than white", but as soon as they were in power, the scandals came rolling in. If the celebrities you mentioned had any real influence beyond entertainment, they would be at least as corruptible as anyone else.

      Hint: any celebrity that has endorsed any product has a price.

      A long, slow election process just gives all parties time to negotiate with interest groups. Slow elections generate corrupt politicians, and the semi-permanent election process we see in certain countries just creates completely corrupt political parties.

      The weaker the government, the better it is for everyone. There's only really a problem if government is both strong and corrupt.

      Electing politicians like this is going to annoy the established political parties. It's also going to raise a generation of politicians who have popular support but no real political network. But it's hard to see what the impact of this will be.

      Populism requires short-term thinking, and is invariably a disaster in the long run. Argentina's economy lies in ruins because of the populist decisions made by Peron (don't blame the IMF, they wouldn't have even gotten involved if Peron hadn't started Argentina's economy on the downward spiral, altho' they certainly haven't made anything better).

      • a, I believe Kabul was the target of US government policy, not popular demand for action. There is no proof that US popular opinion wanted war after Sept. 11th. More likely, public opinion in the US would have gone for insulation, rejection of the outside world, possibly some xenophobia.
        b, New Labour is relatively clean, despite being the most powerful UK government since Thatcher's Tories. Of course there are scandals, but they are mostly banal. In some respects, it's a superstar government since they came to power from outside the London political scene (being an essentially Scottish party). Having no power does not make a party clean, as the UK Conservatives have shown.
        c, Peron was not a populist, but an extreme example of government by political machine. He ruined the economy for standard reasons: using the country's economy to pander to friendly interest groups.
        Powerful governments are not necessarily corrupt. There seem to be two factors: how long the government has been part of the mainstream political system, and thus open for "sale", and how long they can expect to stay in power, and thus able to exploit their position for gain.
        Superstar governments have neither of these: quickly elected and quickly dismissed. It remains to be shown that this "populism" is actually bad in any way.

  • well, duh. (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    [snip]
    Critics say that the on-line games create "zombie" teenagers who do not know how to interact with the real world.
    [snip]

    well, duh.
    The only people that know how to relate to the real world are critics.. obviously. :ri:
  • Please respond to this... And I know it is offtopic but I want to know... and I have little insight into why all of this N. Korea business has even started at all.

    Why would N. Korea reveal that it has nuclear weapons in direct violation of a fuel and food treaty when its citizens are starving?

    I have a few theories, but none of them make any sense. I have no idea why this is occurring. Are these viable answers?

    1. Becasue Bush called them the "axis of evil."
    2. They want to influence the S. Korean elections against the US for removal of US occupation (so they can attack? Or unite without the US?).
    3. They revealed their nuke program because of Saddam (a fellow dictator) so that the US would have to fight a 2 front war... the old "enemy of my enemy is my friend routine." Which obviously idn't work out the way they planned.
    4. Their motivations and thought processes are so "not Westerner" that I as a westerner just can't get it and it is all too complicated to say anyway.
    5. This has all happened before, maybe not in this scale, and it is a big bluff to hold a regime together.
    6. The regime is dying fast, and it needs an enemy to hold it together, so it mentions it has nukes to the US to threaten them, and then starts the war machine to unite N. Koreans.

    Once again, please forgive the offtopic, but our current situation is intimately tied in with this election, and I need a Korean point of view to really make any sense of it. I think I speak for more than a few Westerners when we say we don't have any idea how things operate over there. Please enlighten us.
  • Is it just me or does this remind anyone of Max Headroom, where elections are held by TV ratings?

    I suppose it might be more like voting with your cell phone, but still, there seem to be some similarities. Well, in my head, at least...

  • The old political boys in both Canada and the US would legislate the possibility of this out the window in North America. My impression is that things move so fast in Korea that they couldn't block something like this in government. When you have to build a network big enough to cover North America, the politicians have a bit more time to respond. Geez, I sound like a conspiracy theorist. Sorry.
  • Great. So now I get to look forward to campaign pop-up ads and spam. What a great idea.
  • Largely through Internet-based campaign
    groups, Mr. Roh raised the equivalent of about $1-billion from more
    than 180,000 individual donors

    A billion dollars is way to much. Since the article is from a Canadian paper, presumably it's in Canadian dollars, equivalent to about $630M US. For the last US presidential election, Bush raised about $90M US and Gore a little less than $50M US. Korea is a much smaller country and a candidate like Roh who uses the net for most voter contact doesn't need as much money as one who buys TV ads. What's more, the average contribution per donor comes out to $5500 CA or $3500 US, which is more than 10 times the average contribution in the US.

    I suspect the reporter slipped a digit or two.

Slashdot Top Deals

THEGODDESSOFTHENETHASTWISTINGFINGERSANDHERVOICEISLIKEAJAVELININTHENIGHTDUDE

Close