What the Candidates are Running 748
An anonymous reader writes "
Linux Journal has an article about what the presidential candidates are running their web sites on. It also has some reference to the Republican vs. Democrat uptimes.
"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
What the Candidates are Running
Related Links Top of the: day, week, month.
Mystics always hope that science will some day overtake them. -- Booth Tarkington
Ah well, at least the Republican party of Virginia (Score:5, Interesting)
Dean (Score:4, Interesting)
Meanwhile... (Score:4, Interesting)
While waiting for the article to crawl out from under the Slashdotting, here's an aside I thought was interesting: a recent article talking about Howard Dean's succesful use of the Internet for fundraising noted that perhaps the first candidate to use that method successfully was -- that Judge Roy Whatever in Alabama with the 10 Commandments statue in his courtroom.
Not someone I would have picked as a high-tech visionary, although he obviously is pretty shrewd about media manipulation.
"from the don't-base-your-vote-on-just-this dept." (Score:2, Interesting)
There has already been some buzz around Howard Dean making a potential guest appearance on Lessig's blog. He also seems seems to have some peripheral interest in and empathy for our positions (sorry for the very broad generalization here) on many issues that are important to the Slashdot crowd.
If he had shown up in this article as running Dean For America on IIS on 2K Server, I'd seriously have to reconsider his appeal as a potential geek candidate... And question his suitability as my representative on issues of privacy, open standards, intellectual property rights, etc.
Good work, Howard. I'm glad my contribution to your campaign didn't end up in Redmond as a license fee payment!
Re:Biased Reporting... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Fixing the bias (Score:4, Interesting)
Libertarians: apache on freebsd
Communists: apache on linux
Socialists: apache on linux
Lest you want to draw unwarranted conclusions:
Halliburton: apache on linux
Tobacco.org: apache on freebsd
Whitehouse.gov: apache on linux
Oddly...
ATF: netscape on solaris
US Army: webstar on OSX
whitehouse.com: IIS on linux (so netcraft claims!!)
fun fun fun...
Spanking of downtime (Score:4, Interesting)
Uptime: Down faster than a drunken cheerleader on prom night
George W Bush: [georgewbush.com] IIS on Windows 2000
Uptime: Still going!
HTH HAND!
Re:Dennis Kucinich (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Screw that 'test' shit (Score:3, Interesting)
That isn't the case any more. Your average voter probably doesn't know the difference between a senator and a representative, doesn't know how the state legislature works, doesn't understand the electoral college, couldn't tell you what the majority whip does, or define the role of the speaker of the house. They couldn't name any of the cabinet postions. We don't let you drive a car without at least some knowledge. We have tests before you can do alot of things in this country, maybe voting should be one of them?
I do have some problems with it. First this is going to give a huge voting advantage to the rich. I would guess that a higher % of wealthy voters would pass this test versus poor voters. Even if you gave free classes to educate the voters a poor person is going to be less able to take the classes.
I think a real solution to the uneducated voter problem may simply to be better education in public schools. The government isn't that complex make it a required course for 5th graders, 8th graders, and 10th graders. Don't treat it like civics is treated now in schools. Make it a real class and a requirement to move on (you don't pass you repeat the grade). I think that would help more than anything else.
Re:Dennis Kucinich (Score:2, Interesting)
Funding and support of the lowest levels of the economy is not charity. The social programs are not there because the government is benevolent. At best it is enlightened self-interest to help people who have been put out of work temporarily. We do not have a welfare economy any more. You get two years and that's it.
You give yourself a lot of credit for knowing all the answers to the problems of homelessness, poverty and addiction. I don't. We may have higher taxes than Sweeden, or there may be loopholes that let people stay on welfare indefinately. What I do know is that there's a big difference between knowing the answer and being the answer. If blowhard know-it-all's like yourself EVER showed up at the soup kitchens or shelters as volunteers, I'd have a lot more respect for your theories.
Re:software choice microcosm of political platform (Score:3, Interesting)
Only the ones like GWB do. Libertarian-leaning Republicans are better in supporting more equitable deregulation and not the buddy-buddy shit we see in piss-poor attempts at free trade, for example.
Don't use people like GWB as a defense for Democrats, because it only cloud the truth: the two major political parties are pretty much a lost cause, unless they can find an honest way to reform themselves from within and run real canidates who aren't puppets for special interests and the party line.
They prevent the regulation of industries, which leads to monopolies
Regulations don't prevent monopolies, they reinforce them.
They support property rights over the freedoms of the individual
Property rights and individual freedom are one and the same.
Quite honestly, I'm very tired of people pointing blame at corporations, when the root problems are corporations merely playing the cards dealt to them by the government. Of course, corporations will sneak around the system...it's their job, and we should see this crap coming from miles away. People who want protectionist feel-good legislation to protect them from corporations are simply putting on the blindfold, pulling down their pants, and painting "get me know and get me good" on their chests. It always has been the case and always will be the case that the only person who can protect you from evil corrupt corporations is you.
Re:Typical (Score:3, Interesting)
The mainstream picks their candidate based on likability and how attractive they are and whether they wear the right colored suit or seem smug.
And which issues/policies should people favor? Or is just better to concerned with some kind of issue at all?
Humans pick their CEO's, car salesman, dates, class presidents, etc. based upon the same criteria that your've described above. Personal impressions count, and they effect everyone's decisions to one degree or another. Too bad. Appearances, intuitions and fuzzy feelings probably shouldn't matter, but they do. Complaining about it won't help.
Who's morally, ethically or even intellectually superior to those who just 'go with their gut'?
Selecting the candidate seems the nicest or the strongest or suits one's intuition doesn't seem so reprehensible compared with some of the above.
Being able to logically and empirically weigh issues and determine what courses are best for the present and the future, and know what it is - precisely and altruistically - that's best for everyone is a capability that's wayyyy beyond pretty much every human on the face of this planet.
Hell, I can barely figure out what's best just for me and my family.
Re:Isn't it obvious... (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, my impression is that a lot of techies and scientists like to apply logic & rationality to solving problems for the greater good, so they might be naturally inclined toward a political party which is supposedly "populist", or for the people. (Whether or not the Democratic leadership is honestly working for the general populace would probably be a good argument that their public relations people should pay close attention to.)
Also, as professionals whose standard of living is directly related to how hard they work, they probably feel a little closer to the "working-class" folks than someone who either inherited a lot of money or who got a lot of money through luck in business or some similar situation.
Of course, professionals like techies & scientists don't make the best followers - they're _trained_ to question things, debate, analyze things, etc. You can't really tell people like that what to do, and expect them to do it - you have to _persuade_ them that your viewpoint is the correct one, and that takes time & effort.
Flamebait on: By contrast, a lot of high-profile "conservatives" like to apply faith and demagoguery(sp?) to making themselves and people like themselves richer and more powerful. I doubt this is representative of members of the Republican Party as a whole, since I know a lot of self-professed Republicans who seem to be decent people, but for some reason they seem to be led around by the nose by those same conservative "leaders". Maybe that's why there's such an emphasis on "faith" - it makes it a lot easier for those conservative leaders when their followers have been conditioned to turn off their brains & blindly follow orders.
The Libertarians are worse than the Republicans (Score:1, Interesting)
There is no geek party in the USA.
Re:Isn't it obvious... (Score:3, Interesting)
How (according to your rant above) has GWB been in the way of God? Has he authorized the national guard to harass gays? Has he passed laws against gays? Has he encouraged violence or bigotry agianst gays?
Isn't it actually certain Dems and the homosexual lobby that want anything to actively be done? GWB is leaving the issue alone, IIRC (which leans more toward a Libertarian stance, for those of you that seem to care).
Re:What is a born-again Christian? (Score:1, Interesting)
Evangelical Christianity came about when some fundamentalists, who had been isolating themselves from society, decided to enter back into the mainstream culture. They believe in the absolute authority of Scripture alone, like the fundamentalists, but are not afraid to go to secular schools, have an occasional beer, etc.