Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 6th Nov 2012 11:37 UTC
"This election won't hinge on technology issues. Just look at prevailing discussions this year at the national level: major candidates have sparred over Iran's nuclear ambitions, the role of government, inane comments on the female body, and to nobody's surprise, the economy. Despite that fact, many decisions will be taken up by the next US president and those in Congress that will affect the world of tech, and by consequence, the real lives of citizens and human beings around the world - from alternative energy, to the use of killer drones, the regulation of wireless spectrum, and policies that aim to control content on the internet. Your chance to vote is just around the corner. Here's what's at stake in tech this election, and how the major candidates could influence our future." Happy voting, American readers. Whatever you pick, please take at least a few minutes to consider that the implications of your choice do not end at the US border.
Thread beginning with comment 541447
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2009-01-09
demetrioussharpe,
I agree, up until this comment:
"It's a shame that we've never elected a filthy rich & highly successful businessman like Ross Perot or maybe even Bill Gates. Say what you want about them, at least our country's balance wouldn't be in the red anymore."
Did we really forget about George W. Bush already? He was a multimillionaire who *did* run the government like a business. In fairness to him, he did create great wealth for himself & his business associates. But as president his responsibility was to the public, whom he left in the greatest recession since the great depression. By the time he left, everything was in the red.
An effective leader shouldn't have to be wealthy, he needs to be able to bring people together and promote prosperity for everyone, not just a select niche. It's a very tough job though, especially when political ranks are filled with those who'd rather selfishly promote their own interests even at the expense of the very public they're supposed to be serving.
I agree, up until this comment:
"It's a shame that we've never elected a filthy rich & highly successful businessman like Ross Perot or maybe even Bill Gates. Say what you want about them, at least our country's balance wouldn't be in the red anymore."
Did we really forget about George W. Bush already? He was a multimillionaire who *did* run the government like a business. In fairness to him, he did create great wealth for himself & his business associates. But as president his responsibility was to the public, whom he left in the greatest recession since the great depression. By the time he left, everything was in the red.
An effective leader shouldn't have to be wealthy, he needs to be able to bring people together and promote prosperity for everyone, not just a select niche. It's a very tough job though, especially when political ranks are filled with those who'd rather selfishly promote their own interests even at the expense of the very public they're supposed to be serving.
Dig a little deeper. Little Bush wasn't a highly successful business man. In fact, Little Bush ran every single business (that he was in charge of) into the ground. The only reason he was allowed to keep running companies is because his dad was the president & the president's business partners (the Saudis) were trying to encourage his favor by spending tons of money on Jr. Little Bush failed as a business man, failed in the 2000 election, & still somehow became president. Now, if that isn't proof that the system is broken, then no such proof exists.
Member since:2011-01-28
demetrioussharpe,
I think this is leading up something more than just "who" controls the government: the importance of an efficiency-driven government. Of course I'd agree this is important. To the extent that businesses are proficient at improving efficiency, then insight from the business world should be welcomed.
However, businesses don't necessarily push efficiency as much as we'd think. I worked behind the scenes subcontracting for a major health insurer, and the overhead there is simply astonishing. You and I might see overhead as an opportunity to slimline the waste, but the company took the exact opposite approach. Why sign a contract for $X when they could add more work and get $X+$500K? The thing is they were profitable, but not efficient. The inefficiency itself was actually a *source* of profit. On the one hand, they might deserve praise for increasing profits, but on the other hand, how can they live with themselves for being part of the reason health care is so unaffordable?
Edit: Note, I have no what I'd do personally as president today to get ourselves out of the mess...I'd try to get as much data as possible and run numerous economic simulations to see which variables are most important for influencing the economy in positive ways. But I doubt anyone like me could be elected on this kind of platform 
Edited 2012-11-08 17:31 UTC
Member since:2009-01-09
Edit: I really do agree with all your other posts though...I just wouldn't be comfortable with literally handing over governmental oversight of corporations to those who are already running the corporations. It negates fundamental checks & balances.
Well, we've already let the lawyers become president. Lawyers are a humongous part of what's wrong with this country.
Member since:2011-01-28
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:33 UTC
Why does Google get so much credit in the technology industry? Why, despite the company's many obvious failings, do many geeks and enthusiasts still hold a somewhat positive view on the all-knowing technology giant? A specific talk at Google I/O this week provides the answer.
Linked by David Adams on 05/16/13 4:23 UTC
OSNews is a sponsor of this year's O'Reilly OSCON in Portland, Oregon, USA. A lucky OSNews reader will win a free three-day pass, including two tutorials days. To win the pass, post a comment on this story saying something about Open Source Software or OSCON. We'll pick a winner at random next week. If you don't have an OSNews account, you may email us your entry. Part of the conference is the 9th annual Open Source Awards, and today the 16th is the deadline for nominations. If you'd like to nominate an outstanding open source contributor, do it here. Read on for more information about OSCON. Update: The 20% discount code for OSNews readers is "OSN."
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/11/13 21:41 UTC
"Windows is indeed slower than other operating systems in many scenarios, and the gap is worsening." That's one way to start an insider explanation of why Windows' performance isn't up to snuff. Written by someone who actually contributes code to the Windows NT kernel, the comment on Hacker News, later deleted but reposted with permission on Marc Bevand's blog, paints a very dreary picture of the state of Windows development. The root issue? Think of how Linux is developed, and you'll know the answer.
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/08/13 14:22 UTC
This is one of those news items that's fun to write, fun to read, fun to comment on, and where no one will be able to say anything unkind. It's all just one big ball of awesome fluffiness. TuneTracker, the BeOS radio automation software, has just released something very special: TuneTracker System 5, the first version designed entirely and specifically for Haiku. In fact, it actually includes Haiku in the software package. Better yet, TuneTracker also unveiled several system-in-a-box products - which have Haiku and TuneTracker pre-installed.
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/02/13 15:28 UTC
Exactly twenty years ago, a document was published that played a huge role in establishing the web as we know it today. Twenty years later, and this simple and straightforward document is proof of an irrefutable fact: while closed technologies can change markets, open technologies can change the world.
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/29/13 21:06 UTC
Oh multitasking. That staple of computing that got thrown out the window with many modern smartphones. We got some rudimentary thing in its place - but even as multitasking on phone and tablets improves, its user-visible side remains cumbersome. Windows 8 has a neat implementation, and now it's time Android follows in it footsteps.
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/24/13 22:24 UTC
They're here! Whether that excites you or not remains to be seen, but the Galaxy S4, which will most likely become the best selling Android smartphone of the year by a huge margin, has been reviewed by all the major sites, and there's lots of interesting conclusions in there - although I think most of you will get the gist.
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/18/13 11:21 UTC
Nokia has posted its quarterly results for the first quarter of 2013, and just like the quarters that came before, there's not a whole lot of good news in there. The rise in Lumia sales still can't even dream of making up for the sales drop in Symbian phones, and when broken down in versions, the sales figures for Windows Phone 8 Lumias in particular are very disappointing. In North America, Nokia is getting slaughtered.
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/16/13 9:29 UTC
The day has finally come: Google has started shipping Google Glass to the lucky few early adopters. Now that it's shipping, Google has also unveiled a lot more about the API and the specifications of the device itself. While the company had already given out substantial details at earlier occasions, there are still a few surprises here.
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/15/13 22:44 UTC
Almost exactly three years ago, I wrote about why OSNews was no longer OSNews: the alternative operating system scene had died, and OSNews, too, had to go with the times and move towards reporting on a new wave of operating systems - mobile, and all the repercussions that the explosion of smartphones and tablets have caused. Still, I was wondering something today: why aren't we seeing alternative operating systems on mobile?More Features »
Sponsored Links
Member since:
2011-01-28
demetrioussharpe,
I agree, up until this comment:
"It's a shame that we've never elected a filthy rich & highly successful businessman like Ross Perot or maybe even Bill Gates. Say what you want about them, at least our country's balance wouldn't be in the red anymore."
Did we really forget about George W. Bush already? He was a multimillionaire who *did* run the government like a business. In fairness to him, he did create great wealth for himself & his business associates. But as president his responsibility was to the public, whom he left in the greatest recession since the great depression. By the time he left, everything was in the red.
An effective leader shouldn't have to be wealthy, he needs to be able to bring people together and promote prosperity for everyone, not just a select niche. It's a very tough job though, especially when political ranks are filled with those who'd rather selfishly promote their own interests even at the expense of the very public they're supposed to be serving.
Edit: I really do agree with all your other posts though...I just wouldn't be comfortable with literally handing over governmental oversight of corporations to those who are already running the corporations. It negates fundamental checks & balances.
Edited 2012-11-08 15:11 UTC