Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Privacy Government Democrats The Internet Politics Technology

Capitol Hill Quiet On Tech 110

Posted by Zonk from the busy-with-all-that-pork dept.
An anonymous reader writes "This year's Democratic-controlled Congress largely ignored technological issues in favor of social problems, CNet notes in another 2007 retrospective. Issues important to the tech industry (such as net neutrality) received short shrift, while the political body spent a considerable amount of time decrying the evils of the Internet. 'Hot topics this time around included foreign cybersecurity threats to U.S. government systems, terrorist cells flourishing on the Web, inadvertent file sharing through peer-to-peer networks, and sexual predators ensnaring unsuspecting youth through online social sites. And for a third time, the House passed not just one, but two, different bills aimed at deterring spyware.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Capitol Hill Quiet On Tech More

Capitol Hill Quiet On Tech

Comments Filter:

  • Tech issues don't get votes. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by iknownuttin ( 1099999 ) on Tuesday December 25, 2007 @01:38PM (#21815872)

    As usual, Congress did a lot of spouting off about how to manage perceived Internet perils. Hot topics this time around included foreign cybersecurity threats to U.S. government systems, terrorist cells flourishing on the Web, inadvertent file sharing through peer-to-peer networks, and sexual predators ensnaring unsuspecting youth through online social sites. And for a third time, the House passed not just one, but two, different bills aimed at deterring spyware.

    Because, that's what your typical voter is concerned about because that's what they understand and what's been hyped in the media. Of course Congress is going to spout off about those things. They want to get elected. The other topics are topics that only the tech folks are really concerned about and there's not enough of them to pander to to get elected. Joe "Tech Ignorant, Keep my job and Family values" Schmoe is were to get the votes.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by smaddox ( 928261 )
      We should really put a term limit on every office. That way no one stays in control for too long.

      It's just too easy for the layman to vote for the guy who he recognizes from the last ballot. Although that probably doesn't matter on partisan tickets (which are unfortunately necessary). Now, if we abolished zoning and had federal representation based on percentages, maybe some states (Texas) wouldn't be stuck with all reps from one party(-exaggeration).

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by iminplaya ( 723125 )
        We should really put a term limit on every office. That way no one stays in control for too long.

        The individual doesn't matter. The Party stays in power forever. The president already has a term limit. What good has it done you? The person you elect represents the party and the businesses that finance them, not the electorate. Please, try to remind these people that they are public servants.

        • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

          by bbdb ( 921914 )
          Please, try to remind these people that they are public servants.

          Please try to get real. Public Choice Theory [perspicuity.net]
          "At the heart of all public choice theories then is the notion that an official at any level, be they in the public or private sector, "acts at least partly in his own self- interest, and some officials are motivated solely by their own self-interest." (Downs, Anthony, Inside Bureaucracy (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1967))"
          • I don't see the disparity between your link and what I'm asserting. We all act in our own self interest. I know that. That's what put us into today's situation. What I'm trying to say about them is to make it in their best interests to serve ours. I believe we are already doing that, and they are acting on it. Term limits is not the solution, obviously. The politicians are not to blame. They are merely a not so flattering reflection of us. Yes, that dress does make you look fat

            • Re: (Score:1)

              by bbdb ( 921914 )
              I agree on this:

              "What I'm trying to say about them is to make it in their best interests to serve ours. "

              But not on this:

              "I believe we are already doing that, and they are acting on it."

              Not really. We don't have a good idea how to do that. We don't even have a good idea how to measure that. And if you can't measure something, you can't control it, etc.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by sumdumass ( 711423 )
          Public servant doesn't mean what you think it means. Or what it looks like you want it to mean.

          It is only a denotation that signifies between a job normally being done in the private sector but being done for a government entity. The servant part doesn't actually mean to serve the public. it means in employment of the public service. While the public is generally an indirect benefactor of government jobs performed, it isn't a requirement.
          • In truth, I see the government as a rather accurate reflection of our collective selves and is actually serving us quite well. It makes a very good mirror. As such I can't complain about the job it is doing. I give it an A+. My main gripe is with my authoritarian voting neighbors and has been for a long time. People can bitch all they want, but the fact remains they won the election, and it looks like the same type of people will win again. And so it goes.

            • Re: (Score:1)

              by bbdb ( 921914 )
              "In truth, I see the government as a rather accurate reflection of our collective selves and is actually serving us quite well."

              Neat theory, except I don't see how it's based on any facts really. Just _why_ should it be a reflection? Elections alone can't provide this, words are cheap. Checks and balances are not set upon something that is fundamentally friendly to you, they wouldn't need to be there in the first place had this power been friendly. Fact is, they are necessary exactly because power corrupts,

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by bbdb ( 921914 )
        That's a bad idea - it waters down accountability for policies. Arguing about accountability and effects of policies is bad enough as it is, believe me. In Europe proportional voting system sucks like hell. Better blame it on one guy instead of voters being completely bambozled by ten small parties fingerpointing blame at each other in a deadlock that never clears. Italy is a prime example of such crisis. It's a disaster.

      • Re:Tech issues don't get votes. (Score:4, Insightful)

        by westlake ( 615356 ) on Tuesday December 25, 2007 @07:32PM (#21817696)
        We should really put a term limit on every office. That way no one stays in control for too long.

        Nonsense.

        The lobbyist, the bureaucrat, and committee staff become all the more powerful.

        Because they are ones who have the experience, knowledge, and resources to frame legislation that cannot wait until your first-term Congressman gets up to speed.

        • The lobbyist, the bureaucrat, and committee staff become all the more powerful.

          The simpler solution would be take the power and money out of the Federal government and put it back in the hands of the states. Hell, maybe even reinstate the senators being chosen by state governments again.

          Not an elegant solution, but now the lobbyists have to spend 50x the money they would have before in bribes to get what they want. The problem with centralized government we have now is that yes it can get things done better
          • The simpler solution would be take the power and money out of the Federal government and put it back in the hands of the states.
            Hell, maybe even reinstate the senators being chosen by state governments again.

            This is dumber than dumb.

            The 19th Century had its Senators for Silver, Senators for Sugar, for Iron and Steel and Coal and Wheat. The cartels would be represented in Congress by senior executives and sometimes by the empire builders themselves.

            The state legislatures were wholly owned subsidiaries.

      • "We should really put a term limit on every office."

        We already have term limits. They're called elections.

        Seriously, I understand your argument. The power of incumbency is often too hard for a challenger to overcome. But we can cure the SOURCE of that malady, not just treat the symptoms.

        If we moved to publicly funded elections, and non-partisan redistricting, the incumbent would only retain the slight edge of name recognition. They'd lose the stacked-deck of gerrymandering, and the ability to raise

    • Idiocracy (Score:3, Interesting)

      by mosel-saar-ruwer ( 732341 )

      Because, that's what your typical voter is concerned about because that's what they understand and what's been hyped in the media.

      The keyword here is YOUR.

      Whose voters are these, anyway?

      Well, the summary of the article gives it away:

      This year's democrat-controlled Congress largely ignored technological issues in favor of social problems, CNet notes in another 2007 retrospective.

      I don't think most high-IQ leftist intellectuals [e.g. your typical university professors] yet realize quite how profou

      • Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)

        by Daniel Dvorkin ( 106857 )
        You're racist scum.

        • You're racist scum.

          Look, you might very well be able to convince yourself to adopt definitions of "racist" and "scum" which are perfectly applicable to me.

          But none of your ad hominem will change the underlying tautology of the matter:

          Very soon, the catastrophic decline of intelligence, and the exponential rise in stupidity, will come to dwarf all other socio-political phenomena.

          By the way, "very soon" will be within then next 15 years or so: Sometime around 2020, just about 50% of all young adults

          • But what does smart people reproducing have to do with any of this? Smart people often have stupid kids, and stupid people often have smart kids. The quality of education and life experience they receive probably has a lot more effect than any genetic determination.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by uhlume ( 597871 )
            Attempting to support your claim of, "the catastrophic decline of intelligence, and the exponential rise in stupidity," by linking to an article on increasing birthrates among racial and ethnic minorities in the U.S. should meet, I think, any objective definition of the term "racist".

            The definition of "scum" may be left as an excercise to the reader.

            • Attempting to support your claim of, "the catastrophic decline of intelligence, and the exponential rise in stupidity," by linking to an article on increasing birthrates among racial and ethnic minorities in the U.S. should meet, I think, any objective definition of the term "racist". The definition of "scum" may be left as an excercise to the reader.

              You can call me every name in the book; in fact, here's a book with lots of different names in it:

              You're welcome to spend the next 2

              • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                by tyrione ( 134248 )
                Where you were correct: The average American today has as smaller vocabulary, lower IQ and more specialized knowledge leading to less understanding across broad subject matter.

                Where you were incorrect: It's a Political Party issue. It's mutually inclusive from Both Parties that the general intelligence of the consumer is less broad/less deep today. However, people who flock to social programs tend to be in a state of non-self-determination. Their hands are more tied and thus form lower income strata. The

                • However, people who flock to social programs tend to be in a state of non-self-determination. Their hands are more tied and thus form lower income strata.

                  Their "non-self-determination" stems from the fact that they lack the gray matter necessary to perform almost any work which is much more productive than, say, mowing your yard, or clipping your hedges [and if the discipline of robotics ever advances to the point that robots can perform those jobs, then they're gonna be S.O.L.].

                  They will never grow up

                  • Re: (Score:1)

                    by tyrione ( 134248 )
                    From the general state in the decline of average intellect, it's quite obvious that the Republican Party suffers deeply from the lack of critical reasoning, empirical capacity and downright necessary skepticism to grasp basic tenets of Science, Higher Reasoning and Advanced Mathematics--all critical in making sure the human race doesn't turn into a bunch of rabid, inbred, blind flocks of fear mongers. Oh wait! They've been building a cesspool of idiocy for several decades and it's bleeding into the national

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by uhlume ( 597871 )
                "Racist" isn't merely an epithet or a slur, no matter how badly you want to pretend it is. Nor is it, as you claim, an ad hominem when you're clearly making an argument about race. Your obvious racial prejudices have everything to do with selecting an article on increases in the birthrate among Mexican immigrants, that itself makes no mention of intellect, to support your claims of "declining intelligence". Your argument isn't specious because you're a racist, however; you're a racist because you're making

                • I am very familiar with the definition of ad hominem:

                  As for the definition of the word "racist": There are only a tiny handful of peoples who are capable of producing a man who can win a Fields Medal or a Nobel Prize in Physics: Largely they are Caucasians [to include the Ashkenazim & the Lebanese Christians], Pacific Rim Asians, and [only] the very highest castes from the Indian Subcontinent; conversely, the finals of the 100 meter dash at the Olympics wil

              • The dysgenics camp might be able to prove a negative correlation between vocabulary, or completed level of school, or even standardized test scores, and fertility. But for that correlation to become a doomsday prediction, someone would have to prove that those test scores are a decent measure of intelligence. This is an impossible task (mostly because they are not a good measure of intelligence). Diploma: I hear George Bush has one, from Yale no less. That alone should be enough to discredit them as an obje

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by jo42 ( 227475 )
        But that is just what the money grubbing capitalists need! More idiots buying shiny things for even more money. Why should a house sell for $150K when some 'tard comes along and pays $300K for it in hopes of selling to an even bigger 'tard a few years down the road for $600K? Only a 'tard would buy something for over $300 when it costs less than $30 to make it (iPod). Smart people just wouldn't do this.
        • Well, the house thing your off on. There is an actual supply verses demand issue with housing so the costs do go up. It is a little more controlled and manipulated then a free market would actually allow but for the most part, it wouldn't make someone a 'tard for buying one and selling it for more.

          As for the Ipod, well it would depend on if or what the person using it wanted from it in return. Jewelry is a good comparison, $100 in gold and diamonds will get you a $5,000 piece if the quality of the finished
      • This is a fallacy. There are no stupid people... just ignorant people. If the smart people want to ensure that future generations make reasonable decisions.. they have to provide education and opportunity for the children of ignorant people. Simple as that.

        • This is not true. Smart and informed are not the same thing. Perhaps your perception of the words colors this for you. True, many people use it to refer to someone who is knowledgeable, but it means mentally alert. To better illustrate and define this concept: a smart person is someone that pays more attention to the annotation and connotation of things, whereas few people bother to pay attention to the latter. You can raise the mental alertness of people through education to a certain degree. But there
          • And there are incredibly intelligent people who believe in intelligent design, refuse to believe in evolution.... discount global warming trends, refute scientific fact, etc, etc. because they are ignorant and uneducated.

            Smart people don't necessarily make informed decisions. We can't change biology on a national or even local level, now or in the future... it's unethical and logistically expensive. You also can't tell smart people to have more children when they know that they will be dividing their standa
            • I hope you realize that you didn't reply to me, rather you are restating yourself in more detail. I do not disagree with you in content, you see, rather in delivery. You see, my contention in the previous post was solely to inform you that your cry of "fallacy" in relation to the idea of smarts is in fact, inaccurate. Additionally, I would propose that advocating an option as the only one is the fallacy here. You see, there are always multiple options for any given sociological problem. Each solution h

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Wookietim ( 1092481 )
      In all honesty, I am perfectly happy the government stayed away from the tech sector....
  • The "evils" of the internet is more likely to stir up emotions among most of the current voting class (i'm talking out of my a$$ but I think that's logical). If techies gathered together to create a MASS voting group (is there one?) that will likely affect elections, then you bet they'd try to get on issues that stir up emotions of the *new* voting class. :-D
    • Congress largely ignored most issues and is at an all time low - Chart [pollingreport.com] and I chose a conservative one, some are at 11%.

      The Senate only passed 27 bills this year. [senate.gov] The house passed many more bills but business is different and a passage of a bill might mean cloture or the changing of a rule.

      All in all, pretty dismal.

    • You won't get enough geeks on the same side of the isle on tech issues let alone non tech issues. It wouldn't happen in a lifetime of trying. Just look at the MS verses linux or FSF verses Evil company violating the GPL and you will see how different we really are. But you can take it even further with the Bush is Evil posts and all.

      You would have a better chance at getting a third party candidate 5% of the vote so they would be included on matching funds and allowed in some of the debates without having to

  • It's best that they ignore the tech issues (Score:5, Insightful)

    by iminplaya ( 723125 ) on Tuesday December 25, 2007 @01:58PM (#21816002) Journal
    Especially when you consider how badly they're dealing with the social ones. Keep them away from tech until we are willing to vote for more freedom minded legislators. Gridlock is good. It slows the creation of bad, authoritarian laws.
    • They don't actually solve social problems, they merely talk about solving social problems, and then create even more problems with their idea of a solution. It's a form of job security, albeit a rather pathetic one.

    • Gridlock is good. It slows the creation of bad, authoritarian laws.

      I'm skeptical about that. I would think that it results in only the creation of bad, authoritarian laws - and prevents the creation of good ones. Having a gridlocked government isn't a good thing. It just means that the government isn't working, and instead is a massive waste.

      What's actually good is transparency and accountability, not gridlock.

      • What's actually good is transparency and accountability, not gridlock.

        Yeah, that goes without saying. But very few people are demanding transparency and accountability. In the face of that, gridlock is the next best thing. It's the snooze button that gives us time to wake up, and possibly realize that we are putting criminals into high office and we should vote them out.

        • I disagree. It's the gridlock that gives the illusion of safety, and allows perpetuation bad policy - without the gridlock, people would actually see how depraved many of the policies are, and vote them out of office, or start a revolution quicker. It makes it easier to sweep stuff under the rug.

          And like I said, it doesn't stop bad laws being passed. The worst laws tend to be the ones that both parties agree on - "terrorism", "drugs", think of the children" etc. The good potential laws are the ones that do

          • Re: (Score:1)

            by bbdb ( 921914 )
            "It's the gridlock that gives the illusion of safety, and allows perpetuation bad policy"

            Excuse me, but _policy perpetuation_ is exactly the point and purpose of govt. It's called stability, or "not exchanging bad for worse".

            Whether policy is good or bad depends on whom you ask. Almost never you get agreement on that. Everyone goes after their gut reflexes, not after "good laws". Trying to make good laws is pointless. What one should be trying is making the laws that don't harm.

            • Excuse me, but _policy perpetuation_ is exactly the point and purpose of govt.

              No, it's not. The point of government is to represent the interests of citizens, and to provide services/streangths/infrastructure that is not possible for individuals to provide. Where did you get this idea of government from?

              Trying to make good laws is pointless. What one should be trying is making the laws that don't harm.

              Well, those would be good laws, so I don't see how it is pointless trying to make them. We should also aim for a government that does more than just not do harm. If that's your goal for government, then we may as well not have one. Government should be much more than that. Please

              • No, it's not. The point of government is to represent the interests of citizens, and to provide services/streangths/infrastructure that is not possible for individuals to provide. Where did you get this idea of government from?

                Maybe he's differentiating theory from practice. When you give authority to someone or some group, it is very natural for them to want more... For our "benefit", of course. So what he says becomes true. Our problem is that we fall for it. Mainly because we try to skim off some of that

              • Re: (Score:1)

                by bbdb ( 921914 )
                "Government should be much more than that. Please explain why it is wrong for the government to do good things."

                I elaborated on this but what the hell happened to my comment? Did I forget to push submit or whatever?

                Oh, anyway, to summarize quickly - since government is merely superposition of political interests (mostly incumbents), it's inherently reactionary in the sense it exists just to conserve those interests. The business of govt is power & coercion, e.g. war, not happiness of citizens.

                To believe
                • And a small group of dogooders that try to pull govt in other direction systematically learns the hard way about perverse operation of law of unintended consequences.

                  Is there no solution then? Should we not even try? Are we to continue believing the the government is all powerful, and that turning it around is quite impossible? I still stand by my initial assertion the problem is ours. And a redirection of our animal instincts will be the only way to fix it. All the fancy philosophy being thrown around is v

                • So, basically, you're a whacked out nihilist who believes that government can never do anything good, and there's no point in ever trying to do anything good as collective citizens. Therefore, we should just be completely selfish and not give a shit about anybody else, or striving to improve the future for humanity. And even when you try to "do good" it does harm.

                  Good luck with that. I prefer not to be insane.

                  • Yep, I discovered the same thing. Just another neo...something, who believes the planet is his personal trashcan. When I see this, it only confirms that government is "just following orders"...his, and people like him. Quite a campaign ahead if there is to be any improvement, and it is a mistake to direct it against the government. Gotta "reprogram" (deprogram? reformat?) the brainwashed zombies, who literally don't understand the consequences of their actions. Those who don't care need to be treated differ
            • By the way, if the purpose of goverment is to perpetuate policy, then do you think it was wrong for the US government to abolish slavery? After all, if perpetuation of policy is what they are supposed to do, then discontinuing this policy would be something they shouldn't have done.

              • Re: (Score:1)

                by bbdb ( 921914 )
                "By the way, if the purpose of goverment is to perpetuate policy, then do you think it was wrong for the US government to abolish slavery? After all, if perpetuation of policy is what they are supposed to do, then discontinuing this policy would be something they shouldn't have done."

                Given the interest of slaveowners - factual and prospective, don't forget them - and given that the govt represented them as well, it definitely should have continued support for slavery. Which it did, until it was forced by no
                • "...Had the South formed an independent state, it would have embarked on a campaign of conquest and imposed slavery on the whole southern half of the Western Hemisphere. "

                  When you look the meddling in Central and South American affairs, it would appear that's exactly what we have. A conquest perpetrated by the bankers, north and south...well, mostly east.

                  • Re: (Score:1)

                    by bbdb ( 921914 )
                    "When you look the meddling in Central and South American affairs, it would appear that's exactly what we have. A conquest perpetrated by the bankers, north and south...well, mostly east."

                    Oh bullcrap. This is result of Monroe Doctrine, not bankers.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by bbdb ( 921914 )
        "I'm skeptical about that. I would think that it results in only the creation of bad, authoritarian laws - and prevents the creation of good ones. "

        There's no such thing as a good law.

        Laws are supposedly about survival, about keeping something bad from developing, say, tyranny, war, military coup'd etat, white collar crime, stealing tax money, etc. Laws are reactive, not proactive, and they are about keeping safe locked, not building something new. If laws were productive, Soviet Union which had a lot of la
        • It's only the left...

          Oh, damn. If I had only noticed that, I wouldn't have wasted my time...Once again I find my self up against those who cling to the notion of "every man for himself" and to hell with the consequences suffered by those standing "in the way". I should have known when you called upon your god you call "Reagan". You have only shown who the real enemy of freedom and justice for all really is. It sure ain't the government. Like I said they, represent your viewpoint quite well...until they star

  • fuck it (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Anarchy in '08

    It might take a flame thrower to light these people's candles.

    • Anarchy in '08
      What, like, Ron Paul?

      All joking aside (and that WAS a joke - NOT a troll) anarchy is a terrible idea.
  • They only passed about 5 real bills that got signed into law -- not including renaming parks and airports and other insubstantial legislation.
    • It is actually good when congress does little. It stops them from creating new problems while attempting to fix old ones without ever addressing the cause of the old problem.

  • It's just one of Parkinson's Laws (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Sique ( 173459 ) on Tuesday December 25, 2007 @03:11PM (#21816402) Homepage
    Cyril Northcote Parkinson [wikipedia.org] knew it already. Not only does work fill up all available time for its completation, the most discussed items at an agenda are not the ones most important, but the ones most participants believe to know something about.

  • Funding for (computer) science research also got the shaft this year, in the budget for FY 2008, despite a prior commitment to double the budget over the next 10 years.

    USACM has a nice perspective: http://usacm.acm.org/usacm/weblog/index.php?p=558 [acm.org] and so does the Computing Research Association: http://www.cra.org/govaffairs/blog/archives/000646.html [cra.org]

    Unfortunately, pork $$$ in the near-term wins over long-term benefits for the entire country...

    happy holidays,
    alex

    • Russian CS researchers were jailed under the DMCA.

      With the complete subjugation of the tech sector to hollywood under laws of this ilk, why would they encourage the advancement of such evil piracy as the study of the security of encryption standards commonly used by our major corporations, or the viability of drm.

      It's clear cs majors are not wanted. After all, the RIAA in one lawsuit tried to demand one cs major abandon that academic track for something more tame like gun repair or refrigeration.

  • Surpise? (Score:3, Funny)

    by DesScorp ( 410532 ) on Tuesday December 25, 2007 @04:04PM (#21816690) Journal
    Democrats concentrated on social issues...this is a shock?

  • "tech issues" vs. "social issues" (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Daniel Dvorkin ( 106857 ) on Tuesday December 25, 2007 @04:22PM (#21816770) Homepage Journal
    That's a silly, artifical divide. Pretty much all the issues discussed in the article are both tech and social issues; so are net neutrality and other issues near and dear to techies' hearts. If Congress were focusing on "pure" tech issues, we'd have legislators trying to tell us how to program, what CPU's to use, etc. Do you want that? I sure as hell don't.

    • Maybe it's just me? But everyone of those issues listed is Tech related. I didn't RTFA but when the summary itself say's:

      cybersecurity threats to U.S. government systems, terrorist cells flourishing on the Web, inadvertent file sharing through peer-to-peer networks, and sexual predators ensnaring unsuspecting youth through online social sites. And for a third time, the House passed not just one, but two, different bills aimed at deterring spyware.

      Basically how is that not tech related?

      And I agree, I

        • Cybersecurity & terrorists - more of a social issue. Why are people attacking US government systems? Why is terrorism flourishing?
        • Inadvertent file-sharing - more of a user competence issue.
        • Sexual predators - totally a social issue; why do we have sexual predators, regardless of the technology they use?
        • Spyware - a social/economic issue; why do people resort to dubious methods of making money?

        Technology is just a tool used by society at large.

  • too bad, nerds (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Democrats don't give a damn about technology issues in general or the Internet in particular. Democrats only care about social issues and making you overpaid nerds pay more taxes so they can fund more giveaways to their core voters (which are not you).

    Most of the Congresscritters that cared about the Internet are gone this year.
  • Referring our congress as "democrat-controlled" is either an example of parroting republic party talking points or showing a profound ignorance of both the make-up and the way congress works. The Senate is 49-49 with two independants, one of whom votes with Democrats, the other (Lieberman) with Republicans on defense, civil liberties and trade issues. If there is a tie, the Vice President breaks it, however ties are unlikely as partisan issues are never voted on as it takes 60 votes to break a filibuster.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Enry ( 630 )

      In fairness, the previous congress, who brought us the DCMA was not controlled by Republicans either.
      I think you may want to check [wikipedia.org] your facts [wikipedia.org], though a Democratic President did sign the DMCA.

  • That's a good thing (Score:4, Insightful)

    by bbdb ( 921914 ) on Tuesday December 25, 2007 @04:58PM (#21816918)
    It's a feature of democracy, not a bug.

    Govt can't fix and provide simple systems, say, levees, roads, can't get itself to undertake rather simple means necessary to fix the school system. How could it fix a lot more intricate, complicated and advanced realm like technology then?

    And beware of the negative side effects, like with "net neutrality" that is a bad idea whose time has come and, fortunately for us all, gone.

    Suppose govt signs obsolete & proprietary tech into law (need I point at some document standards?). That would stifle innovation instead of invigorating it.

    No, tech is better off without govt meddling. It's only basic research that it can't screw up because physics laws fortunately can't be screwed up by govt incompetence, at worst it can waste money or underfund important science like ITER.

  • Its called "one issue voters" (Score:3)

    by jonwil ( 467024 ) on Tuesday December 25, 2007 @06:35PM (#21817442)
    There are many people who will switch their vote to the other guy (or in many cases get out and vote for someone when they wouldn't otherwise have) just because one side says "we will do x" or "we wont do x".

    "block filth on the internet", "keep kids safe from scumbags online", "keep terrorists and bad foriegn governments from using the internet to attack America", "help me stop my kid downloading illegal stuff from the internet"
    These are all "hot button issues" for voters.

    On the other hand, issues like "stop hackers from stealing my credit card numbers/bank details", "stop AT&T from messing with my google search results", "stop Microsoft from trying to kill free software" are issues that geeks and tech people care about but the general public doesn't give a stuff for the most part.

    What we need is a way to make the general public care (particularly about phishing and identity theft)

    • "block filth on the internet", "keep kids safe from scumbags online", "keep terrorists and bad foriegn governments from using the internet to attack America", "help me stop my kid downloading illegal stuff from the internet", "stop hackers from stealing my credit card numbers/bank details", "stop AT&T from messing with my google search results", "stop Microsoft from trying to kill free software"

      in order of appearance, the jurisdiction for the solutions to these problems is: parents; parents/police; exi

  • Think of the children hysteria (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    ...and sexual predators ensnaring unsuspecting youth through online social sites.
    How many times has this actually occurred (discounting law enforcement agents pretending to be teenagers)?

    I know it gets the politicians a lot of votes, but it seems like Congress' time would be better spent passing anti-lightning-bolt legislation.
  • "This year's democrat-controlled Congress largely ignored technological issues in favor of social problems"...

    The issues facing technology, especially internet technology, absolutely qualifies as a social problem. Its the most prevalent way people connect and transact with one another. They need to understand their priorities before assigning them.
  • One problem with this article is that is posed H-1b expansion as a "tech" issue. I would agree that many technical folks are deeply concerned about this issue. However, most US tech workers oppose the expansion of these visas-and many managers and many of the actual owners of major tech companies support the expansion of these visas.
  • Its all about Big Business. It always will be. Congress is not there for us (US), they are there for themselves.
  • ... how many people can name, say, even a handful of instances in the last decade of Congress taking on a major technology issue? Just so we have it straight -- is there a previous, tech-savvy Republican-controlled Congress that impressed the submitter of this "article"? Hahahahaha. Yeah, OK. I'll give you electronic voting. Yep, they impressed me there.

Slashdot Top Deals

As you will see, I told them, in no uncertain terms, to see Figure one. -- Dave "First Strike" Pare

Close