|
|
User Controls
|
New User
|
Login
|
Edit/View My Profile
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac
|
Articles
|
Forums
|
Links
|
News
|
News Search
|
Reviews
|
|
|
|
News Centers
|
Windows/Microsoft
|
DVD
|
ActiveHardware
|
Xbox
|
MaINTosh
|
News Search
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats
|
The Lobby
|
Special Events Room
|
Developer's Lounge
|
XBox Chat
|
|
|
|
FAQ's
|
Windows 98/98 SE
|
Windows 2000
|
Windows Me
|
Windows "Whistler" XP
|
Windows CE
|
Internet Explorer 6
|
Internet Explorer 5
|
Xbox
|
DirectX
|
DVD's
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips
|
Registry Tips
|
Windows 95/98
|
Windows 2000
|
Internet Explorer 4
|
Internet Explorer 5
|
Windows NT Tips
|
Program Tips
|
Easter Eggs
|
Hardware
|
DVD
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews
|
Applications
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002
|
|
Hardware
|
Intel Personal Audio Player
3000
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse
Explorer
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info
|
About This Site
|
Affiliates
|
ANet Forums
|
Contact Us
|
Default Home Page
|
Link To Us
|
Links
|
Member Pages
|
Site Search
|
Awards
|
|
|
|
Credits
©1997/2004, Active Network. All
Rights Reserved.
Layout & Design by
Designer Dream. Content
written by the Active Network team. Please click
here for full terms of
use and restrictions or read our
Privacy Statement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Time:
00:04 EST/05:04 GMT | News Source:
Business Week Online |
Posted By: Kenneth van Surksum |
Barack Obama says that the U.S. is not doing nearly enough to create jobs through technology. Shortly after he launched his campaign, the Illinois Senator promised that if elected, he would create the first-ever Cabinet-level post of chief technology officer. The economic crisis has since made it certain that a White House CTO would become one of Obama's most important advisers, should he triumph in November. "Obama sees greater broadband penetration as an enormous economic engine, much like the railroads were a century ago," says Andrew D. Lipman, a veteran communications lawyer in Washington. "That is why the CTO will play such a critical role in any recovery plan."
Among the candidates who would be considered for the job, say Washington insiders, are Vint Cerf, Google's "chief internet evangelist," who is often cited as one of the fathers of the Internet; Microsoft chief executive officer Steve Ballmer; Amazon CEO Jeffrey Bezos; and Ed Felten, a prominent professor of computer science and public affairs at Princeton University. An Obama campaign spokesman did not return phone calls seeking comment about potential CTO candidates.
|
|
#1 By
9589 (71.71.110.210)
at
10/22/2008 10:44:07 AM
|
That's all we need is another tax payer funded bureaucrat "picking" the winners and losers in technology. Isn't that the reason that we got ourselves in this mortgage and credit crisis - the government insisting that banks lend to those that had no means to pay and still don't. Another poor idea from an inexperienced senator who has no business as a candidate for the presidency.
Meanwhile, broadband already covers 98% of the United States between DSL, cable modem and satellite. Get a clue . . .
By the way, the recovery is already underway. Geez, give it some time. This isn't instaprint; its an entire economy that is tied to the world's economies. There's no hope for these dufuses in Washington D.C.
|
#2 By
23275 (71.91.9.16)
at
10/22/2008 11:34:57 AM
|
#1, Well said!!!
Now the Congress will grill the crap out of the private sector and deflect blame from itself.
|
#3 By
1896 (68.153.171.248)
at
10/22/2008 12:09:58 PM
|
#1: Broadband in the US is slow and very, very expensive compared to other industrialized Countries.
Would you mind to elaborate about your statement that "the recovery is already underway"?
DO not get me wrong, speaking a la "Cicero pro domo sua" I would be more than happy if recovery had already started but, ufortunately, I think we are not even close to the bottom yet.
|
#4 By
15406 (216.191.227.68)
at
10/22/2008 1:20:32 PM
|
How did this thread get hijacked into the economy? Back to the subject at hand...
Felten would be my pick. I don't know if Cerf is with-it enough. Ballmer is a stuffed suit, and Bezos is another stuffed suit. Where do they get the idea that because someone runs a tech company, they're somehow best suited as a CTO? How about the CTO of Google, MS or any major IT company instead of the CEO?
|
#5 By
15916 (68.47.209.74)
at
10/22/2008 2:13:09 PM
|
John H. Marburger, III is the current Director of the Office of Science & Technology Policy, which is part of the Executive Office of the President. Website: http://www.ostp.gov/cs/about_ostp
When the Junior Senator knows what is already in his own government, monkeys will fly out of my ass.
|
#6 By
15406 (216.191.227.68)
at
10/22/2008 2:36:58 PM
|
#5: How did the monkeys get in there to begin with?
|
#7 By
92283 (142.32.208.232)
at
10/22/2008 7:01:28 PM
|
Why should the CTO come from IT? IT isn't the only "Technology".
How about someone from the Coal or Nuclear industry?
|
#8 By
54556 (67.131.75.22)
at
10/22/2008 7:43:55 PM
|
or refuse engineering even
|
#9 By
23275 (71.91.9.16)
at
10/22/2008 9:24:20 PM
|
Latch, just in case you didn't take note of the direct connection and relevance to the economy, here it is right up front: "The economic crisis has since made it certain that a White House CTO would become one of Obama's most important advisers, should he triumph in November. "Obama sees greater broadband penetration as an enormous economic engine, much like the railroads were a century ago," says Andrew D. Lipman, a veteran communications lawyer in Washington. "That is why the CTO will play such a critical role in any recovery plan."
That said, who in H.E. Double Hockey Sticks are *you* to scold anyone about hijacking a thread - or anything else for that matter?
|
#10 By
15406 (216.191.227.68)
at
10/23/2008 9:24:15 AM
|
#9: I'm usually on point, as much as anyone else here. However, I do admit to being led down the garden path by both you and parkkker on a regular basis.
"President Obama". Say it to yourself. Sounds good, doesn't it?
|
#11 By
23275 (71.91.9.16)
at
10/23/2008 9:52:47 AM
|
#10, You're not a citizen of this country, so it would be gracious of you to avoid attacking either side of our political process in any personal way. You make stunning assumptions about people and without any pragmatic basis for the same.
You appear to be rarely on point. You are consistently insulting.
I guess you think I am a right of right Republican? (based upon your poking with textual sticks). If you wish to know, I am a classic liberal - a Jeffersonian Platonist. Within either major political party in the U.S. I find little that is consistent with our constitution, or the philosophy as espoused by any of the candidates. Back to the thread...
There are those that assess that yet more government is the answer. I do not agree with them. Less government and more liberty and personal responsibility is what I advocate and vote for.
Now, go borrow some sensibility from a gentleman and try it on - see how it fits. We can hope its essence will linger for awhile after you have discarded it, or returned it.
|
#12 By
15406 (216.191.227.68)
at
10/23/2008 12:03:31 PM
|
#11: You're not a citizen of this country, so it would be gracious of you to avoid attacking either side of our political process in any personal way.
My opinions are as valid as anyone's, and I won't stand for the likes of you trying to tell me what I can and can't say. For some reason, I get the impression that you wouldn't care quite so much about what I said if I was waving the pompoms for Bush, Microsoft and any of your other pets (NASCAR?).
You appear to be rarely on point. You are consistently insulting.
You need to see your optometrist then. I'm not the one who segues into vague generalities and sweeping tangential statements when pressed about anything. However, I will admit that I can be nasty when confronted with absolute BS being passed off as fact. In other words, try to insult my intelligence with nonsense and you'll get an insult back in kind.
There are those that assess that yet more government is the answer. I do not agree with them. Less government and more liberty and personal responsibility is what I advocate and vote for.
Your gov't has grown vastly larger in the past 8 years. Classic conservatism calls for small gov't, small spending, and avoiding foreign engagements. Pretty much the exact opposite of what the current administration has done. Yet you cheer for the current admin. Meanwhile, the current administration and the security theatre company known as DHS have started you down the road to a police state. Not quite as bad as England is getting, but you'll be there soon enough. Thanks to the Bush Doctrine, extraordinary rendition, Guantanamo Bay and waterboarding, the US has lost any of the moral highground you used to occupy, and now you have absolutely no right to lecture anybody, including China, on human rights and the right of law.
I don't see how Obama could possibly any worse, despite all the scary hand-waving by the Republicans. In fact, considering how the Republicans have screwed your country over for the past 8 years, I find it incredibly galling that they're pointing their finger at Obama and saying "Watch out for him". Doesn't matter though. They're desperate and everyone knows it. Obama will win by a landslide and hopefully start to heal the wounds on America inflicted by the Bush/Cheney years.
|
#13 By
10748 (134.187.163.50)
at
10/23/2008 12:29:42 PM
|
I wish there was a "Latch Filter" ... I would enjoy this site SO much more if I never saw a post by him.
|
#14 By
23275 (71.91.9.16)
at
10/23/2008 12:44:55 PM
|
@12, The validity of your opinion does not make it more, or less welcome - there is a difference, and I am telling with absolute clarity that it is not.
You forget, and remain ignorant about how our policies are formed - agree, or not, President Bush has acted in a manner entirely consistent with stated and written party polices (planks as they are called within a party's platform). His approach was to attempt to unify both parties under a policy of compassionate conservatism while openning markets to expansion gloablly - assuming sustained growth would finance it. Again, agree, or not, effective or not, the man did exactly what he and his party said he would do - so at least credit him with doing consistently that which the people hired him to do. We can disagree with him and his party all we want, but the man was both sincere and consistent and he spent accordingly.
Don't be naive at all. Rendition, interrogation and counter terrorist operations are not in any way new. They are simply more public. For the very fist time, such operations were examined widely and in fact, constrained and exposed to review. Previously they were not and your own country was as sure a participant as my own - this I know for and as a fact. I can assure you that for much longer than you have been alive, your country and my own have had to prosecute some very undesirable actions - none of which would pass any test you seem to suggest. You are not experienced enough (obviously) to have ever been exposed to the realities that attend any of this - it has so often been about bad choices and worse choices while preserving the social utopia we all long for, for all peoples other than ourselves.
Senator Obama, despite what I am certain are his very best of intentions, appears to be as naive as you do. Senator McCain isn't, but at best, he is the lesser of two bad choices. It is a sad state of affairs for certain and it began in 1916 with Wilson. I have lived through most of it. I want to be most clear about one thing: I don't know any man that hates war more than I do. I do however hate watching maniacs murder thousands of innocent people on purpose and start the wars even more. There are no "good" choices in this - only "better" ones and that isn't at all new. In fifty years you'll remember this and perhaps even me, and you'll find yourself agreeing with much of it. I mean, "you think I was not at one time so much more hopeful and just as critical of our leaders?"
|
#15 By
15406 (216.191.227.68)
at
10/23/2008 2:54:30 PM
|
#13: Nothing is forcing you to read what I post. If you disagree with me, please feel free to rebut anything I say.
#14: You're claiming you now speak for the entire forum? Seems to me there are are some who at least partially agree with my positions. Please don't try to portray your personal opinions as those of the entire group.
I don't even know where to start with your cock-eyed views. The very thought of Bush unifying the parties, after running the most divisive administration in history, is laughable. Honestly, it's hard to debate with you when you insist on clinging to these fantasies. First you're portraying probably the worst US president in history as a saint, and now you're apologizing for torture by trying to claim that it's nothing new. I don't see much honour in a man who claims that the US doesn't torture, ever, anywhere, and then he tries to redefine 'torture'. This is the man that breaks the law and then passes legislation after the fact to make it all legal. This is the man that reserves the right to attack any nation on the premise that it's OK because that nation might perhaps possibly one day maybe attack the US. Most Americans, and the rest of the world, are very eager to see the last of Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney and the rest of their neo-con operatives.
The US & world have put up with 8 years of ruinous GOP policy. Can you smell what Barack is cooking? ;) Better run & hide under your bed! There's a black man in the White house, and he isn't interested in tax cuts for the rich and waging constant war. That's pretty much the end of the Universe as far as Republicans are concerned.
btw, in 50 years I'll be long dead. I'm not some 19-yr-old you seem to continually paint me as. Considering your past claims of ageism, you seem to be trying it on the other end of the spectrum. I would guess that I'm one of the older members here.
|
#16 By
23275 (71.91.9.16)
at
10/23/2008 3:47:26 PM
|
#15, The last post of yours does not deserve a response. It is disgusting.
|
#17 By
15406 (216.191.227.68)
at
10/23/2008 4:00:45 PM
|
#16: Heh, nice non-reply. Which part in particular is disgusting? The part where I disagree with you?
|
#18 By
154882 (76.127.161.127)
at
10/23/2008 5:48:09 PM
|
#12 "However, I will admit that I can be nasty when confronted with absolute BS being passed off as fact. In other words, try to insult my intelligence with nonsense and you'll get an insult back in kind."
True, sometimes. Other times you're just looking for a fight. Take this week for example. You were the first post on like 4 or five articles. And you posted your ever-so-witty-and-thoughtful comments. You fail to realize that this is a site for Windows enthusiasts. We are passionate about Microsoft technologies and belive in their products. We like working with them. A lot. Does anyone here think they're perfect? No. Has anyone with a little experience been frustrated with their products? Of course! But we still love working with them. And want to talk about them constructively.
Yet, on a site dedicated to Microsoft we have to put up with you and your comments. We want to talk about MS in a positive way. And we should be able to without hearing from you time and again. You want to change Microsoft to what you think they should be. You're not going to do it here. Go somewhere else. Change the world with your views of how a software company should act and behave. Use the products you enjoy and do something positive instead of haunting this site looking for your next fight.
And on the politcal front. I am sure you are <b>not</b> an American political science historian. To make statements that the Bush administration ran "the most divisive administration in history..." is pure opinion and one that shows a lack of understanding of early American politics. You're not an American and you didn't vote for our elected officials. Worry about your own country. The fact is America is still the greatest country in the world - during, before and after the Bush administration. We provide the best opportunities for the most diverse gathering of individuals this world has ever seen. And we provide more assitance to other countries in need then your country ever has (I don't know where you live, but no country comes close to America's altruism. Period.)
|
#19 By
15406 (99.224.104.110)
at
10/23/2008 7:09:41 PM
|
#18: True, sometimes. Other times you're just looking for a fight...
True, sometimes. I'll fully admit I was baiting hooks earlier this week. Most times I'm serious about what I'm saying. I get along just fine with most members of this board. You'll notice it's only the same small faction that I routinely spar with, as it is those people alone whose statements I take issue with.
Yet, on a site dedicated to Microsoft we have to put up with you and your comments.
Yes, you do. Part of the bargain of a free society is that all views can be heard. You have every right to completely disregard my posts. Don't read them. You have every right to discard what I have to say as nonsense and gibberish. But don't tell me not to post my opinions.
And on the politcal front. I am sure you are <b>not</b> an American political science historian.
Correct. I'm posting my opinion, and it is correct as far as I know or I wouldn't be posting it. I don't claim to be right all of the time. You seem to be under the impression that American politics are strictly an internal affair. You have to understand that, as the last remaining superpower (for now), what happens to America affects everyone else in the world. I honestly believe that the world as a whole does not want the US to fail. I like the US personally, and I've had great experiences with most Americans I've interacted with. I believe that America, by any metrics that matter, is the greatest country on Earth (I'm from Canada.) That's part of why I care about what's going on. I don't slam Bush et al because I hate America. America and its people deserve better than what they are currently getting. And it makes my blood boil when people try to explain away the Bush years, like it was the status quo. You lost a lot, and gained little. I'm hoping Obama can stop the bleeding on what was a great nation. Maybe I'm naive for thinking so, but I can't stomach another 4 years of what has been.
|
#20 By
2231 (72.83.232.82)
at
10/23/2008 10:27:43 PM
|
Broadband penetration is not going to occur as long as lobbyists own congress.
|
|
|
|
|