Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Slashdot.org News

ZDNet Response to Gore2000 230

Posted by CmdrTaco from the this-is-amusing dept.
Enucite writes "ZDNet has an article entitled "Gore's 'open source' blasphemy". It talks about the Gore 2000 website, then goes on to talk about the response on Slashdot" I wish articles referring to Slashdot comments would link the comment so that their readers could read the whole thread and not just the 2 sentances the story writer felt like sharing. And I wish they could figure out who "Anonymous Coward" really is. Ah well, nice to see we made some waves, but the offending passage still apears on the web site.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

ZDNet Response to Gore2000 More

ZDNet Response to Gore2000

Comments Filter:

  • ZDNet gets exclusive interview with moi! (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    ...What about semi-clueless ZDnet which spotted the comments on Slashdot, but failed to realize that "Anonymous Coward" is a default post name?

    There's plenty of screwups around for everyone to share. This kind of juvenile flammage is lots of fun, but is ultimately just irritating noise. The point is that Gore is a professional politician trying to get elected President, not a 24/7 netizen who knows every detail of the Open Source movement and politics. The fact is that he is engaged with technology to some extent and that is a plus (in contrast to those clueless dorks that regularly introduce legislation to outlaw or tax the net or create a Federal Internet Regulatory Agency).

    If he wants to take credit for creating the Internet, let him. If he wants to run on an open source platform, let him. So what if he takes too much credit, the truth is the truth. The truth is he (and several hundred million other people) DID create the Internet or at least make it what it is today. It is absolutely astounding what you can accomplish if you're willing to let other people take the credit. Thus saith I, Anonymous Coward.

  • Better, but... (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I don't expect a politition to be a programmer. In fact, I don't care if s/he knows the difference between the internet and a hairnet. What is important is that they surround themselves with people that ARE familir with the issues.

    Obviously Gore didn't sit down and hack out the website (well, maybe he did, after all it is running on IIS) but he did have a choice as to who designed it, wrote it and did the factual checking of it.

    IMHO his choice of people reviewing tech strategies sucks.
  • It is interesting to note that their so called "open source" website is using a proprietary webserver...

  • I think you guys are overreacting.

    For one thing you should be happy that "Open Source" is even mentioned in politics. It means people are starting to pick up on the idea, even if they haven't got it quite right yet.

    The "Open Source" advocates have only themselves to blame. They were the ones that wanted to dilute the requirements so nonsense like the Apple, Mozilla, QT, etc. licenses could be classified as "Open Source." Now it is so diluted that its only meaning to the public is "if you can see the source code, then it's open source." This is because there are such a variety of licenses classified as "open source" that they don't know any better!

    When someone says "Free Software" you know exactly what they mean, because you know what type of license "Free Software" is required to have.

    PS: I know there is an "Open Source Definition." I am talking about the public's perception of these things, not our perception of them. Just like to the public "hacker" == "cracker" -- if you want to complain about the public's perception of things, you have to talk to them using their usage of the word.

    My suggestion: Call free software "Free Software" and let "Open Source" mean "you can look at the source." "Open Source" as having that definition is already out of its cage; there is nothing we can do about it now. Just like people will continue to call 'crackers' 'hackers'..

  • Real journalists do their homework and wouldn't make such silly errors as referring to a "person" named AC.

    Since there seem to be so few real journalists left in the world, why not put together a FAQ list for the press? Explain what slashdot is about, whatever is known of the user demographic (I think we know occupation and age, don't we?). Fill the clueless in on the identity of this mysterious, hyperkinetic "Anonymous Coward" person who seems to suffer from Attention Deficit Disorder and Tourette Syndrome, but sometimes shows signs of brilliance.

    The FAQ could also direct writers to various sources of information on Linux, the BSDs, BeOS, etc.

  • I saw that post as well. You know, one would tend to think that professors of history would be a bit more mature than that. But I suppose not. At least, not in this particular case.

    do the obvious if you want to email me ...
  • When will ``web designers'' (ie trained monkeys) learn that not everyone works on a fsckin' 600x400 monitor. Those damn fonts are totally unreadable at 1600x1200. Can't people just use relative sized fonts in their HTML and let me decide how big I want things?! If someone wants a slice of my awake time they better make it easy for me to read or else Alt-back-arrow they go.

    As for Al Gore, I am not voting for him until he invents something really usefull like oxygen or water. Better get busy, Al!

    -Brett.

  • Settle down... (Score:3)

    by Tony Shepps ( 333 ) on Thursday April 08, 1999 @11:05AM (#1943786)
    Do you really think Al Gore had anything to do with placing "Open Source" on his web site? More than likely, his campaign team hired someone to make a web page and the webmaster included the text -- thinking it would impress the technophiles.

    Yup. And if he's elected, and the economy goes south, it won't be Al who did it -- it'll be the fed chairman he appointed. And if war breaks out, it won't be Al who did it -- it'll be the secretary of state he appointed. Al's a good guy!

    Please, there is no excuse for the empty politics of appeal. You know why Ventura was elected: because he's a real person who says exactly what he thinks, not an empty automatron whose positions are injected into the campaign by staffers looking for keywords that the public will bite on. I'm so happy there are only a tiny minority of apologists on Slashdot. It means that reality is far more important than appearances amongst the geek culture.

  • The truth about Gore, lies and Open Source (Score:3)

    by Tony Shepps ( 333 ) on Friday April 09, 1999 @12:25AM (#1943787)
    I am one of the people Gore is meant to be stealling the credit for "inventing" the Internet.

    Not for people who know what the internet is, you're not.

    Media Lie: Gore Claimed to 'Invent' the internet. He didn't,

    He did; the original story was written from a CNN transcript, not a reporter's idea of what was said.

    Gore did two things which helped the Web take off. The first was to authorize the www.whitehouse.gov website. Before that went online closed proprietary systems such as Acrobat and Hyper-G were much more visible. The Whitehouse site legitimized the web. The other thing Gore did was to make all the agencies go on line first.

    What kind of crap is this? What kind of idiots do you take us for? If there is one person now reading this who started participating on the I'net because of www.whitehouse.gov, please reply to this message and say so. If there is one person who believes that www.whitehouse.gov has done more for the acceptance of the net than any of the 100 top web sites out there... enough said.

    Be especially cautious of the media - me included.

    Thanks for the tip. Here's my tip in return: G E T - O V E R - Y O U R S E L F .

  • Posted by Kragen:

    All that this "open source" web site will cause is
    confusion, Not all publicity is good, if it
    confuses the issues (Which politicians enjoy) then
    it will hurt the open source movement, imagine all
    the hard core Republicans that must now despise
    open source because Mr. Gore is publicly waving it
    about.
  • Posted by Buffy the Overflow Slayer:

    Well of course, the G in GNU stands for Gore.

    -buffy

    If the titanic filled with lawyers, it would not
    have been a disaster.
  • Posted by US Marine:

    Al Gore once again shows his stupidity and utter arrogance. He thinks he can use the magic words "open source" to win over the technical communities? I just can't wait to see what utter nonsense he utters during the campaigns. What a dufus.
  • Posted by GrapefruitJuice:

    Sue 'em

  • ZDNet (Score:1)

    by gavinhall ( 33 )
    Posted by GrapefruitJuice:

    Al Gore invented algorithms didn't he?
  • Posted by 1funnyguy:

    If you go back and check your Net Craft, he's now running "Apache/1.2.0 Ben-SSL/1.8 on Linux"

    Maybe someone there actually reads? (Can't spell worth potatoes but...
  • Give it a rest.. at least ridicule him for something real, like Tipper's holier-than-thou views on music and art. Dont think that his are going to be too different

    Pot kettle black, holmes. That PMRC stuff and related junk was just the maneuvering of a power couple with their eyes on the White House. I think even Uncle Frank (RIP) understands. Unfortunately that power couple still insists on mentioning it [algore2000.com] on their campaign homepage, in their continuing bid to grab a piece of the lucrative "family values" market. Their actual views are far more sane, I guarantee you.

    Tipper has a bit of a rock'n'roll background, y'know -- she could have been a Mo Tucker. She shouldn't be ridiculed for the PMRC; that's just the business of politics and marketing. Set your fangs instead on the bastards the PMRC enabled, like Wal-Mart and the censors at MTV.

    --

  • But the market is still there. And politicians still play to it; the amount of pandering varies from region to region, but when you're running for president, you have to cover every region. Gore just needs a small piece of market share (say, 33% of their vote) to succeed, as it would offset the efforts of the Christian Coalition and similar groups in getting them all to vote Republican. Hence the continuing references to the PMRC in their campaign material, whether they actually personally believe in that "protect the kids" nonsense or not.

    --

  • Zhu Rongji -- the prime minister of China -- is in Washington today, being given the (uh) red-carpet treatment. I'd feel a whole lot better if Al Gore understood what "human rights" means, and what he thinks of sweatshops, prison labor (both Chinese and American), and Tibet; whether or not he gets "open source" right or understands TCP/IP isn't quite as weighty an issue. And it's not like he's the only politician in the world who suffers from foot-in-mouth disease or cluelessness.

    --

  • Second take...

    Zhu Rongji -- the prime minister of China -- is in Washington today, being given the (uh) red-carpet treatment. I'd feel a whole lot better if Al Gore understood what "human rights" means, and told us what he'll do about sweatshops, prison labor (both Chinese and American), and Tibet; whether or not he gets "open source" right or understands TCP/IP isn't quite as weighty an issue. And it's not like he's the only politician in the world who suffers from foot-in-mouth disease or cluelessness.

    --

  • WHAT? Your saying that censorship and banning content of music and art is acceptable IF it was done to get a position of power?!?

    Short answer: no. Long answer: read the other posts. I'm saying it's a typical piece of political dishonesty and powerlust, things that are just as not-OK as censorship.

    --

  • It's the content that counts, not the label.

    Then why harp on the PMRC? Those infamous hearings took place 15 years ago or so. A bipartisan coalition of pandering idiots went on a crusade that ended up with record companies (our friends the RIAA) putting "Parental Advisory" warning stickers on anything that said "booger" on its lyric sheet. The Gores moved on to the Gore '88 campaign and kept it as an item on their resume. They didn't ban anything. Other entities did the censoring and banning.

    If it's the content that counts, why does /. always devolve into script-kiddie-hood on the subject of politics (KDE v GNOME, MS v DOJ, Gore v Dole/Bush/Browne, ...)? To inaccurately single out Al and Tipper for "censorship" is no better than singling out Quayle for his spelling. There are more substantive reasons to dislike all of them.

    --

  • We all agree that Censorship is Bad. That's not what I was talking about. I'm talking about the mislabeling of Al and Tipper as a couple of censorers based on the activities of the PMRC (events that, I'll bet, happened either before you were born or when you were too young to care). They did bad things, but the real evil was done by assorted senators (the committee Gore was on, and maybe chaired), the RIAA, various retailers, and the voters in general (who didn't seem to raise much of a fuss). The PMRC wasn't a Gore organization; IIRC, there were many other politicians' wives involved (from both parties), and they were aided and abetted by Moral Majority type groups (I think I remember Pat Robertson giving Tipper some airtime on The 700 Club when she was out promoting her "family values" parenting book) -- which was the ultimate political motivation for Al and Tipper to get involved, i.e. their timetable for suck-cess included a 1988 presidential bid, and they wanted to pre-empt any notion that Al was one of those bomb-throwing un-American liberals.

    There you go. A history lesson for today. Though I will confess to a little fuzziness of memory, since that was a long time ago, and I was probably on the road for a good deal of those hearings (rather than veged out in front of my beloved C-SPAN 24/7 :)

    If you can remember the 80's, then you weren't having as much fun as I was :)

    --

  • I'm so happy there are only a tiny minority of apologists on Slashdot. It means that reality is far more important than appearances amongst the geek culture.

    I can't say I've read every post, but I haven't seen one single apologist or pro-Gore post today. You don't seem to get the point of your own Ventura reference; his appeal was based on plain-speaking, but we can't tell if it's "empty" or not based on a campaign. Ventura's shtick is much more honest than a professional politician's shtick, but the bottom line is still the same: we need to judge on performance, not personality. Even plain-speaking is shtick if its "empty appeal" isn't backed up with action once elected.

    What about the recent furor about Governor Body signing a deal to manufacture Jesse Ventura action figures at a sweatshop in China? I don't follow Minnesota events at all, so someone can tell us if he has responded to the complaint(s) about that [see the Star-Tribune opinion page of 25 March]. Or has he gone into a song-and-dance? How has this played with the Reform Party?

    This is truly the golden age of anti-advertising advertising. Keep your heads up and your eyes and ears open.

    --

  • I think Gore has an inferiority complex.

    I think Bob Zelnick has been saying something similar on his book tour (he has a new Gore biography out). Al Gore was born into a rich, political family, and maybe he does feel like he has to pad his resume a bit, so he can look like he's done more than coast his way to national prominence. There is a grain of truth in all of Al's tall tales -- he was more tech-clueful than most members of Congress; he may have been a vague inspiration for one of the characters in Love Story, or at least a fragment of dialogue; in Tennessee, the Gore family owns lots of farm land -- they're now notorious for growing tobacco, thanks to Al's speech at the 1996 Democratic convention.

    He's no more or less a tall-tale spinner than the average politician; it's just that he has this knack for doing it in front of large audiences :)

    --

  • censorship (Score:3)

    by pingouin ( 783 ) on Thursday April 08, 1999 @09:17AM (#1943803)
    I don't like the idea of censorship, but I also don't think you can fault Wal-Mart or MTV. They are privately owned companies. They have the freedom to sell/show what they choose.

    I agree, to a point. But the censorship tends to give bad signals, that's my complaint. MTV makes an issue of a marijuana leaf logo while being suckers for tits'n'ass (their censorship of "Justify My Love" was essentially a high-profile way to "disprove" that); they also condone product-placement for some items (a Mercedes, for instance) and not others (a shoe company logo on a t-shirt).

    As far as Wal-Mart, do they inform customers that they sell censored (as in re-recorded -- not banned) items? I think they still have a policy of selling "cleaned-up" versions of CDs. If it's not plainly stated, it's a deceptive practice. Not all consumers are informed consumers, which brings us back to the original topic: we who take potshots at Mister Internet are just as clueless as Mister Internet himself.

    --

  • I don't like the idea of censorship, but I also don't think you can fault Wal-Mart or MTV. They are privately owned companies. They have the freedom to sell/show what they choose.

    If I owned a record store I wouldn't want people coming in and saying I had to have copies of the album XYZ by Holier Than Thou because I sell album ABC by CrakHoSmakrs. Come on. If you like a large selection of music, you probably don't shop at Wal-Mart or watch much MTV already.

    You can't even use the excuse that it's the only store in a small town anymore. Thanks to the internet you can order CD's over the web and have them home delivered.

    Later,
    Xamot

  • The thing that bothers me about the Al "Open Source" Gore thingy is that this is precisely how definitions get skewed; ie hack/crack. Some bonehead starts using the term incorrectly in public, others follow suit, and pretty soon the original meaning is gone.
  • That was a very good article. Thanks for the link!
  • RMS should demand a retraction.

  • Gore seems to have topped Quayle's hoof-in-mouth disease, and may even pass Reagan's.

    Qualye at least realized he said stupid things (and later added, "I stand behind all my mistatements.")

    Gore defends them, though. I'm becoming more convinced that the Gore in reality is pretty close to Quayle's media image . . .

  • Aside from the obvious technical blunders (such as Stallman's 1984 debut of Linux), ZDNet has missed the point.

    It's not just that we're geeks who want to be sure you use the phrase Open Source right, but it's the fact that Open Source is a registered certification mark. The Open Source Definition sets conditions for its use, and as many of us pointed out in emails to Gore and friends, he's not even close to following those guidelines.

    A certification mark isn't worth the electrons coming out of my radiating monitor if we don't call others on their misuses of it.

    There has been too much media hype about Open Source, and with that media hype comes misunderstandings. And with any buzzword or catch phrase comes others trying to profit off of it in some way.

    Gore's web pages are about as Open Source as a carrot.

  • The sentence construction is vague. It could be either "the linux OS...that has attained" or "a tech reference...that has attained". Typically, the closer reference is the one intended, so it's easy to think that the author meant that Linux was touted by RMS. To make their intent clear, they should have put commas around "such as the Linux OS" to make it explicit that the "that" refers to something earlier in the sentence. Like this:

    As expected, Slashdot's readers gave Gore 2000 a shellacking for appropriating "open source" -- a tech reference for nonproprietary, open-to-all software systems, such as the Linux OS, that has attained mythical status since it was touted by the Free Software Foundation's Richard Stallman in 1984.

    Of course, the sentence is horribly unwieldy even with that change. It needs simplification.

    Okay, enough nitpicking...we now return you to your regularly scheduled flame-fest...

  • I'm not sure exactly what was meant by "bottom of the barrel", but I'm guessing that it didn't refer to you specifically. I think the point is that when a journalist uses anonymous comments posted on slashdot (and we are ALL anonymous) it seems like a lot of filler or bottom of the barrel reporting.

    When people are quoted in news stories, it is usually because they have some relation to the story. (Mr. X's attorney said... Witness Y saw... Spokesperson Z felt that...) Otherwise, little value is added, other than reporting what the general feeling about an event is. If that is the case, then I think the reporter should report the anonymous quote is representative and not authoritative in any way.

    -Derek
  • It's the content that counts, not the label.

    Speeling doesn't mater. ;-)

    If Quale put's an E in potato, but know's what a potato is, and how to use it, then at least he only put his foot in his mouth, and shouldn't choke on it.

    If Al and Tipper want any respect, they have to realize they are not "our saviour" and because they think something is right, they force it upon us.

    Let's redefine Open Source. Let's ban some records. Hmm, not even logically consistant. What if I put profanity and lude statements in the comment lines of my source code? Should we censor open source then too? Why don't Al and Tipper just go burn some books or something they would enjoy as a couple and leave the US population out of it.

  • That PMRC stuff and related junk was just the maneuvering of a power couple with their eyes on the White House.

    Back the truck up, I think we missed a road sign when we ran over that guy....

    WHAT? Your saying that censorship and banning content of music and art is acceptable IF it was done to get a position of power?!?

    I must have miss understood that, because if that is true, it only makes matters worse. They were all for doing something they knew was wrong so they could gain power to rule more people... Hmm.. Even the worst villian's in history believed what they were doing was right, so, doing something you know is wrong to gain power would be what, super evil?

  • I was having a bad day, but sending this letter cheered me up:

    Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 11:04:27 -0500 (CDT)
    From: rob@current.nu
    To: skelcher@hotmail.com
    Subject: That's TM

    Just so you know,

    Open Source is a trademarked term I believe, not a copywright.

    Be carefull what you say on the net, history will not teach you how widely you can distribute your ablility to put your foot in your mouth now, and in the future ;-)

    We are consirned with politics, and a leaders ability to comment on matters intellegently. Tipper's PMRC is probably worse than Al's ability to insult the importance of technology and science.. but both are something to worry about.

    Oh, and, speaking for most people in Science, if you have that little respect, please return your light bulbs and any other technology you have at your nearest conveniance.

    PS: Secret Codes that you don't understand may exist on your computer monitoring your every move... maybe you should learn them.

    --
    "Robert W. Current" - email
    http://chem20.chem.und.nodak.edu - work stuff
    http://www.current.nu - personal web site
    "Hey mister, turn it on, turn it up, and turn me loose." - Dwight Yoakam

  • They also have a number of different site names for their e-mail to go to. Some mail is directed to gorewebsite.com and bounces.
  • I noticed this comment on "poor ol' Al's" webpage:

    "If Gore2000 selects your material for use on our website we will contact you with further legal requirements."

    You don't suppose they're going to send a copy of the GPL . . .

    Sean
  • So now ZDNet is some kind of exalted reference?
    From the flood of vituperation pouring out on Al Gore, it looks as if most /.ers are just looking for something to flame. Like newbies on Usenet. Personally I think anyone who speaks out unambiguously for education, technology, and decent attitudes deserves some respect and a whole lot of latitude when it comes to technology. Unlike ZDNet, and like Al. Think of him as a case for gentle reeducation. And don't let your flaming right-wing ideologies show, it's unbecoming of the 'net.
  • "...The masses, and in politics the only thing that is important is the masses, will eat up what Gore has to say. In this way will he win. "

    And that will be a good thing all around.

  • This "Anonymous Coward" is some sort of supergeek, posting near 24-hours a day!

    He never stops!

    Soon he will destroy us all!

    Run for the hills!
  • I can't find what Rob is referencing about the Anonymous Coward deal. The only two anonymous quotes I see are referred as "Slashdot reader" and "anonymous reader". I don't see the big deal.
    --
    Aaron Gaudio
    "The fool finds ignorance all around him.
  • Though it wasn't the best sentence ever, they were not claiming Stallman introduction of *Linux* in 1984.

    As expected, Slashdot's readers gave Gore 2000 a shellacking for appropriating "open source" -- a tech reference for nonproprietary, open-to-all software systems such as the Linux OS that has attained mythical status since it was touted by the Free Software Foundation's Richard Stallman in 1984.

    Parse the sentence. Everything following the dash is a definition of "open source". That which has "attained mythical status" and was "touted" is not the Linux OS, but the "tech reference for nonproprietary, open-to-all software systems" *SUCH AS LINUX*. All they're saying is that Stallman touted OSS (though they should have used the "free" term) since 1984.
  • The phrase "such as" is usually considered a parenthetical, and they should have included the commas to indicate meaning. The closer one is usually intended, except that the "such as" marks it off as a parenthetical statement.

    I most wholeheartedly agree that the author needs to learn some simple communication skills.
  • Just about every book/journal article/whatever has the restriction about reproduction "in whole or in part." They still get quoted like crazy by students and other writers and anybody who quotes (and, obviously, acknowledges the source) from the text. There's probably some restriction on length of the quote, but...

    somebody said fair use earlier. yeah. what he said :)
  • Considering the legal line he is walking (perhaps drunkedly), what do you think about perhaps getting an interview with him? It would be good to hear him address our concerns, as well as hereing if he actually wants to use Opensource in government or just as an electorial buzzword.
  • This [mercurycenter.com] is a really good piece from the Merc about the whole thing. It includes some suggestions about what Al should do instead to actually gain support from tech-heads like us, instead of just using buzzwords he clearly knows next to nothing about.
    ~Luge
  • Through their cockup, the Gore2000 campaign have highlighted one interesting thing: there's a high degree of commonality, especially in mentality, between the Web and software whose source is viewable and reproducible.

    Both rely on and encourage open standards and openness in general. No hypertext system whose renderers and browsers prohibited viewing source could ever have taken off the way the Web has.

  • It is good to see that ZD Net is starting to get their sources from /. instead of repeating Micros~1 press releases as "news". If they are not careful, some actually informative and accurate reporting might slip through despite their Berst^H^H^Hst efforts to the contrary.

  • I've actually heard a speech with him at some southern church, and I swear he was trying to sound like Jesse Jackson... it was the strangest thing I'd heard in a long time.
  • The relationship and similarity between "Open Source" on the web and OSS was studied by Lawrence Lessig of the Berkman Center of Internet and Society (Harvard Law School). One can download a pdf file of his lecture (Open Code and Open Society: Values of Internet Governance) from Lessig's web site [harvard.edu]. I would also suggest that ppl read some of the other things that Lessig has written.

    In this lecture, Lessig talks about the growth of Linux and of the WWW. He makes some comments about HTML and HTTP being "Open Source" as one can view the code of someone else's web page. This, he explains, helped the early expansion of the WWW. I'm probably not doing Lessig any justice by trying to summarize his lecture, so I strongly suggest that you read it.

    Why is this of interest to the Linux community? If you remember, /. posted an article this past week about "Open Code" and the H20 project. These projects are Berkman Center initiatives and Lessig is the Berkman Prof. for Entrepreneurial Legal Studies.
  • No, I understand the outrage at Gore's publicity stunt. And it was not the purpose of my post to pour more gasoline on the fire. However, I do feel that OSS will benefit more from Gore's use of "Open Source"; free high level publicity will only increase the level of curiousity in "Open Source." On a more humorous side, my actual 1st reaction to this was, "Wow, Gore must also hate Microsoft!"

    As for Gore himself, I just would like to point out that he has been instrumental in IT^2, which will dramatically increase government spending in R&D in high performance computing and communications. According to administration statements, about 60% of the funds of this program will support university research.

    As for Lessig's article, I strongly feel that everyone should read it given the recent inquiry from the H20 project to the open source community. (note: Lessig is not listed as one of the developers of H20). Furthermore, the message in the speech is important. If Gore has read this, then it may explain this latest course of action.

  • groan (Score:1)

    by aphr0 ( 7423 )
    Gore has completely fucked any chance he has of winning any elections. If the democrats nominate him as their presidential candidate, they're fucked. 95% of normal voters (and media as well) have no idea what open source is, much less who came up with the idea, so I'm sure he'll slip by on this one. But, the whole invention of the internet fiasco isn't going to be easy on him when everyone goes into heavy duty campaign mode. The republicans are going to be all over him.

    Between the democrats inventing everything and the republicans shitting on civic rights, the independent vote is looking pretty good.
  • Just like on USENET you own your comments here on slashdot. They are *yours*. If you see one of these news sites pilfer your comments without giving you attribution (even if you post with a handle) then let them have it. This is theft, pure and simple. Its time we let these hokey, wish they were real media outlets, know that we won't stand for them stealing our voices.

    ---
    Openstep/NeXTSTEP/Solaris/FreeBSD/Linux/ultrix/OSF /...
  • Didn't you know that Al Gore is responsible for both Linux and the Free Software Foundation? Take a gander at Recap's Column: Serious Times Demand A Truly Funny Man [segfault.org].
  • Al Gore stance on encription is basically what the
    law enforcement wants, not to spy on you or I but
    to retrieve suspect terrorists or drug dealers.
    Not that I agree with the idea but this is not
    something that bothers me as much as the approach
    of the religious right who want to control our
    personal lives.
    The Republican's balls have been controlled by the
    fundies for years, at least with Clinton and
    Gore our personal lives are left alone. Whatever
    Tipper comes up with will never stand in court
    so I'm not too concerned about that, she wouldn't
    be the president anyway. Any democrat knows damm
    well that fundies aren't liked very much by
    the majority of voters so they know where to
    stand on this issues on personal freedoms.

    The republicans need the fundies to keep their
    political seats.

    Ideally we would need someone down the middle
    but there is no such beast. Bush looks good
    but he'll have to kiss the fundies' asses to
    get elected. If he does that I will not
    hesitate to cast my vote for Al Gore.

    In politic we must choose the least of two evils.

    As for getting people who know what they're
    doing for the Gore web site, this will take
    time, remember that the campaign is just starting.

  • Your dislike of the vice president is blinding
    you. Everyone knows that politicians aren't
    hackers let alone programmers. You must credit
    Al Gore for supporting the internet though.

    As for the term "Open Source" I fail to see
    the sacrilege here. Now one owns those two words
    just as no one owns the word windows despite
    Microsoft's claim.

    Just get a life and get over it.
    Despite his strange wife's agenda Al Gore is
    good for the technological world, he may have
    some things to learn but in comparision to
    other politicians he ranks as one of the best.
  • I don't really see this article as the big deal that others see it as. My feelings can pretty much be summed up as "Those Boneheads"
  • I think Gore is going for the intellectual vote. We are only showing our ignorance by assuming that Open Source only means what we want it to mean.

    Take the original latin "nopea cesoura." What Al was really trying to say was that he is not a Ceasar when it comes to posting info on his site.
  • ..What about semi-clueless ZDnet which spotted the comments on Slashdot, but failed to realize that "Anonymous Coward" is a default post name?

    They've evidently changed it, then -- when I read the story a few minutes ago, it attributed the remark to "An anonymous reader."

    Wow, the great ZDNET actually corrected a mistake! Of course, if they did that to all of Jesse Berst's columns, they'd lose 2/3 of their content... ;-)

  • "Dear Al,

    When will you end the U.S. Government's current Most Antidemocratic Undertaking, namely, the War On Drugs?"

    If I posted that question to AlG2K's Town Hall page along with my home email addy and zipcode, just how long do you think it would be before someone wearing a badge showed up at my door to investigate? Or perhaps that should be rephrased as, "Do you think it would take (a) weeks (b) hours (c) minutes for someone with a badge to show up at my door to investigate?"

    (For the record, I have NO illegal drugs in my possession at this time and am not fscking likely to at any point in the near future.)

    Just asking...

  • Registrant:
    Al Gore reelection research (ALGORE5-DOM)
    1758 N. North Park Ave
    Chicago, IL 60611
    US

    Domain Name: ALGORE2000.COM

    Administrative Contact:
    Kelber, Micah (MK2931) tkelber@SIDLEY.COM
    312-951-5364 (FAX) 312-440-9570
    Technical Contact, Zone Contact:
    Mindspring Domreg (MDP-ORG) domains@MINDSPRING.COM
    888 932-1997
    Fax- - - - 404 815-8805
    Billing Contact:
    Kelber, Micah (MK2931) tkelber@SIDLEY.COM
    312-951-5364 (FAX) 312-440-9570

    Record last updated on 23-Mar-99.
    Record created on 29-Mar-97.
    Database last updated on 7-Apr-99 12:28:52 EDT.

    Domain servers in listed order:

    SPEAKEASY.MSPRING.NET 207.69.231.2
    HEARSAY.MSPRING.NET 207.69.231.3
    RUMOR.MSPRING.NET 165.121.2.31

    Running MS IIS 4.0 on NT 4 ("or Win98" according to Netcraft but we all know it's NT)

    -------------------------------------------

    Registrant:
    Domain Agency (GORE11-DOM)
    11500 E. 66th Terr.
    Kansas City, MO 64133
    US

    Domain Name: GORE2000.COM

    Administrative Contact, Technical Contact, Zone Contact:
    Young, S (SY564) syc@DOMAINAGENCY.COM
    800-421-0865
    Billing Contact:
    Young, S (SY564) syc@DOMAINAGENCY.COM
    800-421-0865

    Record last updated on 21-Aug-97.
    Record created on 21-Aug-97.
    Database last updated on 7-Apr-99 12:28:52 EDT.

    Domain servers in listed order:

    NS.DISCOVERYNET.COM 206.99.171.1
    NS2.DISCOVERYNET.COM 206.99.171.10

    Running Apache/1.2.0 Ben-SSL/1.8 on Linux.

    Satisfied? ;-)
  • The scary thing is that you only say, "This is so wrong," to those things on topics you know well.

    Think of all the articles on topics you DON'T know well where you tend to take what the journalists say for granted.

    THAT's the scary part.
  • If something becomes popular, they steal it. Its the way of political parties. First, they call the people who come up with the ideas "radicals".

    Later, when it becomes a well known, or important item, the politicians appropriate it for their own needs, claiming prior references as fact that they helped it succeed.

    Gore isn't the President for the new Millenium. He cannot be that, because he is obviously forever trapped by being a politician of the past.

    His attempts to become the "technology" President are only showing to the really people in technology that he is nothing short of an idiot looking for the village he deprived.

    Slogans, catch-phrases, and fad words are what he is, there is no substance.
  • Check out http://www.tgeller.com/algore [tgeller.com].

    Hey, it's Open Source (TM), right? That means we can create "derived works".

    :-)

    --Tom

  • Ellis-D (ellis-d-25@spam.excite.com) writes: "Only one page, not the site? Oh come one!! Kill this to death!!"

    Err, I have a business to run, you know? Tell you what: If you create other parody pages, I'll consider adding them to the site. Hey -- that'd make this a real open-source model! Finally, I have control of a kernel... heh heh heh...

    --Tom

  • Amen. That little nugget of knowledge (use the lowest common denominator for development) is dangerous when people forget about the higher factions. In their defense, however, at least they didn't just develop it in UXGA and say "need at least 1280x1024 to view this page". That would have been worse. Jesse
  • that just make me wonder how Gore is even a possible Democratic candidate.

    I'm still upset that he wants to launch a satellite with only a camera to overlook earth so anyone on the Internet can look at our planet at any time. Let's at least include SOME real science on the mission.

    And if we can afford something like that, why does much of ISS's science budget have to be severely reduced after Clinton's redesigns....

    Yes, I'm venting, but Gore just seams like a waste of attention. This just has to be embarassing for the Democratic party. And I thought they already plenty.
    ~afniv
    "Man könnte froh sein, wenn die Luft so rein wäre wie das Bier"
  • He's just trying to get his techno-ignorant self into the minds of the cyber-demographic... Like our votes will make a difference?

    Jesse Ventura did get elected as govenor based largely upon a very successful Internet campaign. Gore is a politician through-and-through. He has seen this medium used to great success and only a fool would ignore the Internet in these days. Recall that in one speech Gore reported that the tobacco companies must all be held liable for the great harm they have done to the American public, and in a speech the following week he took great pride in saying that he came from a family of tobacco growers.

  • I heard that when he met Courtney Love, he told her he really liked her band, Hole. She asked him to name one song. He couldn't.
  • Not a GNU/Linux fan since '84, just Linux!

    Compared to the ZDNet article, Al Gore doesn't look so bad after all...
  • Fellow netizens,

    I am one of the people Gore is meant to be stealling the credit for "inventing" the Internet. Like much of what passes for news in the media it makes a good story, but the truth is much more interesting and it is not hard to find

    Media Lie: Gore Claimed to 'Invent' the internet

    He didn't,he said he 'took the initiative in creating the Internet'. now invention and creation are not the same thing. I am one of the authors of HTTP, I spent 3 years working with Tim B-L 'inventing' the Web. I didn't create the Web though and neither did Tim we all did that together.

    Gore played a significant role. Back in 1992 I was trying to evangelise the Web beyond the High Energy Physics community. I had been involved with Mallery and Hurwitz who were running the political participation project at MIT at the time. The Clinton Gore '92 campaign had been the only one to take them or Internet seriously. So I sold them the Web as the future of politics, media etc. We had about 100 users.

    Gore did two things which helped the Web take off. The first was to authorize the www.whitehouse.gov website. Before that went online closed proprietary systems such as Acrobat and Hyper-G were much more visible. The Whitehouse site legitimized the web. The other thing Gore did was to make all the agencies go on line first.

    The Web is an Operating System

    When we were designing the HTTP protocol and the related security systems the only useful models I could find tended to be from the operating system world. But I fail to see the relevance to open source, open source was arround years before Linux, ask Linus T. if you don't believe me.

    Open Source

    Linux did not invent open source, nor for that matter did Stallman. RMS certainly started the ball rolling with GNU but anyone who has worked with RMS knows that there is a big difference between FSF and Linux! The GPL is completely wedged with a lot of unnecessary political positions aimed at coercing the rest of the world to partake of the RMS world view. Linux and the Web are much more open, thats why Red hat and Netscape could exist.

    I trace the 'open source' movement as distinct from the GPL ideas as being the emergence of the apache group.

    Will the Gore site be trully 'Open Source'

    Hey I really hope so!

    Don't discount the possibility. About 80% of politicians on the Hill live up to the media stereotype, they are interested in power and their own personal status. The country can go to the dogs.

    A few politicians on both sides remember why they got in. These people really want to talk about the issues but the media only want to talk about Monica, or whatever the scandal of the day happens to be. Political journalism in the US is treated like sports reports, who scored most hits against the other side. I know your politicians are all weasels, I have worked with them. I have also worked with your press, they rank way, way down bellow weasel.

    The politicians who actually care about politics and issues want to debate them and be elected on their positions on the issues - not what the media claim their positions to be. The media mutation of 'initiative' into 'invention' is just one example. The Time 'cyberporn' story which spawned the CDA and COPA is an example we would all agree on, one journalist knowingly uses an undergraduate term paper to misrepresent the entire Internet community. Why - to sell copies of Time magazine.

    The politicians that care about issues have good reason to arm other politicians. The real enemy is the media.

    Its About Power

    The media want you to let them do your thinking for you. Don't let them./i>

    You don't have to be a Gore supporter to want to check the facts before you flame about them. It is easy enough to get the original Gore quote. If the New York Times doesn't give a URL you can check its probably because they want to pull a fast one.

    We built the Web understanding how communication and power are connected. It is not a coincidence that the Web is damn near censor proof. Along with many others I worked damn hard to make it that way.

    Don't just be cautious of politicians, be cautious of everyone who is trying to tell you what to think. Be especially cautious of the media - me included. If anyone wants to they can go to www.ietf.org and pull out the HTTP 1.1 spec and you will see my name in the acknowledgements.

  • Doesn't seem much different than having a camera stuffed in your face while doing your last minute christmas shopping and being asked how you think the economy is doing this year. The problem I see is one of permissions. Were the writers of those comments asked before they were quoted?

    What are the legal aspects regarding ownership of the comments on this page and should we be asking Rob for a stronger copyright to keep this sort of thing from happenning? Personally, I don't care, but since people are fussing about it I thought I'd ask.

  • No we don't. Vote Libertarian and break this "Two party becoming one party" system.

    There IS no lesser evil. BOTH the republicans and the Democrats want larger government.
  • You ask "those in the know" to correct not only the DNC's leading candidate but also the news media?
    I can read the headlines now "Right Wing Conspiracy Perpetrated Online." It would continue to link /.'s rise in popularity in 1998 during the days of the Clinton scandel to right wing extremists collaborating online at sites like /.. Legislation would be presented to censor such inflammatory sites.
    We better just give up and help Gore clarify historical records pertaining to his creation of the National Parks Act.
  • I take offense at /. comments being called "the bottom of the barrel." I don't post anything without a painstaking quality check. I want my comments to be the scum that fouls the surface of the water, not the dregs which have sunk out of sight.

    And don't blame ZDNet for their poorly researched articles. They have to hire journalists because geeks cant spel. Or make complete sentences.

  • My, my... The Slashdot community is quick to judge someone guilty. I guess it's more fun to ride the perceived bandwagon than to find out what really happened.

    Do you really think Al Gore had anything to do with placing "Open Source" on his web site? More than likely, his campaign team hired someone to make a web page and the webmaster included the text -- thinking it would impress the technophiles.

    (Now it's time for the conspiracy theorists to say the webmaster intentionally placed the phrase there to make Gore lose the geek vote.)

  • I still feel pretty offended by the whole Gore thing. He invented the Internet. He's Open Source.
    He's just trying to get his techno-ignorant self into the minds of the cyber-demographic... Like our votes will make a difference? He's trying to appear to be cutting edge technoid, so the ignorant public will think that he's good for their internet experience?? Is that the tack?

    It's almost as offensive as him slipping a "YO! Peace to my peeps!" into a speach, just to get into the 'boys'n'da'hood' demographic. I'm surprised he wasn't shown on TV at Easter, coloring eggs, just to get those valuable Christian Lithuanian votes.

    Poser!
  • Have they ANY idea that it's not a handle?
  • Linux is the product of a super-human intelligence - that of a large number of human intelligences.
    A super-human intelligence must have cpabilities greater than the average human; i.e. time travel.
    Stallman may be right - we are just behind schedule for sending Linux back in time to kill that 'other OS'..

    I'll be baaack!
  • And somebody has to call him on it!
    You are completely WRONG, oh prolific AC, in letting Gore take credit for something he did not do. It is setting a dangerous precedent, letting someone take credit for something they have no claim to - just because it doesn't hurt you.

    Not speaking out and not informing the public, that the presidential heir-apparent is lying^H^H^H^H^Hmisrepresenting himself, is wrong. Claiming that he (et al) is responsible for the state of the internet is like saying that I (et al) am responsible for the health of the US economy. I go shopping now and again, infusing cash into the system, therefore I claim responsibility for the 10k DOW!!!

    I am appalled (dons Johnny Cochran mask) and chagrinned that the informed minority is willing to stand by while another professional politician makes a mockery of the facts. And I am further dismayed and even shocked, that those here 'in the know' are not vocally correcting the 'news media' butchery of the truth.

    Yes, we know it's BS, but Joe Schmoe Voter does not. Through silence, we are letting the less informed be duped into electing someone who is willing to lie to get a job!

    Would you hire someone if he claimed to have invented the internet? We're talking INTEGRITY here, not marketing. And just because the odds are overwhelming, does not mean we just shrug and say 'he's just trying to get elected'. Bull! We have a responsibility and an obligation, to ourselves and the world we want to live in, to speak up.

    And since when have odds scared the likes of people that frequent /.??

    It's not about getting something done by letting him take credit. This is not about us being diplomatic, as everyone exchanges a knowing wink. Most people don't know he's full of it, and they're the voting majority. If he's so blatant about bending the truth, Clinton has trained him well, and we're off to a bad start in 2000.

  • As I read more of the scored postings on /., I see how valuable the OSS approach is, and how everyone here prizes the openness of information, and the self-correcting nature of such development.

    But, when it comes to politics, social issues and anything non-code, heads get stuck in the sand. It's disappointing, since even as a teen I held the view that "The Idea is the immortal virus". I forget who said it first, but I completely agree. Ideas evolve much like open source code. Bad ones are not propagated to the next revision, good ones are optimized and become programming cliches and near-dogma, but are never exempt from critique.

    It is much like this with politics and news and facts. If they are not questioned, and the bad ones are not exposed for what they are, they become socio-political cruft that we'll have to deal with later. Not forcing politicians to be accountable for their claims is like advocating binary distributions of software, and then wondering why 50 people got an important document from you.

    The problem is that all the people who buy into this media propaganda are too busy watching Ricky Lake to question anything they hear. The truth makes their head hurt, so they change the channel.
  • The surprising thing is not the fact
    that Anonymous Coward is such an asshole,
    it's that ZDNet has such a brand new shiny
    HARD-ON for what Slashdot user's have to
    say. Since most of us are just clowns
    and assholes anyway. But I guess it's easy
    to pile through our bullshit when you are
    using one of ZDNet's T3 lines or something.
  • I think you are missing the point of our outrage/stunned by people in high power idiocy.

    It's not that the web isn't "open source"
    That's what View->Source is for. All HTML is open sourced.

    Al Gore is using the certified mark "Open Source" for political gain. He tries to take credit for other peoples work and gain momentum by using the "in" phrases.

    It's just not right. In ZDNet's article they post a quote:
    "The Vice-Presidents office should set an example for kids..."
    What the hell is he doing now? Think about that.
  • Get a grip. #1, you're posting in a public space. #2, public reactions are news (unless you're saying that ZDNet should write everything off press releases?). #3, quotes are fair use. Especially in a news story.

    The ability of geeks to get up in arms about this sort of thing is really, really, not attractive.
  • We wouldn't vote anymore. We'd govern by flame.
  • Will wonders never cease? Al Gore invented the Open Source Web Site, Al Gore invented the electron, and now... Richard Stallman has been a Linux fan since 1984! Those ZDNet reporters are really unearthing some long-buried secrets!
  • Ellis-

    You've posted a remarkable amount of commentary on this article. However, I have to wonder, do you know the definition of the word "Troll" ?

    It doesn't take much effort to compare the rantings of Skelcher@hotmail.com to the text of the homepage of a Professor Skelcher (a Google search reveals a number of links regarding him) and realize "Gee, these two don't really match up."

    I'm inclined to agree with the post that you replied to, and assert that Skelcher@hotmail.com is someone attempting to impersonate the real "Professor Skelcher", perhaps in the hopes that people on ZDNet (or even Slashdot) would see the post,' get angry enough to search for the Professor online, and flood his university account (for which, wisely, no one has posted the address here yet, though it is easy to find).

    So perhaps you should sit back and consider how much time you're wasting arguing with some lame-ass guy who doesn't care about politics *or* software but instead merely intends to screw over Prof. Skelcher.

    This is one of the longest Trolls I've seen in a while. Perhaps I'll send email to Skelcher@hotmail.com congratulating the author for a remarkably simple way to aggravate everyone on Slashdot.

    -Felix
  • Normally, Gore's as intersting as a dead tree.
    but for the last couple of weeks,
    he's shooting scandals all over us,
    making noises (funny noises) and using ou-of-conext buzzphrases.

    HE DOESNT COUNT ON THE GEEKS!
    He count's on the geeks TO LAUGH AT HIM, thus, GIVING HIM MEDIA COVERAGE!

    Although I remember how laughable was Perot 3 years ago,
    he was a clown, he mocked himslef to everyone.
    people today have no idea what open source is,
    and who invented the internet,
    but if the geeks are mad at him, it must be important thing.
    (thinking redneck: whooo, geeks hate him? he must be good!)

    We're just giving him attention,
    that's what he wants.
    if we ignored the whole thing,
    then nobody would know about it, and nobody would care.

    btw,
    i think Segfault ran a piece about "anonymous coward is not one person".
    They should have read it.


    ---
  • Yes, you may have a point, however his past track record isn't good... The whole "inventing the internet" thing came out of his own mouth, remember....
  • The fine print clearly says the respective posters own their comments. I wonder if ZDNet got permission from "Anonymous Coward" to quote his stuff?
  • Between the democrats inventing everything and the republicans shitting on civic rights, the independent vote is looking pretty good.

    We may be looking at a choice between Al "CDA" Gore and Dan Quayle. Is Corel hiring? Canada is looking damn good about now.

  • Gore may not have been responisble but he should know what's going on with his campaign and let's not confuse him for anything other than what he is, a tool. He's more of a liability to the democratic party than an asset.

    This is just another example of him being far more into the politics of things instead of the issues at hand. He'd rather be percieved to be a technological advocate than to be one. Machivelli wrote about this kind of behavior.

    If he's the candidate then it's just going to be another election where everybody loses.

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Gore: Not as dumb as he seems (Score:3)

    by Omegalomaniac ( 26573 ) on Thursday April 08, 1999 @10:18AM (#1943944)
    Gore may not be as dumb as he seems, politically speaking. Technologically, he is incompetent, but then, so is the vast majority of the electorate. Gore's recent mistakes have alienated but a small portion of the population: those who actully know what the Internet is and where it came from. I would contend that his mistakes have drawn far more people to him than they have driven away.

    We live in an age where the most popular computing books can be described by "* for Dummies." It might as well be "* for Al Gore." People can relate to him. The majority of computer users think Gore is on their level, the "Dummies". His mistakes prove it. The people do not want a hacker controlling the Internet. Joe "AOL/Microsoft" Newbie wants to be able to pretend he understands computers, or that he doesn't have to. Gore, by being the political figure for all things computerish, provides that illusion, and more.

    It's not just Internet neophytes who want Gore in control. Most of those people who don't use computers, and who have an opinion about
    regulation, want the computer industry regulated. This is a vast voting block. Mention the word "Internet" to these people and images of promiscuous sex and child molestation flash across their minds. Mention "hacker" and you'll get the image of a teenage punk causing terror and destruction with a computer instead of a knife and spray paint. Gore is the cadidate who appears to have just enough knowledge to be able to control the Beast, therefore he will get the votes.

    Who has he alienated with his untruths and mis-used jargon? The hacker comminity is one block. It is also tiny, and not necesarily very politically active. There are those on the fringe of the aforementioned group, but not really a part of it: those who know what the Internet is and how
    it came about, who know what open source software is, and think they are both good things, but can't code anything worth while. A good cross section of this group is provided by sampling the readers of Slashdot. This may be a slightly larger block, but still not as significant as those that Gore is pulling towards him.

    Gore is a politician, not a hacker. Hackers make things work while politicians get enough people to believe that they work. Mr. Vice President is doing an excellent job at the second. That he cannot do the first alienates those who can tell the difference. This is a small group, politically not worth appeasing. "I was tired," is not a valid apology. The masses, and in politics the only thing that is important is the masses, will eat up what Gore has to say. In this way will he win.

  • You wrote, regarding Al Gore:

    The fact is that he is engaged with technology to some extent and that is a plus (in contrast to those clueless dorks that regularly introduce legislation to outlaw or tax the net or create a Federal Internet Regulatory Agency).

    As I understand it, Al Gore was one of the main pushers of the Clipper Chip. In general, he's never seemed to me to be the greatest friend of free and open expression on the internet. He's the sort of guy who can be dangerous when he's championing your cause, because you just know he isn't on the same page as you.
    In any case, we live in an age of gross misrepresentation of science and technology and their associated experts by the media (I tend to lump campaigning politicians in with the rest of the media). For example, have you ever seen the movie "Deep Impact"? Despite some things I read that insisted that it was well fact checked, I was hard pressed to find anything in the movie that they actually got right, aside from the fact that a large comet hitting the earth makes a big boom. The thing is, most people beleive this stuff, and I think Al Gore would probably be one of them. At the very least I'd hope that, if he were president in such a situation he'd have at least enough sense to evacuate the coastal areas before the last minute.
    Anyway, that's how Gore stikes me. Like the average professional American who wants to think of himself as a Power User and thinks that it makes him an expert. The average American wants to think of him/herself as techno-savvy and living in a country that is technologically (and politically and spiritually and intellectually and militarily, but I won't get into that) superior to all other countries. At the same time, the average American doesn't want to learn anything if it can be avoided. If a device takes more than a minute to learn to use, it's too complex. Most people just don't want to deal with any of the details, but still want to celebrate the technology.
  • I emailed the campaign. I noted that, between the positioning as the "online" candidate and the reaction he is eliciting out of the software community, he will have a similar problem to a law-and-order candidate that can't get approval from the cops. I suggested that he either back off on the online stuff (I don't know his stances elsewhere), or hire a hardboiled geek as a point of reference. Maybe he should just listen to his own Webmaster... There's no need to shock or get angry at Gore or the Gore campaign. If this hurts nothing but Gore and his campaign, all we should do is inform the fool of his folly. If they listen, Gore may become the online candidate, or at least give up the idea altogether. If not, he marches off the precipice alone.
  • The difficulty here is one of semantics. Politicians have long been known for taking a turnip and calling it an apple, turnipness notwithstanding. What matters is not the content of what is said but rather the affective qualities. Does Gore make you feel all cozy and warm now that he appears to be on the technotwink side? Go to Iowa at the time of the early caucuses and you'll see the same techo-Gore wearing a seed-corn cap and riding a tractor. Like any modern politician, he's after the image of "Gore the Computer Hacker" (original meaning intended), "Gore the Farmer," "Gore the Transexual Plumber From Boise." Whatever images he has to plant to get the votes, that's what he'll do.

    The inherent difficulty arises when the same politician tries to appeal to a community, such as the scientific communities, the medical community, or the computer/info tech communities, who expect and rely upon precision of speech. Gore simply had bad advice from his staff, I'd guess. He saw the technologically savvy as a virgin to woo; he (or more likely, his staff) underestimated just how anal this same group of people can be when it comes to language, though the incessant sparring over whether it should be called Linux, GNU/Linux, LiGNUx, or Linux/GNU should have clued them in had they done a little legwork.

    To take his "Open Source" offer at face value could be a dangerous legal move; it's doubtful Gore or his staff understand what those words mean to this community, and I doubt they'll toss away any of their perceived legal rights just because they are ignorant of what they said.

    Incidentally, I don't see this snafu as being any worse than Kennedy's eating pizza with a fork. Kennedy alienated those in the community he was trying to reach, but as a side effect he probably impressed scads of wasps out there with his impeccable table manners. My prediction is that Gore will not only survive but will likely gain more votes by wowing housewives with his techo-laced Newspeak than he'll lose from this community.
  • I find this more and more troubling each time I see it. News organizations taking quotes from slashdot comments (sometimes, out of context) and posting them to a news story. To me it seems they are scraping the bottom of the barrel for sources, so they leech from what we say here.

    On the Gore2000 topic, I sent an email to him stating that he is violating a trademark that is only licensed to project that meet the open source requirements which his does not. I also let him know that he is losing MANY voters over this and we'd be better off with Ross Perot in the whitehouse. (The Ross Perot thing was just to get a reaction, heh.)

    I wonder how many other people have emailed them about this?

Slashdot Top Deals

Garbage In -- Gospel Out.

Close