When jokingly asked by Eric Schmidt, "How would you sort 1 million integers?", Obama actually answered "Well I'd bet that the bubble sort is not the correct approach."
Certainly, knowing the answer to that question, or knowing what a bubble sort even is, doesn't make or break a candidate. But all else being equal, wouldn't you rather a president who took at least one course on computer science?
Sure it is a little thing, but I found myself saying "all other things being equal" a lot about Obama. All those things added up: I voted for him.
Just look at the difference between Obama's and McCain's answer to the question "What would you change in sports" on Monday Night Football this week. Obama answers, a playoff system for college football for the top 8 teams. Do you think that is a coincidence when all of Pennsylvania wants Penn State to go to the BCS bowl and they are #3 right now? John McCain answers "elimate performance enhancing drugs".
COME ON. We all know Obama didn't come up with that answer but his on the ball staffers make him look good. And Just like a CEO has to delegate a lot of work, the president has to delegate nearly everything.
Obama doesn't make a single bit of difference being the president. However, all the people he chooses for his staff makes all the difference. It's like running a store, you might have an amazing manager running the place but if you've got a guy working the till who can't push a button then all the managerial magic is useless.
Obama might be human gold with a soft diamondy center, but unless he actually has people who can do what needs to be done then it's useless. I think it's highly illustrated by the McCain campaign that he didn't have subordinates capable of doing the job right because he looked as warn out and tired as Bush does currently. McCain looked physically flabbergasted by what he was asked, he'd have looked better just holding up the frigging piece of paper his speech writers gave him.
"It's like running a store, you might have an amazing manager running the place but if you've got a guy working the till who can't push a button then all the managerial magic is useless."
But won't the managerial magic prevent the guy that can't push a button from working at the till there or at least fire him quickly?
Obama could easily have come up with that answer himself. Everyone hates the BCS, even a lot of the people who participate in it. I'm not going to say that would necessarily be the most common answer you'd get from sports fans, but it might be high up the list.
I would have been more impressed if he said the MLB instituting a hard salary cap rather than that silly luxury tax.
The administration isn't just one man. The executive branch is a team of people. I didn't know that McCain was asked this same question six months earlier, but I'd still give Obama the point for surrounding himself with well organized campaign staff.
This makes me more impressed with Obama, not less. That's wonderful attention to detail, and reflects well on Obama to have assembled such a talented staff.
Having had my appendix removed last week, I'm really glad I didn't have to rely on any politician to do it.
Unfortunately, making the government responsible for appendix-removal is one of the things which Obama wants to do. Comparing my experiences in US hospitals ("Oh hi, here's a bed and two nurses, your surgeon and his team will be along in ten minutes") to my experiences in Australian hospitals ("Oh hi, here's a wheelchair, please wait here for six hours") I really am not keen to see the US system become more like the Australian one.
Did we expect him to answer like a prospective google hire? A modified quick sort thats guarded not to recurse too many levels deep to avoid any stack overflow errors? I'm impressed that he made an effort to connect at the techie-level.
I think the intent of the tech-savvy staffers who briefed him was like when a comedian makes a reference to the Yankees while performing in NYC
While I'm happy with Obama, that sure seems like a publicity stunt. I've interviewed a lot of people for programming jobs, almost all of them can say "bubble sort is not the correct approach."
Obama voted for Bush's FISA bill. He voted for the PATRIOT Act II. He voted to continue the war. He chose as VP the guy who claimed to have written much of the PATRIOT Act to pass in 1995 after the Oklahoma City bombing.
I don't trust Obama on those issues at all, given his record. Bringing sanity to the war on terror isn't that important to him.
McCain also said he would close Guantanamo and end torture.
I'm sorry, but this party looks like a bunch of folks obsessing over a pretty politician who is moderately awful on the issues after 8 years of one who was completely awful on the issues, and not nearly as pretty.
And you should care about unionism. The 94% of Americans who aren't in unions are going to be fleeced by protectionist bills to pad the pockets of the powerful unions that support the Democratic Party.
The unions will not fade. Their biggest membership comes from federal government workers, whose numbers burgeoned under Bush and are bound to grow under Obama. Also, union firms like GM are getting $billions from the Federal Government to make up for the fact that they can't turn a profit on the market (the airlines did this, too). Tax money will keep them alive even if they are the dinosaurs of the marketplace.
When anti-China tariffs come down the line, you can thank the unions. Obama will not deny them. You can also nix the idea of school choice under an Obama administration, since the National Teacher's Union is a strong supporter of the Democratic Party. It's no wonder that Obama's plan for education is basically "more money! more money!". The unions couldn't have written a more favorable plan themselves.
I think you are wrong about schools. Obama repeatedly mentioned support of Charter schools (though not vouchers) in the debates. He specifically mentioned Michelle Rhee in DC as doing good work, which is highly encouraging to many of us who think Democrats have been on the wrong side of the education debate.
PS, I think you are right about "card check", which seems to me like one of the most important issues in this election which has gotten approximately zero public debate.
If only it was as black and white as you make it out to be: someone voted X on bill Y, they obviously feel X about Y. I shudder to think what it would be like if all the compromises I had to make every day were laid bare and presented in an absolute either-or form. Considering the complexity of bills and the amendments that are added and even the way they name them (PATRIOT is a prime example), I'm not so sure it's wise to interpret every single boolean vote as documenting someone's entire position on an issue.
The right to create unions is a fundamental American protection. I realize in our lifetimes we have seen some unions become more of a problem then a benefit. This is what happens to most institutions as they become too big and "crufty". Sometimes you swing too far in one direction. The system corrects itself. But to trash one part of the constitution while savagely protecting another part is simply unacceptable. Its all or nothing.
And so far as protectionism goes. This is just another feeling that I am certain _most_ Americans will start swinging in the other direction on. The next year will see China<->U.S. sentiments on both sides growing very tense.
And high taxes? Get this straight: When the FED/Treasury "prints" money, that is a tax!!! And the last 8 years we've seen massive amounts this form of debt.
I have no problem with unions as such. However, I do have a problem when they use their concentrated political power to get themselves government favors at the expense of the rest of the country. Bailouts for failing industries and protectionist measures benefit unions while harming the nation as a whole. They expect the Democratic Party to sacrifice the interests of the nation for their benefit, and it looks like they will get their pound of flesh.
In addition, unions have many legal rights outside of a normal, voluntary gathering of people. In many states, they can force new employees of a company to join. Democrats are currently pushing for legislation to eliminate secret ballots for the formation of unions. When employee preferences are no longer secret, they can be coerced and threatened into supporting the union, which should enable Democrats to increase their union base. In addition, unions can force their employers to bargain with them by law, instead of by voluntary agreement by both parties. Federal law prohibits its agencies from paying contractors less than the union price, which is often high above the market price of similar services.
It is no coincidence that heavily unionized sectors of our economy tend to be failing, bloated, and stagnant. The big ones are undoubtedly a negative influence on American society. And they undoubtedly run the economic program of the Democratic Party; it surely isn't run by any coherent economic school of thought that I can recognize.
Your worlds are clear you do not like how political parties have abused unions. Fair enough. Political parties have abused lots of systems.
I'm not a Democrat. I have never been a member of any political party and hopefully never will. You do seem to have in for the Democrats though. Yes, they are in bed with Union officials and people that abuse the intents of a union. And yes, the Republicans are a bunch of rat bastards as well ;).
I really think that in lieu of the recent Wall Street bailouts and given who benefited, you should go "hawking" your "Democrats give too many handouts" somewhere else. Its falling on deaf ears. I have never heard either party provide a coherent economic plan. And that goes back to Reagonmics. They've have 20++ years to show that "trickle down" does anything but further stretch the socio-economic fabric.
I vote for my perceived integrity of the person. I don't much care whether they swing right or left, as long as they get stuff done and do so with integrity.
I don't see how "trickle down" has "stretched the socio-economic fabric". I don't want to live in a country with 70%+ top marginal tax rates. That borders on evil. I wouldn't want to live in a country that never had Reagonomics, and neither would a lot of business owners that currently employ our citizens.
If you google "economic inequality" you will find many resources to educate on how U.S. style economics of the last 30 years have contributed in greater economic inequality, to which most believe is a major underlying factor of social problems.
As to your assertion that the rich live in 70% tax brackets, this is quite untrue. The 70% bracket is unfair but few Americans actually find themselves in this bracket. Those in this bracket are high-wage earners, mostly doctors and lawyers, that don't have much outlets for tax reduction. This group is unfairly punished at the moment and it would be wise to fix this problem.
If you as an entrepreneur find yourself even remotely close to a 70% tax bracket, I highly encourage you to post something to HN like "Ask HN: Please help me find a tax planner with two brain cells to rub together" ;).
There are lots of risks entrepreneurs take. But one reward is great opportunity to reduce tax both as you go and after a big payoff.
As to your feeling that you wouldn't want to live in a a country that never had Reaganomics...there are many great Americans (those that created what we have now) that lived before 1980 that do not share your feelings.
I'm not trying to be abusive. I'm writing this to provide additional perspective.
With regards to unions, the government refused to back the GM-Chrysler loans to build "fuel efficient cars".
With regards to Wall St., AIG has received almost $123 billion in government-backed loans. If anything, it seems like the non-union, free market insurance industry is failing, bloated, and stagnant.
I Democrat's have the young and unions, Republicans have farmers, defense contractors, and old people. It's the same thing "Protect subset X of the population at the expense of everyone else" but I think unions are less damaging to the country for now.
Farmers and old people are pandered to by both parties. Remember, it is the Republican in this race that ran against farm subsidies, while the Democrat whole-heartedly supported them. Remember, too, that support for replacing Social Security with privately-owned retirement accounts is solely a Republican idea. Democrats answer to future deficits in the Social Security program is "tax the rich". That seems to be their answer to a lot of problems. I hope they have read up on their parables involving golden geese.
There is some truth to the old Republican saw that the Republican Party is a coalition of ideologies, while the Democratic Party is a coalition of interest groups. It just so happens that a particularly stupid and nasty ideology that most Republicans don't really like has been in the ascendancy since Bush brought it in by stealth. Hopefully, that will change.
Republican's just added the prescription drug plan one of the largest expansions of the federal government in a while.
Farmers get help from both sides but if you look at who votes on specific bills there is significantly more support on the Republican side.
As to old people when they where talking about privatizing social security they where going to increase SS taxes to pay for their plan and not actually reduce spending.
PS: What I think is odd about Republican support is how their support of these groups is in opposition of their stated ideals of free trade (except for sugar) etc.
In Germany if you do an across the board left-shift there's an analogous party structure:
- Social Democrats (Democrats)
- Christian Democrats (Republicans)
- Liberals (Libertarians)
- Greens
(There's also an additional Marixst party.)
Here the Greens and the Liberals (note that "liberal" outside of the US implies classical liberalism) grew up a lot as being a part of main-stream politics. I really wish that were possible in the US because it forces the other points in the political spectrum to actually deal with reality and softens their rhetoric in a pragmatic, but effective way. German Greens nearly as crack-potted as American ones as a result.
Eric Raymond has some great quotes in How To Become A Hacker that seem to go over a lot of heads.
"But a note of caution is in order here. The hacker community has some specific, primarily defensive political interests — two of them are defending free-speech rights and fending off "intellectual-property" power grabs that would make open source illegal...But beyond that, most hackers view attempts to systematize the hacker attitude into an explicit political program with suspicion; we've learned, the hard way, that these attempts are divisive and distracting. If someone tries to recruit you to march on your capitol in the name of the hacker attitude, they've missed the point. The right response is probably “Shut up and show them the code.”
I disagree with Obama on many issues. I did not support McCain. It is difficult to express how satisfied I am knowing that an intelligent human being will once again occupy the White House.
Anyone else just hear the Cathedral and Bazaar reference on CNN? Amazing! A Republican analyst comparing Obama's campaign to open source software and on a major network.
As I commented on another story, it was over (statistically) the minute Ohio was projected. They just had to wait till polls closed on the west coast, so they could use their exit polls from CA/OR/WA, which everybody on the planet knew were Democrat.
Yet another outcome correctly predicted by pg's "It's Charisma, Stupid" essay. Although the need to nominate only charismatic candidates hasn't sunk in.
I didn't see his victory speech this time, but I did see his victory speech in the primaries:
"...I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal..."
which at the very least suggests "humility" isn't necessarily deeply ingrained.
He was still trying to get elected at that point in time and it's hard to drum up support when you say "aww shucks" (?sp) when your given the spot light.
I don't agree. I hope that while he won because of severe economic trouble, I think they recognize that the root of that problem has been severe disruption of freedom and democracy by the current party in power.
I hope that economics will be put on the back burner and "security" (also known as security theater - also known as fascism) will be the most important consideration. As in rolling back "security" in favor of "democracy."
Freedom fixes economics. And the last administration has been assaulting freedom for eight years.
The thing that fixes this economy is each and every person not spending ridiculously beyond their means and taking on insane levels of debt up to their eyeballs.
Don't be naive and try to blame this economic situation on some other bullshit about freedom from the "last administration". Many of us Americans (for the most part) have been spending out the ass using credit and the bills are coming due. Americans' personal money management habits have _nothing_ to do with the party in office.
It's our own aggregate greed and desire for more that has left us with a shell of an economy stuck with trillions of debt. Now point to yourself and say it with me: "My personal choices affect the economy. Not the current administration or the next administration, not anyone else, but how I choose to manage my budget and debt as an individual."
I'm all for blaming others when things go wrong, but this one's pretty simple buddy. We're in a metric ton of debt and the fault belongs to each one of us.
Many of us Americans (for the most part) have been spending out the ass using credit and the bills are coming due. Americans' personal money management habits have _nothing_ to do with the party in office.
The problem, though, is that the banks let them do this. It is very easy for the credit card company to start declining transactions, and it's very easy for a loan officer to say, "sorry, you can't afford this house".
I don't think there was really any doubt that Obama was going to win. Over this election season we witnessed the best and most technologically advanced campaign ever. Not only on the ground game level, but on all levels. Cheers to President Obama for running an excellent campaign.
Actually the campaign for re-election begins around 18 months after inauguration. Hopefully the mods keep HN relatively politics free for the next 4 years.
Since the tendency of the kids on the internet is to criticize the establishment, do you think digg and reddit and sites like that are going to start leaning the other way?
For the first time in weeks I saw a story critical of obama on digg.
Hopefully the new counterculture will be more libertarian.
It's awfully hard to be cool while blindly supporting the President. Let's hope it remains that way, because the alternative would be bad -- not just for politics, but for coolness.
I doubt it -- the kids on the internet criticize things that deserve criticism. Unless Obama does something worth criticizing, I doubt we'll see much change from what it looks like today.
Lol no, I just meant he hasn't done any wrong as president yet. (And the bailout...I don't know, I didn't see it as a bad move from my limited knowledge, but a lot of economists are angsty about it, I know so I don't have a real position on it.)
I voted for McCain. There's plenty that I don't agree with Obama about, but seeing as the media hasn't touched Barack Obama very much (including the internet which is currently in exuberant joy) regarding any..."mistakes", it doesn't look likely that it will change until he does anything substantial.
How do you criticize a guy who isn't even in the office yet? Lets hope he does a good job.
I would beg all of you to read a non-US news website regularly. You could do worse than the economist and the BBC.
Watching the way the rest of the world sees the US makes it a little easier to see the inanity of so much US political news coverage. (And likewise that of any other country's local political news, as covered by outside sources).
Indeed, I tuned into CNN's live feed around when Ohio was getting called, and I was welcomed by first a few minutes of nonstop ads (for CNN no less), then a room full of people having "deep thoughts" about nothing in particular. This is the station I watched, riveted, during the first iraq war?! Sad.
I really doubted that this would happen. But it actually did, and I think it will really make a difference. This is America sort of saying to the world - hey, those war mongering guys were never us. This is the real us - the guy who thinks, the guy who does not fit the mould, the guy who never wanted a war.
In so many ways, the U.S has shown how agile it is, and why it's number 1.
About a month ago, it became apparent to me that it was going to be a blowout. I've been confident Obama would win for several months...but it wasn't until the desperation in the McCain campaign began to show through so clearly (Palin, in particular), that I realized how badly he was going to lose. As of a few days ago, I was expecting a Reagan-style landslide, and I wasn't disappointed.
And, I question the "America is number 1" assertion. Number 1 in what competition? We're behind in several areas I consider vitally important: economic freedom, freedom of speech, per-capita income, education, and the list goes on...
It may be just a speech, but that acceptance address was one heck of a way to start things off. Despite a strong (though very much appreciated) message of hope, he was very clear on the magnitude of the problem and the effort it was going to take to solve it. He seemed to touch on a lot of issues that I felt were critical to the future of the country. Energy and environmental challenges, getting the economy back to stable ground, healing political divides and tempering extremism; these are all issues that need to be tackled, and I am happy that he addressed them here.
Hopefully his policies will live up to the talk, but if nothing else I believe that his message alone will go a long way towards helping improve things. It seems all too rare these days for a politician to say that yes, things will be difficult and dirty, and there are going to need to be sacrifices from everyone, but despite all the hardships we really can work to build a better future.
Hopefully his policies will live up to the talk, but if nothing else I believe that his message alone will go a long way towards helping improve things.
Never forget: the unintended consequences of any government policy almost always wind up being far more significant than the intended consequences.
Seatbelt laws? Yeah, I can't think of much there, though I'm sure there's somebody out there who'll argue that seatbelt laws promote worse driving, and there have probably been some particular crashes in which seatbelts have led to rather than prevented injuries.
The GI Bill? Actually in my limited understanding that probably wound up having consequences well beyond what was originally intended, and it's likely that most of those consequences were on balance good rather than bad. But it doesn't make them any less unintended. It wrought major changes in higher education and in the demographics of cities vs suburbs, which were probably not on the minds of those who originally proposed the bill.
I disagree with him on a lot of things, but he's right on this. The United States of America is the greatest nation in the world, the nation where all things are possible, the nation that, for every time we've fallen short, keeps saying "Yes we can!" Yes -- we can do justice, yes -- we can be better, yes -- we can fulfill the promise that all men are created equal.
Anyone concerned what this will do for innovation? How could an entrepreneur vote for Obama? He has clearly stated that he wants to "redistribute" the wealth. In my eyes, that's the essence of socialism.
You've been paying taxes all your life, and that, in essence, is not socialism. Its called Progressive taxation. Many states in the US have their state income tax set up this way (the more you make, they more they take. In state that do not tax that way, they often tax you based off property ownership.) and they are not socialist.
I'm also not concerned what it will do for innovation (whatever that means) because historically the economy and stock market do better under Democrats than under Republicans. George W. Bush has yet to create one single net job, and he has a mere 75 days to do.
