Techies Must Educate Governments

Rub3X writes "Those in the know about technology must spend more time reaching out to governments and helping them understand the Internet's role in society, Google Chief Executive Eric Schmidt said Tuesday. 'The average person in government is not of the age of people who are using all this stuff,' Schmidt said at a public symposium here hosted by the National Academies' Computer Science and Telecommunications Board. 'There is a generational gap, and it's very, very real.'"

Was Educating, but the PHB fired me!

[Spinlock_1977]

Those who have worked in government and industry for 20+ years like me will probably agree that the influx of greedy PHB's into the upper ranks of IT/Engineering has laid waste to the talent that was once there.

Back in the day, senior management was listening to deep techies who knew their stuff - they relied on our training and experience to lay down systems that did the job well.

Times are different now. Most management I've seen is populated by greedy, power-hungy know-nothings who think outsourcing a core competency is a good idea. Mortagaging the future of the company they work for is, in fact, *their* core competency. And in the process, they rid the company of those who hold the institutional knowledge and have the technical depth to create great products/services for the company.

These management types will not (as opposed to "can not") be educated - it interferes with their world-domination plan. Nothing short of a sustained "flight to integrity" will turn this tide.

Re:Oh, no, that's not the problem.

[Mateo_LeFou]

Parent rules. I've said it before: the most disturbing thing about Ted "Series of Tubes to Nowhere" Stevens is not that he spouted a bunch of dumb nonsense, but that he spouted it after having sat through hours of hearings during which Vincent Cerf, Larry Lessig, and others explained the tech in pretty good detail.

Video here: http://commerce.senate.gov/hearings/witnesslist.cf m?id=1705 [senate.gov]

We do not need to educate our reps. They know pretty-much exactly what they're doing. We need to toss them out and get new ones.

Re:Was Educating, but the PHB fired me!

[RAMMS+EIN]

``Back in the day, senior management was listening to deep techies who knew their stuff''

Back in what day?

Primary verses General Elections

[snoitpo]

It sounds like the poster was describing a primary election form. In some "open primary" states, everyone can vote in the primary and can vote in ONLY ONE party's primary, since primary elections are for the purpose of nominating candidates for that party. It sounds like something the states shouldn't be involved in, but it shows how the political machine is wired for the two parties. Third parties, and the two parties in some states, hold nominating conventions to do the same thing.

A problem in some areas if that one party has a single obviously strong nominee, members of the opposing party will vote the other party's primary, and vote for an unelectable candidate. In very rare cases, the party loyalists will figure that the obvious candidate will win and not vote, and in fact the weaker candidate will win the primary. Or if there are a few good candidates, the opposition will try to get the weakest nominated. I'm shocked, shocked that people would consider doing this.

Re:Oh, no, that's not the problem.

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Primary elections are to choose a party's nominee for the general election, you dumb piece of shit. You shouldn't be allowed to select more than one party's nominees.

Primary elections for congress are combined with local elections. Thus, I'm voting for a party's representative for congress and electing a mayor at the same time. According to the instructions on the ballot, I can't vote for a republican or libertarian mayor while at the same time nominating a democratic candidate for congress. If you don't think that is wrong, you're the dumbass.