4 ms·

We really need to set an age limit on how old people can get while staying in office before being forced to retire. We already prevent people younger than 40 f

by dev1n 11y ago

We really need to set an age limit on how old people can get while staying in office before being forced to retire. We already prevent people younger than 40 from running for President. Why should we let people older than 65 do it? What's the difference?

ComputerGuru 11y ago
I upvoted you because I agree about the cognitive dissonance between having a lower limit but not having a higher one (as the old adage goes, don't tell me what's too little if you can't tell me what's considered too much), but I respectfully disagree. If one person is an idiot at 79, that does not mean that another cannot be well-informed and in-touch at the age of 85. Then there's the premise of your argument: that he doesn't know what he's talking about. I counter that just like David Cameron of the UK, McCain knows full-well what he's proposing, but he just doesn't care about the cost. It's not about being out of the loop, it's about having a different agenda than the one you're seeing. His goal isn't to ban encryption so "terrorists" can't communicate, his goal is to ban encryption so that when someone currently not committing any crimes and without the intention of committing any crimes either does "something bad" in the future or otherwise falls afoul with the powers that be, decades of digital surveillance and intercepted communications would be instantly available for whatever nefarious (or otherwise) purposes the NSA, NSC, FBI, CIA, or whomever would have to serve their needs. EDIT: Part of my argument seems to have been misunderstood, my response about 79 vs 85 was just in direct counter to passing a maximum age limit; I don't believe we should have a minimum age limit, either.
- stanleydrew 11y ago
  > If one person is an idiot at 79, that does not mean that another cannot be well-informed and in-touch at the age of 85. If one person is an idiot at 35, that does not mean that another cannot be well-informed and in-touch at the age of 30
  - workitout 11y ago
    Well informed and in touch does not replace years of life experience.
serge2k 11y ago
Do you really think he had a better understanding of encryption 15 years ago?
- delecti 11y ago
  I would argue that in the last 15 years he has gotten further from the vanguard of encryption, purely by virtue of the field advancing. I don't think an age limit makes sense though, as his knowledge of encryption is not likely to be any worse than the vast majority of the population anyway.
vonklaus 11y ago
No. This makes little sense, is arbitrary and absurd. We need people to be qualified by measurable factors like degrees, years working in a particular field, ability or intelligence and/or other relevant facts. John McCain is a good man, I think he has good intentions, and is very qualified for certain positions. This is just not one of them, and it isn't because I disagree with him (I do), it is because he isn't qualified to make decisions about computer science or technology.
- workitout 11y ago
  >> We need people to be qualified by measurable factors like degrees, A degree certifies that you can learn to learn what you are aware you don't know. That is all it does.
- 91bananas 11y ago
  I believe the problem to lie in the fact we expect people who are no different than you or I to be able to create laws about things they have no clue about. This guy might know a thing or two in field A and B, but has no clue about C-Z. I know I have little to no knowledge in most of the world, and I am not suited to be a lawmaker. What makes him/them any different?
- merpnderp 11y ago
  Isn't he being briefed by US intelligence agencies?
  - vonklaus 11y ago
    bit of a conflict there though, yeah?
cortesoft 11y ago
35, not 40

by dev1n 11y ago

ComputerGuru 11y ago

I upvoted you because I agree about the cognitive dissonance between having a lower limit but not having a higher one (as the old adage goes, don't tell me what's too little if you can't tell me what's considered too much), but I respectfully disagree. If one person is an idiot at 79, that does not mean that another cannot be well-informed and in-touch at the age of 85. Then there's the premise of your argument: that he doesn't know what he's talking about. I counter that just like David Cameron of the UK, McCain knows full-well what he's proposing, but he just doesn't care about the cost. It's not about being out of the loop, it's about having a different agenda than the one you're seeing. His goal isn't to ban encryption so "terrorists" can't communicate, his goal is to ban encryption so that when someone currently not committing any crimes and without the intention of committing any crimes either does "something bad" in the future or otherwise falls afoul with the powers that be, decades of digital surveillance and intercepted communications would be instantly available for whatever nefarious (or otherwise) purposes the NSA, NSC, FBI, CIA, or whomever would have to serve their needs. EDIT: Part of my argument seems to have been misunderstood, my response about 79 vs 85 was just in direct counter to passing a maximum age limit; I don't believe we should have a minimum age limit, either.

stanleydrew 11y ago
> If one person is an idiot at 79, that does not mean that another cannot be well-informed and in-touch at the age of 85. If one person is an idiot at 35, that does not mean that another cannot be well-informed and in-touch at the age of 30
- workitout 11y ago
  Well informed and in touch does not replace years of life experience.

serge2k 11y ago

Do you really think he had a better understanding of encryption 15 years ago?

delecti 11y ago
I would argue that in the last 15 years he has gotten further from the vanguard of encryption, purely by virtue of the field advancing. I don't think an age limit makes sense though, as his knowledge of encryption is not likely to be any worse than the vast majority of the population anyway.

vonklaus 11y ago

No. This makes little sense, is arbitrary and absurd. We need people to be qualified by measurable factors like degrees, years working in a particular field, ability or intelligence and/or other relevant facts. John McCain is a good man, I think he has good intentions, and is very qualified for certain positions. This is just not one of them, and it isn't because I disagree with him (I do), it is because he isn't qualified to make decisions about computer science or technology.

workitout 11y ago
>> We need people to be qualified by measurable factors like degrees, A degree certifies that you can learn to learn what you are aware you don't know. That is all it does.
91bananas 11y ago
I believe the problem to lie in the fact we expect people who are no different than you or I to be able to create laws about things they have no clue about. This guy might know a thing or two in field A and B, but has no clue about C-Z. I know I have little to no knowledge in most of the world, and I am not suited to be a lawmaker. What makes him/them any different?
merpnderp 11y ago
Isn't he being briefed by US intelligence agencies?
- vonklaus 11y ago
  bit of a conflict there though, yeah?

cortesoft 11y ago

35, not 40