I've created a several Access applications, plus several LAMP-based Internet applications. I've interfaced a lot with non-technical people. They don't GET databases. They don't understand normalization or foreign keys or indexes. They don't understand SQL or joins. It's not their area of expertise. They do the actual work of the charity or the company so I'm not in the least bashing them - but they just don't understand databases.
My experience is that after brief training, they'll get spreadsheets. They understand tables very quickly and easily. Explain to them the concept of worksheets. And there's no complexity in opening an Excel file. You just double-click and you are immediately there, looking at the data. Heck, with some thoughtful use of the individual worksheets in an Excel file, you can even get a hint of normalization. Like putting different geographical regions in different worksheets in a single workbook. Having multiple Excel files (workbooks) for different larger groups. People kind of naturally understand that tree-like data structure.
Many people think Access is a toy. But it's still a database and it uses database concepts and SQL. And that is beyond the ken of non-technical types. Spreadsheets are simply much more understandable to them. And ultimately - much more maintainable. And maintainability and understandability is the key here. The charity is going to be here, on the ground, doing their work, long after you've moved back to the States.
There is a fraction of the learning curve with spreadsheets than there is with any relational database, regardless of whether it's a file-based system or a client-server system.
You have big players on either side of this, but the big communication companies have probably donated much more to politicians. AT&T is the 4th largest donor to federal politicians over the period 1989-2012, for example. Also, the big communications companies got their man on the inside as the head of the FCC. These rules could go through, and it'll start driving prices up, but by then, the voting public won't make the connection between any politician and rising prices or worse service. Most people don't understand what net neutrality is.
Net result: Keeps the big donors happy, very little or no voting consequence, especially with responsibility plausibly divided between both parties.
Certainly this is a worthwhile course of investigation by the Norwegians, but the relatively high black female HIV prevalence in the US could indicate factors specific to race and not merely location.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." -- 2nd Amendment
Today, we have standing armies. People are trained to shoot while in the military. You're not relying on people training themselves, or bringing their own weapons. Heck, the average person has a very hard and expensive time getting an automatic weapon, the type used in the military.
However, I think the Supreme Court reads this correctly. The 2nd Amendment says WHY the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Granted, the WHY is not relevant to the situation today, but that's what the 2nd Amendment does pretty clearly say.
Comcast aired a radio commercial in DC Metro this morning saying that the Comcast-TWC merger would guarantee "net neutrality", higher speeds and more Internet for everyone. This tells me most people think that 1) Net neutrality is a good thing and 2) They have no idea what it really means.
Plus, there's a another front on the net neutrality battle - some companies are claiming that net neutrality allows freeloading - using capacity without paying for it. But what's the reality? That everyone pays for usage - my company's fleet of 10 cars pays the same roadway toll per car as another company with a fleet of 10 cars. BUT - the toll road operator has the right to let the other company's cars into the fast lane and shunt my company and the individual to the slow lane if they so desire.
Is that right or wrong? I have not been able to find a clear citation to answer that question. Citations, anyone?
We keep voting for these politicians - BUT - the politicians who make it through the primary process are the only ones we are allowed to vote for, and they are already beholden to those special interests which facilitate their victory. 3rd parties are aggressively suppressed.
There are many countries in the world where a de facto "Supreme Council" determines which candidates are allowed to stand at election. They are sham democracies. We are falling into that model more and more.
"Regulatory capture is a form of political corruption that occurs when a regulatory agency, created to act in the public interest, instead advances the commercial or special concerns of interest groups that dominate the industry or sector it is charged with regulating. Regulatory capture is a form of government failure; it creates an opening for firms to behave in ways injurious to the public (e.g., producing negative externalities). The agencies are called "captured agencies".
See also: "Exaggerated threat": 1) "If we don't invade Iraq, they're going to bake the yellow cakes and explode a nuke in New York City." 2) "If we don't bail out the financial sector, we're going to have a depression." 3) "If we don't allow companies to favor content, the US technology sector will grind to a halt."
Obama nominated Thomas Wheeler as head of FCC in 2013: "Wheeler is currently the managing director at Core Capital Partners, a venture-capital firm based in Washington, D.C.. He has also been a top lobbyist for the wireless and cable industries. From 1979 to 1984, he served as president of the National Cable Television Association and before that he was CEO of the Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association." -- http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2013/10/29/tom-wheeler-confirmed-fcc-chairman/3309333/
"Does Backer know what he's talking about? Besides being the lead attorney for Shaun McCutcheon, over the last three election cycles he has overseen a proliferation of new PACs and helped organize what may be the largest-ever joint fundraising committee, in terms of the number of participants. " -- ibid
From an article on a new shell organization, the JFC, enabled by a recent Supreme Court decision, McCutcheon vs. FEC:
"Backer added that the biggest reason he thinks super JFCs won't take off is that, while they may be an efficient way to extract money from a single donor, from the donor's perspective, they are impersonal and don't offer any advantages -- an assertion that has many skeptics.
"For the donors, they really prefer to cut the vast number of checks," he said. "For them, it's not about giving money, it's about building a relationship. You're not going to get any face time, they're not going to hear your story." Individual donors want to feel gratitude from the candidate -- legal, "completely non-corrupting gratitude," Backer hastened to note." -- OpenSecrets.org
"Lloyd Christmas: What do you think the chances are of a guy like you and a girl like me... ending up together? Mary Swanson: Well, Lloyd, that's difficult to say. I mean, we don't really... Lloyd Christmas: Hit me with it! Just give it to me straight! I came a long way just to see you, Mary. The least you can do is level with me. What are my chances? Mary Swanson: Not good. Lloyd Christmas: You mean, not good like one out of a hundred? Mary Swanson: I'd say more like one out of a million.
[pause]
Lloyd Christmas: So you're telling me there's a chance... YEAH!"
It already owns a sizable chunk of the broadcast medium. Now it and other big companies want to own the politicians too. With of course, the full acquiescence and enthusiasm of those politicians.
We wonder why it costs money to reach people. It's because the marketplace is tightly controlled.
Whether it's the regulators overseeing the Deepwater Horizon being captured by the oil and gas industry, or whether it's local politicians being captured by the Finance/Real Estate sector, the results are usually bad for the society. And occasionally, they becomes spectacularly lethal.
To overcome the persistent regulatory capture of the US government, two things must occur:
1) Overhaul of the campaign finance system (so politiicians will be more inclined to work for their constituents not their highest bidder). 2) Term limits (because power corrupts).
And --- even if it did, look at what people with too much time on hands do to this world: crime, gangs, terrorists, cults, drug users --- most of societies ills are AVOIDED by making these people have jobs so they don't have free time.
"Idle hands are the devil's workshop." -- Proverbs 16:27
Don't be put off because of its religious origin - it's the demonstration of a point that has been known for thousands of years.
"Two U.S. officials tell ABC News the U.S. believes that the shutdown of two communication systems happened separately on Malaysia Airlines Flight 370. One source said this indicates the plane did not come out of the sky because of a catastrophic failure.
The data reporting system, they believe, was shut down at 1:07 a.m. The transponder -- which transmits location and altitude -- shut down at 1:21 a.m."
The Web (and Internet) enable the free flow of information. Up till recently, the way to distribute information was radio, television and print. There is huge money and power in controlling the flow of information. Frankly, I'm surprised the Internet has not been more locked down and controlled yet.
Rest assured that it is in the sights of politicians and big business. So, something like a Web Magna Carta would be quite a useful document. At least talking about the concept of trying to keep the Internet unfettered is a starting point. Because an unfettered Internet will go away otherwise. There's just too much money and power in it.
Slashdot Mirror
I've created a several Access applications, plus several LAMP-based Internet applications. I've interfaced a lot with non-technical people. They don't GET databases. They don't understand normalization or foreign keys or indexes. They don't understand SQL or joins. It's not their area of expertise. They do the actual work of the charity or the company so I'm not in the least bashing them - but they just don't understand databases.
My experience is that after brief training, they'll get spreadsheets. They understand tables very quickly and easily. Explain to them the concept of worksheets. And there's no complexity in opening an Excel file. You just double-click and you are immediately there, looking at the data. Heck, with some thoughtful use of the individual worksheets in an Excel file, you can even get a hint of normalization. Like putting different geographical regions in different worksheets in a single workbook. Having multiple Excel files (workbooks) for different larger groups. People kind of naturally understand that tree-like data structure.
Many people think Access is a toy. But it's still a database and it uses database concepts and SQL. And that is beyond the ken of non-technical types. Spreadsheets are simply much more understandable to them. And ultimately - much more maintainable. And maintainability and understandability is the key here. The charity is going to be here, on the ground, doing their work, long after you've moved back to the States.
There is a fraction of the learning curve with spreadsheets than there is with any relational database, regardless of whether it's a file-based system or a client-server system.
FYI, here are the Excel load limits.
You have big players on either side of this, but the big communication companies have probably donated much more to politicians. AT&T is the 4th largest donor to federal politicians over the period 1989-2012, for example. Also, the big communications companies got their man on the inside as the head of the FCC. These rules could go through, and it'll start driving prices up, but by then, the voting public won't make the connection between any politician and rising prices or worse service. Most people don't understand what net neutrality is.
Net result: Keeps the big donors happy, very little or no voting consequence, especially with responsibility plausibly divided between both parties.
Alas. Those wall calendars were fantastic.
Best wishes in whatever comes next and thanks for the freaky art.
Per the CDC, black hetero females in the US have just about 4 times the new HIV infection rate than white hetero females: http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/statistics/basics/ataglance.html
More CDC statistics here: http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/statistics/basics/
Certainly this is a worthwhile course of investigation by the Norwegians, but the relatively high black female HIV prevalence in the US could indicate factors specific to race and not merely location.
It's the universities and teachers who choose what books the students must use. They could:
1) Boycott this publisher.
2) Act indifferently.
3) Enthusiastically join with this publisher.
Follow the money. I'm guessing it will be 2) or 3) above, depending on the deal the publisher strikes with the university.
It's 18 minutes, well worth a viewing.
Everything you wanted to know about money in politics is located at Open Secrets: http://www.opensecrets.org/resources/learn/
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." -- 2nd Amendment
I imagine back in 1791, when the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution, and the country was mostly rural, and the army was mustered from the citizenry, this made perfect sense.
Today, we have standing armies. People are trained to shoot while in the military. You're not relying on people training themselves, or bringing their own weapons. Heck, the average person has a very hard and expensive time getting an automatic weapon, the type used in the military.
However, I think the Supreme Court reads this correctly. The 2nd Amendment says WHY the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Granted, the WHY is not relevant to the situation today, but that's what the 2nd Amendment does pretty clearly say.
Comcast aired a radio commercial in DC Metro this morning saying that the Comcast-TWC merger would guarantee "net neutrality", higher speeds and more Internet for everyone. This tells me most people think that 1) Net neutrality is a good thing and 2) They have no idea what it really means.
Plus, there's a another front on the net neutrality battle - some companies are claiming that net neutrality allows freeloading - using capacity without paying for it. But what's the reality? That everyone pays for usage - my company's fleet of 10 cars pays the same roadway toll per car as another company with a fleet of 10 cars. BUT - the toll road operator has the right to let the other company's cars into the fast lane and shunt my company and the individual to the slow lane if they so desire.
Is that right or wrong? I have not been able to find a clear citation to answer that question. Citations, anyone?
SFW observation on the difficulty with Google Plus.
We keep voting for these politicians - BUT - the politicians who make it through the primary process are the only ones we are allowed to vote for, and they are already beholden to those special interests which facilitate their victory. 3rd parties are aggressively suppressed.
Very interesting TED talk by Lawrence Lessig on the issue: "There is a corruption at the heart of American politics, caused by the dependence of Congressional candidates on funding from the tiniest percentage of citizens. That's the argument at the core of this blistering talk by legal scholar Lawrence Lessig."
There are many countries in the world where a de facto "Supreme Council" determines which candidates are allowed to stand at election. They are sham democracies. We are falling into that model more and more.
From the Wikipedia:
"Regulatory capture is a form of political corruption that occurs when a regulatory agency, created to act in the public interest, instead advances the commercial or special concerns of interest groups that dominate the industry or sector it is charged with regulating. Regulatory capture is a form of government failure; it creates an opening for firms to behave in ways injurious to the public (e.g., producing negative externalities). The agencies are called "captured agencies".
See also: "Exaggerated threat":
1) "If we don't invade Iraq, they're going to bake the yellow cakes and explode a nuke in New York City."
2) "If we don't bail out the financial sector, we're going to have a depression."
3) "If we don't allow companies to favor content, the US technology sector will grind to a halt."
Here's a good graphic showing the FCC heads revolving door.
Obama nominated Thomas Wheeler as head of FCC in 2013: "Wheeler is currently the managing director at Core Capital Partners, a venture-capital firm based in Washington, D.C.. He has also been a top lobbyist for the wireless and cable industries. From 1979 to 1984, he served as president of the National Cable Television Association and before that he was CEO of the Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association." -- http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2013/10/29/tom-wheeler-confirmed-fcc-chairman/3309333/
It's an interesting term to Google (video 4:20): http://www.economist.com/blogs/schumpeter/2012/04/germanys-mittelstand
Also, these companies have a long term focus and eschew debt, something which is anathema to the US corporate culture.
List of the most dangerous cities in the US for 2013. Detroit is 3rd, right after Flint, Michigan.
FYI, Mr. Backer's background:
"Does Backer know what he's talking about? Besides being the lead attorney for Shaun McCutcheon, over the last three election cycles he has overseen a proliferation of new PACs and helped organize what may be the largest-ever joint fundraising committee, in terms of the number of participants. " -- ibid
From an article on a new shell organization, the JFC, enabled by a recent Supreme Court decision, McCutcheon vs. FEC:
"Backer added that the biggest reason he thinks super JFCs won't take off is that, while they may be an efficient way to extract money from a single donor, from the donor's perspective, they are impersonal and don't offer any advantages -- an assertion that has many skeptics.
"For the donors, they really prefer to cut the vast number of checks," he said. "For them, it's not about giving money, it's about building a relationship. You're not going to get any face time, they're not going to hear your story." Individual donors want to feel gratitude from the candidate -- legal, "completely non-corrupting gratitude," Backer hastened to note." -- OpenSecrets.org
"Lloyd Christmas: What do you think the chances are of a guy like you and a girl like me... ending up together?
Mary Swanson: Well, Lloyd, that's difficult to say. I mean, we don't really...
Lloyd Christmas: Hit me with it! Just give it to me straight! I came a long way just to see you, Mary. The least you can do is level with me. What are my chances?
Mary Swanson: Not good.
Lloyd Christmas: You mean, not good like one out of a hundred?
Mary Swanson: I'd say more like one out of a million.
[pause]
Lloyd Christmas: So you're telling me there's a chance... YEAH!"
-- Dumb and Dumber, 1994
The people who direct the corporate construct are the actual people. Not the construct.
It already owns a sizable chunk of the broadcast medium. Now it and other big companies want to own the politicians too. With of course, the full acquiescence and enthusiasm of those politicians.
We wonder why it costs money to reach people. It's because the marketplace is tightly controlled.
Whether it's the regulators overseeing the Deepwater Horizon being captured by the oil and gas industry, or whether it's local politicians being captured by the Finance/Real Estate sector, the results are usually bad for the society. And occasionally, they becomes spectacularly lethal.
To overcome the persistent regulatory capture of the US government, two things must occur:
1) Overhaul of the campaign finance system (so politiicians will be more inclined to work for their constituents not their highest bidder).
2) Term limits (because power corrupts).
"Idle hands are the devil's workshop." -- Proverbs 16:27
Don't be put off because of its religious origin - it's the demonstration of a point that has been known for thousands of years.
It's great for the bottom line but not so good for the society.
"Two U.S. officials tell ABC News the U.S. believes that the shutdown of two communication systems happened separately on Malaysia Airlines Flight 370. One source said this indicates the plane did not come out of the sky because of a catastrophic failure.
The data reporting system, they believe, was shut down at 1:07 a.m. The transponder -- which transmits location and altitude -- shut down at 1:21 a.m."
-- ABC News, Thursday March 13, 2014
Curiouser and curiouser.
The Web (and Internet) enable the free flow of information. Up till recently, the way to distribute information was radio, television and print. There is huge money and power in controlling the flow of information. Frankly, I'm surprised the Internet has not been more locked down and controlled yet.
Rest assured that it is in the sights of politicians and big business. So, something like a Web Magna Carta would be quite a useful document. At least talking about the concept of trying to keep the Internet unfettered is a starting point. Because an unfettered Internet will go away otherwise. There's just too much money and power in it.