Space has always been politicized. We need to find a way to make funding and planning more stable.
Perhaps the money should be committed up-front to specific plans and not subject to fiddling by the next shift in DC. I'm not sure how to legislate something with a "lock box" built into it. Space bonds?
A custom domain is not very consumer-friendly and doesn't offer a direct standard for phone integration/replacement. And, we are looking for a name/identifier/url that is NOT dependent on the volatile market. If company X goes under or exits IT for kelp, your unique ID shouldn't go away.
Maybe if there were a "standard" domain, such as "usa.phone" (assuming USA), then people can have "email" addresses like "BillGates38@USA.phone" that can also serve as a phone and texting number.
And the URL www.usa.phone/BillGates38 could be defined to publish more contact info (if so desired by ID owner).
No private organization could own "usa.phone", only manage it, or specific ID's using it. The ID part would be kind of like registering a domain name: you own the name, but can assign (rent) an ISP to host it. It's even similar to how you pay a phone company for your phone activation. The government would typically not host it, equipment-wise, only enforce ownership and transfer rights.
Old-style numbers could piggy-back on it so that you can have "987-654-3210@USA.phone" if your existing phone number is: 1 (987) 654-3210. Nobody else would be allowed to take it, as long as that's your phone number.
(Maybe alias the "1" so that "1-987-654-3210@USA.phone" means the same. That could avoid look-alike scamming.)
rough equivalent of a machine-generated Google mail address. BobMa1283.
Unlike email addresses, because one would have to pay to keep them*, they should not have bloated name-spaces.
For example, I estimate there are roughly 500 Martha Stewart's in the world. If you don't pay to keep your ID, then it expires and can be used by another Martha Stewart after a grace period.
Thus, you may see many ID's similar to MarthaStewart473, but there should not be many like MarthaStewart473807. Plus, many may opt to use a number instead of their name.
A lot of email accounts are junk accounts and spammer zombie accounts. (I myself have junk accounts.) Phone numbers and perhaps their future replacement are more formal and fee-based, and thus should have fewer trivial accounts.
* Subsidies for the poor may result in free accounts being given out, but it probably would be limited to 2 per person: a name-based one for resume's etc., and a digit-only or random-ish one for privacy-oriented uses.
There is a need for a universal identifier standard for recipients and communication of some kind. A proprietary one is not acceptable, in the least because tech companies come and go like pop stars.
A new standard would only replace phone numbers if it offers something significantly better. Standards are rarely displaced by something just a little bit better. It's why QWERTY keyboards and SQL (as a language) are still common.
A communication ID standard that offers letters and longer identifiers may be competitive, but there's nobody pushing such in a non-proprietary way. (Phone numbers can also spell out short mnemonics, but in an awkward way.)
The phone system could morph into such because an existing phone number could still be a valid identifier within the new standard, somewhat like how UNICODE still contains ASCII.
The "daily runs" were probably slow due to mis-tuned or poorly designed databases, I would guess. Businesses processes can take a while to process, but it's usually through database-intensive "batch jobs" or "background jobs", and not client-side data crunching.
In one project I programmed a server-side reporting process for a major city's telecom co that took about 5 hours to classify a million customer's spending patterns into marketing categories. But I later learned there was a database table I could have used instead to slice the processing to about 1/5 the time. As a contractor, I wasn't made aware of that table's existence and so had to use de-normalized info. I was "doing it wrong" because I didn't know enough about the org's databases and had no access. The manager who hired me wasn't IT and suggested I "use what's available the best you can".
Certain "resource optimization" problems similar to "traveling salesmen" optimization could be CPU intensive. But that may be because database-friendly versions of optimization algorithms are not easy to build or find. Either way, it's usually not done on the client-side.
My view is Keynesian spending during recessions is like beating drums during solar eclipses to scare away the giant space snake that's eating the Sun. Since the recession ended, the Keynesian spending is claimed to have always worked. The problem is that the recession would have ended anyway. People don't keep their money in a vault forever.
Yes they do: buy precious metals. Or spend overseas or on real-estate instead of things that actually turn the economic gears. Some speculate our current slow recovery is caused by making real-estate too lucrative compared to real investments in industries.
And environmental spending chased off a lot of US industry over the past 40 years. Spending more on it will chase off even more.
So we should become a 3rd-world mess to compete with 3rd-world messes? This is what some of us call "race to the bottom". China's pollution is horrid: we shouldn't create 3-eyed babies just to have more jobs. We should tariff their goods unless they improve their pollution situation. (And they should encourage local consumerism rather than be export-dependent, but that's another issue.)
Keynesian economics would work great if we as a country save more during the good times. But politicians haven't shown the discipline: they are not judged on the future, but the here-and-now in elections.
I'm for legislation that forces or encourages better spending. It would be similar to a balanced budget amendment, but allows for relaxation of the rules during slumps. Pay down the debt during up-times as a rainy-day fund, essentially. Bill Clinton is the only recent president who came close to resisting the urge to spend during up-times.
War, unfortunately, was the final cure. While gov't infrastructure programs improved the situation (i.e. "stimulus"), things were not going fully back to normal despite two presidents having tried many different things. Nobody felt comfortable making long-term purchases nor long-term investments, creating an economic stalemate.
Some speculate that trying a bit more inflation may have kick-started the economy: it gives people money, and makes it too expensive to save because it declines in value such that people invest it instead in industry. It carries some risk, but so does staying mired in a slump.
As a warning to the future, we still don't really know how to prevent depressions. The quick stimulus probably saved us after the 2007 financial meltdown, but barely.
as Democratic voters typically stayed home during non-presidential years
Many Democrats were also upset by the Snowden revelations, which is part of the reason they didn't bother to vote. It made Democrats feel ho-hum, and added fuel to the right's ever-burning anger over Obama.
Anger brings people to the polls. The Right was angered by ACA, domestic snooping, the alleged Tea-Party-targeting IRS scandal, Ebola, Benghazi, the Arab-Spring going south, and their belief that O is a foreign-born gay Muslim commie* who will come after their guns, implement Sharia law, increase taxes, and burn the Constitution.
That might sound nutty and contradictory, but if you ever watched that "news" channel that starts with an "F" for a while, you'll see some of where they get that stuff.
The Culture Wars burns hot these days. If the other side is not equally passionate about the issues of the day in the counter direction, then the one side who is passionate controls the election. Democrats had nothing that really energized them. Besides the snooping frustration, they didn't "love" ACA as much as the right hates it, for example.
* Some "commie" he turned out to be, the rich are still getting richer.
Bowie actually improved "Space Oddity" over time. He kept tinkering with it after the initial 1969 release, like a true musical nerd, and improved it to give us the 70's version that most are now familiar with.
One of the reasons GOP gained so many seats in the last midterm election is that many were upset with Snowden's revelations about how much domestic and ally-country snooping the gov't was doing. Republican attack ads on Democrats made that a key issue (along with ACA).
But recent domestic attacks have caused the GOP to flip on snooping, in general. They are now pro-snooping.
I have to give them credit for taking advantage of both sides of the issues and leveraging voter forgetfulness. It's slimy, but it works politically.
Slashdot Mirror
First, one doesn't know if it's a "phone capable" and/or email-capable domain without probing it. It lacks another level of standardization.
Second, registering a domain (properly) is not currently designed for consumer-grade volume and lacks consumer regulatory protections.
Space has always been politicized. We need to find a way to make funding and planning more stable.
Perhaps the money should be committed up-front to specific plans and not subject to fiddling by the next shift in DC. I'm not sure how to legislate something with a "lock box" built into it. Space bonds?
What do you mean by "into"?
A custom domain is not very consumer-friendly and doesn't offer a direct standard for phone integration/replacement. And, we are looking for a name/identifier/url that is NOT dependent on the volatile market. If company X goes under or exits IT for kelp, your unique ID shouldn't go away.
Amen!
Maybe if there were a "standard" domain, such as "usa.phone" (assuming USA), then people can have "email" addresses like "BillGates38@USA.phone" that can also serve as a phone and texting number.
And the URL www.usa.phone/BillGates38 could be defined to publish more contact info (if so desired by ID owner).
No private organization could own "usa.phone", only manage it, or specific ID's using it. The ID part would be kind of like registering a domain name: you own the name, but can assign (rent) an ISP to host it. It's even similar to how you pay a phone company for your phone activation. The government would typically not host it, equipment-wise, only enforce ownership and transfer rights.
Old-style numbers could piggy-back on it so that you can have "987-654-3210@USA.phone" if your existing phone number is: 1 (987) 654-3210. Nobody else would be allowed to take it, as long as that's your phone number.
(Maybe alias the "1" so that "1-987-654-3210@USA.phone" means the same. That could avoid look-alike scamming.)
Unlike email addresses, because one would have to pay to keep them*, they should not have bloated name-spaces.
For example, I estimate there are roughly 500 Martha Stewart's in the world. If you don't pay to keep your ID, then it expires and can be used by another Martha Stewart after a grace period.
Thus, you may see many ID's similar to MarthaStewart473, but there should not be many like MarthaStewart473807. Plus, many may opt to use a number instead of their name.
A lot of email accounts are junk accounts and spammer zombie accounts. (I myself have junk accounts.) Phone numbers and perhaps their future replacement are more formal and fee-based, and thus should have fewer trivial accounts.
* Subsidies for the poor may result in free accounts being given out, but it probably would be limited to 2 per person: a name-based one for resume's etc., and a digit-only or random-ish one for privacy-oriented uses.
Do we get to wear slick white body armor and talk through a gizmo that makes us sound like Jack-In-The-Box ordering stations?
There is a need for a universal identifier standard for recipients and communication of some kind. A proprietary one is not acceptable, in the least because tech companies come and go like pop stars.
A new standard would only replace phone numbers if it offers something significantly better. Standards are rarely displaced by something just a little bit better. It's why QWERTY keyboards and SQL (as a language) are still common.
A communication ID standard that offers letters and longer identifiers may be competitive, but there's nobody pushing such in a non-proprietary way. (Phone numbers can also spell out short mnemonics, but in an awkward way.)
The phone system could morph into such because an existing phone number could still be a valid identifier within the new standard, somewhat like how UNICODE still contains ASCII.
W and Dick got off the hook. Why should elected officials have a different standard than CEOs?
I was hoping Bernie S. would have the gonads to re-open those investigations.
Oh the new little nukies are soooo cute!
The "daily runs" were probably slow due to mis-tuned or poorly designed databases, I would guess. Businesses processes can take a while to process, but it's usually through database-intensive "batch jobs" or "background jobs", and not client-side data crunching.
In one project I programmed a server-side reporting process for a major city's telecom co that took about 5 hours to classify a million customer's spending patterns into marketing categories. But I later learned there was a database table I could have used instead to slice the processing to about 1/5 the time. As a contractor, I wasn't made aware of that table's existence and so had to use de-normalized info. I was "doing it wrong" because I didn't know enough about the org's databases and had no access. The manager who hired me wasn't IT and suggested I "use what's available the best you can".
Certain "resource optimization" problems similar to "traveling salesmen" optimization could be CPU intensive. But that may be because database-friendly versions of optimization algorithms are not easy to build or find. Either way, it's usually not done on the client-side.
Yes they do: buy precious metals. Or spend overseas or on real-estate instead of things that actually turn the economic gears. Some speculate our current slow recovery is caused by making real-estate too lucrative compared to real investments in industries.
So we should become a 3rd-world mess to compete with 3rd-world messes? This is what some of us call "race to the bottom". China's pollution is horrid: we shouldn't create 3-eyed babies just to have more jobs. We should tariff their goods unless they improve their pollution situation. (And they should encourage local consumerism rather than be export-dependent, but that's another issue.)
Keynesian economics would work great if we as a country save more during the good times. But politicians haven't shown the discipline: they are not judged on the future, but the here-and-now in elections.
I'm for legislation that forces or encourages better spending. It would be similar to a balanced budget amendment, but allows for relaxation of the rules during slumps. Pay down the debt during up-times as a rainy-day fund, essentially. Bill Clinton is the only recent president who came close to resisting the urge to spend during up-times.
War, unfortunately, was the final cure. While gov't infrastructure programs improved the situation (i.e. "stimulus"), things were not going fully back to normal despite two presidents having tried many different things. Nobody felt comfortable making long-term purchases nor long-term investments, creating an economic stalemate.
Some speculate that trying a bit more inflation may have kick-started the economy: it gives people money, and makes it too expensive to save because it declines in value such that people invest it instead in industry. It carries some risk, but so does staying mired in a slump.
As a warning to the future, we still don't really know how to prevent depressions. The quick stimulus probably saved us after the 2007 financial meltdown, but barely.
Must be really greasy tobacco.
So far it looks like there is no full equivalent. By not being based on sequential steps, the "UPSERT" has advantages. But the jury is still out...
and a broken radio.
S.K.: "You are a big dummy head!"
N.K.: "You are an extra big dummy head!"
S.K.: "You are a doo doo face!"
N.K.: "You are an extra big doo doo face; and extra stinky!"
S.K.: "I know you are, but what am I?"
N.K.: "A big stupid!"
S.K. "Well, your mother wears army boots!"
N.K.: "So, what's wrong with that?"
Etc...
For voting purposes ;-)
Declare the dolphins as corporations, and try again. If it's described in a profitable way, they may release the info.
CRUD and general business applications are generally a different animal than CAD and graphic-intensive stuff.
I realize the general pattern exists, but this time was more extreme than normal.
Okay, Mr/Ms. Lawyer, what EXACT law did she violate?
I agree she made unwise decisions, but if you allege clear and specific laws were broken, then please be clear and explicit.
Most legal experts in the subject say the related laws are complex, hazy, and/or nuanced.
Politicians are power creeps.
Many Democrats were also upset by the Snowden revelations, which is part of the reason they didn't bother to vote. It made Democrats feel ho-hum, and added fuel to the right's ever-burning anger over Obama.
Anger brings people to the polls. The Right was angered by ACA, domestic snooping, the alleged Tea-Party-targeting IRS scandal, Ebola, Benghazi, the Arab-Spring going south, and their belief that O is a foreign-born gay Muslim commie* who will come after their guns, implement Sharia law, increase taxes, and burn the Constitution.
That might sound nutty and contradictory, but if you ever watched that "news" channel that starts with an "F" for a while, you'll see some of where they get that stuff.
The Culture Wars burns hot these days. If the other side is not equally passionate about the issues of the day in the counter direction, then the one side who is passionate controls the election. Democrats had nothing that really energized them. Besides the snooping frustration, they didn't "love" ACA as much as the right hates it, for example.
* Some "commie" he turned out to be, the rich are still getting richer.
Bowie actually improved "Space Oddity" over time. He kept tinkering with it after the initial 1969 release, like a true musical nerd, and improved it to give us the 70's version that most are now familiar with.
One of the reasons GOP gained so many seats in the last midterm election is that many were upset with Snowden's revelations about how much domestic and ally-country snooping the gov't was doing. Republican attack ads on Democrats made that a key issue (along with ACA).
But recent domestic attacks have caused the GOP to flip on snooping, in general. They are now pro-snooping.
I have to give them credit for taking advantage of both sides of the issues and leveraging voter forgetfulness. It's slimy, but it works politically.