oh please.
stow your insanity for a moment.

differing classes of rules based on size and type make sense.
and standard "congested area" rules are just common sense.
licenses or other certs in specific circumstances also make sense.

unregulated use by an unlicensed individual in a city like NYC means eventually someone will fly a 100+lb drone down Park Avenue and have it crash on someones head.
or worse two of them due to collision.

public safety/endangerment rules always in place would largely cover a lot of it, but they would leave a lot open to the interpretation and discretion of the individuals responsible for enforcement (most likely NYPD).

so creating some rules that actually spell it out, and make the appropriate concessions for commercial use, ensure operators and their devices arent a danger, and provide common sense exceptions for recreational use in Central Park, all fall within the purview of City Council (or w/e NYC has), and is simply rational rules making and is in the public interest.

Peer Name Resolution.

The problem is that it's patent encumbered, by Mickeysoft, so it's useless.

There is also something called Hierarchical DHT-based name resolution.

Abstract:

Information-centric network (ICN) architectures are an increasingly important approach for the future Internet. Several ICN approaches are based on a flat object ID namespace and require some kind of global name resolution service to translate object IDs into network addresses. Building a world-wide NRS for a flat namespace with 10^1^6 expected IDs is challenging because of requirements such as scalability, low latency, efficient network utilization, and anycast routing that selects the most suitable copies. In this paper, we present a general hierarchical NRS framework for flat ID namespaces. The framework meets those requirements by the following properties: The registration and request forwarding matches the underlying network topology, exploits request locality, supports domain-specific copies of binding entries, can offer constant hop resolution (depending on the chosen underlying forwarding scheme), and provides scoping of publications. Our general NRS framework is flexible and supports different instantiations. These instantiations offer an important trade-off between resolution-domain (i.e. subsystem) autonomy (simplifying deployment) and reduced latency, maintenance overhead, and memory requirements. To evaluate this trade-off and explore the design space, we have designed two specific instantiations of our general NRS framework: MDHT and HSkip. We have performed a theoretical analysis and a simulation-based evaluation of both systems. In addition, we have published an implementation of the MDHT system as open source. Results indicate that an average request latency of (well) below 100ms is achievable in both systems for a global system with 12 million NRS nodes while meeting our other specific requirements. These results imply that a flat namespace can be adopted on a global scale, opening up several design alternatives for information-centric network architectures.

http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm...

--
BMO

then explain Europe.
I'll wait.

your proof is a national review article? please.

actual doctors who study this stuff have destroyed that piece of garbage so many times its not even funny anymore.
the article presents it as if its the only one that realized that people measure statistics differently, but publish research anyway...without compensating for the differences.

news for ya buddy: the researchers and statisticians are well aware of hte differences and if you bother to read their papers include the fact that they have compensated for them, and even how they did so.

And about that "all those illegals that Obama let in: Enforcement is at all time highs. More people have been deported than under any other president. The last few years have actually seen a negative flow rate across the Mexican border (thats right: more crossing into mexico than entering the US)

So the only bull around here is yours.

I hate when people are described as "futurists" and then presented as some sort of authority or given a salary with the title.

Nothing but a long con.

A couple of airstrikes in Libya counts as a war now?
The 60s also notably lacked a crushing recession; you're comparing a time of economic prosperity to a time of recession recovery.

And oh yay. More jobs numbers nonsense. But hey, since were comparing economic apples to oranges, lets note that in the 60s the "real" unemployment rate was >40%, since most families weren't dual income and as a result overall labor participiation was far lower, and those wives "would have been working if they werent at home raising babies". That totally proves my point about how your point is nonsense...right? Or maybe we should just stick to the existing definitions of unemployment, which means accepting that the rate is below 8% (actually much lower), but has the drawback of you dont get to bash the POTUS with made up numbers drawn from thin air that include "people who would be working if they werent in college".

No No No No a million times NO.

FTFY.

Yes, he did sail west based on his knowledge that hte Earth was round.
But no, Columbus did not sail west to show the flat earthers they were wrong.
And you should stop spreading that myth.

Everyone knew the Earth the round.
But no one believed sailing west was a shorter more direct route (and this was based on math and geometry)

In case you missed it, the sea route from Europe to India has to go around that big hunk of land called Africa.
That route involves sailing south several thousand miles, then back north another few thousand, as well as traversing the eastward distance.
It's a long, dangerous route taking as long as a year there and back
It was desirable though due to the Sil Road (overland) being unsafe in recent years due to the rise of the Ottomans.

And this is still the time when most sailing is done in close proximity to shore, with shore not far over the horizon.
And the open ocean not being well charted yet if at all.

If the earth was round, which every one knew, and of a specific diameter, which was also already calculated and fairly accurate, then it was apparent that the westward distance to India was indeed longer than the Eastward distance to India.

But math of a sphere is simple and easy, whereas the math of actual navigation of sailing ship taking a long roundabout route around africa is more difficult and less accurate at the time.

And that brings us back to Columbus.
His bet was essentially that while the direct distance was obvious longer, that he could make up for it with directness by not having to go around Africa.
This view was based on the ideas of geography of Toscanelli, who did not concieve of a large land mass in the way.

It was a risky venture in the face of a known and profitable route, and few would take him up on it (businessmen being ever adverse to risk).
But he finally got his sponsor and off he went.

And it turned out he was wrong.
Both his math was wrong, as his assumption that there would be nothing in the way.

A good summary of his flawed reasoning and surrounding factors is presented on the wiki ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C... ) :

As you can see, Columbus made a unit conversion error.
Then he overestimated the size of the land mass and thus undersstimated the size of the ocean inbetween.
Then he found out his assumption of there being nothing in the way was incorrect.

Columbus is quite simply one of the most striking examples of a person being compeltely and totally wrong, and getting lucky.
Columbus was neither a hero nor genius, but an incompetent, and as it turned out later, a despot.

a lot of it needs to go back into the ground, into the underground aquafers, instead of just running to the ocean. large portions of the state have sunken because of the depleted gruond water. Areas are as much as 20-40 feet lower than they were a half century ago.

California is also more dependent on its snowpack than actual precipation.
Its an arid state that recieves little precipitation outside of the mountains.
most of its yearly water supply comes from the snowpack of the Sierra mountains, acting like a time release capsule, relasing water over the year into the streams and rivers.

"There is no drought"

And you idiots modded this guy insightful?

Even without all the ag and all the people, cali would STILL be in a drought.

The state water supply comes from the snowpack in the mountains, as the snowpack melts.
It normally gets replenished in winter.
The past few years ahve seen very little snowfall, leading to no replenishment of the snowpack.
Which means less and less water running into the water systems each year.

Ergo: DROUGHT.

so far as i know burning man is made up of hippies not libertarians.

thats not even a valid logical argument. after you talked about last mile, he also talked about last mile, specifically the from the box to the house, and then you accuesed him of being stupid by talking about NOT-last mile cable laying and some stupid failed car analogy. JFC you are stupid. his whole point is that it make no sense to redo the cabling anytime you switch proviers, no more than it makes sense to dig up your driveway and connect to a "different" road if libertarians ever got their "private/subscription road market" fantasies fulfilled. its simply another area that is best served by a single entity because it makes for a natural monopoly and the costs to consumers of trying to create a "market" for them are out of proportion to any benefit recieved from doing so.

but since you want to talk about that: barring the invention of teleportation there pretty much is only one way to put things in the ground, and it involves digging a hole.
They already use conduit in many places, and horizontal drilling and cable pulling, buts its limited in practicality because of the magnitude of force needed to pull/push cable over long distance would break the cable. which means the access points cant be very far apart. and they have to route around other underground infrastructure. they cant just go in straight lines for long distances. and you cant push/pull around corners (again: breaks the cable).

Take thine own advice knave.

Bull.
Conservatives do not care and have never cared about restricting monopolies.
Only one side of the spectrum has taken the position that restricting monoplies in order to promote competition is "punishing success".

Protecting the interests of entrenched corporations is a conservative position, regardless of the party doing it.

Breaking up monpolies to promote the concept that "anyone can make it in the land of opportunity" by fostering competition and breaking up monpolies has always been and will always be a progressive position.