DanG

I suppose I just don't believe that there are enough soldiers and Marines in the US military to enable security in Afghanistan through conventional means. In a lot of ways, having more "cops on the corner" just means having more targets. There are undoubtedly baddies all over Helmand, but how many troops do you need to secure a province the size of Vermont? I believe the technical term for the required amount is, "an assload." We can send every swinging dick in the DoD to Afghanistan and we couldn't prevent people from blowing themselves up. For me, victory means an Afghanistan that can govern itself, is economically viable to the point that militantism is not seen as a viable career alternative, can protect its borders from militants in Pakistan, and can enforce the rule of law on its citizens. That can only be achieved through development aid, governance training and monitoring, and police/military training. Sending more troops won't change the ground reality. - Dan G

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_A._McChrystal - Dan G

I agree with you about training and effectiveness. I suppose more door kickers would be useful under McChrystal's leadership. He seems to "get it". If you kick in 100 doors, and find bad guys behind 10 of them, you've taken 10 baddies out of the action, and made 90 new enemies. - Dan G

The US Should send more SF, CA, and PO troops. They should also send more USAID, State Dept. governance types, military and police trainers, and lots more development money. Door kickers will not win this war. We already have plenty of those there, IMHO. - Dan G

Let's say that I have a heart attack while I have insurance. My insurance company dumps me (they are a private corp and should be able to do that for no reason, right?) and now I can't get insurance from anyone else because I have a pre-existing condition. You think this is fair, how? - Dan G

I think forcing the non-contributing individuals to buy insurance is the only way to spread the pain to them. I totally see the arguments from a Constitutional standpoint. On the other hand, the Constitution doesn't say that ER's have to treat emergent cases, but most people think that is good public policy. The current system incentivizes people to avoid the doctor until they become emergent, and then we all have to pay for their problems. Encouraging preventative care, focusing on medical based treatment (not profit based), tort reform, and encouraging not-for-profit insurance companies through tax breaks are the only ways I see to reduce overall cost, and therefore overall pain. - Dan G

You don't think that's happening already? Well, I guess it only currently happens to people who have insurance, so they are getting hit with a double whammy. By making everyone get insurance, you are spreading out the pain, and putting some of that burden on the people who are actually causing the burden to begin with. - Dan G

Don't worry, we're already doing that. It's called Social Security. - Dan G

I'm calling the Humane Society. - Dan G

I agree with what you are saying, and always found the priority thing a little confusing. The only way it makes sense to me is to think of what the result might be if you took out the first priority (pull) and were left with only the other two (pull on time, pull stable). There are some situations where waiting for pull time might not be the best decision. You may want to pull early. If you're taught that your first priority is pulling on time, some students might take that to mean that they have to wait until their pull altitude, regardless of what else might be going on. - Dan G

I think the article means $50 million total over 15 years, not $50 million per year. - Dan G

I allege that our climate models are not taking a whole bunch of things into account. Probably things that we haven't even thought of. The climitologists are not just reiterating the same model over and over, they are constantly refining those models and comparing them to past data. We do not need to wait 100 years to verify the accuracy of a 100 year model. We can apply the model to the last 100 years of data and see how it matches. Model validation can be done with any set of data, it does not have to be future data. If after ten attemps my model is getting closer and closer to the experiemental results, I'm betting that after 5000 improvements it'll be pretty damn good. With climate models were are still pretty early in the refinement process. The model is not invalid, it is just not perfect. The apple still falls, I just haven't figured out exactly how to describe it. The dominant forcing function in my apple analogy is gravity. That is well understood and my model is very good at predicting it. The dominant forcing function for global climate models is the heat balance from basic thermodynamics. That is very well understood as well. Air resistance on my apple and secondary climitalogical effects are lower order inputs. I didn't say small scales don't matter, I just said we can't predict them yet. Models can be improved without being scrapped. That what modelers do. The apple does stop accelerating. I didn't predict that. On the other hand, the apple keeps falling. I did predict that because I understand the dominant forcing function. For the same reason climatologists can predict that Earth will keep warming even though they are having trouble nailing down the rate. They understand the dominant forcing function, they are just working on the secondary inputs. No, thank you. - Dan G

I've read a lot of your posts on this topic, and it's clear you've given a lot of thought to the subject. In my opinion, you often misunnderstand the results of climate models when you attempt to compare them to real-world observations. The climate models we have today are very coarse. They can't predict events on a small scale, both spatially and temporally. They can, however, still make valid predictions about long-term effects. The models do not predict small-scale events because they are simply not refined enough. They may never be. For a model to accurately predict long-term events, it does not need to take into account every small-scale perturbation. In response to your ballon analogy, I'll offer a different one. I drop an apple and want to predict the apple's velocity during its fall. I decide to use a simple model that says v=v0 + at. Newton at his finest. When I drop the apple and record the velocities, I notice that the velocities I record are a little different than what I predicted. Aha! I diddn't take into account air resistance. So I add a term for constant air resistance. Still a little off, so I add in terms for air resistance that varies with velocity. Not quite there, but getting better all the time. The fact that my models don't predict everything that happens to the apple doesn't mean that the models are useless. It just means they need improvement. For the same reason, climate models that don't predict small scale events are not useless, they just need improvement. So when a respected scientist like the one referenced in the OP makes a new prediction based on a new model, you can't say that he didn't know what he was talking about before. The apple is still accelerating and its velocity is increasing. Maybe it's accelerating a little slower than we initially thought, but it's still going to hit the ground. - Dan G

When the warming trend ends there will be a cooling trend, duh. The question is what will the planet look like at that point. Most scientists believe it will look drastically different than it looks now. The fact that trends are cyclical says nothing about their relative magnitudes. How's that for drawing YOU a picture in crayon? - Dan G

I guess you guys missed the part where he says that the warming will continue after the brief cooling period ends in about ten years. If that's the best "about face" you can point to, your arguments are weak. - Dan G

And you get upset when people call you a bigot. - Dan G

You're probably right. I check everything on my rig every morning, but only lift up the reserve flap again if I suspect something is wrong. On the other hand, if I were borrowing a rig from someone else, I'd give it the same thorough inspection even if I knew they had just jumped it. Students are, in effect, using borrowed gear on every jump, and you never know what the last guy did to the rig. - Dan G

Our Mirage student rigs have a clear plastic window over the reserve pin, making it very easy to visually inspect the pin and closing loop. I wonder why that hasn't made it to the experienced gear market. I guess it's not cool enough. - Dan G

You may be able to feel if its in all the way, but I doubt you can feel if the pin is bent or nicked, or if there is wear on the closing loop. - Dan G

No, I don't think war is good. Having been in one, I think I know a little about it. I put the words in quotes to try to be pithy. Either way, I think you knew what I meant. And yes, the war in Afghanstan, from just about every perspective, is "less bad" than the war in Iraq. IMHO. - Dan G

She didn't buy the whole jug. I have some, too. So do many, many people I know. Can you admit that all wars are not created equal? If you are so anti-war that you can't see the justification of any armed conflict, then you are in a serious minority. You may think the Afghanistan war is not justified, but there are a lot of Americans who think it is. Way more than people who think the Iraq war is justified. - Dan G

I am, and always have been, anti-OIF (Operation Iraqi Freedam). I am, and always have been, pro-OEF (Operation Enduring Freedom). That would be Afghanistan. I'm happy Obama is trying to shift the focus from Iraq to Afghanistan. I think there are a lot of people out there like me. The change has not been anti-war to pro-war, it has been anti-"bad" war, to pro-"good" war. - Dan G

No, it's just lame because it's lame. Drop it, "your side" is looking silly. - Dan G

Do we really need another thread regarding this lame-ass crap? - Dan G

Wow, so Christians can't believe in evolution in your world? And what would your reaction have been if a Democrat had said, "Relax, it's probably just one of Laura Bush's distant cousins?" Outrage, I expect. - Dan G