nerdgirl

Largely concur, although I probably wouldn't make the same word choice. I have more issue with some of his positions regarding Yucca Mountain and international institutions. But it should be up to the Nevada voters, imo. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Interesting. Do you have a link or remember any of the authors? /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Concur. In this case, everything indicates that the State Department asked very nicely without any implicit or explicit demands and that the company, based on whatever motives, agreed. From a PR and western marketing perspective, the association of Twitter with the Iranian protests has been golden. The US government has limited or shut down access to technology at times, e.g., ITAR restrictions. We've asked other nations to limit access as well, e.g., the PSI. We limit terrorist and Iranian regime access to financial resources as consequences for activities. The flip side -- in what I acknowledge is a more speculative & ponderous line of thinking -- are there instances in which enabling technology or access to non-weapons technology is in the nation's strategic interest? And how is the rise of global ICT capabilities affecting that? Because so much of the technology and physical infrastructure is in the private sector, how does one address that? (If one thinks government should never have any or even the smallest input into the private sphere, then it's a moot question.) Of course, we give and/or sell billions in military equipment and weapons to allies. (And to be explicit, from a realist perspective that's not something with which I have particular heartburn.) The use of Twitter by Iranian protesters isn't a dire national security case ... but it hints at what might be. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

In that case, ok. I didn't read the article. I read the original post, which made it sound like an official State department request ("the State Department asked...") Uh ... "asks"? Perhaps your interpretation is not the fault of the OP, eh? How about owning it? /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Yep … thanks for the correction. That’s another possible speculative scenario. I would rank it lower in probability than conventional explosives. A physical sample would be required as well. Yes, there are catalogs of trace impurities of fissile materials (e.g., uranium isotopic composition and impurities according to where it was mined and processing). The IAEA has probably the most complete one; it's not publically available. Stanford's Michael May (formerly director LLNL) has been advocating for international collaboration on nuclear material databases and nuclear forensics. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Should the State Department have asked Twitter to delay planned maintenance in order to allow the website to be accessible during Iran’s daylight hours? Thought this was an interesting story with a twist on the government interaction with private business: “The U.S. State Department said on Tuesday it had contacted the social networking service Twitter to urge it to delay a planned upgrade that would have cut daytime service to Iranians who are disputing their election.” From Twiiter's own blog: Downtime Rescheduled “A critical network upgrade must be performed to ensure continued operation of Twitter. In coordination with Twitter, our network host had planned this upgrade for tonight. However, our network partners at NTT America recognize the role Twitter is currently playing as an important communication tool in Iran. Tonight's planned maintenance has been rescheduled to tomorrow between 2-3p PST (1:30a in Iran).” Undue influence by the Executive Branch or reasonable request? /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

In the event there was no nuclear chain reaction, there would be no nucleotides. Nucleotides were detected from the October 06 ‘fizzle,’ which had a smaller yield (as calculated based on seismic info) than May’s event. There are possible, although very low probability, scenarios in which nucleotides either are trapped or aren’t detected. Detection is an almost absolute confirmation that an explosion really was nuclear, but lack of detection does not implicitly mean the converse. It just leaves some room for doubt, i.e., “probaby.” /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

The conventional explosives hypothesis is less plausible, imo. It’s still a fascinating, again imo, footnote. The isotopes from the October 2006 ‘fizzle’ were detected and that test was conducted in the same area, which is a factor that strongly suggests one would detect them again. W/r/t seismic patterns – the ratio of S-wave to P-waves is used to differentiate from natural earthquakes, which you probably/may already know. E.g., the May event in DPRK, the P-wave component was ~five times the S-wave, iirc. In natural earthquakes, the S-wave component is usually larger than the P-wave (integrated across the entire seismic curve). It’s not impossible that a natural earthquake might generate a seismic signal that looks like a nuclear device, the probability is very, very, very low, i.e., much more plausible that it’s a non-natural. Something similar was used to differentiate a 1997 Russian earthquake that happened to be about equidistant to the Finnish monitoring station from a previously used nuclear test site (see pages 3 & 5 of the pdf). As far as P-waves from conventional explosives, you’re right that it is possible, although more difficult, to distinguish large chemical explosions from nuclear generated explosions. I haven’t heard anyone previous suggest that as a means to differentiate at the DPRK site. Might be … I just haven’t heard of it. The DPRK has been doing conventional explosive tests, presumably of firing sets under development, since the early 1990s. In September 2004, seismic monitors picked up large explosions in DPRK (unannounced) that are considered (highest probability) to be from conventional explosives. W/r/t ease … might be for a Uranium-based device, significantly less certain w/r/t a Pu-based device. Mostly because I’m not as familiar with construction of large conventional explosions. As I originally wrote, a number of folks (myself included) were “surprised that it took *this* long for them to do another ‘test.’” Shifting from technical to policy, one can ask why would DPRK want to stage an elaborate hoax? Brinkmanship? Attention? One can generate speculations, but the most likely, imo, are that it is more likely to have been a nuclear device. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

The topic of the undetected Xe & Kr nucleotides was discussed at last week’s CTBTO mtg. On Monday, the DNI released a concise statement, which largely matches my own assessment: “STATEMENT BY THE OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE ON NORTH KOREA’S DECLARED NUCLEAR TEST ON MAY 25, 2009 [capitalization in original; it’s also bolded and underlined too - nerdgirl] “The U.S. Intelligence Community assesses that North Korea probably conducted an underground nuclear explosion in the vicinity of P'unggye on May 25, 2009. The explosion yield was approximately a few kilotons. Analysis of the event continues.” The “probably” is due to the undetected nucleotides, imo. Altho' likely to generate speculation in some parts. Most likely nuclear test … but the remote possibility of detonation of *a lot* of conventional explosives remains. Less plausible, imo (& others). /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

There also appear to be some unusual statistical aspects, i.e., perhaps too perfect statistics in the election. It's still being speculated on tho'. I don't think that the regime allowed any foreign election observers. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Again, it is unlikely to have anything to do with political posturing but process and logistics. In reality some of those 'out-year' funds are allocated/will be allocated to multiple year programs. They won't be distributed ('paid-out') until the next fiscal year (assuming the recipients satisfy whatever review criteria are in place, varies by agency). Budgetary rules do not allow one to obligate money that hasn't been appropriated. May is more than halfway through the fiscal year, which starts in October of the year before. Assuming appropriations bills are signed in October, distribution rates are likely to not be distributed 100% in one month. Over the last few years, only the DoD and intelligence community has had appropriation bills signed by start of the fiscal year. Most agencies have been on continuing resolution (CR) up to 6 months into the fiscal year. Under a CR, an agency can only spend 90% of the previous year's approved budget. So until there is a approved bill, that "bump" you see in FY2012 money won't be available. I'm trying to explain the underlying processes. It is complicated. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Aah ... okay ... the $787B goes out to 2016. See page 3 of GAO report on expected appropriation by year. And in reality some of those 'out-year' funds are allocated/will be allocated to multiple year programs. They won't be distributed ('paid-out') until the next fiscal year (assuming the recipients satisfy whatever review criteria are in place, varies by agency). This is not something new. E.g., the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act, signed by President Bush in 2003, was for $3.67B over four years. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Thanks for that link. That's useful.

Released? Or allocated? Or distributed? Do you have a source for that figure? Georgia has awarded stimulus funds already, e.g., for transportation (more on GA DOT projects) and for water and sewer repairs. Those are the "shovel ready" projects. Additional distributions and award of already allocated funds (i.e., stimulus funds coming to Georgia) are dependent on the agencies submitting budgets, e.g., for education. Iirc, there was already some issue with Georgia anticipating failing one reporting milestone w/r/t allocation because of lack of State employees … can’t find that specific article at the moment. [Edit to add: Georgia's Governor-ship and legislature are both Republican-controlled, so it's hard to argue that it's a rewarding "the political faithful" process, at least w/r/t Georgia's $2B+ in federal stimulus funds that will be awarded through the State.] Some federal funding agencies are dealing with merit-based review processes. Without merit-based review, one is just sending money to ones friends/cronies/etc. Requests for proposals (RFPs) or Broad Agency Announcements (BAA) had to be written and distributed. Proposers had some number of days to submit (30 to 90, depending on agency & program). Review panels have to be composed. E.g., I’ve already been asked to review additional NIH proposals, which I accepted, and got an email last week asking for me to review some DOE proposals, which I will probably decline. Reviewers have to read and comment. Proposals have to be ranked. And then the contracting side starts. A couple months ago had lunch with a friend of mine, who heads one of the research directorates at AFOSR. His concern was NIH, DOE, and NSF “poaching” the acquisitions contracting staff. NSF did it differently than NIH & DOE with a good portion of the stimulus funds, e.g., they took highly ranked projects from the previous 12 months that they were unable to fund but that were highly ranked in the merit-based review process and is funding some of those. NSF projects that were supposed to be funded from stimulus money that were awarded in April had not been distributed middle of last month largely due to lack of certified acquisitions contracting folks. I strongly suspect it’s less a political maneuver than logistics and process. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

I was unable to upload avatar pics via IE7 this morning, including jpgs I had previously used as avatars and uploaded using IE7, but had no problem doing it via Safari. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Some of my thoughts from Brussels airport … Moussavi is not as much of a reformer as Mohammad Khatami (Pres 1997 to 2005). Yes, he’s likely to be different from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Back when he was PM in the late 1980’s, Mousavi was substantially and substantively involved in the covert deal to acquire centrifuge technology (for uranium enrichment) via Pakistan’s A.Q. Khan that enabled the Iranian nuclear program. There’s a realist argument that Ahmadinejad, as a hard-liner, is the only one is Iran who has the power to negotiate. An odd variant of only Pres Nixon could go to China. And to be explicit, that statement does not in any way, shape, or form mean I personally support/like/whatever Ahmadinejad or strict conservative religious fundamentalists in Iran (or as heads of state in most any other nation-state.) Right now, it’s an unstable situation. The opposition can’t unify/is being prevented from unifying. Twitter is fabulous (notwithstanding western hyperbolic extrapolations) but that’s short-term tactic for organizing not long term. The lack of ability to organize has been observed before, e.g., Burma 1988, Uzbekistan 2005, China 1999. Until large parts of the military shift allegiance to the opposition, I’m hesitant to place too much hope. Nonetheless, the protests are manifestation of systematic discontent of the Iranian people, imo. Another observation: The Czech Presidency of the EU (ends 1 July, iirc) has annoyed many, especially the German EC delegation, by indicating acceptance of the election results. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

If I were to bet on it, I would bet that there is a positive statistical correlation between amount of travel and broader worldview. Not sure which would be the independent variable and which would be the dependent variable. Are people who are more tolerant inclined to travel more? (Dunno … another potential hypothesis.) I’d also bet that there’s a positive statistical correlation between readers of “National Geographic” magazine and broader worldview, i.e., travel is one means to achieve a broader world view but hardly the only one. The internet also enables access to means of expanding one’s worldview, e.g., one can read UK's Financial Times (FT), UK's Guardian, Norway’s Aftenposten, (unfortunately they discontinued the English version last year, I try to read the Norwegian version), Iran’s Tehran Times, Beijing papers, Brazilian papers, Egyptian papers, South African papers, Al Jazeera, Dawn (Pakistan), Times of India, etc. Very, very few things in the world have solely binary options. Traveling may be sufficient, but it is not necessary or sole path. I do agree that there are (1) outliers of individuals who have extensive travel experience who do seem to reinforce their own biases, whether that is because they don’t leave the apocryphal 5-star hotel, leave base, interact with anyone other than other Americans when travelling, or something else; and (2) world travel, or even domestic travel, is not the sole causal variable for tolerance. It is possible than one might never travel more than 10 miles from where one was born (city or rural) and still be tolerant … however exactly one defines that. (The study I referenced above apparently used one method.) Which scenario is more probable is unclear. Altho’ anecdotal, a couple illustrative examples: I remember when I was 13 on my first trip to Europe. Went with the Girl Scouts, i.e., no hotels at all. Whenever we would pass a McDonalds, many of the other girls wanted to go there. I wanted to try English fish & chips, escargot, frog legs … anything that I couldn’t get in the US (easily). Was that because I was a girl from rural, upper Midwest? (Or was it because I was a Girl Scout?

Concur. And sharing anecdotes … & as has been invoked many times in this forum: the plural of anecdote is not data. Anecdotes and impressions are among the things that make one go “hmmm” … and try to validate or disprove a hypothesis. Okay, that’s how it works for some of us … uh, me.

The underlying strategic policy change, which include legal ramifications, (if that is what this is signaling) is to treat counter-terrorism as a principally a law enforcement effort rather than military issue. That is more interesting to me. One result of that potential change is a clear route to prosecution as opposed to indefinite detainment outside of any domestic or international legal framework, as [Nightingale] has well-explained & others have mentioned. Frankly, the military has more than enough to do with counterinsurgency. But, as always, don’t believe me. From Foxnews.com: “Gen. David Petraeus, head of Central Command, said Thursday that FBI agents, not members of the U.S. military, have read rights to detainees in only a ‘very limited number of cases’ and that the practice had been used in other countries previously. “‘This is the FBI doing what the FBI does,’ Petraeus said. ‘So we are comfortable with this.’” If one’s argument is that it is interfering with military operations and the military’s counterinsurgency efforts in Afghanistan, that argument may need revisiting. While a bit dated (the figures are from late 2003), “It is a little-publicized fact that police have arrested more [radical Islamist] terrorists than military operations have captured or killed. Police in more than 100 countries have arrested more than 3,000 suspects linked to al-Qaeda, while the military has captured some 650 enemy combatants.” (Of which some percentage were ‘wrong place at the wrong time’ - some credible estimates are as high as 90%. Want to get the bad guys not metaphorically clog the system with every sheep herder, poppy farmer, or taxi driver or radicalize additional folks.) Reducing and eliminating a terrorist threat is critically tied to local law enforcement whether they are in Los Angeles or Lahore. This is one of the reasons why the military is training more police trainers in Afghanistan. US and allied uniformed service members are not supposed *to be* local law enforcement officers, even if more and more are training them. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Scare? No. I reserve “scare” for multiple device kT nuclear terrorism, effectively weaponized transgenic measles (high transmissibility [R0]), and a limited set of other possibilities/problems. Do I like it? No. Based on reading the articles linked, do I find what is being reported highly problematic? Yes. Unquestionably yes. Foremost, I speculate, because like me, most don’t like it either. And because it’s not an easy example. It both doesn’t look good and, if true, it is not good (w/r/t good governance, transparency, etc.) In a general sense, I might even be able to build an argument that firing of an IG is more problematic than firing a U.S. attorney … both are bad … haven’t thought enough about ranking the relative ‘badness.’ (Need to think about it more than I have … but that’s my first cut inclination … open to arguments from other perspectives.) IG’s are really hard jobs – nobody likes you. Who *likes* being the subject of oversight? They have no budget authority (read: none of the usual power source.) IG’s are also very important jobs, imo. Only because you opened this metaphorical door … & I’m choosing to step through it: One thing I observe is none of “the libs/dem dz.commers” trying to construct arguments about why the request for IG Walpin’s resignation was okay, was within executive privilege/power/authority, or blame the media. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Homo sapiens sapiens (us) direct ancestor is Australopithecus spp. not gorillas, apes, or monkeys. The evolutionary lines between modern humans and gorillas, apes, monkeys, chimpanzees or bonobos split 5-7 million years ago. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

... liberal. Conservatives wanted to remain under the monarchy. The Democratic and Republican parties of the last have 150 years of so have been variants of liberalism, i.e., ideas derived from Hobbes, Rousseau, Kant, Locke, etc. Cool question to think about historically and implications for today, imo. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Saturday morning I’m fairly sure I was the only one within 100 km of me, maybe more, who wanted to know the results of game 7. ... /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

For anyone who’s curious as to what those sympathetic to radical Islam and the global Salifist movement are saying about the President's speech and doesn’t read Arabic or any of the other non-western lingua jihadi, there’s a decent summary at Jihadica, which is a “is a clearinghouse for materials related to militant, transnational Sunni Islamism” run by a mix of American and Norwegian folks with expertise. Some of the radical Islamists sites that they translate and comment on are quite serious and represent real voices of radical Islamists, whereas others are more akin to a Speakers Corner of radical Islamists. Some of my comments are interspersed below in [bracketed italics]. “Overall, there is quite a bit of chatter about the Obama tour, and four types of postings recur. “First are the political messages which denounce the visit and present it as further evidence that Egyptian and Saudi governments and ulama have submitted to American dominance. ‘In honour of Obama’s visit to Saudi Arabia’, one member reposted the classic book The evident proofs of the infidelity of the Saudi state (1990) by Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi. Other posts circulate the pictures of Saudi and American flags side by side. Yet others claimed Egyptians are suffering as a result of Obama visit, because the security barriers in Cairo ‘confined 18 million Egyptians to their homes’ and because the Sultan Hasan mosque had to be closed for security reasons. [somewhat cheekily, the latter two points strike me as an odd sort of global NIMBY-ism . There’s also reflections of underlying domestic politics. All politics _is_ local after all. - nerdgirl] “The second type of posts are strategic assessments in which writers try to second-guess the real purpose and implications of the visit. These posts are neither numerous nor sophisticated, and so far none of the serious jihadi strategists have weighed in. [it should be noted that at least one of the main radical Islamist websites is currently down – nerdgirl] ‘Al-Munasir1’ warns that part of the purpose of Obama’s visit to Egypt is to make final preparations for an international campaign against Sudan. “The third and most widespread type of post focuses on tactical issues such as the detailed program of Obama’s visit, the size and nature of his security attachment and the prospects of carrying out an assassination. One writer quoted the Saudi opposition abroad as saying observers and Saudi security officials fear for Obama’s life in Saudi Arabia. He argued that the recent shooting in Jubayl is indicative of a surge in pro-al-Qaida sentiment in the Kingdom. The fact that the perpetrators of the Jubayl shooting have not been caught further worried the authorities. Most responses to the post expressed hope that Obama be assassinated, but one commentator drily noted that Obama comes and goes as he wishes so long as the royal family is in power.[Perhaps another example of similarities, the radical Islamist internet blogs are focusing overwhelming on *tactics* (third type of posts) and much less on *strategy/strategic implications* (second type) – nerdgirl] “The fourth type of posting consists of reproductions of articles from other, more mainstream Arab and Islamic media. These posts are interesting not so much for the debates they generate (usually very little), but because they tell us something about which voices the forum participants would at least consider listening to. [i.e., which legitimate news organizations and non-western but non-radical Islamist voices have the most effective strategic communications capabilities – nerdgirl] So we find - Abd al-Bari Atwan ‘s article “Our advice to Obama” - An article by Mahmud Abduh Ali at Islamonline entitled “An examination of Obama’s position on the big issues that concern the Muslim world” - An article from al-Jazeera.net on the Muslim Brotherhood’s reaction to the Obama visit. - An article from Middle East Online entitled “Egyptians: No Ahlan wa Sahlan for Obama”, which cites a poll showing three quarters of Egyptians were skeptical of Obama’s visit.” Imo, these sorts of windows into the words of the jihadists and their sympathizers is something that should be more prominently discussed in a lot of places including the American press. The former (jihadists) is toward whom counter-terrorism strategies focus. The latter (sympathizers) is whom counterinsurgency strategies have to impact to be successful, as well as affected but non-radicalized populations, i.e., the ‘people who just want to live and raise their kids’ as described in this article (h/t to [champu].) I note that there does seem to be some real discussion and acknowledgement of the need to balance short-term tactical success of drones in Pakistan’s tribal belt versus longer-term strategic implications. Dumbing things down completely doesn’t serve national interests, imo. (And people aren't stupid.) In whatever way one wants to define or parse national interests, incomplete information does not lead to good strategy or policy or an informed electrorate. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Other than the fact that said flaws were OUTSIDE the scope of the scenario, you mean? They aren't outside the scenario. Some of the flaws were based on starting components explicitly stated as part of the scenario. Others are ignored, one possible explanation (there are likely to be other explanations) being because they *did* show the flaws. That's the fundamental problem. Then explain to me just HOW any contraceptive decision is germane to the discussion AFTER the woman is already pregnant? Because contraceptive decisions ... or lack thereof ... are autonomous choices that affect the likelihood of getting pregnant. Not doing something is a choice. Those choices are direct causes. Because men can't gestate they are implicitly relevant. (And I and others have tried to explain it multiple times ... perhaps we're just not being clear ... or something else?) Otoh, if someone suggested eating blueberries was a pertinent factor, I would agree that's not causal (even if there's a spurious correlation). Yes, those are factors that need to be included for the scenario to be robust. When the FBI stops including DC with the other States in their data, or when I see other cities get their own 'state code', or when I see other cities issue their own driver's licenses instead of the state's, or when I see other cities with income taxes...when all that happens, I'll concede that DC shouldn't be treated as a state - until then, I'll tell you the same thing I tell John: "Take it up with the FBI". Whoops - that was my mistake. I thought you argued DC wasn't a State and vice versa. Otoh, inadvertently you may have shown how falsely constraining a scenario, i.e., ignoring the DC data, generates an artificial scenario and conclusions based on that artificially bounded scenario are less robust than if a fuller set of circumstances and factors (i.e., including entities that aren't States or Commonwealths, such as DC) was considered. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying