nerdgirl

On some levels and w/r/t some of the deterrence arguments, there is a parallel. I do think it's an interesting intellectual path to consider. Where the parallel breaks down, and catastrophically in my mind and in customary international law, is that nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons are fundamentally indiscriminate weapons (exempting ideations of 'race-based' or such biological agents), whereas firearms are discriminate weapons. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

It may reflect the nature of Russian films in general? They tend to be dark. Most of the ones I've seen are characterized by "pontificating on the nature of mankind" and rarely have happy endings. One might speculate that there's a tendency to channel Dostoevsky. (Which makes me wonder who American filmmakers 'channel'? Thoughts ... Quade?) While it's not Sci-Fi, if you're interested in action and special effects in Russian films, have you looked at the Night Watch and Day Watch films? /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Already have a ticket to see it at Atlantic Station in 3-D on Sunday with a bunch of friends. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Is cheap manufacturing via China the way to overcome that, if it's the major bottleneck? Is that the short-term answer? /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Banning Congressional additions, 'earmarks,' would also help. The Executive agencies hate earmarks. Congress and the folks who receive them love earmarks. Within the DoD (& probably other agencies, that's the only one to which I can speak authoritatively) there is some money that is "1-year" money, i.e., by law it has to be spent within a year or it goes back to the Treasury. Not sure what laws would have to change. Doesn't mean they shouldn't change. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

What indications would you expect to see if they had been infiltrated at such high levels? I would expect substantially different experiences reported and personally in interacting with current and retired officers. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Even if one doesn’t accept anthropogenic climate change, fossil fuels are finite and the world has a growing energy demand that is unlikely to be met even with tremendous increases in nuclear, hydroelectric, wind, coal, and other energy sources. The globally requirement for power is ~13 trillion watts (or terawatts/TW) currently. By 2050, the world’s energy needs are estimated to be ~28 TW. If every acre of arable land on the planet was converted to biofuel production, only 7 TW would be generated. (Nevermind, no food to eat, no crops to feed livestock, no natural fibers {sans silk}.) Even with the addition of 5,000 new nuclear power plants, thousands of additional wind turbines, and using every available flowing water source for hydroelectric power, it still will not approach 28 TW. Interesting lil’ story, imo, w/r/t manufacturing of solar cells and manufacturing from NPR: “The Green Rush Is On In China” Excerpts “A new gold rush in China is actually a green rush — an urgent drive to develop green technologies. One group of Western companies, the Cleantech Initiative, suggests China's market for renewable energy could eventually be worth as much as $500 billion to $1 trillion a year. “Now, Obama administration officials are warning that the U.S. could risk losing the race in green technologies. “‘The future of sustainable energy is here.’ The words are emblazoned on a wall at the world's largest nongovernmental solar research center. It was built by an American [South SF Bay – headquartered – nerdgirl] company, Applied Materials, in the central Chinese city of Xian. “At Applied Materials' $250 million research center in Xian, Elizabeth Mayo, a process engineer from Santa Clara, Calif., is …. impressed by the facilities in Xian. ‘We don't have facilities like this in the U.S. We don't have anything of this magnitude,’ Mayo says. “And the biggest draw is the eternal lure of China's fabled market. Gang Zhou, general manager of Applied Materials Xian facility, says the company has decided to put its money where its customer base is. ‘China is No. 1 producer of solar panels. That's where our market is. The China new R&D center, that's where we validate a lot of R&D work that is being carried out in U.S. and in Europe,’ he says “While the Xian lab is testing, it is notable that the cutting-edge innovation is still taking place in the U.S. and Europe because of Chinese problems, according to Charlie McElwee, an energy and environment lawyer in Shanghai. ‘The future of clean-tech manufacturing is in China,’ he emphasizes. ‘The jury is still out on whether the future of clean-tech innovation is in China.’ “Meanwhile, American green technology companies are flocking to China: First Solar is building the world's largest solar plant in Inner Mongolia, while Duke Energy is sharing solar, clean coal and smart-grid technology.” From an economics/investor perspective, until a few years ago it was a largely untapped market. Investment in basic and applied research in photovoltaics is paltry and should be increased substantially. To quote Steve Forbes from Dec07’s Forbes/Wolfe Nanotechnology Forum: w/r/t dealing with energy and climate change - “technology is the critical piece.” One of his prime concerns is that America’s declining investment in science and decline in training of new scientists and engineers is creating a situation in which America will be “buying” new ideas and innovation from foreign sources (like China) and becoming clients rather than selling them on the global marketplace. That’s one view of the market. What is discussed in the NPR story is old-school silicon-based solar cells. The big opportunity for US, as I’m unapologetically American-focused, is in new research (not development) but the discovery of the “next big thing.” I’m not as sanguine as Mr. McElwee w/r/t prospects for Chinese in the future to develop technology indigenously. Is the capacity to manufacture solar technology moving eastward? Can we rely on domestic innovation? Does anyone care? Should we care? /Marg ... on a personal level, one of the folks interviewed, Libby Mayo, is a very good friend of mine. Already teased her at how her PhD in chemistry became “process engineer.” Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Concur w/r/t lack of addressing violence outside school. From the news piece you linked, although it was something that ocurred off-campus, it suggests a factor that I think needs more exploration, at least as I'm reading the piece. What percentage of school violence is gang-related? I don't know. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

From my thinking, one doesn't even need to invoke Speaker Pelosi or the Copenhagen meeting. The fact that there is a Continuing Resolution ("CR") bill means that Congress didn't get the FY2010 budget done on time. The budget process happens every year; it is something that Congress knows they have to deal with every year. I can understand how it gets pushed back; that doesn't mean I think it's the way it should be done. If I was Speaker, which I would never want, I would keep the House in session until they passed a budget, or in this case get a CR bill onto the President's desk. That would make me politically unpopular and I wouldn't be Speaker for long. So yes, I would prioritize getting things accomplished within the House before anyone flies anywhere. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

I think I see the problem... You can't tell serious bits from humor. Perhaps. That's one interpretation. Perhaps the serious bits were not well-differentiated from the non-serious ones? Perhaps the follow-up with an ad hominem didn't help the case for something being intended as humorous? Another viable interpretation is that I try to treat everyone with respect. I'll respond to something in a serious way initially rather than a sarcastic or mocking way. Which one enables more effective, if sometimes tedious, communication? /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

I don't think that diagram is DoDAF compliant. Prolly not. And I had to look that acronym up. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

I had an abscessed upper right molar a few years ago due to lack of enamal that required a root canal. I found -- and others may have differing experiences -- that a root canal was less painful and less annoying in general than just having a cavity filled. It's long. I don't remember any pain afterwards ... other than the cost. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Thanks for the additional information. Very cool follow-up and response time.

If that is so then why did he address it to me? And how do you explain his next post with the "uppity" comment? Damn those uppity types round these parts The irony is on a per-post basis, I'm probably one of the most self-deprecating posters around because I do laugh at myself. (See sig line.) E.g., how many times do I include comments like "-[at myself]"? /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Which was why I was so very explicit in my original post to repeatedly emphasize that it wasn't my argument ... but "Their explanation." It is a curious explanation worth investigating, as was the assertion to which I responded. It's not mine to defend. Even if the interpretation you describe was true, which may be plausible, does that enable a "pass" on invoking an ad hominem? Are ad hominems okay if one agrees with the poster? /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

If that is so then why did he address it to me? And how do you explain his next post with the "uppity" comment? /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

In the future, then, I'll be sure to make a big disclaimer, just for you. It'll look something like this: Warning: nerdgirl - please be advised that the following is HUMOR. If you thought that my proposal to "license umbrellas" was serious, then you need to loosen up a bit. I would have thought all those brains of yours would have been able to discern the difference. That's your choice. To quote another poster (who has nothing to with this, but I thought the comment was a fitting parallel) from another gun thread today: "Yep if you have no argument you can always mock someone." /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

I don't understand that comment. The HOR passed the 2010 Defense Appropriations Bill in July. The 2010 Defense Authorization Act has also been voted on, passed, and signed by the President. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

This is kinda what I was getting at. The reason I suggest re-evaluating how important some of these people actually are is because I'm assuming waiting around for a clean shot is more resource intensive than just taking what you get, and it may limit the number of targets you can go after. I think that if armed drones are to be used they must not kill/maim civilians. That's actually a higher standard than for deployed troops, but we've demonstrated that we can do it. So you and I (& I suspect [redlegphi]) agree on that ... but looking at the poll as I type 64% of the respondents don't. Is COIN too difficult to do? Or to understand? (I generally don't accept that as a valid explanation.) Or are other factors driving the 64% who selected that option? What are they? A leaked Joint Chiefs of Staff brief illustrates vividly, imo, how complicated COIN is. Every one of those lines, nodes, and connections matters (see Slide 22). Every one. (If it didn’t matter, it wouldn’t be included.) Some are more important … and imo, some can be rewired or improvised via alternative pathways. But some can’t. Recognizing the difference is key. Armed drones just seems so much simpler by comparison. (Tangent: That JCS brief also illustrates, again imo, part of the reason for taking time in formulating and announcing a decision – figuring out a COIN plan is more than just ‘throwing troops’ at problem. Or as one commentator asserted “They Don't Call COIN the ‘Graduate Level of War’ for Nothing.” Figuring out how to resource to enable, secure, stabilize, and transition those connections and capabilities is not an overnight task. Before even dealing with the inter- and intra-agency coordination, a process that in a typical scenario can take months.) Or is it an indication of a need to focus on the domestic component of a COIN strategy? Because our domestic politics matter for executing a successful COIN strategy. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

An argument that suggests that the underlying division w/r/t whether or not one supports or doesn’t the use of drones in SW Asia is less a partisan/US domestics politics issue than one of support (or maybe just understanding?) of counterinsurgency (COIN) versus non-COIN approaches. (And some of those critiques of lack of understanding are internal to the US military.) At least that’s how I’m reading what’s been posted to this thread. Others may disagree. Concur. That’s a lot harder. And harder to measure. This I’m going to push back just a little on this but also largely in agreement. ISI’s support for the Taliban in well-known and fairly well-documented; as well as anything ISI does is. As far as the Pakistani military, at the lower ranks I know there is concern – great concern in some areas like nuclear security for a number of years – regarding infiltration by Islamist extremists and Pakistani sympathizers to the Taliban, by folks in the US and by high ranking folks in the Pakistani Army. At the upper ranks, general officer level, I don’t see anything to indicate Taliban and certainly not AQ infiltration. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Are you implying that we are less safe due to guns? It apparently works in Switzerland. Why Switzerland Has The Lowest Crime Rate In The World http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nf1OgV449g Some data on the issues, which we’ve discussed previously on the board, which you may have not seen. Looking at homicides via firearms: US is #8 w/3.6 firearm associated homicides per 100,000 people. Between Mexico (#7), altho' that may be slightly dated, and Belarus (#9). Switzerland isn't in the top 32. Relative rankings on crime show that Switzerland (#13) has a higher burglary rate than the US (#17) (overall incidence, those with guns not specified). The UK (#7), according to the data, has an even higher rate of burglaries (& ~5 1/2 guns per person). Finland is #5 in burglaries, with a higher per capita rate of gun ownership (56 per 100 people) than Switzerland (46 per 100 people), although less than the US (~90 per 100 people). US rate of ownership of guns (estimates range from 83 to 97 per 100 people) is higher than the gun ownership rate in Switzerland (average estimate of 48 per 100 people). The estimate for Iraq in 2007 was 38 per 100 people and Yemen was 61 guns per 100 people. See, e.g., graphic attached to [1969912]’s post from Dec07 here, which is derived from primary data here. If one compares that with firearms per 100 people (a less than perfect measure of availability), I don’t see any correlation. Variables that have been found to correlate to high levels of gun ownership are (1) wealthy countries or (2) countries with recent, intense violent conflicts. The former is the case for US & western Europe; the latter reflects the situations in places like Angola and Columbia. See page 21 of the report noted above for a graph showing the range of GDPs and correlation with per capita civilian gun ownership. The authors discuss where that model breaks down, which it does. Where does gun ownership intersect with gun violence? My hypothesis is that there will not be a direct dependency found. I still speculate that one is likely to find a stronger (altho' not perfect, as the data I presented there shows) correlation btw affirmative gun rights and affirmative civil rights. And in that way I can annoy a whole lotta folks cause it doesn't fit neatly into any set of US domestic politics. Not the goal ... but a consequence. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

One of the security-based news compilers to which I’m subscribed, Security Info Watch, had a lead story today on the findings of an investigation of how effective (or not) some efforts with the intent of increasing security in schools have been, such as CCTVs and arresting kids for violations of school policy (rather than responding through school disciplinary actions). The short piece hits upon a number of re-occurring Speakers Corners themes: violence, behavior, deterrence, punishment, zero-tolerance policies, “common sense” versus data, ad hominems … and security theater (e.g., like the variety performed by TSA at airports). I’m also confident guns can be worked in here somehow. “The efforts of school districts across the country to ramp up security measures in an attempt to make schools safer learning environments could be an exercise in futility, according to a new book from Vanderbilt University Professor Torin Monahan. “In the book, Schools under Surveillance: Cultures of Control in Public Education, Monahan argues that security cameras, school resource officers and zero-tolerance policies for drugs and violence have little impact on deterring crime and may actually make students feel less safe. [I’m less concerned about how things “feel” than what the data shows; failing to recognize that perceptions – even wrong ones – do influence behavior and reality, however, would also be an error. – nerdgirl] “The book, which pulls together research from various authors [i.e., it’s an edited volume - nerdgirl], covers some of the biggest school districts in the country including New York, Chicago, New Orleans and Phoenix. Monahan said he got the idea for a book on school security while doing work for the unified school district in Los Angeles. “… when you look at the data of violence at schools that have CCTV cameras and resource officers, the fact is that those facilities are not safer than ones without, according to Monahan. ‘I thought it was particularly interesting that we are investing all of these resources under the assumption that they are going to have some demonstrable effect or benefit,’ he said. “Kenneth Trump, president of consulting firm National School Safety and Security Services and former member of the Division of Safety and Security for Cleveland Public Schools, refutes the professor’s argument. ‘Suggesting that reasonable, balanced security measures does not deter crime or contribute to safer environment may make good Ivory Tower academic theory, but it lacks common sense and any understanding of the safety challenges facing schools and other societal organizations today,” he said. “’Security measures are present throughout our society: In shopping centers, recreational facilities, entertainment complexes, grocery stories, corporate offices and many other places adults and kids visit on a daily basis. Persons responsible for safety in these venues must take reasonable risk reduction measures. Why should we hold our schools, which house our most valuable resources (our children), to a lower standard?’” Perhaps that’s part of the problem: (over)-securitization of our early 21st Century American society? I don’t think anyone is going to argue that public safety in schools and other public places is a bad thing. Perhaps someone would? Mr Trump’s criticisms seem to, imo, suggest that he does not even want the issue discussed. He’s about 3 degrees away, imo, from arguing against a strawman or “who will think of the children”-esque argument. And it’s not about burying one’s head in the sand or pretending that ‘bad’ people don’t exist, either. (That may be just as unhelpful strawman.) When is it more security theater than real or useful? Actual violent crime nation-wide has decreased, with a few exceptions such as murder in mid-sized cities (50-99k pop) and small cities (

No, not within the context of the response. It appeared to be ridiculing my response citing the APD's asserted correlation iullustrating how correlation does not necessarily convey causation. Do you want to 'talk' about the findings and what they may or may not mean for public policy, or do you both just want to tangent the thread to me? (And, I'm okay with the latter ... but I may start invoking multiple citations and normative arguments regarding personal privacy.) /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Quotebut I think the point of the citation he made was that there is no observable uptick in metrics as predicted by the CCW foes. It's not really necessary prove an improvement as it is to ascertain that it did not do harm. [/REPLY] Concur. The post to which I responded made the link to asserting that there was a positive causation (deterrence) effect: "This would suggest that criminals 'thinking" you may have a gun is a deterrent." /Marg p.s. The largest volume of rain ocurred in the summer/early fall & ya did see my link to the scientists/criminologists, yes? Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

What was the rainfall in 2008 & 2007? If you have issue with the explanation, please take it up with the cops. Even good correlation does not prove causation. I don't know why you're getting all uppity. I provided data which supported your assertion. I'm just throwing data out there for consideration. And I understand that correlation does not necessarily prove causation. My "sprinklers and umbrellas" comment was intended as humor, not ridicule. Okay? John - I did not read your comments as humor. There was no indicators that they were humor. If you argument is strong enough, good challenges will only strengthen it. Tangents to calling someone names &/or ad hominems are a distraction from communication, imo. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying