nerdgirl

Atlanta's average annual rainfall is 50-inches. In 2009 they've had 64-inches. 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. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

In Georgia, one does not have to demonstrate specific training to get a GFL. While it's not a State site, Georgia Packing has been the best source of information that I've found. Got a GA DPS 445 sitting on my desk that I want/need to take over to Fulton County Probate Court. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

It suggests that there may be a correlation. Doesn't show causation, i.e., a deterrent. It might be ... but it's not necessarily the case. For example, the Atlanta Police Officers with whom I've spoken attribute the decline in crime to something very different - to rain. Yes, rain. We've has a very rainy year, especially compared to previous ones. They assert that criminals don't like to come out in the rain. Their explanation. There has been at least one study that I found easily that did investigate the correlation between weather and crime: "Weather and Crime" (full text pdf) Abstract: In studying the causes of crime, most criminologists have concentrated on traditional socio-demographic variables, such as age, sex, race, and socio-economic status. However, some researchers have investigated the influence of the physical environment on criminal behaviour. There is a recent theoretical basis for research into the influence of weather on crime: the situational approach, rational choice theory, and routine activities theory all suggest that weather could significantly influence crime rates and criminal behaviour. This paper brings together for the first time the accumulated research on weather and crime. It discusses the theoretical background, examines research into the influence of different weather conditions (such as high temperatures, rain, and wind) on various types of criminal behaviour, outlines problems with the current research, and suggests ways of advancing knowledge about weather and crime. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

In Georgia, they're called Georgia Firearms Licenses (GFL) rather than CCL or CCW permits. It's Georgia terminology. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Abu Jihad al-Masri (aka Mohammad al-Hakim) and Abu Khabab al-Masri (Midhat Mursi) were very high level members of al Qa'eda. Al Hakim was the chief of propoganda. To quote Galula with “no positive policy but with good propaganda, the insurgent may still win.” He was also thought to be the chief of external operations. Mursi was the chief unconventional weaponeer. You're asking a valid question, imo - how do you measure the effectiveness - "disruption" -- versus consequences? COIN is not something that lends itself to easy metrics. Concur. What are the critical variables for that? The two off the top of my head are first, human intelligence. You have to know when & where. And second, technical or a material capability, i.e., need a drone, missile, and control system capable of that precision there at the right time. The former is more challenging than the latter. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

I get my mom 6 months of flowers every year. She'll also get a couple small things to unwrap Christmas morning. For mother's day, she's get another 6 months. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Concur. Just yesterday there was a symposia at NDU on "Unmanned Aerial Vehicles as an Instrument of War. (Check on "The HALO Postulate" too. ) Look forward to any thoughts or comments he might share. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Yes, it is widely believed/asserted that there is tacit approval from Pakistan for drone flights ... whether that extends to armed drones and how far into/where in Pakistan is not as clear, imo. It has been asserted that it does. You do pose an interesting question w/r/t the RQ-170. As far as I am aware all of the openly reported flights have been in southern Afghanistan (Kandahar, which is adjacent to Balochistan). My first order explanation was simpler: new equipment to use in an operational setting. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Is that a question or a statement? /marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

A few years ago, my bf, who I’d been dating for well over year at the time, and I were out shopping; I made sure to stash some lil’ toys (fun, silly, juvenile kind like you find at the dollar store … not libidinous ) and candy in my bag for him. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Thanks for posting that. It’s a neat, short piece, imo. Even if one completely disregards the anthropogenic climate change explanation, i.e., put the causal force aside for a moment, glaciers around the world are receding at unprecedented rates. (Yes, there are rare exceptions; that study is looking at the top of the glaciers not the terminus (bottom) btw.) There are likely to be consequences of receding glaciers like the ones outlined in the article relating to water shortages, which particularly affect agricultural-intensive and developing nations. I’m more familiar with the situation in the Himalayas, in which melting glaciers are filling in behind the ‘receded’ glacier creating moraine lakes that have already produced outburst floods. The Tibetan Zhangzhangbo glacial lake outburst flood (GLOF) caused extensive infrastructural damage and nearly US$3M in losses. The Luggye Tso GLOF in Bhutan in 1994 damaged agricultural land, destroyed crops, and resulted in lives lost. A GLOF from the newly formed Dig Tsho glacial lake in Nepal destroyed 14 bridges and caused US$1.5M worth of damage was caused to the nearly completed Namche Small Hydropower Plant. So there are monetize-able losses due to receding glaciers. If receding glaciers are the result of purely natural forces, then it’s just bad luck of geography. Regardless of the cause, I thankful that for the accident of geographical luck that we have the Great Lakes and all that fresh water. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Since he took office, President Obama has authorized reportedly approximately three dozen unmanned drone attacks in southwest Asia by the CIA. This is more than any single year. It has been reported widely recently that the CIA has requested expansion of the drone program to Balochistan, which is outside Pakistan’s northwest provinces, is almost half of Pakistan, and is widely believed to be the location of the Quetta Shura Taliban. President Obama has also approved requests from the US military to increase use of reconnaissance drones – such as the “Beast of Kandahar” UAV – and reportedly has received request to expand use of unarmed and armed drones in SW Asia. The US Air Force is anticipating increased use of unmanned drones. There has been significant discussion and questioning whether this tactic is beneficial in the long-run, i.e., strategically. The debate can, imo, be summarized by comparing the responses of LTC David Kilcullen, PhD, Australian Army, who advised GEN Petraeus while he was OIF commander and LTG David Barno, USA (ret), who former commander of US forces in Afghanistan, during their testimony to the House Armed Services Committee (HASC) on “Effective Counterinsurgency: The Future of the U.S.-Pakistan Military Partnership” last April[/url]: Kilcullen and Barno disagree strongly w/r/t use and effectiveness of drones deployed from Afghanistan into the Pakistan border. Kilcullen describes them as “robots in the air” and asserts that it makes the US apper weak from a tribal culture perspective. Barno argues that they are being disruptive of al Qa’eda & Pakistani Taliban. So what do think? Do you approve of the use of drones in southwest Asia? Why or why not? /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

On this forum. I think that people should have one version of their opinions. There are people who posted that 9/11 was the result of US military attacks in the ME. Yet, when O increases the number of attacks in Pakistan (which, for some reason, Pakistan objects to), there is no similar response. I can speculate a number of reasons, ranging from the rational to something the more resembles unauthorized armchair psychology. (h/t to [JackC] for the link) Not sure much of the latter is particularly useful … but it does seem like something fairly easy to make a poll. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Yes, you could probably find something that qualifies as that if you are looking for it. More importantly, im-ever-ho, what is taught is to ask questions, sometimes hard questions that don't have easy answers. Questions that sometimes challenge the perspective one holds. How one responds to those challenges is what one hopefully learns ... & one can learn those lessons in many places inside and outside of the formal classroom. As Dr. David Petraeus (& former asst prof) who holds a PhD from the Woodrow Wilson School at Princeton University notes in an article he authored for the July-Aug 2007 issue of the conservative magazine, American Interest,: "Through such schooling our officers are often surprised to discover just how diverse and divergent views can be. We only thought we knew the contours of debate on a given subject. We discover not only that some very smart folks see the world very differently than we do, but that they also see it very differently from each other. Debates we imagined to be two-sided turn out to be three-, four- or more-sided. "It is sometimes said that the study of history, or government and politics, or other social science and humanities disciplines can help us ask the right questions, but cannot provide us specific answers to contemporary challenges. Certainly, a typical grad school experience—especially an interdisciplinary one like that provided at Princeton’s Woodrow Wilson School or SAIS at Johns Hopkins or Harvard’s Kennedy School—does help us to ask the right questions. However, in many cases, graduate school also provides real skills, knowledge and expertise on which one can draw in developing answers to those questions. I can give examples from my own experience. "In my own experience, I found the most valuable situations to be those in which exceedingly bright senior professors held views substantially different from my own. I developed a particular friendship with one such professor at Princeton, one of the country’s leading international legal scholars at the time—even though we truly saw the world through different lenses. "... grad school forces a person to redefine upward one’s own internal standards of excellence. That’s a very healthy experience, so much so that I especially recommend it for all young captains who think, to any degree, that they’re the stuff—which is to say, every young infantry captain. Of course, I also recommend it for aviators of all ranks and services—that should almost go without saying." And perhaps, most important in the long run & for the nation, speaking to the civilian-military divide: "Sending American military officers to graduate school also benefits our country as a whole by helping to bridge the gap between those in uniform and those who, since the advent of the all-volunteer force, have had little contact with the military. The truth is that, just as the military has developed certain stereotypes of academics, journalists and other civilians over the years, these groups in turn hold certain stereotypes about those in the military. It’s important that we in the military understand those we serve—the American people—and it is equally important that our citizens understand those in uniform who have raised their right hand and sworn to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic." VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

First time I ever heard this. The success of Muslim integration (versus radicalization) has been fairly standard perspective. There has been little data until recently to suggest otherwise. Kind of like Brian Jenkin’s old aphorism, which was true throughout the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s: “Terrorists want a lot of people watching, not a lot of people dead.” What was once true may be changing. The interesting question to me is why? And why now? A 2007 study by the Pew Research Center found “US Muslims - most of whom are immigrants - believe in the American work ethic and reject extremism.” Peter Bergen: “…a key reason the United States escaped a serious terrorist attack has little to do with either the Bush or Obama administrations. In sharp contrast to Muslim populations in European countries like Britain -- where al Qaeda has found recruits for multiple serious terrorist plots -- the American Muslim community has largely rejected the ideological virus of militant Islam. The "American Dream" has generally worked well for Muslims in the United States, who are both better-educated and wealthier than the average American. More than a third of Muslim Americans have a graduate degree or better, compared with less than 10 percent of the population as a whole.”W/r/t recent cases of Somali immigrants in Minnesota being recruited, Bruce Hoffman notes that “The fact that the radicalization, indoctrination and recruitment of young Somali-Americans to terrorism was apparently missed at all levels of our national and homeland security apparatus until it had already occurred, emphasizes the critical importance of federal, state and local authorities working closely together to identify, prevent and interdict such threats from several vantage points.” Just a couple examples illustrating the widely held perspective, inside & outside, that American Muslims were much better integrated particularly than European counterparts. So the questions are – was something missed along the way, is there a significant change, or are these recent cases outliers? /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Where are you looking? In April, I referenced David Kilcullen’s objections to use of drones during his House Armed Services testimony. Opinion piece from LA Times furthering the Kilcullen’s criticism: “U.S. drone attacks in Pakistan ‘backfiring,’ Congress told. Predator missile strikes aimed at Al Qaeda often go astray, enraging the people and threatening the Islamabad government, top military advisor testifies.” Similarly noted in September w/r/t discussion of something GEN McChrystal reportedly said regarding drones on a CBS 60 Minutes interview. (I never watched the interview so can’t comment.) Criticisms to recent decision: “Drone Strikes in Pakistan Ramp Up Despite Skepticism” As they note in their 4 December Foreign Policy piece, “About those civilian fatalities,” Peter Bergen & Katherine Tiedemann note they have long been critical of drone policy. E.g., a Bergen piece from CNN, dated lined 29 October: “The number of civilian deaths caused by the drones is an important issue, because in the charged political atmosphere of today's Pakistan, where anti-Americanism is rampant, the drone program is a particular cause of anger among those who see it as an infringement on Pakistan's sovereignty. “Drone strikes are an important tool to disrupt al Qaeda and Taliban operations and to kill the leaders of these organizations, but they also consistently kill Pakistani civilians, angering the population and prompting violent acts of revenge from the Pakistani Taliban.” One can find even stronger criticism in their June 2009 article from The New Republic “The Drone Wars: Are Predators our best weapon or worst enemy?”: “The drone war against Al Qaeda's leaders--and, increasingly, their Pakistani-based Taliban allies--has been waged with little public discussion or congressional investigation of its legality or efficacy, even though the offensive is essentially a program of assassination that kills not only militant leaders, but also civilians in a country that is, at least nominally, a close ally of the United States. Nor has there been a substantive debate about whether the gains of winnowing the ranks of Al Qaeda's leadership outweigh the fact that the inevitable civilian casualties are a superb recruiting tool for the Pakistani Taliban. Indeed, the drone strikes have pushed militants deeper into Pakistan and given them an excuse to strike the heartland of the country, further destabilizing the already rickety government in Islamabad. All of which raises the question of whether the drone campaign, however useful in the short term, might fatally undermine U.S. efforts to stabilize the region and to win the long-term war against Al Qaeda and its allies.” An article in Friday's NY Times on concerns of increasing radicalization of American Muslims, quoted Robert S. Leiken, ['who studies terrorism at the Nixon Center'] "...the American operations like drone strikes in Pakistan, are fueling radicalization at home, he said." Of what? /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

To what study are you referring? The "UCLA" Groseclose and Milyo study refers to data collection overseen and analyzed by two guys: Tim Groseclose (UCLA) and Jeff Milyo (University of Missouri) from two universities. They used Lexis-Nexis. They acknowledge 21 research assistants, who are probably undergrad & grad students who did the Lexis-Nexis initial querying. One what do you base that assessment? Concur that it was a robust statistically valid methodology. Media studies is not my area of expertise. Compared to other statistically-based methods for assessing media bias, why was Groseclose & Milyo's better? Suspect you may be correct. Here's the response to Groseclose and Milyo's findings, specifically addressing methodology and their conclusions, of the Dow Jones and Co., the publisher of the Wall Street Journal: “The Wall Street Journal's news coverage is relentlessly neutral. Of that, we are confident. “By contrast, the research technique used in this study hardly inspires confidence. In fact, it is logically suspect and simply baffling in some of its details. “Third, the reader of this report has to travel all the way Table III on page 57 to discover that the researchers’ ‘study’ of the content of The Wall Street Journal covers exactly FOUR MONTHS in 2002, while the period examined for CBS News covers more than 12 years, and National Public Radio’s content is examined for more than 11 years. This huge analytical flaw results in an assessment based on comparative citings during vastly differing time periods, when the relative newsworthiness of various institutions could vary widely. Thus, Time magazine is ‘studied’ for about two years, while U.S. News and World Report is examined for eight years. Indeed, the periods of time covered for the Journal, the Washington Post and the Washington Times are so brief that as to suggest that they were simply thrown into the mix as an afterthought. Yet the researchers provide those findings the same weight as all the others, without bothering to explain that in any meaningful way to the study’s readers. “Suffice it to say that ‘research’ of this variety would be unlikely to warrant a mention at all in any Wall Street Journal story.” /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Concur that the Groseclose and Milyo paper (‘clicky’) is a neat study. It does not, however, demonstrate media bias. (It wasn’t really huge by political science or economics standards either.) And the authors acknowledge this. The method that the authors used was novel – it was a neat experiment …. Groseclose and Milyo did what the title of the paper indicates: "A measure of media bias" -- they created a measure; their 'ruler' for measuring domestic politics and lean to the right of conservatives of the 1993-1999 Congress. And they don't try to hide that it in the paper; it's just not acknowledged readily in the press release, however. Basically Groseclose and Milyo set their “ruler” so far right that the numbers generated make almost everything “liberal” except the Family Research Council and Christian Coalition. Even the NRA is a liberal-leaning organization by Groseclose and Milyo's method. By the method the authors use, the AARP is a far left advocacy group, even more liberal than Amnesty International by almost 10 points (Table 1, p. 1201 in the pdf). How did that happen? Groseclose and Milyo use ADA scores. ADA scores are on a scale from 1-100. A score of 50 is defined as right in the middle, supposed to reflect the “average voter.” The average ADA score for 1993-1999 for Congressional Democrats was 74.1 (approximately halfway between the middle & far left), whereas the average score for Congressional Republicans 1993-1999 was 11.2 (25 would be halfway between the middle & far right). The Congressional Republicans by the ADA method were not moderate conservatives. The median score for *all* of Congress (Dems & Reps) during the time period was 38.0. By the method that the authors employ to set their “cutpoints” [their wording], the Republican representatives of Congress btw 1993-1999 were significantly bias to the right and that weighted score was used for comparison. By Groseclose and Milyo’s method, some moderate conservatives Republicans were considered “liberal.” Very significantly. Groseclose & Milyo acknowledge “The average ADA score of senators during the 1975–1994 period was 53.51. The similar figure for the House was 54.58. After rounding, we use the midpoint of these two scores to define 54.0 as the centrist United States voter during 1975–1994.” [italics in original, p. 1221) If on the other hand, one instead compares the scores that the authors themselves report for media outlets to the straight ADA scale (not adjusted for the bias in Congress) – that is the primary data (p. 1220) -- one finds the following: Fox News’ Special Report 39.7 (interesting to me personally, is that when I looked at an earlier version of Groseclose & Milyo’s study that was presented at a conference, they gave Fox News a rating of 29.0. Draft papers are the norm. It’s *not* evidence of conspiracy or anything sinister, just curious.) Drudge Report 60.4 (previous Groseclose & Milyo score 44.9) ABC World News Tonight 61.0 (52.8) NBC Nightly News 61.6 (53.8) Los Angeles Times 70.0 (57.1) New York Times 73.7 (59.0) USA Today 63.4 (59.9) CBS Evening News 66.6 (60.8) Wall Street Journal 85.1

Those are valid concerns. I suspect there are a lot of people across the country very concerns about health care costs and retirement. I'm not sure how that correlates to federal civilian pay. The USG retirement system was changed in the 1980s. Federal civilians pay a portion of their healthcare costs; the lowest cost plans start at ~$100/month contribution for a single individual. I guess I'm not sure of "what level" you're talking about. They're so far behind that that they've got a lot of distance to make up before the salaries are on par with private sector. Should one be penalized -- how much? -- for working in the federal government rather than the private sector? At what point do the incentives of much higher compensation in the private sector drive the public sector pool of employees to point at which the only folks remaining are the ones who can't get a job elsewhere? Is that a situation that benefits anyone? There are a wide variety of reasons that folks chose to work for the federal government -- for some it's service, for some it's job security, for some it's a perception that they can make a differerence, for some it's a way to get experience or to get the USG to pay for a security clearance that is worth a lot in the private sector ... lots of reasons. I've never heard anyone offer "to get rich" as a reason to take a federal job. And that's not necessarily a bad thing in my opinion. It's a balance and recognized need for some monetary compensation particularly if one values having good, competant people in certain positions. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Yes, it was. Federal civilians make a reported 26% less than their private sector counterparts. I suspect the figure comparing pay to Title 10 forces (active duty federal uniformed military) versus private sector counterparts would show an even larger disparity. One doesn't do either job for money in my experience. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Schoolhouse Rocks! The Americana themed ones are still my faves: “Rockin’ and Rollin’, splishin & a splashin’” … No More Kings “The Shot Heard ‘Round The World was the start of the Revolution” “We do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America” To this day, I can sing The Preamble, but I can’t recite it in a normal voice.

Other than in rare cases (e.g., the FDNY in 2001 with all the overtime, chiefs), are firefighters ever paid much more than a paltry sum? I'm currently dating a firefighter. He's hasn't told me exactly how much he makes. (Not my business/doesn't really matter to me.) But I know it's not what he's worth, imo. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

It's a problem that's been recognized - the low pay of federal sector jobs & how that impacts recruiting. That's one of the challenges Dugan noted, specifically w/r/t getting program managers for DARPA for the applied side and to a lesser extent from the basic research side. (The latter traditionally leverages a lot of academics.) /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Who is "they"? /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

The article notes some of the reasons. A major one that is not included in the article is that many low-paying positions, which are included in the overall calculation of private sector work, are now also in the private sector (i.e., contractors) for the federal government, e.g., cleaning crews, food service workers, & what used to be called "secretaries." So it's comparing apples and oranges. The article also notes that if one looks at the positions, "federal employees make 26% less than private workers for comparable jobs." I was surprised, honestly, that it was not a much larger pay difference. By comparison, -- The CIA Inspector General found that a civilian employee costs the government an average of $126,500 annually including salary & benefits, while the average contract employee doing comparative work costs $250,000 annually. The IG’s findings were reported in the December 2007 House-Senate conference report on the fiscal 2008 Intelligence Authorization Bill. A number of folks have been concerned less w/r/t pure monetary costs than the less tangible consequence of having a reported up to 70% of the National Clandestine Service filled by contractors. Average tenure of an intelligence analyst is less than 7 years – they take their TS/SCI’s and go make a lot more money. (NB: Average tenure of an Atlanta Police Officer is only 3 years. They get trained and experience here and then move on.) -- IRS collection by federal employees was found to be more cost effective than private sector. -- US Air Force Air Logistics Programmed Depot Maintenance (PDM) found privatization of repair activities on F-15, C-130, C-5 and C-17 aircraft was so inefficient and cost more than federal employees that WR-ALC 402d MXW reversed the decision and has been hiring since summer 2007. -- “Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Baghdad overseeing more than 160,000 U.S. troops, makes roughly $180,000 a year. That is less than half the fee charged by Blackwater for its senior manager of a 34-man security team.” Primary document Even Eric Prince, former CEO, of Xe (nee Blackwater) acknowledged in the Q&A period of his Congressional testimony that there was no data supporting the perceived value to the taxpayer of contracting Blackwater versus employing federal workers in Iraq for private security. -- When the Army's Human Terrain System converted what were previously very high-paid contractor positions (some over $300K/year, most around $200K/year) to federal civilians (less than $100K/year) an estimated 1/3 quit. A lot of the folks who take government positions, take a paycut. I met with the head of DARPA earlier today. She took an estimated 60% pay cut for a 3-star equivalent position. Might one part of the problem be that because salaries are so low in the federal government compared to the private sector that the incentives aren't there? Otoh, if the incentive to work for the federal government is only money, are those the kind of folks that one wants working there? Maybe in some cases, yes ... in other cases, like prioritization of national security over short-term personal gain, the answee might be no. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying