Not only did the oversized hyperlink fail to show me,
I too read the Blog piece and I'm unsure what you're trying to say...:confused:
I don't think you're unwanted, as for unwelcomed, we
may not get overly effusive but we're generally wlecoming; all osrts of very diverse folks stop by here and all are welcome.
I'm just not sure what you're trying to do and I say that not to give you a hard time but to find out what you're effort or point is. Probably my fault, i'm old... :wry:
It is just in the protocol.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ken White
may not get overly effusive but we're generally wlecoming; all osrts of very diverse folks stop by here and all are welcome.
I'm just not sure what you're trying to do and I say that not to give you a hard time but to find out what you're effort or point is. Probably my fault, i'm old... :wry:
It's just that I have been put under protocol before. You should try and call 135 setting republican members of congress f**king cowards for voting "present" when the time came to vote for funding the military. What you find is this. If that link doesn't work for you, all it shows is advertizing. I have to admit the posting was very inflammatory and when my rage went away I was going to put it on "private" settings, but I wasn't allowed to.
I don't know if I really have a point, you either get it or you don't. I am also old and I am not sure "wry" , but a bit of an A-hole. So don't feel bad, I don't even see an emoticon for that.
Not enough of a net follower to know what
being put under protocol means but I'm guessing you mean that someone on a board tried to or did shut you down. People have been shut down here but as long as one follows the posting rules, stays civil, watches language and doesn't try to plunk an own Blog (Other than here: LINK or very occasionally in a thread) one isn't likely to get proscribed or jumped on.
My wife will tell you that I can out a$$ ho!e anyone anf if you're less than 75, you aren't old. :wry:
As for grumpy, that's me -- but I don't let the stupidity, venality and idiocy that is Congress mess up my day. I've been watching those idiots for over 60 years and every time I think they've done the dumbest thing in the world, they come up with something new -- and worse. I pretty much try to ignore them, I do totally ignore the punditocracy and I don't visit the political blogs because all I'll do is get hacked off. Life's too short... ;)
It's regional and between Arabs
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Presley Cannady
Not to jump to the defense, but the authors aren't trying to prove convergence.
I agree with you completely on this point. The author is not trying to prove convergence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Presley Cannady
What I find disappointing is that Gourley essentially represented this research to people as a stepping stone to predicting when and where attacks may occur. That's not the case.
I didn't get the impression Gourley was representing this research in this way, but I agree that this is not the case. The insurgency will converge and fragment according to the force applied by the incumbent and the resilience of the insurgency (its ability to adapt). However, the direction of the slope (negative) doesn't change unless the structure of the insurgency changes, and I think that is what Gourley was getting at. The slope turned positive, which indicates a change in structure.
I think an insurgency naturally adapts as it moves up or down he slope, but it should not change in structure. Structure is the result of the horizontal and vertical forces inside the insurgency. Because the forces that create a structure involve people, they don't change easily. However, people adapt easily to an environment, and that is what changes as they converge or fragment, up or down, at the 2.5 slope in the negative direction.
Gourley asks what is changing in the structure of the insurgency, because the slope is becoming positive. My guess is the insurgency is changing as the incumbents change. As the US moves out of the cities the insurgency is changing in structure, to gain advantage over the new structure of the incumbents. The insurgents are not adapting to the force being applied, they are adapting to the new structure of the incumbents. I think the insurgency knows how to fight this new incumbency, and win. They are simply putting a new structure in place of the old, as the slope turns positive instead of negative.
War is usually between brothers as the weaker tries to negotiate from a position of strength.
“Between 1945 and 1999, about 3.33 million battle deaths occurred in the 25 interstate wars that killed at least 1000 and had at least 100 dead on each side. These wars involved just 25 states that suffered casualties of at least 1000, and had a median duration of not quite 3 months. By contrast, in the same period there were roughly 122 civil wars that killed at least 1000. A conservative estimate of the total dead as a direct result of these conflicts is 16.2 million, five times the interstate toll.”
Via: http://www.yale.edu/irspeakers/Fearon.pdf
Applied math, one step at a time...
The website Mathematics of War (H/T to Zenpundit)
Quote:
Quantitative analysis of conflict is a relatively new discipline that combines data collection, statistical analysis and modeling to understand war and inform political strategy. Our research group brings together an interdisciplinary group of physicists, mathematicians, computer scientists and political economists to use numbers and theoretical models to understand war. If you’re interested in joining the project or collaborating on future research get in touch with us here
Common Ecology Quantifies Human Insurgency by Juan Camilo Bohorquez1, Sean Gourley2, Alexander R. Dixon3, Michael Spagat4 & Neil F. Johnson2
Also posted in the 462, 911-914 (17 December 2009) issue of the science periodical Nature
Quote:
Here we show that the sizes and timing of violent events within different insurgent conflicts exhibit remarkable similarities. We propose a unified model of human insurgency which reproduces these commonalities, and explains conflict-specific variations quantitatively in terms of underlying rules-of engagement. Our model treats each insurgent population as an ecology of dynamically evolving, self-organized groups following common decision-making processes. Our model is consistent with several recent hypotheses concerning modern insurgency18–20, is robust to many generalizations21, and establishes a quantitative connection between human insurgency, global terrorism10 and ecology13–17, 22, 23.