Leaderboard

In this mission set, two is defiantly better than one. As nsplayer points out there is FAR more going on than managing a single sensor.

I don't think I said there's a new insight. There's just a lot more purple in the form of bluish red and red-ish blue (politically blended) than I had expected; both in cities and the midwest. I especially found insight in the islands of deepest blue (DC & San Fran) and the web of solid red, while I was surprised by some of the places I'd expected to be solid blue that were actually purple.

Right, nothing new just an alternative perspective. The problem with the state (or county) election maps is that they exaggerate the gap between right and left based on physical geography, and completely overlook the large portion of "purple" voters. The "dead smurf" map also shows how disadvantaged Democrats are by the Electoral College since they are concentrated in a few geographies. The bottom line is that not all votes are equal - it depends where you live. 2,900,000 votes >> 80,000 votes 80,000 votes in MI, WI, and PA >> 2,900,000 votes anywhere else The best strategy for the Democrats in 2020 would be offer relocation packages for CA residents to move to swing states. No need to sway anyone or win hearts and minds - just change where you vote. Anyway, the Organization of Cartographers for Social Equality would be happy we're having this discussion.

Whe I look at this, I see a dead Smurf. Not sure how it makes anyone feel better about Hilary/trump. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

He said "it sizes the counties according to population"...so this map already adjusted for differences in population. Unless I'm missing something?

...But, you see, the problem is that GC & his cronies are trying to solve their WSO/CSO/Nav problems with UPT grads (at least indirectly), but they refuse to acknowledge that they are doing so. There were about 5,000 Navs (by this I mean Navs/CSOs/WSOs--whatever you wanna call them) in the AF in 2005. Now, we've got about 3,500. The OSS/staff/command/CAOC/deployed to Buttkrakistan to backfill Army guys/etc. workload didn't decrease by 30% over the last decade, so guess what? Pilot types have had to backfill billets that Navs might otherwise have filled. Ergo, we are trying to use UPT grads to solve the WSO problem . . . an expensive proposition that ticks people off and makes them all the more susceptible to the siren song of life outside of Big Blue. Tying this back to the ACP discussion, I find it odd that there's so much handwringing over an 11F shortage, when the pilot shortages are across all MDSs. Sticking to what I know/my parochial interests, the Nav community that's taken the biggest hit over the past decade is the 12Ms. Not surprising--with the advent GPS/better avionics, one doesn't need 'em. Problem is that 11Ms are filling billets that 12Ms would normally have filled, at the same time the civilian sector is drawing 11Ms away from active duty at substantial rates, while at the same time MAF folks are backfilling CAF & SOF billets . . . yet global airlift & tanker requirements ain't really subsided. The resulting experience loss across the board is substantial. In 2005, there were 3,500 Command Pilots in the AF. Today there are 2,100. In '05, there were 1,900 Master Navs; today, there are 600. That sure looks like a helluva brain drain--notably in the mobility community--and given the current civilian hiring picture, I don't see our ability to retain experienced aviators getting any better. While I fully understand that certain pilot communities are hurting worse than others, I can't escape the conclusion targeted bonuses for select pilot communities in FY17 ACP would be a galactically bad idea. Rant off. TT

Since you have a habit of talking about things you're not knowledgeable on, I'll do you the favor and correct you on this one as well. I see you're trying to justify the votes your girl got in this state, but I can tell you as a resident that no cowboy hat-wearing, truck-driving Texan placed a vote for her and I challenge you to back up that claim with facts. If you look at the popular vote in Texas, the only blue counties are mainly those along the Mexican border and can be attributed to the large illegal population that resides there. The rest was overwhelmingly Trump. Texas was a conservative Democratic stronghold for many years. For approximately 100 years from after Reconstruction until the 1990s, the Democrats dominated Texas politics. Now Republicans control all statewide Texas offices, to include the governor and both houses of the state legislature, and have a majority in the Texas congressional delegation. This makes Texas one of the most Republican states in the U.S. Urban areas like Dallas, Austin, Houston and San Antonio are still largely Democrats; but suburbs of these cities remain heavily Republican. So your claim that "cowboy hat-wearing, truck-driving Texans" voted for Hillary are pure fantasy. It's the typical liberal and welfare-recipient votes that supported her in many other states.

Don't give PEX anymore power than it already does. As soon as it gets to Cyber it will become self-aware and schedule everybody for weekly Green-Dot training.

His claim was that it provided some new insight that proves the nation is more diverse than we think. I claim it only shows the same as all the other voting maps: big cities are blue strongholds, everywhere else is generally red.