Somalia should, you know, actually create a national government before they even consider forming a Coast Guard. Just a thought.

It used to be. In 2006, part of 2007, it was a big deal. Then advertisers realized it was a fad and it dried up rather quickly. It was actually a pretty neat idea; just not all that sustainable as a business model. In my humble opinion.

Nicky, don't assume too much. I'm not exactly part of an "older generation". In my early 30s, I may feel my growing age sometimes, but I still have more than a few years left! And as it happens, I personally know the entrepreneurs who created most of the major social media technologies. Some are about my age, give or take a couple years, and most are in their 40s or 50s. So on the contrary, I do not believe it's an age thing. Yes, the older one is, the more adaptation and change needs to happen. But I don't think it's fair generalize entire generations as being unadaptable or fearful. I know 90 year olds who use technology better than most 50 year olds. It's not one's age that inhibits their adaption to new technologies: it's how well they embrace change.

I also believe it's counter-productive to assume that all new technology and all new social media are of any consequential value. Just because it is a new technology does NOT mean that everyone should adopt it or be left behind. History is littered with technologies, ideas, and products that were supposed to change the world and failed to do so when people didn't embrace them. The Apple III. The Apple Lisa. The Newton. Microsoft Bob. The DeLorean. BETA. Laser Discs. Second Life, perhaps. I can think of dozens of examples. Some redeemed themselves later on by demonstrating they were simply ahead of their time (e.g. the Newton PDA), but most died out or are in the process of doing so.

Not adopting useless technology doesn't mean someone is falling behind the curve. It means they've examined carefully whether or not technology can actually do something of substantive value before embracing it. Technology is just a tool. When a hammer breaks, you don't keep using it, you buy a new one, or you find another tool that can do the job better.

Well, did we need the 121.5 mhz. SARSAT redundancy? Sooner or later, older technologies need to be phased out or some people will never bother to upgrade. Granted, 121.5 users had several YEARS of warning that the technology was obsolete and would be phased out. Perhaps the same needs to happen for LORAN. On the other hand, LORAN still has some redeeming value; I'm not sure 121.5 or any number of other phased out technologies did the same thing.

Oh goodness I hope not. What a waste of time that'd be. Seriously, I don't get the value of the whole Second Life thing. Even Twitter makes more sense. Not to mention, I seriously doubt WSIII's would have the capabilities to handle such an intensely 3D world. I think Second Life was more of a fad, and one that died away not long after the presidential campaigns in early 2007 realized there wasn't much substance to it.

Here's to hoping they don't just fix the disbursement functionality, but perhaps take TPAX offline and rebuild the whole thing from scratch. I think I'd even prefer doing travel expenses with a pen and paper.

I think the whole idea of correlation is ridiculously counter-productive. When is the government going to stop trying to define everybody inside a box? I don't believe this system recognizes individuals for the value they bring *to a specific position* -- especially as a civilian. Case-in-point: I have nearly 16 years of professional and managerial experience as a civilian. I've run departments, managed sizable budgets, been the senior manager for large scale programs, and so forth. As a Reservist who enlisted in the military many years later in life than most do, and then became an officer after that, my rank is significantly out of step with my civilian experience. I'm a LTjg with just over 5 years of service, and nearly 16 years in the civilian world. The problem with these "correlation" models is that they don't always correlate. How does it reconcile issues like these? Hypothetically, if I were to apply for a GS job with responsibilities and in a professional field commensurate with my civilian professional experience (not necessarily the same as what I do or have done in the military), I'd be pigeon-holed as significantly under qualified since my military rank is LTjg.

On the other hand, I do understand that in government, chains of command present somewhat different circumstances than you might have in the civilian world. And the correlation issues above are more of an issue for a GS working within the military, but the problem remains that the correlation model is still used in other agencies as well.

Hell no. Maybe they should first focus on creating an actual government in the most lawless land on Earth.

What is C&GS?

Yes and no. The formal requirements for an officer commission strictly state a degree is required. However, the Coast Guard greatly values enlisted experience. (In my humble opinion, FAR more so than any of our other military services.) To point, it is possible to ascend from enlisted ranks to OCS, ROCI, or other officer training programs without a degree -- PROVIDED the candidate is at least a high performing E-5 and has completed a minimum of 60 university credits towards a bachelor's degree. Even in those situations, the competition for selection is incredibly intense, and many candidates apply 2-3 times before being selected.