Very good summary by SN.

Not sure where this fits in, but an interesting story on the effects of trolls and nasty comments:
Quote:

"The Web is a place for unlimited exchange of ideas. But according to an NPR report, researchers have found that rude comments on articles can change the way we interpret the news. 'It's a little bit like the Wild West. The trolls are winning,' says Dominique Brossard, co-author of the study on the so-called 'Nasty Effect.' Researchers worked with a science writer to construct a balanced news story on the pros and cons of nanotechnology, a topic chosen so that readers would have to make sense of a complicated issue with low familiarity. They then asked 1,183 subjects to review the blog post from a Canadian newspaper that discussed the water contamination risks of nanosilver particles and the antibacterial benefits. Half saw the story with polite comments, and the other half saw rude comments, like: 'If you don't see the benefits of using nanotechnology in these products, you're an idiot.' People that were exposed to the polite comments didn't change their views really about the issue covering the story, while the people that did see the rude comments became polarized — they became more against the technology that was covered in the story. Brossard says we need to have an anchor to make sense of complicated issues. 'And it seems that rudeness and incivility is used as a mental shortcut to make sense of those complicated issues.'

Brossard says there's no quick fix for this issue (PDF), and while she thinks it's important to foster conversation through comments sections, every media organization has to figure out where to draw the line when comments get out of control. 'It's possible that the social norms in this brave new domain will change once more — with users shunning meanspirited attacks from posters hiding behind pseudonyms and cultivating civil debate instead,' writes Brossard. 'Until then, beware the nasty effect.'"
Original from Slashdot:
http://science.slashdot.org/story/13/03/16/144247/why-trolls-win-with-toxic-comments


Original NPR report is at:
http://www.npr.org/2013/03/11/174027294/...ft=1&f=1007

And, update on sequester. There's still budgeting juggling going on, but there's no question NPS will cut season lengths of seasonal rangers -- some by two to three weeks which, in a 3 to 4 month season is significant cut to visitor services (to say nothing of a ranger's income...).

NPS Fire is hit much worse. Over the last several years, they've been cut by 40%, so to be hit by another 5% when they're already down so much could be catastrophic.

One more? A very interesting analysis of California's severe budget cuts over the last few years. Furloughs of one day every two weeks were required for most all State workers. Not only did this increase frustration for the public (even longer DMV waits and deterioration of all state services) but it ended up costing more. What happened is that workers just used the forced days off as vacation and didn't use their accrued vacation time. The latter accumulated and, of course, converts to a financial liability to the state budget equal to any cost savings from the forced furloughs.

I think the same effect might be seen with, say, NPS cuts -- especially in emergency services jobs like rangers and fire. There's no reduction in visitation or the emergency incidents those visitors generate (medicals, rescues, searches etc.). You still need the same number of people to respond to incidents and active fires, so the agency ends up paying more in overtime for the existing employees to work and cover empty shifts. The end result is no real savings as expected from the original cuts.

None of the views expressed here in any way represent those of the unidentified agency that I work for or, often, reality. It's just me, fired up by coffee and powerful prose.