text:
Business School Business School
UQ Brisbane City
Business School Advisory Board
UN PRME
BEL Faculty
Honours Programs
Master of Business Analytics
Master of Entrepreneurship and Innovation
Master of Global Management
Master of Leadership in Service Innovation
Master of Tourism, Hotel and Event Management
Graduate Certificate in Clinical Informatics and Digital Health
MBA Careers and Professional Development Team
MBA students
Startup Academy
Student Managed Investment Fund
Student Notices
Student Program Committees
Thought Leadership Series
UQBS Behavioural Science Lab
UN PRME and UQ Business School
UQ Business School is a proud supporter and Advanced Signatory of the United Nations Principles for Responsible Management Education (UN PRME).
PRME is an initiative of the United Nations Global Compact founded in 2007 as a platform to encourage and increase awareness and integration of sustainability in business schools around the world.
Today, PRME is the largest coordinated effort between the world's business schools and the United Nations. UQ Business School became a PRME signatory in 2015. As a school, we understand the privilege and responsibility of providing quality education that gives learners the knowledge and tools they need to succeed, change lives and transform societies.
UQ Carbon Literacy Program - an Australian first
A first in Australia, the UQ Carbon Literacy Program helps individuals and organisations tackle the climate crisis head on with a short course that teaches the impact of everyday activities on climate and the steps that can be taken to reduce emissions as an individual and as part of a community group. The program shares facts to facilitate action.
After completing the course, participants undergo a pledge and assessment to become certified as Carbon Literate via the Carbon Literacy Project – a global not-for-profit organisation specialising in climate-action training that has certified more than 20,000 people worldwide.
UQ Business School partnered with the Carbon Literacy Project in 2021 as part of its commitment to the United Nations Principles for Responsible Management Education (UN PRME), becoming the first university in Australia to launch a Carbon Literacy Program.
The course teaches participants the science of climate change, climate-related issues of social equity, what you can do as an individual and organisation, and how to communicate the need for action. Join the movement for a better world today, and email carbonliteracy@uq.edu.au to find out more.
Read more about the Carbon Literacy Program
Register for upcoming courses
UQ PRME reports
Our Reports on Progress highlight UQ Business School's commitment to the United Nations Principles for Responsible Management Education (UN PRME). They show a significant alignment between UN PRME and UQ Business School. The Business School is now committing to 8 goals by 2030, and 15 actions for impact by 2023.
We would also like to extend our appreciation to Alex Stathakis from Conversio for our carbon footprint analysis.
Report on Progress 2020
This report outlines our current contributions to the SDGs as well as our 2030 Pathway – the 8 goals we aspire to achieve and 15 actions to be taken in the next two years.
Download the report (PDF, 6.9 MB)
Our inaugural report demonstrates the strong alignment between PRME and the Business School and defines responsible management education as a high priority for the School.
Carbon Footprint Report 2019
This report shows our carbon footprint, outlining direct and indirect carbon emissions. It identifies emission reduction opportunities, sets targets and strategic actions.
Download the report (PDF, 722.8 KB)
Our pathway forward
We are proud to launch our 2030 Pathway – the 8 goals we aspire to achieve by 2030, as well as 15 actions to be implemented by 2023. These goals and actions will guide our activities and commitment to ethics, responsibility, and sustainability under PRME as we continue to accompany
and build business for better.
Our 8 goals
Our 15 actions
Download the 2020 Progress Report (PDF, 6.9 MB)
PRME Directorate
As part of our ongoing commitment to our 2030 Pathway, we are pleased to announce the creation of our inaugural PRME Directorate. The Directorate will be responsible for guiding our 15 Actions for Impact between 2021 and 2023.
Dr Cle-Anne Gabriel
PRME Director
Dr Jonathan Staggs
Associate PRME Director
Dr Christoph Breidbach
Dr Sharlene Leroy-Dyer
Associate PRME Indigenous Engagement Director
Roxane Valier-Brasier
PRME Manager
Dr Matthew Hornsey
Dr Belinda Wade
About PRME
PRME is a global movement that aims to transform business and management education in order to raise the profile of sustainability in schools and develop responsible leaders of tomorrow.
It is underpinned by 17 Sustainability Development Goals (SDGs) and works to engage business and management schools through the application of six principles.
PRME@uq.edu.au


text:
The Bitter Truth is a 1917 American silent drama film directed by Kenean Buel and starring Virginia Pearson, Jack Hopkins and William H. Tooker.

Cast
 Virginia Pearson as Anne
 Jack Hopkins as Graves, a parson
 William H. Tooker as Judge Marcus
 Alice May as Martha Marcus
 Sidney D'Albrook as The Parson

References

Bibliography
 Solomon, Aubrey. The Fox Film Corporation, 1915-1935: A History and Filmography. McFarland, 2011.

External links

1917 films
1917 drama films
1910s English-language films
American silent feature films
Silent American drama films
American black-and-white films
Films directed by Kenean Buel
Fox Film films
1910s American films

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


text:
CALL FOR PROPOSALS: 2017 Searle Scholars Program competition
UCI has the opportunity to nominate two candidates for the Searle Scholars Program, which recognizes outstanding new faculty with the potential to make innovative and high-impact contributions to research in biochemistry, cell biology, genetics, immunology, neuroscience, pharmacology, and related areas in chemistry, medicine and the biological sciences.
To be eligible, the candidate's first appointment to an assistant professor, tenure-track position must have begun on or after July 1, 2015. Normally, fifteen grants of $100,000 per year for three years will be made. Funding allows maximum discretion for the recipient including the allocation of monies for academic and summer salary and equipment purchases.
Sunil Gandhi, Neurobiology & Behavior, received a 2013 Searle Scholar award. 150 institutions are eligible to participate in this limited call.
UCI may nominate only two candidates; therefore, interested applicants are asked to submit a preliminary application to the Office of Research by July 11, 2016 (via the UCI Review system) with the following information:
Research Abstract (2 pages) which describes the proposed research and its significance
List of 2-3 publications, each followed by a brief description of why the research is important and how it impacted their field (One page. Please note: A similar requirement of up to 5 applications is requested in the final application packet to Searle).
Candidate's bio sketch or abbreviated CV (no more than two pages)
Statement of Support from the Department Chair (one page)
If necessary, an ad hoc committee will convene to review the preliminary proposals. The selected PI(s) will be notified well before Searle's September 30, 2016 deadline for full proposals.
Please note that the selected candidate(s) must be able to provide to Searle three outside letters of reference, including one each from doctoral and post-doctoral mentors. In addition, Searle requires a statement of commitment from the candidate's department Chair, similar to what we are requiring for the internal application.
More information about the Searle Scholars Program can be found at: http://www.searlescholars.net/go.php?id=5. Questions about our internal campus review process may be directed to Greg Ruth at greg.ruth@uci.edu or x4-0372.
James W. Hicks
Interim Vice Chancellor for Research
Posted in Limited Funding Opportunities

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
JUNIUS, [i.e. Philip Francis, attrib.]
The genuine letters of Junius. To which are prefixed Anecdotes of the author. Piccadilly
printed in the year, London, 1771. 8vo, pp. [8], xx, 366; 20th century marbled boards backed in vellum, new red morocco label on spine; good and sound, with the approbationary [?] signature on the title-p. of N. Norton. The Anecdotes of the author assume that Junius was Edmund Burke. This is the so-called "Picadilly Edition," a reissue of the original 1771 edition, with additional letters (pp. 257-366); page 366 has the catchword: "LET-". In this issue there is no colon after "London" in the imprint. The Anecdotes of the author assume that he was Edmund Burke with cancel half-title, title page and first leaf of 'Contents' (signed A3). In this issue there is a colon after "London" in the imprint. "The secret of the authorship of these letters which puzzled the men of the last century still remains unsolved, and it may be added that with our present information it is practically insoluble" (Halkett & Laing III. 327), although current scholarship seems to suggest that they are the work of Sir Philip Francis (1740-1818). "The first of the letters of Junius appeared in Woodfall's Public Advertiser in London, Jan. 21, 1769. Further letters appeared irregularly until 21 Jan. 1772. The series attracted enough attention to make it profitable for various booksellers to bring out editions of the letters before the series was concluded. At least 16 of these unauthorized partial editions were published before the end of 1771. In addition, individual letters were published in other political collections" (NCBEL, II, 1178). One record in OCLC suggests there is a portrait frontispiece, not … [Click Below for Full Description]
Bookseller: Rulon-Miller Books (ABAA / ILAB) [St. Paul, MN, U.S.A.]
LINK TO THIS PAGE: https://www.vialibri.net/years/books/276997747/1771-junius-ie-philip-francis-attrib-the-genuine-letters-of-junius-to


text:
Q: Do the effects of rings stack? For example, if I equip two rings of mending, do their effects on my health regeneration stack?
I'm guessing it will be easiest to check this with two rings of detection, but I haven't had the chance to find two of these in the same game yet...

A: Yes. It does stack. Member of wiki discovered. Search in-page for word stack and you will see: http://pixeldungeon.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:3013

Rings appear to stack (besides ring of haggler)...
With two rings of mending + 2, natural regeneration is more than
  doubled.  Without the two rings, the hp regen appears to be +1 per 10
  ticks (wait actions).  With 1 ring the hp regen is +1/7 ish, and with 2
  rings, the hp regen is a little faster than +1/5.  The rings appear to
  have no effect when starving.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


I went on the hunt for buffalo at the Flying D last week with Anna, the beautiful little 13 year old from Flagstaff, Arizona. The trip was provided by MOGA's Big Hearts under the Big Sky program in partnership with Catch-A-Dream Foundation. It was a life changing event for me and everyone else involved. It was an experience from which I have not quite recovered (and hope I never do).
During the evening meal Anna share this with me: She said "Larry, I have been sick for the last four years but during the last four days I have not felt sick at all." I wept on my way home that evening.
What a remarkable privilege it is to be involved with such an event and with such a spectacular child. I offered my Mass Sunday to her and will offer many more. The Catch-a-Dream host was terrific, very fine man of excellent character.
MOGA Outfitter Rob Arnaud who provided the hunt did an extraordinary job and Anna collected a fine bison. Rob, as you know, is one of the most generous people in all aspects of life that I have ever met.
The partnership between Big Hearts under the Big Sky and Catch-a-Dream Foundation is an unbeatable combination in service to children and their families. This program has truly affected me, and I intend to be here for the long haul!.
Anna, the precious little girl that touched the lives of so many, went to heaven on Nov 27, 2010. She battled courageously Ewings Sarcoma, a bone cancer in her left shoulder blade, until the very end. Although we know her pain is now gone, and she in the arms of Jesus, we will miss her forever but we also know that her legacy lives on!
Fear thou not, for I am with thee; be not dismayed, for I am your God. I will strengthen thee I will help thee; I will uphold thee with the right hand of my righteousness.
Please believe with me and pray for me daily.


text:
Star Wars: The Economics of the Galactic Empire
The ninth episode in the Star Wars saga, "The Rise of Skywalker," premiered in theaters around the world in December 2019. The movie continued the stories of Rey, Finn, Poe, and Kylo Ren. Fans were ecstatic to see their favorite characters come back in this film by J.J. Abrams.
With its themes of intergalactic travel, colorful sets, and quirky creatures, the science fiction series might seem far-fetched to people who can't tell the difference between Tatooine and Jakku. In fact, the Star Wars saga is underpinned by an economic and political system inspired by and derived from real-world events. But the economics of the Galactic Empire can sometimes seem as mysterious as the ways of the Force. Without a galaxy full of taxpayers, how is the Empire getting money to fund the making and deployment of new fleets of Star Destroyers and planet-killing superlasers like the Death Star? Apparently, dark-side economics are more effective than supply-side economics.
The Star Wars economy is galactic and governed by the precepts of modern trade, where planets exchange products and services, and the intersection of trade routes benefits the closest planets.
There are thousands of currencies used on individual planets, but both the Republic and the Empire support galactic credits.
Manufacturing operations for multi-planet corporations are primarily based in the Corporate Sector, which functions as a free-trade zone of sorts.
Several organizations inked trade agreements and set up consortia or guilds to maximize profit and wield influence within the Senate.
The Similarities Between the Galactic Empire and the Modern Global Economy
The scope of the Star Wars economy is galactic and governed by the precepts of modern trade. In this system, planets exchange products and services with each other. Trade routes traverse multiple planetary systems. Not surprisingly, planets located at the intersections of major trade routes benefit from their locations.
For example, Bothawui, a planet located in the Mid Rim of the galaxy and referenced in the Clone Wars animated series, is located at the intersection of four major trade routes. It is known for its trade in technology and, because of its location, is a popular venue for trade negotiations.
Not all Mid Rim planets are used for trade. Some are venues for robberies and plunder. An example is Kijimi—a frigid and mountainous planet that is home to the spice runners of Kijimi, a group of smugglers.
There are thousands of currencies used on individual planets and by different societies. However, both the Republic and the Empire supported galactic credits. These credits were useful on most Inner Rim planets, which were closer to economic and trade hubs.
Once a ship got farther into space and reached the Outer Rim of planets, credits supposedly would lose their value. This issue is most evident when Qui-Gon Jinn attempted to buy parts for Padme's ship from Watto, but Watto refused to take Republic credits. That seems somewhat unrealistic, as U.S. dollars can be exchanged for the local currency almost anywhere on Earth. Perhaps Republic credits could not be used on Tatooine because of sanctions against planets that violate the Republic's anti-slavery laws.
On some planets, economic development was so primitive that barter dominated trade. On Jakku, where Rey grew up after being abandoned by her parents, she worked as a junker. She sold parts to Unkar Plutt for portions of food instead of cash. The only thing that matters on a planet with so little development is eating enough to stay alive.
Some economists have theorized that Rey's profession hints at an active recycling economy in the Interplanetary system. She does not scrap for raw metals. Her focus is on engineered and designed components, meaning the Star Wars economy places a high premium on finished goods rather than raw metals. (In this respect, they are not different from the human race, which ascribes more value to finished goods.) Also, the economists have pointed to the fact that constant warfare results in the destruction of metal; therefore, there must be an abundance of metal in space.
A Sectoral Economy
Much like multinational corporations, whose operations span multiple economies and geographic areas, intergalactic firms operate across several planetary systems and sectors. However, their manufacturing operations are primarily based in the Corporate Sector, which functions as a free-trade zone of sorts. Located in the Outer Rim, the Corporate Sector was established to free businesses from the political machinations of the Senate. The Corporate Sector's tax code is a simplified version of individual planet tax codes. Companies with activities in the sector paid a single tax to the Republic and, subsequently, the Empire. Under the Emperor, the Corporate Sector's operations expanded to include 30,000 planetary systems, and the Corporate Sector Authority was established to administer the sector.
To make trading easy, several organizations inked trade agreements and set up consortia to maximize profit and wield influence within the Senate. The Commerce Guild, which pursues trader and business interests, is the most powerful such guild. Two of its leading members are the Trade Federation and the Intergalactic Banking Clan. As its name implies, the Trade Federation is a consortium of businesses and traders. The Intergalactic Banking Clan is a bank system that controls finances in major parts of the Republic. The latter played a prominent role in the Confederacy of Independent Systems (otherwise known as the Separatist Alliance) that broke away from the Republic during the Clone Wars. Both organizations supported Darth Sidious without knowing he was simply using them to gain power as Chancellor Palpatine.
How the Economic Blockade of Naboo Transformed the Republic Into the Empire
In response to increased taxation of trade routes, the Trade Federation blockaded the planet of Naboo with a fleet of battleships. The exact reason for the blockade is uncertain, but there are several theories regarding this.
In his novel Star Wars: Darth Plagueis, James Luceno outlined a possible reason for the Naboo invasion: plasma energy. According to Luceno, Naboo was rich in plasma and had a major mining and refining facility financed with a loan from the Intergalactic Banking Clan. The planet sold plasma energy to the Trade Federation at fixed prices. In turn, they marked up the prices for a substantial profit.
Luceno's novel is no longer part of Star Wars canon following Disney's restructuring of the extended universe, but it makes logical sense. Remember, Naboo was situated in the Outer Rim of the galaxy and probably had little to no taxation. Taxation of trade routes would have increased transportation costs for members of the Trade Federation and cut into their profits.
That said, their blockade was simply an excuse for the Trade Federation to invade Naboo. The Trade Federation was under the influence of Darth Sidious, who was also Senator Palpatine of Naboo. The invasion set off a chain of events that led to Palpatine being named Supreme Chancellor and declaring himself Emperor.
Here's how it happened: Palpatine voted for the trade routes to be taxed, giving the Federation a reason to invade Naboo. That had the effect of making Supreme Chancellor Valorum look weak. Valorum was kicked out of office with a vote of no confidence (basically, they impeached him). Palpatine was then elected out of sympathy for the suffering of his home planet of Naboo. Eventually, Palpatine would convince the Galactic Senate (in a move spearheaded by Jar Jar Binks) to give him emergency powers to deal with the ongoing separatist crisis. Of course, Palpatine also was behind the separatist movement as Darth Sidious. With these new powers and the Jedi eliminated following Order 66, Palpatine had little trouble installing himself as Emperor and reshaping the galaxy in his image.
The Star Wars Economy and Nazi Germany
Star Wars creator George Lucas once said that he incorporated aesthetic and thematic elements from Nazi Germany into his vision of the Galactic Empire. That comparison is interesting because both the Galactic Empire and Nazi Germany came into being on the back of an economic crisis.
In fact, there are several economic and political similarities between Nazi Germany and the Galactic Empire. For example, Nazi Germany was characterized by a readiness for war and its military might. The National Labor Service mandated that each German male would have to complete a compulsory training at the organization.
Typical tasks during national service included planting forests, digging ditches on farms, and building a network of motorways. The Autobahn was constructed during this time, and Hitler set a goal to increase the size of the German army to 500,000. Trade unions were banned, and everyone was required to enroll in a central labor organization controlled by Nazi chieftains.
The Galactic Empire had a similar economy that was ready for a state of war. The Death Star, which was a space station with a planet-destroying superlaser, is the perfect example of this militarization of the economy. It consisted of state-of-the-art weapons systems and artillery. In addition, entire planetary systems within the Mid and Outer Rims were dedicated to the construction of clones and war machines.
While the Star Wars prequels make numerous mentions of trade unions in the Republic, such references are absent in the original trilogy. As such, they probably were banned by the Galactic Empire (or George Lucas hadn't yet thought of it). In fact, the production process for machines was not labor-intensive. Instead, it was a process dominated by droids themselves. As an example, "Star Wars: Episode II—Attack of the Clones" provides a glimpse of humanity's machine-dominated future. In one scene, Padme, Anakin Skywalker, C-3PO, and R2-D2 are nearly killed trying to make their way out of a droid-manufacturing factory on Geonosis.
Interestingly, as one moves away from the Core Worlds, the economies became less oriented toward machines. In the Outer Rim planets, other industries, such as energy and agriculture, dominate. This difference is reflected in architecture. For example, the Core World Coruscant is a hi-tech society with skyscrapers and flying cars. The Outer Rim planet Tatooine is a relatively primitive place in comparison. On Tatooine, many structures are made of adobe, and moisture farmers eke out an existence producing water. The difference in their fortunes is a testament to the economic power of the strong central government based on Coruscant.
3 Gene Editing Stocks to Buy Now OR You'll Be Kicking Yourself Later
My RIVN Stock Price Prediction for 2025
3 Quantum Computing Stocks to Buy Now OR You'll Be Kicking Yourself Later
7 Bargain Stocks to Buy as a New Bull Market Emerges


Vamaship the world's first integrated logistics platform has bagged another coveted award, 'The Most Promising Start-up' from the Indian Merchants Chamber in April, 2017 from the hands of Dr. Lalit Kanodia – Vice President IMC, Dr. Ganesh Natarajan- Chairman, IMC Digital Technology Committee, Padmabhushan Dr. F.C Kohli, Former TCS CEO, Dr. Arvind Pradhan -Director General, IMC.
Indian Merchants chamber is one of the most reputed, oldest & recognized organization representing interests of Indian trade, commerce, and industry. IMC has played a significant role in consolidating Indian business interests and making the Indian economy self-reliant. They are a legendary organization which has relentlessly pursued the agenda of identifying opportunities, addressing critical issues and driving Indian businesses with the single-minded focus of sustainable growth.


text:
HomeRemarks and Releases – Bureau of Political-Military Affairs ...Major Non-NATO Ally Status
Major Non-NATO Ally Status
Major Non-NATO Ally (MNNA) status is a designation under U.S. law [1] that provides foreign partners with certain benefits in the areas of defense trade and security cooperation. The Major Non-NATO Ally designation is a powerful symbol of the close relationship the United States shares with those countries and demonstrates our deep respect for the friendship for the countries to which it is extended. While MNNA status provides military and economic privileges, it does not entail any security commitments to the designated country.
Privileges resulting from MNNA designation under 22 U.S.C. §2321k :
Eligible for loans of material, supplies, or equipment for cooperative research, development, testing, or evaluation purposes.
Eligible as a location for U.S.-owned War Reserve Stockpiles to be placed on its territory outside of U.S. military facilities.
Can enter into agreements with the United States for the cooperative furnishing of training on a bilateral or multilateral basis, if the financial arrangements are reciprocal and provide for reimbursement of all U.S. direct costs.
Eligible, to the maximum extent feasible, for priority delivery of Excess Defense Articles transferred under section 516 of the Foreign Assistance Act (if located on the southern or south-eastern flank of NATO).
Eligible for consideration to purchase depleted uranium ammunition.
Privileges resulting from MNNA designation under 10 U.S.C. §2350a :
Eligible to enter into an MOU or other formal agreement with the U.S. Department of Defense for the purpose of conducting cooperative research and development projects on defense equipment and munitions.
Allows firms of a MNNA, as with NATO countries, to bid on contracts for maintenance, repair or overhaul of U.S. Department of Defense equipment outside the United States.
Allows funding to procure explosives detection devices and other counter-terrorism research and development projects under the auspices of the Department of State's Technical Support Working Group .
Currently 18 countries are designated as MNNAs under 22 U.S.C. §2321k and 10 U.S.C. §2350a :
Argentina, Australia, Bahrain, Brazil, Colombia, Egypt, Israel, Japan, Jordan, Kuwait, Morocco, New Zealand, Pakistan, the Philippines, Qatar, South Korea, Thailand, and Tunisia.
In addition, Pub. L. 107–228 provides Taiwan shall be treated as an MNNA, without formal designation as such.
For additional information, please contact the Bureau of Political-Military Affairs' Office of Congressional and Public Affairs at pm-cpa@state.gov and follow us on Twitter @StateDeptPM.
[1] See relevant legislation, including but not limited to: 22 U.S.C. §2751 , 22 U.S.C. §2321k , and 10 U.S.C. §2350a .
Bureau of Political-Military Affairs North Atlantic Treaty Organization Political-Military Cooperation
Assistant Secretary Jessica Lewis 'The Future of Security Sector Assistance in a Changing World' Meridian International Center
Fiscal Year 2022 U.S. Arms Transfers and Defense Trade
Significant New U.S. Military Assistance to Ukraine


text:
Q: Prove that $I(t)=\int_{0}^{+\infty}x^tf(x)\,dx $ is defined on $(-1,\,1)$ and has continuous derivative.
Suppose the improper integral $\displaystyle\int_{0}^{+\infty}xf(x)\,dx$ and $\displaystyle\int_{0}^{+\infty}\frac{f(x)}{x}\,dx$ are both convergent, prove that
  $$
I(t)=\int_{0}^{+\infty}x^tf(x)\,dx
$$
  is defined on $(-1,\,1)$ and has continuous derivative.

If $f(x)$ is nonnegative, then by comparison test, it's easy to prove it. But how to attack the general case?

A: You may use Dirichlet's test in the following form: if $h(x)$ is such that $\left|\int_{0}^{t}h(x)\,dx\right| \leq C$ for any $t>0$ and $g(x)$ is such that $g(x)$ is decreasing to zero for any $x\geq x_0>0$, then $\int_{0}^{+\infty}h(x)g(x)\,dx$, as an improper Riemann integral, is convergent. Let us assume $t\in[0,1)$ and define
$$ J(t) = \int_{0}^{+\infty} x^t \log(x) f(x)\,dx = \int_{0}^{+\infty}\underbrace{x f(x)}_{h(x)}\cdot\underbrace{\frac{\log x}{x^{1-t}}}_{g(x)}\,dx $$
and similarly
$$ K(t) = \int_{0}^{+\infty} x^t \log^2(x) f(x)\,dx = \int_{0}^{+\infty}\underbrace{x f(x)}_{h(x)}\cdot\underbrace{\frac{\log^2 x}{x^{1-t}}}_{g(x)}\,dx. $$
By Dirichlet's test $K(t)$ is defined for any $t\in[0,1)$. By differentiation under the integral sign $K(t)=J'(t)$.
Similarly we get $J(t)=I'(t)$, so $I(t)$ is twice-differentiable (hence $C^1$) over $[0,1)$.
I will let you to deal with the case $t\in(-1,0)$, which is analogous.


Despite the dramatic advances in scientific knowledge regarding childhood mental illnesses and their treatment over the past 20 years, only a small fraction of children suffering from mental illnesses receive treatment. Our health system fails to provide the most basic mental health services to those children in need. The Surgeon General has declared this a public health crisis1. The AACAP strongly supports the principle that needed mental health treatment services must be available to all children. The AACAP is committed to the elimination of all barriers that prevent children from having access to these services.
Access to care: The lack of availability of mental health professionals for children and adolescents with illnesses is a major barrier. Often parents are given a list of network clinicians attached to their Managed Care Organization (MCO). Specialized professionals and services listed for youth are too often not available, or outdated.
Parity: The AACAP calls for the end of discriminatory insurance policies regarding mental illness, compared with physical illness, that limit access and perpetuate sigma. Discrimination includes contractual limits on psychiatric outpatient visits and inpatient days, higher co-payments/deductibles, and annual and lifetime benefit limits. These limitations create financial burdens and barriers to treatment for patients and families.
providing parity for all psychiatric and substance abuse disorders of children and adolescents.


text:
In machine learning and mathematical optimization, loss functions for classification are computationally feasible loss functions representing the price paid for inaccuracy of predictions in classification problems (problems of identifying which category a particular observation belongs to).  Given  as the space of all possible inputs (usually ), and  as the set of labels (possible outputs), a typical goal of classification algorithms is to find a function  which best predicts a label  for a given input .  However, because of incomplete information, noise in the measurement, or probabilistic components in the underlying process, it is possible for the same  to generate different .  As a result, the goal of the learning problem is to minimize expected loss (also known as the risk), defined as

where  is a given loss function, and   is the probability density function of the process that generated the data, which can equivalently be written as

Within classification, several commonly used loss functions are written solely in terms of the product of the true label  and the predicted label . Therefore, they can be defined as functions of only one variable , so that  with a suitably chosen function . These are called margin-based loss functions. Choosing a margin-based loss function amounts to choosing . Selection of a loss function within this framework impacts the optimal  which minimizes the expected risk.

In the case of binary classification, it is possible to simplify the calculation of expected risk from the integral specified above.  Specifically,

The second equality follows from the properties described above.  The third equality follows from the fact that 1 and −1 are the only possible values for , and the fourth because . The term within brackets  is known as the conditional risk.

One can solve for the minimizer of  by taking the functional derivative of the last equality with respect to  and setting the derivative equal to 0.  This will result in the following equation

which is also equivalent to setting the derivative of the conditional risk equal to zero.

Given the binary nature of classification, a natural selection for a loss function (assuming equal cost for false positives and false negatives) would be the 0-1 loss function (0–1 indicator function), which takes the value of 0 if the predicted classification equals that of the true class or a 1 if the predicted classification does not match the true class. This selection is modeled by

where  indicates the Heaviside step function.
However, this loss function is non-convex and non-smooth, and solving for the optimal solution is an NP-hard combinatorial optimization problem.  As a result, it is better to substitute loss function surrogates which are tractable for commonly used learning algorithms, as they have convenient properties such as being convex and smooth.  In addition to  their computational tractability,  one can show that the solutions to the learning problem using these loss surrogates allow for the recovery of the actual solution to the original classification problem.  Some of these surrogates are described below.

In practice, the probability distribution  is unknown.  Consequently, utilizing a training set of  independently and identically distributed sample points

drawn from the data sample space, one seeks to minimize empirical risk

as a proxy for expected risk. (See statistical learning theory for a more detailed description.)

Bayes consistency
Utilizing Bayes' theorem, it can be shown that the optimal , i.e., the one that minimizes the expected risk associated with the zero-one loss, implements the Bayes optimal decision rule for a binary classification problem and is in the form of

.

A loss function is said to be classification-calibrated or Bayes consistent if its optimal  is such that and is thus optimal under the Bayes decision rule.  A Bayes consistent loss function allows us to find the Bayes optimal decision function  by directly minimizing the expected risk and without having to explicitly model the probability density functions.

For convex margin loss , it can be shown that  is Bayes consistent if and only if it is differentiable at 0 and . Yet, this result does not exclude the existence of non-convex Bayes consistent loss functions.  A more general result states that Bayes consistent loss functions can be generated using the following formulation

,

where  is any invertible function such that  and  is any differentiable strictly concave function such that . Table-I shows the generated Bayes consistent loss functions for some example choices of  and . Note that the Savage and Tangent loss are not convex. Such non-convex loss functions have been shown to be useful in dealing with outliers in classification. For all loss functions generated from (2), the posterior probability  can be found using the invertible link function as  . Such loss functions where the posterior probability can be recovered using the invertible link are called proper loss functions.
The sole minimizer of the expected risk, , associated with the above generated loss functions can be directly found from equation (1) and shown to be equal to the corresponding . This holds even for the nonconvex loss functions, which means that gradient descent based algorithms such as gradient boosting can be used to construct the minimizer.

Proper loss functions, loss margin and regularization

For proper loss functions, the loss margin can be defined as  and shown to be directly related to the regularization properties of the classifier. Specifically a loss function of larger margin increases regularization and produces better estimates of the posterior probability. For example, the loss margin can be increased for the logistic loss by introducing a  parameter and writing the logistic loss as  where smaller  increases the margin of the loss. It is shown that this is directly equivalent to decreasing the learning rate in gradient boosting  where decreasing  improves the regularization of the boosted classifier. The theory makes it clear that when a learning rate of  is used, the correct formula for retrieving the posterior probability is now .

In conclusion, by choosing a loss function with larger margin (smaller ) we increase regularization and improve our estimates of the posterior probability which in turn improves the ROC curve of the final classifier.

Square loss
While more commonly used in regression, the square loss function can be re-written as a function  and utilized for classification.  It can be generated using (2) and Table-I as follows

The square loss function is both convex and smooth.  However, the square loss function tends to penalize outliers excessively, leading to slower convergence rates (with regards to sample complexity) than for the logistic loss or hinge loss functions.  In addition, functions which yield high values of  for some  will perform poorly with the square loss function, since high values of  will be penalized severely, regardless of whether the signs of  and  match.

A benefit of the square loss function is that its structure lends itself to easy cross validation of regularization parameters.  Specifically for Tikhonov regularization, one can solve for the regularization parameter using leave-one-out cross-validation in the same time as it would take to solve a single problem.

The minimizer of  for the square loss function can be directly found from equation (1) as

Logistic loss
The logistic loss function can be generated using (2) and Table-I as follows

The logistic loss is convex and grows linearly for negative values which make it less sensitive to outliers. The logistic loss is used in the LogitBoost algorithm.

The minimizer of  for the logistic loss function  can be directly found from equation (1) as

This function is undefined when  or   (tending toward ∞ and −∞ respectively), but predicts a smooth curve which grows when  increases and equals 0 when .

It's easy to check that the logistic loss and binary cross entropy loss (Log loss) are in fact the same (up to a multiplicative constant ). The cross entropy loss is closely related to the Kullback–Leibler divergence between the empirical distribution and the predicted distribution. The cross entropy loss is ubiquitous in modern deep neural networks.

Exponential loss
The exponential loss function can be generated using (2) and Table-I as follows

The exponential loss is convex and grows exponentially for negative values which makes it more sensitive to outliers. The exponential loss is used in the AdaBoost algorithm.

The minimizer of  for the exponential loss function  can be directly found from equation (1) as

Savage loss
The Savage loss  can be generated using (2) and Table-I as follows

The Savage loss is quasi-convex and is bounded for large negative values which makes it less sensitive to outliers. The Savage loss has been used in gradient boosting and the SavageBoost algorithm.

The minimizer of  for the Savage loss function  can be directly found from equation (1) as

Tangent loss
The Tangent loss can be generated using (2) and Table-I as follows

The Tangent loss is quasi-convex and is bounded for large negative values which makes it less sensitive to outliers. Interestingly, the Tangent loss also assigns a bounded penalty to data points that have been classified "too correctly". This can help prevent over-training on the data set.   The Tangent loss has been used in gradient boosting, the TangentBoost algorithm and Alternating Decision Forests.

The minimizer of  for the Tangent loss function  can be directly found from equation (1) as

Hinge loss

The hinge loss function is defined with , where  is the positive part function.

The hinge loss provides a relatively tight, convex upper bound on the 0–1 indicator function.  Specifically, the hinge loss equals the 0–1 indicator function when  and .  In addition, the empirical risk minimization of this loss is equivalent to the classical formulation for support vector machines (SVMs).  Correctly classified points lying outside the margin boundaries of the support vectors are not penalized, whereas points within the margin boundaries or on the wrong side of the hyperplane are penalized in a linear fashion compared to their distance from the correct boundary.

While the hinge loss function is both convex and continuous, it is not smooth (is not differentiable) at .  Consequently, the hinge loss function cannot be used with gradient descent methods or stochastic gradient descent methods which rely on differentiability over the entire domain.  However, the hinge loss does have a subgradient at , which allows for the utilization of subgradient descent methods.  SVMs utilizing the hinge loss function can also be solved using quadratic programming.

The minimizer of  for the hinge loss function is

when , which matches that of the 0–1 indicator function.  This conclusion makes the hinge loss quite attractive, as bounds can be placed on the difference between expected risk and the sign of hinge loss function. The Hinge loss cannot be derived from (2) since   is not invertible.

Generalized smooth hinge loss
The generalized smooth hinge loss function with parameter  is defined as

where

It is monotonically increasing and reaches 0 when .

See also
Differentiable programming
Scoring function

References

Machine learning algorithms


The Waterfront development in Colombo, also known as Cinnamon Life, will be a key new destination for Sri Lanka. The development includes residential and office accommodation in high rise towers, with a main block containing car parking, a retail mall, extensive hospitality and conference facilities and an 800 bed hotel.
OFRConsulting are the fire engineer for the whole development, responsible for the fire strategy that addresses the variety of uses of the buildings, while reflecting the specific challenges of the Sri Lankan construction and building management approaches.


text:
15Who And Where Is Red's/Ash's Father?
via aminoapps.com
Perhaps the greatest conundrum of the Pokémon series is wondering who is Red's (and Ash's!) father, and where he is hiding. While the original Generation I games hinted Red's father does exist and enjoys sports games on the SNES, there is never a mention of Ash's father in the anime
other than his mother saying that he is still on a journey to be a Pokémon Master. Professor Oak and Giovanni are often prime candidates for theorists, but there is never a moment where the creators wanted to reveal the identity of his dad. Not knowing the actual whereabouts of Mr. Ketchum, some have concluded that he could be dead or even someone Ash's has already met on his pilgrimage. Well, whoever he is, he is a terrible father and husband.
Next 14 What Kind Of Parents Allow Their Kids To Run Loose?
The Best Amazon Prime Day Deals For Gamers (UPDATED)
Overwatch: 10 Mistakes Every Zenyatta Player Makes (& How To Fix Them)
Overwatch: 10 Tips To Climb In Competitive With Orisa
Pokémon: The 10 Most Powerful Pokémon Of The Johto Region, Ranked
Every Pseudo-Legendary Pokémon, Ranked
Belle Delphine Is Back To Selling Bath Water By The Tubful 'If You're Extra Thirsty'
Geralt Of Rivia's 10 Best Quotes In The Witcher 3


text:
A Brief Chat with Elva Dryer
Elva Dryer won the BolderBOULDER 10K on May 30 in 32:51, joining Jen Rhines (third) and Colleen DeReuck (fourth) to give the U.S. the team championship
By Peter Gambaccini
Elva Dryer won the BolderBOULDER 10K on May 30 in 32:51, joining Jen Rhines (third) and Colleen DeReuck (fourth) to give the U.S. the team championship. On Saturday, June 11, Dryer will defend her Bellin Run 10K title on the roads in Green Bay. At this spring's Cardinal Invitational at Stanford, she set a 10,000 track PR of 31:21.92 in taking third place. Dryer was second in the 10,000 at the U.S. Olympic Trials and was 19th in the Athens Olympics. She was 17th in the 10,000 at the 2003 World Championships. She was part of the silver medal U.S. 8K squad at the 2002 World Cross Country Championships. Dryer was second at this winter's USA 15K Championships in Jacksonville in 49:42. She has a 5000-meter best of 15:03.56. As Elva Martinez, she won four NCAA Division II titles in track and cross country at the Western State College in Colorado. Now 33, she is married to her coach, Russ Dryer, and lives in Albuquerque. The women's 10,000 at the USA Championships in Sacramento is on Friday, June 24.
Runner's World Daily: You're obviously trying to be at your peak for a 10,000 at the USA Championships. You were a very late replacement for Deena Kastor at BolderBOULDER. When somebody calls and asks "how would you suddenly like to do a 10,000 at altitude," how tough is it to readjust your schedule? You'd already run a good 10,000 on the track in May, and you might have had other races in mind, and there wasn't a lot of notice. Was it tough to say "yes" to BolderBOULDER?
Elva Dryer: No, not really. I actually originally planned to run a 5000 at the U.S. Open that same weekend, so I had planned on racing. Then I got the call for BolderBOULDER a little over a week out. To be part of a team with Colleen and Jen--you know, I'd been on a team with them before and know that they always come through with a top performance, so I didn't have to think about it too much. I took it as an opportunity to be part of a great event and a great team, and to race. I do train at altitude full-time. It's a tough course, and it's tough to race at altitude, but if you don't go out too hard (laughs), it's not that bad.
RWD: Had you done the race before?
ED: I ran on the team with Deena and Colleen in 2003. It's a unique race. It's really big in Colorado. I mean, it's just HUGE in Boulder. It's just crazy. Finishing in front of the crowd is unreal. You don't have fans like that at that many races, filling the stadium.
RWD: And you ended up winning pretty handily.
ED: I did. I can't believe I won, to be honest. I went into it wanting, of course, to race well for the team and not disappointment Colleen and Jen because they had expected to be on the team with Deena, and you can't replace Deena. So I went into it with a little bit of pressure. It was a pretty good field. There were a lot of top marathoners who'd come off running very good marathoners, so maybe they weren't too fresh. I don't know, but I expected it to be a pretty challenging race.
RWD: You mentioned planning to do the 5000 at the U.S. Open. You already have the World Championships standard in the 10,000. The "A" standard for the 5000 is 15:08. Were you thinking that was the weekend you could achieve that?
ED: I was hoping to. That was certainly a goal. I had talked to Lauren Fleshman beforehand, and we were sort of going to work together. Although my focus is more geared toward the 10K this year, when you're racing a 10K at the World Championship level, you need very good 5000 speed, because they're running near 30:00 flat. I intended to work on my 5000 and get it back down close to my PR and have that maybe be an option if I needed to go there if for some reason I couldn't do the 10,000. Most importantly, this year, I want to stay healthy. I want to run a fall marathon. You have to pick and choose your spots.
RWD: You've had tentative plans to do a marathon in the past, haven't you?
ED: I have. I'd hoped to do one the last couple of years and haven't felt like I was prepared enough at the time. I hope this year is the year. Early on last winter, we were hoping we'd come back to do a marathon in the fall (after the Olympics), but as the year progressed, I was dealing with a little bit of tendinitis, things that didn't necessarily keep me out of the sport but certainly that I was going to have to deal with immediately after the Olympics, which really didn't leave me with enough time to recover and be prepared for the a fall marathon. It just wasn't in the cards.
RWD: Have you done many races longer than 15K? Have you done many half-marathons?
ED: Not at all. I've done two 15Ks, this year and in 2002. It was the longest I've raced. There are a lot of athletes who have done that. Alan Culpepper didn't really race much more than 15K going into his marathons. With the marathon, you just never know. I'm just going to take a simple basic approach to it and see what happens.
RWD: The Cardinal Invitational 10,000 turned out to be a fast race for many women. Where were you in your seasonal development at that point? Had you done any speedwork yet? Were you just saying "I can get a standard here and run better later on?"
ED: The goal was to get under 31:40 but run the race as well as the race develops. I was looking at who was entered; it was going to be a good race, and there were going to be a number of people who were going to get the standard. I was happy with the way the race went. I felt really good pretty much throughout the whole thing. I think it was pretty even pacing--for a 10K, that's probably the easiest way to run one. I didn't have a whole lot of time on the track going into it, so as far as my year goes, I still hope to have my better races at nationals and hopefully the World Champs if I make the team. It'll be a pretty interesting race at nationals. I think we have six women under the "A" standard. It changes the race when everybody has the standard already.
RWD: You live at altitude full-time, but even for someone like you, is it tiring to do your harder speedwork up there? When the intense speedwork phase of your training comes, might you come out of the mountains a little bit?
ED: We live near 6000 feet. The lower part of Albuquerque is 5000 feet. Maybe it's because I lived at altitude all my life--you have to make some adjustments in your training, for sure, but I don't think that speedwork isn't doable. There's a big difference between 6500 feet and 8000 feet. I went to college in Gunniston, Colorado, which was at 8000 feet. Speedwork becomes a little more difficult up there. But between 5000 and 6000, you make some adjustments. Maybe you have a little more recovery, but my speedwork doesn't really differ too much between here and sea level.
RWD: What's it like to be in a city where top runners from all over the world are passing through for a month or two or even longer. You're a top runner yourself, but, we assume, also a fan of the sport. Is that fun for you to see?
ED: It is. We're a bit out of the loop. I don't know if it's because I'm older and married and settled. To be honest, I hear of a lot of people coming through here, like El Guerrouj and Paula Radcliffe and Khalid Khannouchi, but we don't really see them all that much. The city's sort of spread out and there are a number of different places to train, so there could be who knows how many athletes here? This winter, we did have a good group of Americans training here, which was a lot of fun, and that actually to me is more exciting than having all those champions come through here that I don't really have contact with. But it's nice to see some Americans together, helping each other out. We were all on different schedules, but we got together for training when we could. Actually, I think we got together more for socializing. Lauren Fleshman was here, and Nicole Aish, Jenny Crain, and Amy Yoder-Begley, right after Christmas, for anything from four weeks to Nicole Aish, who was the longest with almost three months.
RWD: You're spoken of how there are not many Hispanics at the top reaches of distance running and you'd like to bring more in. But the ones that are in hang around a long time. Carmen Troncoso, well into her 40s, is still doing really well.
ED: Yeah. Now, she's a great role model. She's been doing it for a long time, and she's been enjoying it. I've been around her and she just loves it. By being out there doing it, that in itself will hopefully grab the attention of some young gal out there and she'll pursue it as well.
RWD: And Sylvia Mosqueda, of course, has also been at it a long time.
ED: Right. And we're having some young ones coming up now. I'd just like to see more Hispanic women especially. We're certainly under-represented (in distance running). Certainly, it's a cultural thing, and I should think that can be changed. I'd like to see just women in general, take interest in running.
More From Races & Places
I Ran Through the World's Largest Wine Cellar
Running Travel Guide
These Are the Best Running Trips in the World
The Best Running Travel Companies
Runners Are Making Races into Vacations
Add These Running Retreats to Your Bucket List
Bucket List Marathons You Should Run in 2020
The Most Popular Running Routes in America
Want to Run Your First Race? Here's What to Know
Most Memorable Running Moments of the Decade
A Brief Chat With Jenny Simpson
A Brief Chat with Scott Jurek
A Brief Chat with Tera Moody
A Brief Chat With Ryan Hall
A Brief Chat with Mo Trafeh
A Brief Chat With Mary Wittenberg


For over twenty years now, Community Connections of Monsey has been Rockland County's most popular weekly savings guide. Since our first issue was published on September 10, 1995, our weekly paper has been part of the local community. Advertisers turn to us when they want results, and residents rely on the "Connections" to update them on local sales and news and bring them a variety of interesting and entertaining features.
Each week, 23,000 copies of the Community Connections are printed. Over 12,000 are mailed to frum homes in Monsey, Spring Valley, and New Square. Our paper also reaches families outside of Rockland County, as approximately 11,000 copies are distributed in our local stores. Shoppers from New Jersey and Orange County who visit local shopping centers always make sure to pick up a copy of the Community Connections before leaving our neighborhood.
Consumers receive the Community Connections in their mailbox with all their other important mail. We rely on our very own mailing list, which is updated on a daily basis, to keep names and addresses current.
Advertising cost is relatively inexpensive, so that small businesses can afford to place ads in our paper and bigger businesses can advertise on a weekly or bi-weekly basis.
Every issue includes valuable information, such as: weekly schedules, z'manei tefilos, Mazel Tovs, important phone numbers, bus schedules, recipes, interesting news photos, business lists, crossword and Sudoku puzzles, English and Yiddish articles, timely features, Lost & Found listings, cartoons, public notices and alerts, and more.
The Community Connections avoids printing any derogatory or misleading information and keeps the sensitivities of our community members a priority. This ensures that our paper is 100% kosher and can find a place in every home in our community.
Residents pay no subscription fee.
The Community Connections is a conveniently-sized and attractive paper, with unique dimensions and eye-catching colors and layouts. We make it easy for residents to read and save!
Get our weekly issues directly in your inbox!


text:
Home News Culture crunch
Culture crunch
City's vaunted plan for the arts long on wishful thinking, short on cash
by Steve Jones
The A.G.O. is laying off staff, Casa Loma is falling apart at the seams, and Toronto's culture division has a "state of good repair" backlog of $35.7 million for such things as non-profit theatre. The recent good news was that city councillors approved a 10-year culture plan to promote Toronto's malnourished arts.
The plan, commissioned in 2000, proposes 60 ways to fulfill the city's artistic potential, including dressing up University Avenue and branding it an "Avenue of the Arts" to lure tourists.
Now the bad news: the plan itself is a little short on specifics. And without money to buttress council's political support, the "cultural renaissance" the plan promises may be stillborn.
Councillors agreed the arts need help, but concerns about financing have nearly derailed the scheme. After three votes, it was finally approved.
"Some councillors hold the culture plan as a frill," says councillor Olivia Chow, "not a core business need."
Chow and a majority of other councillors thought it best to throw their political weight behind the plan - even if funds weren't readily available - because abandoning it would only guarantee Toronto's artistic and cultural decline.
But others, like councillor David Shiner, say those supporting the plan were voting with blinkers on.
"The culture plan is a wonderful idea," he says, "but I don't think much of the plan will get implemented, because how can we develop new arts projects if we can't even fund the ones we've got now?"
Indeed. An even more fundamental question is, how do smaller cities like Montreal and Vancouver do a superior job of funding the arts?
One answer is that both those cities raise money for cultural tourism promotion through a hotel tax levy. In Montreal hotel visitors pay $2 a day and in Vancouver 2 per cent of their room bill. According to official city documents, a 3 per cent visitor levy in Toronto would yield about $24 million a year.
Frustrated culture division director Rita Davies accuses Ontario's Minister of Tourism and Recreation, Brian Coburn, of stalling on a proposed arts levy in Toronto.
Coburn's spokesperson says the government wants to be seen reducing taxes, not adding new ones.
"I think an arts levy would discourage travel, because post-SARS visitors aren't looking for the five-star experience - they want and expect a good bargain."
Lisa Walter, OPSEU president for local 535 representing A.G.O. workers, says both city officials and the province seem more interested in marketing culture than in nurturing it. "It's a business exercise, not a cultural exercise," she says.
So far, Ernie Eves has earmarked just $7.5 million a year for two years to support artists across Ontario. "None of that will go specifically to Toronto's culture plan, but many artists in Toronto will benefit from it," says John Brotman, executive director of the Ontario Arts Council.
Last November, Toronto recommended that Queen's Park grant the city use of 1 per cent of civic capital budgets for public art installations, but this is still not in place.
Translation: if you're an artist in this city, you will probably get more money by returning your empties to the beer store than you will from the suits.


text:
package de.hilling.maven.release;

import static java.util.stream.Collectors.toList;

import java.io.File;
import java.util.List;

import org.apache.maven.model.Scm;
import org.apache.maven.plugin.MojoExecutionException;
import org.apache.maven.plugin.MojoFailureException;
import org.apache.maven.plugins.annotations.Mojo;
import org.eclipse.jgit.api.errors.GitAPIException;

import de.hilling.maven.release.repository.LocalGitRepo;
import de.hilling.maven.release.utils.Constants;
import de.hilling.maven.release.utils.ReleaseFileUtils;

/**
 * Cleans up temporary release files from the project directory:
 *

 *
Revert changed poms.

 *
Remove info files for modules to build and changed files.

 *

 */
@Mojo(name = "cleanup", requiresDirectInvocation = true,
      // this should not be bound to a phase as this plugin starts a phase itself
      inheritByDefault = true, // so you can configure this in a shared parent pom
      requiresProject = true, // this can only run against a maven project
      aggregator = true // the plugin should only run once against the aggregator pom
      )
public class CleanupMojo extends BaseMojo {

    private static File fromString(String fileName) {
        return new File(fileName);
    }

    @Override
    public void executeConcreteMojo(Scm scm, Scm originalScm, LocalGitRepo repo) throws MojoExecutionException,
                                                                                MojoFailureException,
                                                                                GitAPIException {
        List<File> filesToRevert = ReleaseFileUtils.read(Constants.FILES_TO_REVERT).stream()
                                                   .map(CleanupMojo::fromString).collect(toList());
        if (!repo.revertChanges(getLog(), filesToRevert)) {
            String message = "Could not revert changes - working directory is no longer clean. Please revert changes manually";
            throw new MojoExecutionException(message);
        }
    }
}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


text:
The True Worth of Air Power
By Robert A. Pape
THE WRONG REVOLUTION
For more than a decade, advocates of precision air weapons have argued that wars can be won by selectively taking out an enemy's leaders, its communication systems, and the economic infrastructure of its major cities. Before the Persian Gulf War, Air Force Chief of Staff General Michael Dugan promised to end the war in days by targeting Saddam Hussein directly. Later, in Kosovo, General Michael Short, commander of allied air forces in Europe, ordered air power to "go for the head of the snake." And last year, in the Iraq war, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld sponsored a "shock and awe" air campaign against the Iraqi leadership. Whether it helps kill enemy leaders, isolate them from their troops, or make them vulnerable to overthrow by local groups, precision air power is advertised as a force that can win wars on its own.
Decapitating the enemy has a seductive logic. It exploits the United States' advantage in precision air power; it promises to win wars in just days, with few casualties among friendly forces and enemy civilians; and it delays committing large numbers of ground troops until they can be welcomed as liberators rather than as conquerors. But decapitation strategies have never been effective, and the advent of precision air weaponry has not made them any more so.
No doubt, precision technology has increased the accuracy of bombing. Today, 70 to 80 percent of guided munitions fall within 10 meters of their targets, even at night, with overcast skies, or in moderate winds. This is a remarkable improvement compared to World War II, when only about 18 percent of U.S. bombs fell within 1,000 feet of their targets, and only 20 percent of British bombs dropped at night fell within 5 miles of theirs.
Yet greater accuracy has not enabled air operations alone to win major wars any more than they did before the precision age. Independent air operations have rarely been decisive. From World War I until the 1980s, they were most effective in support of ground power, serving as the "hammer" to ground power's "anvil," with the anvil usually doing most of the work. Thanks to precision weapons, air power has become a far more effective complement to ground power; the hammer now does much more work for the anvil.
Precision air weapons have fundamentally changed military power, but they have not brought about the revolution often proclaimed by many air power advocates. Despite precision bombing, enemy decapitation has not become "the new American way of war." Rather, precision weaponry has revolutionized contemporary warfare by multiplying the effectiveness of using air and ground power together. The United States, in other words, still wins its wars the old-fashioned way. But with new precision air weapons, it now does so better than ever.
OFF WITH THEIR HEADS?
The strategy of enemy decapitation has inherent shortcomings, which precision technology, for all its advantages, cannot overcome. U.S. forces have tried the strategy on six occasions in the past 16 years, and it either failed or backfired each time.
The tactic proved largely ineffective in Afghanistan in 2001, when the United States dedicated weeks of air strikes to trying to kill Mullah Muhammad Omar and other Taliban leaders. Prior to last year's war, it had also achieved little in Iraq. The United States attacked 235 strategic targets in and near Baghdad in the opening days of the 1991 Gulf War and subsequently about 100 leadership and other targets in the four-day Operation Desert Fox in 1998. Both campaigns failed to kill Saddam or to weaken his control over his troops and the country.
Last year's shock-and-awe campaign in Iraq also yielded disappointing results. Raids against hundreds of targets during the war's early stages failed to kill or topple Saddam. Admittedly, they did help raise confidence in the imminent collapse of his regime and paved the way for the arrival of ground troops, who eventually caught Saddam last December. But late last March, General Richard Myers, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, acknowledged that the Pentagon's strategy to knock out Saddam's regime early on using devastating air assaults had proved less effective than expected.
In other instances, decapitation tactics have proved downright counterproductive. The 1986 bombing of Muammar al-Qaddafi's tent by the U.S. Air Force, which missed him but killed his young daughter, probably precipitated the revenge bombing of Pan Am flight 103 that killed 270 civilians. In March 1999, in an attempt to strong-arm Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic into adopting a more forthcoming policy toward ethnic Albanians in Kosovo, the United States launched what was supposed to be a three-day air campaign against 51 targets in and near Belgrade. Not only did these strikes fail to coerce Milosevic, they prompted the Serbian military to kill thousands of Kosovars and expel almost a million from the country.
The development of increasingly precise weaponry has not made decapitation strategies any more viable, for three reasons. First, killing leaders and accurately attacking communications networks depends more on military intelligence than on precision in combat. Without precise intelligence, precise weapons may precisely destroy targets that are not in use. Second, there are generally so few leadership targets that they can be destroyed even without precision weapons. Third, even successful hits may not translate into coercive success. Determining which ones will is a problem of political forecasting -- and an uncommonly difficult one. No current theory can predict whether air power alone can force regimes to change or assure that they will change in the right direction.
Decapitation has failed repeatedly, in other words, and against a variety of enemies, even when U.S. forces benefited from substantial intelligence and extraordinarily sophisticated equipment. Although precision weapons may produce lucky strikes in the future, there is good reason to doubt that decapitation will become a model strategy for the United States any time soon.
HAMMER AND ANVIL
The United States has chalked up a tremendous military record in the precision age. In just over a decade, it has won five major wars -- in Kuwait and Iraq in 1991, in Bosnia in 1995, in Kosovo in 1999, in Afghanistan in 2001, and in Iraq again in 2003 -- at the cost of only about 400 combat fatalities overall. Precision air power played an important role in these victories, not by helping decapitate the enemy, but mainly by helping friendly ground power crush enemy ground forces more efficiently.
Long before the age of precision weapons, the U.S. Air Force used mass air strikes to destroy critical political and economic targets. U.S. bombers flattened factories and other buildings in Germany and Japan and electric-power plants in North Korea and Vietnam with large numbers of "dumb" bombs. Today's precision weapons have not increased the coercive effectiveness of these tactics, which has always been limited, but they have made it possible to destroy similar targets with fewer sorties.
More important, improved bombing accuracy means that the hammer-and-anvil strategy is far more potent today than ever before. Attacking the enemy simultaneously by air and on the ground puts the enemy army in a quandary. If the enemy concentrates its ground forces in large numbers to form thick and overlapping fields of fire, they become vulnerable to air raids. But if it disperses them to avoid air strikes, opposing ground forces can defeat them in detail, mopping them up with few losses.
In the past, the U.S. Air Force would attack enemy ground formations if they presented especially attractive targets, such as road-bound columns of hundreds of vehicles that could be repeatedly strafed from above. Such attacks played a large role in defeating the Germans on the western front in World War II. Today's precision weapons allow air power to destroy massed enemy ground troops more easily, under a variety of conditions, and to attack other smaller, but still important, battlefield targets. Until recently, air power could rarely destroy tanks, trucks, command posts, or bridges used to supply fielded forces; even thousands of bombs aimed at just a handful of these tiny military targets could miss the mark. Now, satellites, advanced reconnaissance aircraft, and other sensors can reliably locate concentrated enemy forces for precision strikes to destroy. Even if enemy ground forces do not move, precision air power can respond quickly to their defensive fire. Today's precision weaponry thus allows air power and ground forces together to defeat enemy ground forces relatively rapidly and with few losses.
Combined power works best when it exploits the tactics commonly used by large mechanized armies in modern warfare, which have not changed with the advent of precision weaponry. Since World War II, attackers in mechanized warfare have usually tried to break through the enemy line and then advance, through the breach, deep into enemy territory. To prevent such breakthroughs, defenders typically seek to build formidable front lines, so that any section that is attacked can hold out until local reserves arrive. If breakthroughs do occur, defenders use mobile reserves to counterattack the exposed flanks of the penetrating spearheads, in order to cut them off (or at least slow them down) while a new defensive line is established.
Air power plays an important role in this situation. It is a significant offensive tool that can thwart defensive strategies in two ways. Air power can help an attacker weaken the enemy's front line by attacking it directly or blocking its access to supplies and possible reinforcements. More important, air power can also assist penetrating spearheads after a breakthrough, by stopping the movement of enemy reserves deeper behind the front and preventing them from redeploying or concentrating against the attackers.
Combining air and ground power continues to be a winning strategy in the precision age. It has played a key role in the United States' spectacular recent victories: its application helped win four wars, and the prospect that it might be used probably was decisive in a fifth.
IRAQ, PART 1
Before the air war began on January 17, 1991, Saddam was highly confident that his army could hold Kuwait. His calculation was simple: the United States, he told April Glaspie, then the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, would not tolerate 10,000 deaths. U.S. leaders also believed that if the toll reached those figures, public support for the war would dwindle, and most analysts estimated that it would take at least that many casualties -- and perhaps even twice that number -- for U.S. troops to win a ground war.
But Saddam was underestimating a critical U.S. asset: overwhelming air superiority, which eventually helped drive his troops out of Kuwait with only 147 U.S. fatalities -- fewer than even the most optimistic prewar estimate. The air power that defeated Iraq was not the bombing of Baghdad that captivated millions of CNN viewers, but the direct pounding of the Iraqi army in Kuwait, which denied Saddam a chance to inflict heavy costs on the coalition ground offensive.
U.S. air power made it impossible for the Iraqis to stop a breakthrough at the front. Direct raids killed 30,000 to 36,000 Iraqi troops and convinced another 100,000, who had been carpet-bombed and were starving, to desert. Those losses created huge holes in the Iraqi ranks and encouraged most of the remaining front-line infantry to surrender without resistance when the ground war began. Penetrating coalition spearheads found breaches in the Iraqi front up to two kilometers wide, which allowed them to advance along four-lane highways deep into the Iraqi rear without encountering significant resistance.
Air power also destroyed a significant number of Iraq's heavy military equipment -- tanks, armored personnel carriers, and artillery -- well ahead of the ground offensive. Studies conducted by the CIA, the Marine Corps, and the Army after the war showed that air power destroyed about 20 percent of Iraq's heavy military equipment and caused more to be abandoned by Iraqi troops once they realized the equipment was being targeted. Overall, some 9,500 precision-guided munitions destroyed about 2,500 pieces of Iraq's heavy military equipment. This is not a perfect score, but new-generation weapons were considerably more effective than "dumb" bombs would have been against similar targets.
Finally, air power prevented Iraq's mobile reserve forces from concentrating or otherwise moving in significant numbers inside the theater, which kept them from filling gaps in the front lines or blocking coalition ground forces that penetrated their lines. The Iraqi troops' mobility was significantly hindered as soon as the coalition gained air superiority; that was demonstrated as early as during the al Khafji battle in late January. In that confrontation, air raids defeated initial battalion-sized assaults by the Iraqis and then attacked without mercy two Iraqi heavy divisions that were detected marshaling for a follow-up attack. During the four-day ground campaign in February, coalition ground forces advanced almost twice as fast as expected, largely because the Iraqi mobile reserves, although still substantial, could not counter-concentrate en masse to oppose the breakthroughs at the front.
BOSNIA, 1995
The combination of air power and ground power also had a potent effect during the Bosnian war: it brought the Serbs to the bargaining table and helped determine the boundaries of the final map negotiated at Dayton. Although not a single bomb fell on Belgrade during this conflict nor was even a senior Bosnian Serb leader killed, U.S. air power was used to great effect in the field. Bombs were dropped on battlefield command posts, military units, and supply bridges in Bosnia, while 100,000 Croat and Bosnian Muslim ground forces attacked the 50,000 troops of the Bosnian Serb army. For the first time, the hammer-and-anvil strategy used U.S. precision air power working alongside local ground forces.
The use of strong coercive pressure began in the summer of 1995, shortly after Bosnian Serbs executed thousands of Bosnian Muslim civilians at Srebrenica. On August 4, some 100,000 Croat troops launched an intense assault on Krajina, a region of Croatia then under Serb military control. They quickly overran the area, causing most of the region's 175,000 Serbs to flee into Serb-held territory in western Bosnia. On September 8, Croat and Bosnian Muslim troops began a combined ground offensive toward the city of Banja Luka, where 350,000 Serbs lived. Within a week, they were just 20 miles from the city, having seized about a third of the Serb territory in Bosnia. The Bosnian Serbs' political leader, Radovan Karadzic, then promptly agreed to comprehensive talks and withdrew heavy weapons from Sarajevo. ("If we have a cessation of hostilities agreement," he said, "it means there is not going to be war in Sarajevo any longer.") The cease-fire went into effect on October 12.
The U.S. air operation Deliberate Force was a critical complement to forces on the ground, largely because it bombed military targets in Bosnia and hindered the Bosnian Serb army's ability to counter-concentrate against the oncoming Muslim-Croat ground offensive. From August 30 to September 14, U.S. air strikes delivered 1,026 bombs against 56 military targets in western Bosnia and near Sarajevo -- less than half the munitions used per day against Saddam's army in the Persian Gulf War, but enough to debilitate the far smaller and less heavily armed Bosnian Serb army.
Americans naturally call attention to the role U.S. air power played in coercing Milosevic to surrender, but it accomplished this result only by helping shift the balance in the ground war. The Dayton boundaries are, almost to the kilometer, the front lines controlled by the Croat and Muslim armies at the moment the peace agreement was signed in the fall of 1995. Top U.S. officials acknowledged that the combined use of air power and ground power helped win the war -- and shape the peace. General Michael Ryan, the commander of allied air forces, observed that "it took both" -- air power "nailed down" the Bosnian Serbs, preventing them from responding to the Muslim-Croat offensive on the ground. Ambassador Richard Holbrooke, the chief U.S. negotiator at Dayton, recalled, "I told [President Franjo] Tudjman [of Croatia] [that] the [ground] offensive had great value to the negotiations. It would be much easier to retain at the table what had been won on the battlefield than to get the Serbs to give up territory they had controlled for several years."
BACK TO THE BALKANS
The 1999 war in Kosovo is a more ambiguous illustration of the effectiveness of combined-power attacks, because it still is not entirely clear what pushed Milosevic to surrender Kosovo to NATO forces on June 3, 1999. Of the three most plausible theories for the war's end, however, the most convincing is that it was NATO's threat to invade Kosovo by using air power and ground forces simultaneously that turned the tide.
The first -- and least likely -- explanation for Milosevic's surrender is that he believed that the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) might seize Kosovo with the support of NATO tactical air power. Although the KLA did grow stronger during the war and NATO air power destroyed some Serbian heavy equipment during its 78-day campaign in the spring, the KLA remained far too weak to seriously threaten the Serbian army. It had not recorded a single offensive success -- not even by the war's end -- and it would have been no match for the Serbian army, which still had 47,000 soldiers and more than 800 tanks, armored personnel carriers, and pieces of heavy artillery -- all in good condition -- when it pulled out.
Another theory holds that Milosevic surrendered under the threat that NATO might use strategic air power against Serb civilians. Although this explanation cannot be ruled out categorically without serious evidence of Milosevic's motivations, it too seems unconvincing. In the 90-year history of offensive air power, threats to inflict harm on civilian populations by conventional bombing have never forced an adversary to abandon important goals.
There is little reason to think that Kosovo would be the first exception to this rule. NATO bombs killed about 500 Serb civilians -- a modest toll by historical standards. Strategic air power had damaged Serbian infrastructure, including oil-refining capability, major bridges, and, temporarily, the electric-power grid. But by the time Milosevic surrendered, the rate of attacks against new strategic targets was sharply declining, especially in the weeks after NATO had embarrassed itself by bombing the Chinese embassy in Belgrade. Moreover, it is unlikely that NATO would have deliberately chosen to inflict much more harm on civilians, given that public opinion in the West would not permit the direct targeting of residential areas or food stocks.
Even if NATO had set out to do so, there is good evidence that severe economic losses to the Serbian people would have had little influence on Milosevic's behavior. Serbian society had already absorbed significant economic pain. Sanctions had cut Serbia's GNP by half between 1989 and 1998. And for five years before the bombing, more than 25 percent of Serbia's population had been chronically unemployed. Nor was there any sign that Serbia was on the verge of a civilian uprising. By all accounts, the Serbs were becoming apathetic as the bombing continued. If anything, it was Milosevic's surrender that prompted street protests in the summer of 1999, and many of the demonstrators wanted him replaced because he had lost Kosovo, not because the Serbian economy had been damaged.
The more likely explanation, then, is that Milosevic surrendered from fear that NATO would invade Kosovo, with the devastating help of precision air power. In early June 1999, the United States, the United Kingdom, and other NATO countries were about to formalize a decision to mount a ground invasion of Kosovo. Former Russian Prime Minister Viktor Chernomyrdin undoubtedly communicated to Milosevic, with whom he met numerous times that spring, that a ground war was coming. (On June 8, Chernomyrdin said in a press conference in Moscow, "If the current peace plan for a settlement in Kosovo is not carried out, the situation in the region may develop according to a different scenario. NATO has a plan for carrying out a ground operation.") The United States and the United Kingdom also took strong measures to make that threat credible. Coalition forces widened supply roads in Albania and deployed more than 35,000 troops on Kosovo's borders, while the United Kingdom called up 30,000 ground-force reservists.
Anticipating a ground attack by NATO, Russia and Serbia tried to establish a Russian military presence in northeastern Kosovo in order to partition the region and retain control over some of it. Although the effort failed, it suggests that the Serbs and the Russians considered the threat of a NATO invasion credible and believed that Serbia would be defeated.
TOPPLING THE TALIBAN
The United States won the 2001 war in Afghanistan by imitating and updating the blueprint it had tested in Bosnia, combining precision air power with ground attacks by local troops. Once again the tactic proved devastating. The Taliban's front lines collapsed within days of first being battered from the air and on the ground, opening the way for the Northern Alliance to quickly overrun Mazar-i-Sharif and Kabul.
Since the Taliban had virtually no air power and meager air defenses, U.S. air supremacy was assured before the first bomb fell. The first month of bombing, October 2001, thus focused on command-and-control facilities and other leadership targets. But after that strategy failed to kill Mullah Omar or other critical enemy leaders, air power was turned against the Taliban's 25,000 or so troops in northern Afghanistan, most of which were concentrated in the front lines. In early November, U.S. special operations forces teamed up with U.S. Air Force combat controllers to use U.S. air power to support Northern Alliance assaults on the ground. At that point, the Northern Alliance, with its few tanks and 20,000 troops, controlled just ten percent of the country and was losing against the Taliban.
The hammer-and-anvil strategy most clearly showed its worth at Bai Beche, on November 5, during a key opening battle in the fight for Mazar-i-Sharif. Northern Alliance troops charged the enemy's front lines at Bai Beche, while dust and smoke from a recent bombing raid still hung in the air. Remaining Taliban fighters simply abandoned their positions to avoid capture or death. Within a week, Mazar-i-Sharif fell, prompting many warlords across the country to defect to the Northern Alliance. This in turn allowed the insertion of yet more U.S. special operations teams and U.S. Air Force combat controllers. Kabul fell a few days later, with hardly a fight, as did Kandahar, the last major Taliban outpost, on December 9.
As the war in Afghanistan shows, the hammer-and-anvil strategy is no more effective than the decapitation strategy at killing enemy leaders or combating lightly armed and loosely organized insurgencies. But it is far more successful at achieving the objective that wins major military victories today: defeating an enemy's capacity to organize its resistance by concentrating large ground forces.
UNSHOCKED, UNAWED
In the Iraq war last year, the United States quickly conquered Baghdad and vast portions of Iraq with few casualties. Although full information about the tactics the United States used there is still unavailable, it appears that the war was won once U.S. air power shifted from attacking leadership targets to bombing Iraq's Republican Guard and other regular military units. The air raids enabled U.S. ground forces to move relentlessly through many contested chokepoints and overrun key strategic positions before major Iraqi combat units could reorganize for a protracted defense of Baghdad.
The war began with an effort to shock and awe the Iraqi leadership into capitulating without a fight, but this quickly failed. As a result, U.S. air power was soon turned against Iraq's forces in the field. Saddam had deployed them along the key approaches to Baghdad, rather than at the country's borders, probably in an effort to inflict significant casualties on U.S. ground forces, or slow them down, on their way to the capital. Tens of thousands of troops -- 40,000 according to Baghdad, 24,000 according to coalition intelligence -- from Saddam's most loyal forces, Republican Guard divisions, and other stalwart regular divisions, formed a defensive ring south of Baghdad. For ten days, the Republican Guard and other key divisions withstood intense U.S. bombardment. More than half of the 28,000 bombs dropped by U.S. pilots during the war were directed against the Republican Guard, and more than two-thirds of those were precision strikes aimed at heavy armor and other vehicles. Relatively few Iraqi troops seem to have been killed, but strikes on their heavy armor apparently compelled most of them to keep away from the equipment, effectively disabling Iraqi resistance to the approaching U.S. ground forces. According to the Pentagon, all but 19 of the Republican Guard's 850 tanks had been destroyed or abandoned, and only 40 of its 550 artillery pieces were still usable.
Yet the breaking point in the war appears to have come during the second week, when U.S. ground forces advanced against Iraqi positions that had been and were still being pounded from the air. Caught in a vise between air strikes and ground attacks, most Iraqi troops deserted. As Brigadier General Allen Peck, a key member of the air command center, put it, "Ground troops forced the enemy's hand. If they massed, air power could kill them. If they scattered they would get cut through by the ground forces." Washington's victory in the Iraq war marked another success for the combined-power strategy.
IT AIN'T BROKE
Over a decade into the precision revolution, the record points to a simple conclusion: the greater accuracy and surveillance capabilities of today's precision equipment enable air power to support ground campaigns far more effectively than in the past. Under some circumstances, air power has even become the military's main force, with ground power operating in a supporting role. Precision weaponry has not, however, eliminated the need for significant ground forces. There has been a precision revolution, but not the one touted by air power's advocates. The real revolution has not turned leadership targeting into a winning strategy; it has multiplied the combined effectiveness of air and ground power against enemy forces on the battlefield.
This analysis has important implications for the future of the U.S. military. Advocates of the decapitation strategy are calling for a fundamental transformation of the U.S. armed forces. They argue that the United States should rely more heavily on strategic air power and long-range standoff strikes by naval forces. At the same time, they argue for decreasing the role of the U.S. Army and converting its heavy combat divisions into light formations that would swarm around the enemy, rather than confront it head-on. Such a transformation would make sense if the United States could effectively destroy enemy leaders or their ability to command their forces. But decapitation alone is an unreliable strategy, and the U.S. military should not be reformed according to it -- or in any way that undercuts proven tactics, especially when they are more potent than ever.
Integration, not transformation, is the way to make the U.S. military more effective in the future. The precision revolution has already transformed the nature of U.S. military power. The recent proliferation of cheap computers -- which brought microelectronics to weaponry -- has facilitated most tasks in nearly all areas of air, ground, and naval warfare. These tasks rely heavily on advanced sensors, precision-guided munitions, and computerized information processing. U.S. military forces are now more effectively destructive, at greater range and speed, than ever before. Although diffusion of precision technology throughout the U.S. military will surely continue, it has already transformed the way each of the military's branches operates.
What the U.S. military must do next is integrate the reconnaissance, maneuver, and tactical-targeting systems that currently operate separately in its individual services. The increasing lethality of high-accuracy weapons makes the combination of firepower and movement much more powerful when air and surface forces work together. If the first two decades of the precision revolution were about bringing microelectronics to weaponry, the next should be about integrating the separate systems in the military's various branches that run on this sophisticated equipment.
The main contribution that the U.S. Air Force can make would be to increase its capacity to carry large numbers of bombs to operational theaters, rather than its ability to deliver fewer munitions through stealthy means of penetration. For decades to come, there will be a greater need for relatively cheap tactical strike aircraft, such as fast-disappearing aircraft from the Cold War (A-10s, F-111s, and B-52s), than for billion-dollar strategic bombers that can fly 10,000 miles at a time but can conduct only a handful of sorties every few days. A few F-22s (or electronically upgraded F-15s) are necessary to secure the superiority of the U.S. Air Force, but what the force needs above all is a new generation of "bomb trucks."
The leading advocates of the precision revolution have it exactly backwards. Precision weaponry has done little to enhance the coercive strength of enemy decapitation or other new strategies, which often fail because of inadequate intelligence. After a decade and a half of trying -- and failing -- to solve this intelligence problem, it may be time to recognize that it will not be overcome any time soon. Until it is, the combined use of air power and ground forces -- whose potency has been multiplied by precision weapons -- remains the most effective way for the United States to win major wars.
Robert A. Pape is Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago and author of Bombing to Win: Air Power and Coercion in War.
More By Robert A. Pape
War & Military Strategy U.S. Foreign Policy Defense Policy Weaponry & Arms Sales