<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"><channel><title>Disqus - Latest Comments for Nick</title><link>http://disqus.com/people/3d922cabc4fb41bb4d3183b6e1192c47/</link><description></description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Fri, 04 Sep 2009 06:05:52 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: Enjoy Ships? Fluent in Wiki? Help us launch a new&amp;nbsp;feature.</title><link>http://gcaptain.disqus.com/enjoy_ships_fluent_in_wiki_help_us_launch_a_newnbspfeature/#comment-1349389</link><description>What?  The TSA TWIC site doesn't have the information you need?</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Nick</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 05 Mar 2008 03:33:03 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: The Coast Guards problem of Social Media Liability</title><link>http://cgblog.disqus.com/the_coast_guards_problem_of_social_media_liability/#comment-12029178</link><description>I like the 'not for emergency use' option best - simple and elegant.  Rescue 21 is reducing the number of crank distress calls but if we opened up Twitter / FB as sources of notifications, I expect we'd have even more fake 'calls' than we had before Rescue 21.  The other thing that could be done is make it explicit the accounts are maintained by public affairs types and are not operational.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;On the other hand, if there was a standard way for them to notify the CG of float plans electronically (email, twitter, etc.) so that they could be referred to as needed, I think that would be an asset.  It would HAVE to be standardized though, else you have garbage in-garbage out.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Nick</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 02 Jul 2009 09:21:58 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: I&amp;#8217;m confused; Coast Guard&amp;#8217;s Special Duty Pay</title><link>http://cgblog.disqus.com/i8217m_confused_coast_guard8217s_special_duty_pay/#comment-14827765</link><description>Perhaps SDAP is not a 'reward' for hazardous (a separate category of pay if I remember correctly) duty but is something to entice people to fill hard to fill billets combined with a stipend for those that travel a lot.  Just a thought.  I see it more in line with a recurring version of a re-enlistment bonus than a reward for doing a hard job.  Surely it's not hard to fill OIC jobs, but I'm not a detailer, so what do I know?</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Nick</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 14 Aug 2009 07:23:57 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: The Brand of “We” Versus the Brand of “Me”</title><link>http://cgblog.disqus.com/the_brand_of_we_versus_the_brand_of_me/#comment-15667063</link><description>How do you see this strategy meshing with the day-to-day operations?  I'm curious how you think the generally overworked field personnel are supposed to fit this strategy into their already crammed-with-operational-duties day?</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Nick</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 31 Aug 2009 16:45:12 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: The Untucked ODU. Pass or Fail?</title><link>http://cgblog.disqus.com/the_untucked_odu_pass_or_fail/#comment-15962515</link><description>Fail.  The maternity look just doesn't do it for me.  It looks sloppy, IMO.  Do you know if there was any official reasoning for NOT just getting the Army/Marine Corps uniform (minus 8-pt cap) in blue?</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Nick</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 04 Sep 2009 06:05:52 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>