All Hank, all the time.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
And we accomplished all this with no profiling?

Yes we have been lucky so far. But they are always improving their game, so we need to constantly improve ours. Anything to make the system more effective, especially if it doesn't cost much - don't you agree?

[Cletus Miller]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I think that the "successful 7 out of 8" depends on a particular way of defining "successful." I do think that they are genuinely making headway, but consensus from most all people involved in the projects (other than politicians -- so, like, the military people and the people who make the thingies and the people who measure the effect of the shots) is that they aren't really very close to having something that would be effective in a real-world situation.

Thus, the disconnect between the apparent results and the lack of trumpeting by Rumsfeld, Cheney, et al. Success probably being defined as meeting the goal of the test, rather than meeting the ultimate objective of the program.

Originally posted by ltl/fb
ETA Gatti's article was not about Patriot missiles, it was about M-3 somethings. Are they still working on projects that involve trying to get Patriots to hit ballistic missiles?

I don't think that there is any continuing project to use Patriots against ballistics. I think that Spanky is on the Patriot point to establish a baseline of some success with (short-? medium-? range) missile defense.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Spanky
Yes we have been lucky so far. But they are always improving their game, so we need to constantly improve ours. Anything to make the system more effective, especially if it doesn't cost much - don't you agree?

aren't we profiling with the warentless phone taps? those have probably helped stop stuff.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Cletus Miller
Success probably being defined as meeting the goal of the test, rather than meeting the ultimate objective of the program.

That sounds right to me.

[Shape Shifter]

Just trying to get the k-race moving along.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
That's a good tip. Thanks. Your little epistemological sidelines to the substantive conversations here never fail to offer useful advice.

In my experience, a substantive conversation never includes:"read this and get back to me." That is just a cop out.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Spanky
In my experience, a substantive conversation never includes:"read this and get back to me." That is just a cop out.

On the other hand, a substantive conversation usually includes at least 2 people who read.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
On the other hand, a substantive conversation usually includes at least 2 people who read.

You didn't finish the sentence: On the other hand, a substantive conversation usually includes at least 2 people who read writings from a variety of sources (not just ideological biased sources that reaffirm their position) and can actually find validity in some writings that don't reaffirm their preconceived beliefs and find invalidity in some writings that do.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Spanky
You didn't finish the sentence: On the other hand, a substantive conversation usually includes at least 2 people who read writings from a variety of sources (not just ideological biased sources that reaffirm their position) and can actually find validity in some writings that don't reaffirm their preconceived beliefs and find invalidity in some writings that do.

Ghost Wars is idealogically neutral enough that it didn't burst into flames when it entered slave's place. What do you recommend?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
You didn't finish the sentence: On the other hand, a substantive conversation usually includes at least 2 people who read writings from a variety of sources (not just ideological biased sources that reaffirm their position) and can actually find validity in some writings that don't reaffirm their preconceived beliefs and find invalidity in some writings that do.

Why do you think Tom Ricks is ideologically biased?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Ghost Wars is idealogically-neutral enough that it didn't burst into flames when it entered slave's place. What do you recommend?

I just read Bill Maher's latest book. I found that really funny.

Before that I read "Alls Fair" by Mary Matalin and James Carville. Wasn't all that great.

Before that I reread Empire of the Word by Ostler - that is awesome.

Before that I read Pakistan: In the Shadow of Jihad and Afghanistan by Mary Anne Weaver - that was really good.

Before that I read "Sons of the Conqueres" by Hugh Pope. Boring.

Before that I read the entire Collen McCullough "First Man in Rome Series". That was also awsome.

Any one see the Daily Show last night? The bit on CNN and figuing out how terrorists can hijack planes was great.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Why do you think Tom Ricks is ideologically biased?

He is the Pentagon Reporter for the Washington Post. Need I say more?

Seriously I have seen him interviewed a few time including on Frontline and the guy seemed incredibly biased to me. The guy seems to think everything Rumsfield does is wrong. When people are that sweeping in their criticism my radar goes up. Its like listening to George Will talk about Clinton or McCain.

By the way - I agree with the criticism that we should have used more troops for the invasion (or at least for the occupation).

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Spanky
I just read Bill Maher's latest book. I found that really funny.

Before that I read "Alls Fair" by Mary Matalin and James Carville. Wasn't all that great.

Before that I reread Empire of the Word by Ostler - that is awesome.

Before that I read Pakistan: In the Shadow of Jihad and Afghanistan by Mary Anne Weaver - that was really good.

Before that I read "Sons of the Conqueres" by Hugh Pope. Boring.

Before that I read the entire Collen McCullough "First Man in Rome Series". That was also awsome.

Any one see the Daily Show last night? The bit on CNN and figuing out how terrorists can hijack planes was great.

No, no. Something about Iraq that doesn't burst into flames. Or, as Stewart happened to put it to Ricks (Fiasco) a couple weeks ago, is there anyone writing a book these days on Iraq and the campaign there titled something like "Good Job!"

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Why do you think Tom Ricks is ideologically biased?

Have you ever read a book by someone with a conservative bias?

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Spanky
Have you ever read a book by someone with a conservative bias?

I read Dan Quayle's autobiography.