-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Aimee wrote: Faustine wrote:
> > http://www.metatempo.com/IWARThreatModel.pdf > > Seems awfully dated and rudimentary. Current online books which go a lot > deeper and put crypto its due place, dead center: <snip> >Well, it says it's an old paper, and the audience could be general. Anyway, >I enjoyed one of his other papers, and somebody else considered it worthy >enough to pass along. The source that passed it along probably wouldn't ever >read a RAND publication, and view the relevance of their materials the same >way I view lint. Their loss. One of the most interesting qualities of "RAND-style" research as opposed to purely academic work--and believe me, I've read a lot of it--is the phenomenal number of practical ideas lurking just under the surface of every pub. All it takes is someone knowledgeable and imaginative enough to extract them and make it happen. >I don't know Mr. Wilson's situation, but some people with operational >mind-sets are "awfully dated and rudimentary," but damn good in operational >contexts, whereas some people with contemporary analytical mind-sets >couldn't drive a cow out of a barn unless it was a theoretical cow in a >theoretical barn, the entire situation transpired on paper, and adhered to >game theory, graphs and flow-charts. In contrast, operational mind-sets work >best in a continual state of mistake and against the laws of gravity. Even >though they might not be especially rigorous, they are especially relevant, >and prone to decision-making and risk-taking, rather than analysis and >hedging. :P Point well taken, but I think history amply proves that whoever first masters both the operational and the theoretical is going to come out ahead. The problem with the pointyhead/donutchomper dichotomy (or "simp/ knuckledragger", if you prefer--or "bone lazy visionary/schizo snackycake posse" problem, as it manifests itself around here) is that none of these approaches are particularly well-equipped to adapt to a changing reality. Strictly Darwinian, predictable outcomes. Blend the best of both and there'll really be something to write home about. >Again, I don't know his bio, but one of his papers kind of struck me that >way, and you run across it a lot in military theory. I found his style >refreshing and conversational. It was okay, it just seemed to lack the real bite of "Networks and Netwars", that's all. >I have great respect and appreciation for RAND people, (not just for their >work, but for their approachability). My comments aren't slurring the >authors you cited, nor their works, nor you. I appreciate the references of >interest. Jeez, don't be so polite, it makes me nervous. This is Cypherpunks: vent a little, it'll do you good. ;) ~Faustine. *** He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself. - --Thomas Paine -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 (C) 1997-1999 Network Associates, Inc. and its affiliated companies. (Diffie-Helman/DSS-only version) iQA/AwUBPKi0kPg5Tuca7bfvEQJgIQCg+rZtq2k52nJaOvEpIHQOErCLaeUAnjGE Vc3brVj6pY5Qj05KeMpbujc9 =dbdk -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
