Re: Billions of dollars for nothing
- From: simberg.interglobal@xxxxxxxxx (Rand Simberg)
- Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 02:20:03 GMT
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 01:28:38 GMT, in a place far, far away,
fairwater@xxxxxxxxx (Derek Lyons) made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:
It's been noted a number of times that there is a strong bias in such
assessments: defensive technologies are considered uncertain until they
are built and tested, but decoys and other counter-defensive systems are
deemed credible and fully effective on the basis of a few calculations
done on a napkin.
There is another pair of biases less often discussed; First, that a
system that cannot utterly defeat a 'throw everything but the kitchen
sink' attack is useless. Secondly, that any degree of leakage -
regardless of the scale of the attack, is useless.
Indeed.
By the way, Scientific American has long since lost the reputation it once
had, and even in its heyday it was known for its biased reporting on this
particular topic,
Ayup.
Indeed again.
.
- References:
- Billions of dollars for nothing
- From: jacob navia
- Re: Billions of dollars for nothing
- From: Henry Spencer
- Re: Billions of dollars for nothing
- From: Derek Lyons
- Billions of dollars for nothing
- Prev by Date: Re: Lunar Base Location
- Next by Date: Re: What would you like to be our major goals in space
- Previous by thread: Re: Billions of dollars for nothing
- Next by thread: Re: Billions of dollars for nothing
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
