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. 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 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. 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. ~~Aimee
