Boeing Reveals Sub-Tracking ScanEagle Study

dott.Piergiorgio ha scritto:
Fred J. McCall ha scritto:
BlackBeard wrote:

snip

Sorry for that post; I don't get how and why ends posted.... -_-

Best regards from Italy,
Dott. Piergiorgio.

"dott.Piergiorgio" wrote:

In this period I'm working on a study/essay what I consider the best
"no-nonsense" classification rule sets, whose can be read on the UK's
Naval Rewiew in the very first issue, 1913, pp. 9-11, article "War
thought and Naval war", whose, in a nut, says "if something can be
extrapolated by intelligent people with public sources and/or plain
facts, classifying it it's useless"

I'd rate that claim as 'questionable' myself - because the mere facr
that something _can_ be extrapolated does not mean it _has_ or _will
be_ extrapolated.

Nor is it always possible to predict what can be extrapolated from
widely seperated data points.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

Derek Lyons ha scritto:
"dott.Piergiorgio" wrote:

In this period I'm working on a study/essay what I consider the best
"no-nonsense" classification rule sets, whose can be read on the UK's
Naval Rewiew in the very first issue, 1913, pp. 9-11, article "War
thought and Naval war", whose, in a nut, says "if something can be
extrapolated by intelligent people with public sources and/or plain
facts, classifying it it's useless"

I'd rate that claim as 'questionable' myself - because the mere facr
that something _can_ be extrapolated does not mean it _has_ or _will
be_ extrapolated.

Nor is it always possible to predict what can be extrapolated from
widely seperated data points.

Mh... I admit that I have difficulties to parse your reply; you can
explain better, perhaps with a practical (non-classified) example ?

Best regards from Italy,
Dott. Piergiorgio.