Not quite the same thing.
[...]
What we have is the press - who doesn't understand most of these things, saying "AHA!" Well.... they don't get Virus alerts right, why do you think they bother to check the math on their presumptions?
They said the test was a success. That it might well be.

My boss doesn't understand what I do. He's exactly like the press in this manner - even to jumping on an 'AHA!' when they think they understand what happened, and it wasn't what they thought.

But if Marketing asks you "how's the project going along" - do you say "fine, coming along great, all the tests are working" or "well, as soon as we get around to adding all the functionality we haven't, we'll know"?

If you fake them out, by saying buying a plasma flat screen and then claim it's the LCD panel your company has been working on, you get fired and you don't get any more money from your investors. There was a LCD panel maker that just ran into this.

Like it or not, it's a trust issue. The pentagon claimed, for whatever reason, that the Patriot was working near perfectly. Originally they claimed success rates during Desert Storm were 98%+ percent. No one FORCED them to say this.

Outside investigators looked into the matter and began to question these reports. A Congressional Hearing was opened up and the Pentagon was forced to admit that it's success rates were far too high. (They claimed it was closer to 50%...outside investigators claimed it was closer to 1%.)

But the point of the matter was that the Pentagon wasn't forthcoming in the success rate of the missile system. They had to be forced to admit that their eariler numbers were too high.

Which takes us to this test. The discovery of the GPS system after the test might not affected the test - but then again, it might have. You are correct, we don't know. But why wasn't the existance of the GPS mentioned up front? Furthermore, the attempted squelching of critics (especially expert critics) is not a good sign.

BTW: you claimed that hitting the missile in flight, with GPS was HARD. I didn't claim it was or wasn't, but the truth of the matter is that you DO NOT KNOW. You are assuming again.

This was the first I've heard of the GPS system (same article) but it's certainly possible it was ignored by the media until recently. Furthermore, it's possible, even probable, that GPS wasn't used in any way, shape, or form by the system as a guidence system. Truely, I don't know.

Furthermore, the only source of the military bashing what's-his-name at MIT is in the article. That needs more investigation - a single source just isn't enough.

But my real point on the matter was that this type of stuff happens everywhere. PHB's want demos that show what they're buying and, when push comes to shove, you've got to demo it. There always seems to be a group of people who'll fake the test rather than show they've got nothing but vapor (like what's-his-name buying the plasma screen). The allegation that the test was faked/rigged shouldn't be dismissed out of hand.

But neither is it proof of the vast Bush/Cheney/Supreme Court conspiracy to enrich the War Machine. :)

Absolutely. At best (worse?) this would be proof of fraud. (Not that anyone is likely to ever be charged with anything.)

It shouldn't be dismissed, but right now, there's too much political nonsense going on, hiding any real tech issues.

Welcome to the kitchen. Real issues are ignored in politics why political 'nonsense' goes on. You expected differently?

And the story that came out was of the "AHA! They were hiding something" stage... and I think its the "Aha! the reporter doesn't get it". :)

Possibly. But then again, I'm not ready to jump to conclusions about the test as we don't know. I'm certainly not going to judge the reporter and claim "he doesn't get it" until those facts are out.

What truly amazes me is that you yourself have jumped onto others for jumping to conclusions without facts. You don't know if the test was rigged or not, but you willing to judge the reporter. You've said that the test was hard, even with GPS, without facts.

Yet if anyone else provides an opinion without being based on facts, you've jumped on them rather hard. You shove down their throats that they do not know.

Amazing....actually. You seem to be doing the same exact thing. I guess your rules just don't apply to you.

And yes, its hard, GPS or no GPS. I *know* this. We can debate my knowledge level about that, but hitting 2 targets, moving at those speeds, with the variances to be expected, yeah, that's hard.

You know this. Yet, you have provided no facts to back it up. You haven't proved your knowledge. I suppose I'm just supposed to grovel in your expert knowledge. (Of course, God forbid you accept anyone else's expert knowledge without proof.)

I'll accept that as a fact. If you want to think its easy, well, go ahead, but your opposition to the ABM program will look silly if you think its easy, and we shouldn't do it. :)
Do the math for yourself if you don't believe me. I won't be insulted. But its hard.

Let me get this straight: You're saying that my opposition to the ABM program is silly if hitting a missile with a GPS installed is easy? Do our enemies' missiles come with a GPS? Of course, I've been silly! Thank you addison, I agree. My opposition to the ABM system (where did this come from?) is hereby GONE!

Our enemies will of course install GPS systems in their missiles JUST SO WE CAN DESTROY THEM!

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that was your point, wasn't it?

For the record (again) I haven't claimed that it's easier or harder to nail a target with a GPS installed. (You did.) I STATED quote: [...] you claimed that hitting the missile in flight, with GPS was HARD. I didn't claim it was or wasn't [...] (emphasis added.) Since I haven't claimed anything, I have nothing to prove.

And now, according to you, I'm in opposition of the ABM system. Gee, thanx for asking my opinion.

You already *did*. So did the reporter. And its my supposition that the reporter did exactly that, for much the same reason you did.

Excuse me, but what conclusion(s) have I jumped to? (Please be specific.)

Note that I'm just mentioning that as a possibility. In response to your (implications) that the military isn't honest about its systems.

Amazing: I think it's the "Aha! the reporter doesn't get it" equals "mentioning that as a possibility". Yeah, sure, one of them isn't a judgement call. What was it you said to me, something about "well, sorry, but that's not what you said."?

BTW: My implications that the military may not be honest about it's system are at least backed up with facts. I've documented where the military HASN'T been honest about it's systems in the past. (See, I claim this, so I willing to prove it.)

I guess your rules just don't apply to you.

Right.
Sorry. Forgot, anti-Republican good good good, pro-republican bad.
And me forgot to bash bash bash.

Where did that come from? Who said ANYTHING about Republicans?