Messages

Apparently.  The Soviets got Aldrich Ames of course, but they lost much of their intelligence assets in the Red Scare because recruiting became harder and much more costly.  They had some in the State Dept during WWII, the Rosenbergs of course, but as a single operation they never got near the level of the CoS.  The Walker Spy Ring maybe, was much more important, but as a rule intelligence agencies work very small scale, with as few links as possible between agents and officers to stop leaks.

It was the biggest spying ring and case of domestic intelligence gathering in the USA ever.  Including the Soviets and Stasi.

I'm not down with it, personally.  Think For Yourself Shmuck has been  a good theme, and I don't think it's been explored to the fullest quite yet.  I'd move on when there's a lot more cut-and-dry documentation on it and there's some kind of output from it all.  Not only that, the law of fives, while a multi-layered subject seems fluffy and trite to me, and isn't how I'd choose to represent myself.

I recognize that there is some content carry-over for it, though.  Maybe it could be worked in as an aspect or angle.

Lets Hunt Down and Kill Bully Ray Cyrus, hosted by Bill Hicks.  It would have been a winner 

No.  Reading black people = monkeys LOLOLOLOL for the 10 thousand time made it rather dull (and whats up with that anyway, I thought Christian patriots didn't believe in evolution?).  I got to the point the Chinese soldiers and black ghetto leaders, along with the UN have taken over America. 

Thanks 

Not sure, to be honest.  I'm considering some more "out there" research opportunities in the Carribbean....Hustle knows some people down that way and it fits into my area of expertise.

Failing that, writing.  I can at least do that well.

Alot of people interested in the counter-culture in general and particularly the three ring circus of Discordianism, the CotSG and affiliated Subcordian asshats, take a deep interest in conspiracy theories and the workings of secret cabals which are hostile to our very existence. I don't necessarily need to describe such groups as I'm sure you know what I mean. The Illuminati, various arms of The Conspiracy....Them, in short.

Obviously, many ordinary people do not believe in any sort of Them at all and so these groups have perhaps jeopardized their "credibility" (as if what Pinks and Greys think actually matters) in certain circles. However, a lot of people are wasting their time in this general area of inquiry. Thats not to say there are not conspiracies, because there are and they are very real, but most people have been hoodwinked into looking in totally the wrong direction for them. I certainly don't have all the answers, but I am in a position where I can quite legitimately research the linkage in the corridors of power and am able to tell you what I know.

I wont name names however....not real names. Rule 1: everyone is a disinformation agent. Its all too easy for false information to be fed to you or me, so I'll just sketch out the general 'shape' of whats going on, letting you fill in the blanks yourself. I'll also tell you what is likely not true and why I think thats the case. Firstly, the liars.

Many Conspiracy Theorists come from the Christian Patriot Movement, a collection of pig-ignorant degenerates and criminals who couldn't find their backsides with both hands, let alone highly intelligent conspirators working in the shadows. Invariably these idiots will make racist claims of "International Jewish Bankers" and...well, I barely need to go on. The sort of shit you can read in The Turner Diaries and other pieces of infantile fantasizing interspersed with horrific racist violence and disgusting characterization. If you believe anything that comes from these circles, chances are you're a brainwashed idiot duped by some charismatic leader with a Messianic complex.

Building on from example one, there is the general "Jewish Conspiracy" which is popular among the far-right (just ask Nick Griffin), the far left and various religious groups. This is quite frankly utter horsecrap....going by history, we should probably have a White Christian Male conspiracy, as these are usually the people involved in such things. Its basically scapegoating and stems from a religious need to place the blame for the death of Jesus on anyone but the Romans, who actually did him in. Anyone with any real knowledge of history would dismiss the idea of any single ethno-religious group being behind all conspiracies, or even just a large one as utter crap.

The UN is another one also taken from the far-right. Apparently they are a godless and evil organization preparing to take over the USA and occupy it with foreign troops....whereas the depressing truth is in fact the UN is nothing more than a device for the USA to legitimize its actions abroad. It doesn't always work of course, but given the powers the US gave to itself as a charter member....well, its a testament to the power of propaganda that people can think its anything but a slightly unruly tool of the USA.

Intelligence services are often a favourite one, for obvious reasons. Cloaked in secrecy, given wide powers to act pretty much outside the law, the similarities with secret police of bygone times, yeah here we are onto something more plausible. However, it should be remembered that almost always these are merely foot soldiers for higher powers and if they are doing something, its because they have been directed to do so. Running drugs, assassinations and so on, while invariably blamed on a rogue faction, do serve a greater political or security purpose.

The Satanic cult is another favourite, particularly among David Icke sorts, who can combine it with the relatively more interesting alien abduction theories. Satanic Ritual Abuse is probably one of the greatest scare stories of the 80s, one for which there is very little to no real evidence. Most Satanists are....well, jerks basically. Smart people, very quick mentally, but real assholes. The CoS is basically a money making device and the Temple of Set...well, its occult so its not my cup of tea, but its no worse than what Wiccans get up to. What is often referred to as organized Satanic abuse in fact is usually widely disorganized and carried out by...mentally ill Christians. Who, coincidentally, are the sort of people most likely to promote this theory.

Alien abduction is interesting....in the few cases where there is genuine reason to believe that is in fact what happened. However, in most cases they are part of a carefully crafted government disinformation project. Not only does it explain experimental aircraft tests quite nicely, it also keeps a whole bunch of people on a wild goose chase, either keeping them distracted and ruining their credibility, or causing the believers to fall under the sway of irrational terror and hopelessness. I'll explain more on this another time, but there is evidence to suggest that intelligence agencies have in fact staged many of these events, either as part of a general disinfo project or as covers for other activities.

International Banking is actually one of the few areas where the theorists may have a point. If you throw in the various multinational companies involved with them, as well as a few NGOs. The World Bank and IMF are essentially tools of the European and US governments, used to "crack open" foreign markets, totally undermine the economy, then buy up previously state owned companies at bargain basement prices and bleed the plebs. Its the modern day version of colonialism, only it actually makes a profit.

Secret societies are of course the number one favourite for conspiracy theorists. Been around a long time, naturally secretive....the problem is most of them are basically talking shops. Anyone can join the Freemasons and while there are a few specific lodges that have been involved in some nasty shit, the majority are quite dull. The Illuminati have never been proven to exist beyond their downfall in 1785 and the Priory of Sion were always a sham. Most of these are generally beneficial organizations anyway, the Freemasons in particular being closely aligned to Enlightenment ideals expressed by writers like Voltaire and Diderot.

So what do I believe?

I think there are certain...factions at the very top of the political-economic structure, whose membership is hard to ascertain but who can be judged by their actions. At least one is highly antagonistic, ultra-nationalist and allied with certain sectors of big business. These are closely allied with certain Theocratic nuts, with whom there is overall agreement, though each dislike the other for certain reasons relating to their own beliefs. There is one whose view could most accurately be described as Neo-Liberal, who are largely benevolent and are closely linked to a benevolent movement for world governance. And there is another who wants the same world governance, but for entirely less high-minded reasons.

And of course, within each group there are sub-groups, factions and dissent.

One final tip before I end this - don't look to fancy sounding names and titles, because thats entirely the wrong way. Look towards bland sounding committees and think tanks, with boring names like the Committee for a Free Britain or The American Enterprise Institute....also watch out, as certain groups (such as the Project for a New American Century) are likely to shed their skin and change when exposed to too much light (as when they changed into the AEI).

Apart from those, for me Conspiracy Theorism is rather like Alternate History discussion, its an interesting look into how the world could be, as well as fuel for the imagination.

[Chaotic Systems Are Nonlinear]

Chaotic Systems Are Nonlinear

All chaotic systems are nonlinear. Among other things, nonlinearity means that a small effort can have a disproportionate effect. If warfare is chaotic, then chaos theory suggests COGs may be found where there is a nonlinear process in the enemy's system. In fact, nonlinearity is implicit in the concept of a COG. Because you can't predict future behavior of a chaotic system based on initial conditions, chaos theory suggests that the campaign planner should concentrate on processes in an enemy system rather than data on its current condition. It also suggests that identification of nonlinear processes is an essential ingredient in understanding warfare and being able to manipulate the outcome with the least effort. The following paragraphs will discuss some of the many sources for nonlinearity in warfare.

Feedback loops are one process that can introduce nonlinear effects in many systems. A feedback loop that is important to the air campaign is the feedback that attrition rates give to an air commander. High attrition rates could force a commander to change his tactics. For example, the loss rates of 16 percent experienced by the US in the daylight bombing raids over Schweinfurt were enough to stop the bombing raids for four months until a long-range fighter was developed. Col John A. Warden used this and other historical examples to argue that the maximum acceptable rate was about 10 percent.  He continued, however, by pointing out that the effect of one mission with a 10 percent attrition rate and nine missions with negligible casualties was much greater than a steady 1 percent attrition rate over 10 missions. In a linear system there would be no difference between the two--the additive effects would be the same. The fact that there is a difference shows that the feedback is nonlinear. When Warden suggested that massing for a few devastating blows is more effective than many minor blows, he described how to exploit the nonlinearity in the system.

A second source for nonlinearity in warfare is the psychology associated with interpreting enemy actions. This nonlinearity caused Clausewitz to state, "Thus, then, in strategy everything is very simple, but not on that account very easy."  He later amplified by saying that while maneuvers such as a flanking movement are simple in concept, they are difficult to actually accomplish because there is always the danger of what the enemy might be doing. In this environment, small actions on the part of the enemy often assume larger significance in a commander's mind than they deserve. According to B. H. Liddell Hart, this nonlinear effect occurred in World War I before the first Battle of the Marne.  The Germans, aware of a possible seam in their dispositions, had been ordered to retreat if the British Army advanced over the Marne. As it happened, a British division sent out a reconnaissance patrol. The Germans, misinterpreting this as a general advance, retreated when the way lay open for victory.

A third source for nonlinearity in warfare is that there are a number of processes within warfare that appear to be inherently nonlinear. The role of mass is an important example. Warden showed that for air power, losses vary disproportionately with the ratio of the forces involved.16 In 1944, for example, 287 American aircraft attacked a target defended by 207 German fighters. The Americans lost 34 aircraft. A month later, when 1,641 American aircraft were opposed by 250 German fighters, America lost 21 aircraft--a lower percentage and a lower absolute number.

A fourth source of nonlinearity in warfare is Clausewitzian friction.  Basically, there will be events in war, perhaps as a result of chance, that have an effect out of all proportion to their apparent importance. This is an exceedingly difficult form of nonlinearity to anticipate, but it can be taken advantage of once it happens. The German doctrine of Auftragstaktik, which allowed initiative on the part of junior commanders, was designed to do precisely this.

Finally, the process of decision making itself can be a source for nonlinearity. Sometimes the decision is clear-cut. Often, however, the decision can depend upon relatively minor circumstances at the time. One source suggests that the steam engine lost out to the gasoline internal combustion engine largely as a result of an outbreak of hoof-and-mouth disease.  Because of this outbreak, many horse troughs, which steam engines had used to top off their water supply, were removed. Once the decision is made, it is often irreversible because of the drive for standardization. Any major decision, including those made in wartime, can be nonlinearly based on such relatively minor factors.

Fractal Geometries Apply

If warfare is chaotic, then aspects of it must be fractal. This has implications for the analysis of an enemy system. First, the attractor for a chaotic system is fractal and so is infinitely complex. Therefore, efforts to analyze every aspect of an enemy's system are bound to be in vain as there will always be some finer level to analyze. Second, behaviors at the tactical, operational, and strategic levels are linked. If a technique is successful at one level, we can expect it to be successful at all levels. This suggests that we should, when possible, try out strategies on a small scale when the consequences of losing are inconsequential. It also suggests that analysis techniques that are useful on one level may be useful on others. An example of this is the observe-orient-decide-act (OODA) loop that was originally proposed for tactical level fighter combat.  The OODA loop, however, has since been applied successfully to operational level concepts such as information dominance. Third, if the small scale is similar in behavior to the large scale, then we can use observation of the small scale to predict the behavior of the large scale. For example, Adm Isoroku Yamamoto was fond of playing Shogi. In his biography of Admiral Yamamoto,  Hiroyuki Agawa noted that Yamamoto's style of playing this game was to risk everything on a bold, early stroke. If that failed, he would often lose the game. Agawa suggests that this philosophy was behind the way in which Admiral Yamamoto planned his large campaigns such as Pearl Harbor and Midway. The fractal nature of war may also have implications for the way we should organize for war. Sun Tzu implied a fractal nature of war when he said, "Generally, management of many is the same as management of few."  This indicates that he thought that the principles of organizing to fight were essentially the same regardless of the scale of the fight. Some principles such as span of control appear to be similar regardless of organizational level. Although research on the implications of chaos for organizational structures has started, conclusions are far from certain.

Multiple Attractors are Possible

Multiple attractors are possible in a chaotic system. This statement means that chaotic systems can have multiple quasi-stable states. The earth's climate is a good example of this sort of behavior. Our current climate appears to be relatively stable. There is some variation in the climate, but it falls within a general range for a number of years. On the other hand, we know that the earth's climate was significantly different during the ice ages, when it fell within a very different range for a long period. Our current climate and the ice age climate are both quasi-stable states for the earth's climate. The causes of changing climates for an ice age are still not understood and might be quite insignificant, which further highlights the nonlinearity of chaotic systems.

In an analogous fashion, armed forces can drastically change their organization and means of fighting a war. The People's War of Mao Tse-tung is an example of this. Mao divided the phases of war into different stages. In some stages, his army fought a guerrilla war as small units. Only later, when conditions were right (i.e., the opposing armies had been sufficiently weakened), did he combine his units into a conventional force. If warfare is chaotic, then chaos theory warns us that enemy systems can exist in different states. The implications are that we must be aware of these possible states and, if necessary, be capable of changing our own system's state to counter the enemy strategy. Chaos theory also warns us that the transition from one state to another can be very fast.

Conclusions

,Ä¢ Computer simulation can be used to better understand warfare. While chaos theory tells us that warfare will never be completely predictable, it also tells us that simulations could be used to identify COGs.

,Ä¢ Warfare is nonlinear. This implies an extreme sensitivity to initial conditions, which means that the campaign planner should concentrate on processes in an enemy's system. Attacking nonlinear processes promises the most effect for the least effort. There are several sources for nonlinearity in warfare.

,Ä¢ Fractal geometries apply. This suggests that analytical techniques and participant behaviors should be translated to the various levels of war.

,Ä¢ Multiple attractors are possible, which suggests a way of viewing transitions from conventional war to guerrilla war and vice versa.

[An Overview of Chaos Theory]

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj94/nichols.html

Maj David Nicholls, USAF
Maj Todor Tagarev, Bulgarian Air Force

For the last 30 years, the study of chaos has intrigued investigators, prompting many to see a great future for the study and application of chaos theory. In science and engineering, chaos theory has significantly improved our understanding of phenomena ranging from turbulence to weather to structural dynamics.  Chaos theory has even been used to drastically improve our ability to control some dynamic systems.  In the social sciences, there has been considerable interest in whether social phenomena, previously thought to be random, have an underlying chaotic order. Several mathematical tests for chaotic behavior have been applied to historical data from both the stock market and cotton prices. These tests indicate that these economic phenomena are chaotic and so have a deterministic basis (i.e., are governed by rules) as opposed to being random. Naturally, this has received some business attention, and at least two firms are now using chaos theory to guide their financial advice.

There is evidence that warfare might also be chaotic. First, strategic decision making, an integral part of war, has been found to be chaotic.  Second, nonlinearity, which is a requirement for chaotic behavior, appears to be a natural result of Clausewitzian friction.  Third, some computer war games6 and arms race simulations have been found to exhibit chaotic behavior. Fourth, previous work by the current authors applied several tests for chaos to historical data related to war. Those tests demonstrated that warfare is chaotic at the grand strategic, strategic, and operational levels.

An Overview of Chaos Theory

In this paper, we will discuss some important implications of chaos theory in the context of warfare. First, however, we will briefly summarize some important aspects of chaos theory.

Nonlinearity

If a system is linear, it means that the output of the system is linearly related to the input. In other words, if the input is doubled, the output will be doubled; if the input is tripled, the output will be tripled, and so on. In nonlinear systems, however, the output might be related to the square or the cube of the input. Such systems are often very sensitive to input. All chaotic systems are nonlinear.

Predictability of Chaotic Systems

Dynamic systems can differ from one another in how they change with time. In random systems, future behavior is independent of the initial state of the system and can be characterized only in terms of probabilities. For example, unless the dice are loaded, the next roll of the dice is totally independent of the previous roll. On the other hand, periodic systems return regularly to the same conditions, as exemplified by the pendulum clock. Such systems are totally predictable because once one period is known, all others must be identical. Chaotic systems are neither random nor periodic. They are not random because the future of a chaotic system is dependent upon initial conditions. They are not periodic because their behavior never repeats.

Chaotic systems never repeat exactly because their future behavior is extremely sensitive to initial conditions. Thus, infinitesimal differences in initial conditions eventually cause large changes in system behavior. An often-used example of this sensitivity is weather. Weather is so sensitive to initial conditions that there is a belief that the flap of a butterfly's wings in America could eventually cause a typhoon in China.  It is inconceivable that conditions on the earth could ever duplicate an earlier time to the point where even all butterfly flights are duplicated. Therefore, the earth's weather will never be periodic.

In addition to making chaotic systems aperiodic, extreme sensitivity to initial conditions means that it is not possible to determine the present conditions exactly enough to fully predict the future. Figure 1 illustrates this point. In figure 1, successive values for x are plotted resulting from the nonlinear equation xi+1 = 4xi - 4xi2. For one plot the initial value of x was 0.7. For the other plot it was 0.70001. Initially, they are indistinguishable from one another, but as time goes on, even such a small difference between the two is magnified until their behavior appears totally unrelated. Short-term predictions are still possible because small influences will not have had time to grow into large ones. However, what is short-term depends on how sensitive the system is to small changes at that point in time.

The importance of this concept is that it explains how a system can be governed by a set of equations and yet still be unpredictable. We cannot know the initial value of a system, such as that illustrated in figure 1, precisely enough to predict which path the system will follow. If warfare is chaotic, this tells us that we cannot make perfect predictions even if we could reduce war to a mechanistic set of equations. Fortunately, as is also illustrated by figure 1, there are bounds to the unpredictability of a chaotic system. Furthermore, chaos theory provides tools that can predict patterns of system behavior and can define bounds within which the behavior is unpredictable

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj94/nic1.jpg

Phase Space

The construction of a phase space plot is often used to better understand chaotic behavior. A phase space plot is a plot of the parameters that describe system behavior. It is useful because it provides a pictorial perspective for examining the system. An example of a phase space plot for a simple pendulum is shown in figure 2. At point A in figure 2, the pendulum is the maximum positive distance from the bob's neutral point but its velocity is zero. This is shown as point A on the phase space diagram. At B the distance of the bob from its neutral position is zero, but its velocity is at a maximum (in a negative sense). The other points of the phase space plot show the relation between the velocity and position for other pendulum positions. In this case, where there is no friction, the motion of the pendulum is constrained to remain on the elliptical path shown in the phase space plot. The technical term for this ellipse is the attractor for the system. One can see that this attractor is periodic because the path of the system exactly repeats itself in each orbit around the origin.

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj94/nic2.jpg

In contrast, figure 3 shows an attractor for a chaotic system. This attractor is a tangled mess of trajectories. The complexity of this attractor has led to its being dubbed a strange attractor. Although there are still constraints as to how the system behaves, there are a lot more possible states for the system. It is important to note that the phase space paths of a chaotic system will never coincide. If this were to happen, the system would become periodic. The longer a chaotic system is observed the more paths are taken and the messier the phase space plot of the attractor appears. Superficially, the attractor may appear to be completely disorganized. Closer examination of the phase space, however, reveals that the attractor is organized but in an unconventional manner.

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj94/nic3.jpg

It is possible to simplify the portrayal of the attractor by taking a two-dimensional slice through it (shown in the lower half of figure 3). This also makes the structure of the attractor more obvious. This two-dimensional section is called a Poincar?© map.10

Fractals

We generally define things dimensionally in terms of integers. Lines are one-dimensional, planes are two-dimensional, and solids are three-dimensional. Fractals are objects with fractional dimensions. This concept appears at first sight to be nonsense. An object with a fractional dimension of 1.5, for example, would be more than a line but somehow less than a plane. Nevertheless, such things are not only thought to exist, but such geometries are central to chaos theory. One example of such a geometry, although it is not chaotic, is the Koch snowflake.

The Koch snowflake starts as an equilateral triangle. A one-third scale equilateral triangle is added to each side. A one-third scale triangle (of the new, smaller triangle) is then added to each side of the resulting figure. This process is continued ad infinitum as illustrated in figure 4.

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj94/nic4.jpg

The perimeter of this shape has several unique features. First, although it is a single, continuous loop that does not intersect itself and that circumscribes a finite area, its length is infinite. Second, Benoit Mandelbrot calculated that the dimension of the perimeter of the Koch snowflake is 1.26.11 This means that the perimeter is between a line and a plane. Third, the shape of the perimeter of a Koch snowflake is self-scaling. That is, the perimeter would look the same whether you looked at it with the naked eye or with a powerful microscope.

These geometries are pertinent to chaos because strange attractors are fractal. Strange attractors, like the Koch snowflake, are infinite curves that never intersect within a finite area or volume. If a system is chaotic, it will have a strange attractor and the Poincar?© map will show fractal characteristics. That is, the Poincar?© map will remain similar regardless of scale.  Thus, Poincar?© maps can be used to determine if a system is chaotic by visually depicting the nature of the attractor. The dimension of the attractor can also be calculated. If an attractor's dimension is not an integer, then the system is chaotic.

Implications of the Presence of Chaos in Warfare Previous work examined historical data associated with the grand strategic, strategic, and operational levels of war. That work showed that war is chaotic on all of these levels. If war is chaotic, then it must have the characteristics of a chaotic system. We will now describe some of the characteristics of chaotic systems and define what they mean in the context of warfare.

Computer Simulation Can Enhance Understanding

Computer numerical modeling or simulation has greatly increased our understanding of physical chaotic systems. The reason for this is that the equations that govern chaotic systems are nonlinear and therefore are generally not analytically soluble. Chaos theory, however, cannot be used by itself to derive a theory of warfare. As with any other theory that describes a phenomenon, a theory of warfare must be based upon observation, hypothesis, and testing. Specifically, development of a model of warfare would require the development of the structure of the model, the determination of the number and type of variables, and the determination of the form of the equations. In addition, system parameters and control factors, as well as sources for noise, would have to be identified. This is a very difficult task for any particular situation that is complicated by the possibility that different models might apply for different antagonists.

Chaos theory can help us by suggesting ways to develop our model and ways to use the model once it is developed. For example, observation of a chaotic system can be used to determine the dimension of the system. The number of variables needed to describe the system must at least equal the dimension of the system. Therefore, chaos theory can be used to define the minimum number of variables required in our computer model. Chaos theory also suggests that computer models of warfare must contain some nonlinear relationships between system variables so that the computer model is chaotic and thus reflects the chaotic nature of warfare. This may actually prove to be advantageous since the fractal nature of chaotic systems may allow relatively small and simple war games to accurately simulate warfare. Realistic war games that could be run on a desktop computer would have significant educational and operational advantages. Finally, the rate of information loss can be calculated for a chaotic system. This quantity is related to how far into the future predictions can reasonably be made.

The ways in which computers have been used to understand chaotic behavior in physical systems also suggest ways to use the computer to model warfare. For example, although chaos theory explains some aspect of the weather, the reader has probably noted that weather forecasting has not become perfect. This criticism, however, misses one of the most important contributions that chaos theory has made to weather prediction--chaos has given weather forecasters a means to determine if their forecasts are likely to be accurate. Chaotic systems are highly dependent upon initial conditions but they are not always equally so. If a chaotic system is in a portion of its phase space where the initial conditions are critical, then uncertainty in determining the initial conditions makes a large number of outcomes possible. If a chaotic system is in a region of its phase space where the initial conditions are not critical, then only one outcome (prediction) is likely. In practice, weather forecasters use this behavior by inputting small changes in initial conditions into their model. If the small changes produce small variations in the prediction, they have shown that the system is in a portion of phase space where the initial conditions are not critical and their prediction is likely to be true. If the minor changes in initial conditions produce large deviations in future behavior, forecasters know that their prediction is likely to be in error.

The same approach could be taken to understand when predictions in warfare are likely to be accurate. This in itself would be a valuable contribution of computer simulation to understanding warfare. There are, however, two additional reasons why this approach may be even more applicable to warfare than it is to weather. First, unlike weather forecasters, we have some ability to change the initial conditions. Specifically, if we find ourselves in a region of great uncertainty, we could determine which conditions would have to be changed to move the system to a position where the outcome was predictable and desirable. The quantity and type of forces are examples of initial conditions that we might be able to change. Second, we could use our model to determine which initial conditions and which variables had the most profound effect on our predictions. This would aid in identifying centers of gravity (COG) and information that we needed to know precisely. That is, it would tell us where to concentrate our attack and what intelligence information was most critical.

Have any American Idol contestants actually survived past their first album?  Or even a second single?

Because ours sure as fuck don't, making it the single most worthless contest ever.  There have been exactly 2 successes from that program format, and none of them are from after 2002.

Because then you dont have to look from book to screen.  Its easier.

Plus you can copy and paste slogans from the book and randomly IM them to people.

I have an int0n3t version of 1984, if you want it.

my favorite

sunburst
newspaper
surreal

I think he wants help in which ones are the worst.

Yeah, I got my copy that way 

I'd go with 8, 4 and the Plastic one.

I personally like casino night....