"Why are you still alive?"

tlb wrote:

cthia wrote:Which is where I think the wind beneath Lewis and Linda's wings came from.

To give credit where due, Linda and Lewis did not derive the results, they only got to present them; it was the "tea-leaf readers" who generated the report. They would be the analysts of Naval Intelligence reporting to Rear Admiral Victor Lewis, Director of Operational Research, and his boss Vice Admiral Linda Trenis of Bureau of Planning, as Jonathan_S told you.

Why use the first name (Linda) of one and the last name (Lewis) of the other? Just for the alliteration of the "L"'s?

Well using using just Victor Lewis's first name would likely cause confusing in readers between him and our favorite Havenite famous secret agent Victor Cachat. But I'm not sure why RFC had everybody referring to Linda Trenis as "Linda" rather than as "Trenis".

I don't think it's just alliteration of Linda and Lewis though.
Several people (Theisman; Tourville; Admiral Arnaud Marquette, the chief of the Naval Staff ; and Vice Admiral Edward Rutledge, director of the Bureau of Logistics) consistently call her "Linda"[1] through War of Honor but we don't meet her subordinate Lewis until the next book -- At All Costs. I doubt RFC set up the alliteration of "Linda and Lewis" an entire book before giving us Lewis.

Maybe it's just to help remind readers that Haven's post of Director of Operational Research is a woman. But that's pure speculation.

[1] Though Giscard uses her full name, "Linda Trenis" the one time he refers to her in WoH.

tlb wrote:

cthia wrote:Which is where I think the wind beneath Lewis and Linda's wings came from.

To give credit where due, Linda and Lewis did not derive the results, they only got to present them; it was the "tea-leaf readers" who generated the report. They would be the analysts of Naval Intelligence reporting to Rear Admiral Victor Lewis, Director of Operational Research, and his boss Vice Admiral Linda Trenis of Bureau of Planning, as Jonathan_S told you.

Why use the first name (Linda) of one and the last name (Lewis) of the other? Just for the alliteration of the "L"'s?

I know you don't like to read my posts, but chrissakes, you supplied the textev. Textev says "Lewis and Linda just handed me their tea leaf...."

I also thought the reference was odd, but as Jonathan says, I realized that the use of "Victor" would suggest the wrong somebody.

At any rate, I suppose there is a chance the tea leaf readers didn't have access to the predictive model that top brass ordered up and which was obviously created. Or that there was a reason to deny them access.

I don't think so, but, "To agree to disagree" should be easy for you and me. And everyone else makes three.

tlb wrote:

cthia wrote:Which is where I think the wind beneath Lewis and Linda's wings came from.

To give credit where due, Linda and Lewis did not derive the results, they only got to present them; it was the "tea-leaf readers" who generated the report. They would be the analysts of Naval Intelligence reporting to Rear Admiral Victor Lewis, Director of Operational Research, and his boss Vice Admiral Linda Trenis of Bureau of Planning, as Jonathan_S told you.

Why use the first name (Linda) of one and the last name (Lewis) of the other? Just for the alliteration of the "L"'s?

Jonathan_S wrote:Well using using just Victor Lewis's first name would likely cause confusing in readers between him and our favorite Havenite famous secret agent Victor Cachat. But I'm not sure why RFC had everybody referring to Linda Trenis as "Linda" rather than as "Trenis".

I don't think it's just alliteration of Linda and Lewis though.
Several people (Theisman; Tourville; Admiral Arnaud Marquette, the chief of the Naval Staff ; and Vice Admiral Edward Rutledge, director of the Bureau of Logistics) consistently call her "Linda"[1] through War of Honor but we don't meet her subordinate Lewis until the next book -- At All Costs. I doubt RFC set up the alliteration of "Linda and Lewis" an entire book before giving us Lewis.

Maybe it's just to help remind readers that Haven's post of Director of Operational Research is a woman. But that's pure speculation.

[1] Though Giscard uses her full name, "Linda Trenis" the one time he refers to her in WoH.

Also, some government agencies seem to like using last names. Lewis is common as a first and last name, which could also be a problem.

At any rate, I followed the suit of the author.

ThinksMarkedly wrote:

cthia wrote:At any rate, oftentimes expert systems provide information you didn't know you needed. They dot the Is and cross the Ts for you. They may find inconsistencies or peculiarities that point to the solution.

They can't create information out of thin air. Or worse, out of the vacuum of space.

If those freighters and other captured ships only used the Junction at Felix, the best you can get is the route to Felix, but not from Felix to Darius.

Unless those ships did get a navigational fix on the Darius system and sloppily forgot to delete it. This shouldn't be allowed: it should be SOP to delete it before transit through the wormhole, so that if they're captured immediately after coming through, there's nothing to be gleaned.

From that point, we'd have to have an incredibly lucky break. For example, could the radiation that bathed the ship somehow lead to a fix? A nearby pulsar that caused a particular imprint on the hull or building materials?

These don't seem to be the type of clues RFC is going for in the HV, so I doubt they'll be how the GA finds Darius.

If there is nothing there there is nothing there. As I said. But inconsistencies can also be a clue that point elsewhere. The type of clue, I beg your pardon, which is exactly what RFC is going for.

I don't think they will ever find a clue as terse as "Darius is located ..."

Do you?

cthia wrote:

cthia wrote:Which is where I think the wind beneath Lewis and Linda's wings came from.

tlb wrote:To give credit where due, Linda and Lewis did not derive the results, they only got to present them; it was the "tea-leaf readers" who generated the report. They would be the analysts of Naval Intelligence reporting to Rear Admiral Victor Lewis, Director of Operational Research, and his boss Vice Admiral Linda Trenis of Bureau of Planning, as Jonathan_S told you

At any rate, I suppose there is a chance the tea leaf readers didn't have access to the predictive model that top brass ordered up and which was obviously created. Or that there was a reason to deny them access.

I don't think so, but, "To agree to disagree" should be easy for you and me. And everyone else makes three.

Well the text ev about the predictive model simply said the analysists don't have good one.

I'd quibble that that does not necessarily mean it was obviously created. There are two ways I can see that statement being read:
1) They developed a model but it wasn't good.
2) They didn't have enough to develop a good model so they didn't waste time developing one they knew wouldn't be good.

But even if we say the first case is true I wouldn't give a such a model much credit for predicting Honor's next targets; not when the best they seem to be able to say about it is that it is not "a good predictive model".


However, that text ev is specifically about what the analysist had (or didn't; as the case might be). And that's the only predictive model mentioned -- so there's definitely nothing there even hinting that their bosses have access to any model the analysists don't. (And remember; they're saying the analysist "really don't have a good predictive model" after the analysts report is complete and passed up through their bosses to Theisman. There's no room to argue that the model started out bad and they made it good enough to pick the targets -- they've already put their bets down on Honor's next strikes before making the claim they couldn't make a good predictive model.


It seems to me that RFC is trying to be very clear that it was in large part human intuition that led them to winnow down the entire Republic to a list of 10 most likely, and 15 more still likely, target systems that Honor might try for.

So, I'd say if anything was the wind between Linda and Lewis's wings it was their hard working, and intuitive, analysists - and not any less than good predictive model those analysists might have used to assist in their work..

ThinksMarkedly wrote:But from there to Darius is not easy. The same 1000-light-year radius applies and therefore 16 million stars to be searched. You'd have to eliminate better than 9999 out of 10000 to have less than 1600 stars to search. And I don't see how they could do that with the information at hand.

Well, most stars are in binary(or plus) systems so that slashes this to about eight million locations to check straightaway.

They could skip the red dwarves and concentrate on the F/G/K type stars. Those make up about a fifth of all stars, so three and a half million stars. If we ignore mismatched binaries for this exercise, that could be as few as two million locations to check.

10,000 ships taking one week to check each location could complete a grand survey of this lower bound in just four to five years. Including all red dwarves extends this to about twenty to twenty-five years.

I've suggested it before, the SLN could probably accomplish this sort of hunt on a timescale short enough to disrupt the Alignment's plans. Nobody else has the sheer quantity to do it.

cthia wrote:Which is where I think the wind beneath Lewis and Linda's wings came from.

tlb wrote:To give credit where due, Linda and Lewis did not derive the results, they only got to present them; it was the "tea-leaf readers" who generated the report. They would be the analysts of Naval Intelligence reporting to Rear Admiral Victor Lewis, Director of Operational Research, and his boss Vice Admiral Linda Trenis of Bureau of Planning, as Jonathan_S told you.

cthia wrote:I know you don't like to read my posts, but chrissakes, you supplied the textev. Textev says "Lewis and Linda just handed me their tea leaf...."

As you point out and I was well aware, the partial text from Jonathan_S and the fuller text that I supplied stated that it is was the "tea-leaf readers" who produced the report. So I was simply pointing out that in your "wind beneath" their "wings" statement, you seem to be assigning all credit to "Lewis and Linda".

It was only afterward that I paused to wonder about the use of first and last name by the author. That you would think I was blaming you for that usage is another example of the difficulties both of us have in reading the other's posts.

tlb wrote:Why use the first name (Linda) of one and the last name (Lewis) of the other? Just for the alliteration of the "L"'s?

cthia wrote:I also thought the reference was odd, but as Jonathan says, I realized that the use of "Victor" would suggest the wrong somebody.

At any rate, I suppose there is a chance the tea leaf readers didn't have access to the predictive model that top brass ordered up and which was obviously created. Or that there was a reason to deny them access.

I don't think so, but, "To agree to disagree" should be easy for you and me. And everyone else makes three.

It might confuse the reader, but it should never confuse the person to whom the report was given. However to clarify things to the reader is sufficient reason to write it that way.

You are correct that our jousting has made it difficult to "agree to disagree" sometimes. On the particular point of "expert systems", I will happily try to avoid an argument.

tlb wrote:

cthia wrote:Which is where I think the wind beneath Lewis and Linda's wings came from.

tlb wrote:To give credit where due, Linda and Lewis did not derive the results, they only got to present them; it was the "tea-leaf readers" who generated the report. They would be the analysts of Naval Intelligence reporting to Rear Admiral Victor Lewis, Director of Operational Research, and his boss Vice Admiral Linda Trenis of Bureau of Planning, as Jonathan_S told you.

cthia wrote:I know you don't like to read my posts, but chrissakes, you supplied the textev. Textev says "Lewis and Linda just handed me their tea leaf...."

As you point out and I was well aware, the partial text from Jonathan_S and the fuller text that I supplied stated that it is was the "tea-leaf readers" who produced the report. So I was simply pointing out that in your "wind beneath" their "wings" statement, you seem to be assigning all credit to "Lewis and Linda".

It was only afterward that I paused to wonder about the use of first and last name by the author. That you would think I was blaming you for that usage is another example of the difficulties both of us have in reading the other's posts.

tlb wrote:Why use the first name (Linda) of one and the last name (Lewis) of the other? Just for the alliteration of the "L"'s?

cthia wrote:I also thought the reference was odd, but as Jonathan says, I realized that the use of "Victor" would suggest the wrong somebody.

At any rate, I suppose there is a chance the tea leaf readers didn't have access to the predictive model that top brass ordered up and which was obviously created. Or that there was a reason to deny them access.

I don't think so, but, "To agree to disagree" should be easy for you and me. And everyone else makes three.

It might confuse the reader, but it should never confuse the person to whom the report was given. However to clarify things to the reader is sufficient reason to write it that way.

You are correct that our jousting has made it difficult to "agree to disagree" sometimes. On the particular point of "expert systems", I will happily try to avoid an argument.

Something I forgot. Jonathan asked why RFC would use Linda's first name, and not the first name of her subordinate's as well. I also think it is because RFC was trying to suggest to his readers that Linda was part of the "good 'ol boy" network. She was a veteran who had long been part of the system and paid her dues. These people are sometimes on a first name basis. Eloise don't refer to Thomas Theisman as Theisman, or even Thomas. Well. She mostly uses the more informal Tom.

Victor Lewis may not have "arrived" yet, as it were.

tlb wrote:That depends on what sort of morgue system Darius has and whether it has been penetrated. Also I am not sure how someone could disappear on Darius, since I doubt that she would blend in with the workers. Just stuffing her in a safe house for the rest of her life seems awkward.

Killed in a situation where the body either isn't worth trying to find, or is beyond current tech. Remember the sailplanes? The former could be accomplished by a crash into extremely rugged terrain in a fashion that didn't leave a remotely intact plane--say, blown into a very high, very steep cliff in a storm. Bits and pieces end up scattered over quite an area. A failure to find the body isn't going to scream trouble. Locally we have missing bodies on the local highest mountain, some months ago a hiker found a long-dead body in the desert (and not far from a popular trail) and read up on the Death Valley Germans--without the case gnawing on a S&R guy (note: Wikipedia simply says hikers searching for their fate and doesn't say they were S&R) and finding them 13 years later they probably never would have been found.

At sea the same thing could happen, the sailplane gets blown out to sea and goes down. Floating debris is found, the body is not--presumably fish food at that point.

(And while sailplanes might have antigrav emergency landing systems they will only save you from a crash, they won't save you from being caught in storm winds that exceed your max airspeed.)

There is another point of interest about her: why would she be considered a security risk? It is not just that she knows about "System Alpha", but that she actively worked on improving their defense.

She will realize it was a real system that was lost.

It seems to me that Gail is only a security risk to that cover story; but there are too many inconsistencies for that story to work, if and when Darius is found.

No, this is the light that fell from the sky on The Truman Show. Inconsequential by itself, very relevant in that it will make her realize society isn't as everyone believes.

tlb wrote:That depends on what sort of morgue system Darius has and whether it has been penetrated. Also I am not sure how someone could disappear on Darius, since I doubt that she would blend in with the workers. Just stuffing her in a safe house for the rest of her life seems awkward.

Loren Pechtel wrote:Killed in a situation where the body either isn't worth trying to find, or is beyond current tech. Remember the sailplanes? The former could be accomplished by a crash into extremely rugged terrain in a fashion that didn't leave a remotely intact plane--say, blown into a very high, very steep cliff in a storm. Bits and pieces end up scattered over quite an area. A failure to find the body isn't going to scream trouble. Locally we have missing bodies on the local highest mountain, some months ago a hiker found a long-dead body in the desert (and not far from a popular trail) and read up on the Death Valley Germans--without the case gnawing on a S&R guy (note: Wikipedia simply says hikers searching for their fate and doesn't say they were S&R) and finding them 13 years later they probably never would have been found.

At sea the same thing could happen, the sailplane gets blown out to sea and goes down. Floating debris is found, the body is not--presumably fish food at that point.

(And while sailplanes might have antigrav emergency landing systems they will only save you from a crash, they won't save you from being caught in storm winds that exceed your max airspeed.)

tlb wrote:There is another point of interest about her: why would she be considered a security risk? It is not just that she knows about "System Alpha", but that she actively worked on improving their defense.

It seems to me that Gail is only a security risk to that cover story; but there are too many inconsistencies for that story to work, if and when Darius is found.

Loren Pechtel wrote:She will realize it was a real system that was lost.

No, this is the light that fell from the sky on The Truman Show. Inconsequential by itself, very relevant in that it will make her realize society isn't as everyone believes.

I realize that there are deaths which do not result in a body being recovered, but I was talking specifically about a death that should have been caused by the nanite protocol. If the Inner Onion chooses a death for Gail that means a body should show up for an autopsy, then the splinter group has to have enough penetration to ensure that a fake autopsy report can be generated and believed.

At that point the splinter group will have to house and feed her for the rest of her prolong enhanced life in a way that never invites suspicion. Frankly, in a closed society like Darius, that is going to be much harder than just faking her death would be.

The current cover story is that Galton was the "Bad" Alignment and Darius is the "Good" Alignment, which knew about the others and took advantage of some of their excesses in Houdini. For that to be successful when Darius is found, then people of Darius should be made aware of Galton. So the problem with Gail is not that she knew Galton existed, but that she and others on her team were active in designing its defense. So it is not just Gail that is a security risk, but everyone on that team. I doubt that they will all be programmed to die in ways that do not leave a body behind.