Computer Models Find Patterns In Asymmetric Threats

The Narrative Fallacy brings us a story about a project by University of Alabama researchers to develop a database capable of anticipating targets for future guerrilla attacks. Quoting Space War: "Adversaries the US currently faces in Iraq rely on surprise and apparent randomness to compensate for their lack of organization, technology, and firepower. 'One way to combat these attacks is to identify trends in the attackers' methods, then use those trends to predict their future actions,' said UA-Huntsville researcher Wes Colley. 'Some trends from these attacks show important day-to-day correlations. If we can draw inferences from those correlations, then we may be able to save lives by heightening awareness of possible events or changing the allocation of our security assets to provide more protection.' Researchers reviewed the behavior signatures of terrorists on 12,000 attacks between 2003 and mid-2007 to calculate relative probabilities of future attacks on various target types."

You're Tax Dollars At Work Frylock...

[milsoRgen]

So predict the unpredictable?

Re:

[FleaPlus]

So predict the unpredictable?

Or more precisely, predict the mostly-unpredictable. Just about any activity involving humans, even if it seems utterly random at first glance, will have underlying patterns which emerge once one analyzes the data.

Re:You're Tax Dollars At Work Frylock...

[milsoRgen]

Yeah but a 6th month study done in Alabama ain't going to give you anything more than a good soldier is going to be able to tell you. Or maybe a good spreed sheet, this looks like a glorified Office macro to me.

Re:

[FleaPlus]

Yeah but a 6th month study done in Alabama ain't going to give you anything more than a good soldier is going to be able to tell you

That remains to be seen. Are you suggesting that analyzing attack data is a bad idea?

Re:

[milsoRgen]

That remains to be seen. Are you suggesting that analyzing attack data is a bad idea?

Not in a generic sense no, but the application of such data is invariably going to be used in our current situation in Iraq.
Are you suggesting that throwing more money into our current situation is a good idea?

Re:

[milsoRgen]

And don't give me any of this "we can just pull out" crap.

Well if you don't want any of that crap from me, I don't want any of your "win it" crap. There is nothing to win, there is no cohesive and organized central force in which to engage in battle.

And I agree, we will be over there for a long time, just because there's so much money to be made for powerful and influential people.

Re:

[alan_dershowitz]

I believe that a US soldier serving in Iraq right now is less worthy of life then these insurgents(And if you are offended, give me one non-racist reason that would say otherwise).

Because the majority of people attacking Americans are made up of two groups: disaffected minority ruling-class members that used to enjoy special political status over the majority population and who therefore want to destabilize any attempt at representative democracy; and foreign fighters who don't give a fuck about Iraq or Iraqis but hate the West so much that they cannot tolerate a successful American action in the Middle East.

The Sunnis are the minority, but Sunnis used to dominate the political proc

Re:

[Dhalka226]

(And if you are offended, give me one non-racist reason that would say otherwise).

I have plenty of arguments for you. Some conflict slightly (I'm not advancing a personal position here); choose whichever you please.

1. Nobody's life is worth more or less than anybody else's.

2. Nobody should be deciding whose life is worth more or less than somebody else's. If there's a god, that's his domain exclusively.

3. The soldiers are serving their country by joining the military, which is an admirable thing to

Re:

[Antique Geekmeister]

Some of those guerrilla troops are certainly doing many things that are wrong. Armed theft is supporting them, as are blackmail, kidnapping, and drug running. Civilian terrorism, especially against your own countrymen for being religious or political opponents instead of military ones, and the harsh treatment of women and children including murder is "wrong".

I agree we have to keep a sense of scale, that many of the things the US does in Iraq are also "wrong" or even more wrong. But be clear, the guerrillas

Re:

[milsoRgen]

Most people don't realize that Alabama universities are on the leading edge of homeland security and law enforcement research

And that is supposed to increase my respect for Alabama? Sounds like a a good place for the Gestapo [wikipedia.org] headquarters.

Re:

[Protonk]

godwin's law.

Re:

[wall0159]

If you think that then you obviously have no understanding of probability. Please educate yourself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_distribution [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_variable [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistics [wikipedia.org]

Re:

[bondsbw]

In case you didn't read the article, it's the University of Alabama in Huntsville.

By the way... both UA and UAH are national leaders in homeland security and law enforcement technology research. Add UAB, with its biomedical research and other engineering programs, and Alabama universities are home to some of the best engineering and technology research in the nation.

Re:

[johndiii]

Not to mention the fact that the Marshall Space Flight Center is in Huntsville. That Saturn V thing? No way it could have actually reached space, it was designed in Alabama.

But this is Slashdot; it's useless to try rebut the groupthink (read: prejudice) with facts.

A step up.

[Ethanol-fueled]

As lame as it sounds, it would be a step up from the current method my gov't(US) uses: treat everybody like a criminal.

A step down more like

[EmbeddedJanitor]

The computer model throws a double six as you walk past the screening point. You get selected for The Glove Of Fun.

Computer models are only as good as their data: Garbage In, Gospel Out. That's a problem with climate modelling. The climatologists keep tweaking the models until they get what they expect and are then smug because the models "prove" their predictions.

If terrorist activity is truely random, then this thing does not stand a chance. However, terrorists, like most people, likely follow some sort of pattern and if the signature "tell tale signs" can really be detected then perhaps attacks etc can be predicted.

Re:

[complete loony]

Until the terrorists start reading the predictions and deliberately doing something else.

Re:A step down more like

[Protonk]

People like you freak me out. What do you think science is? How, magically, does meteorology differ from Physics? Do we hold the same opinions about black holes, dark matter and the big bang as we used to? Hell, the term "big bang" was originally pejorative--scientists didn't fit that possiblity into their models. The data changed and so that forced a change in theory. It's how fucking science works. For fuck's sake.

Climate science is no different. What is different is that there are consequences for our actions on earth that matter depending on the outcome of the model. Because there are huge stakes involved, people tend to forms groups at the poles of opinion. You have companies with large stakes in suggesting that climate change is not man made paying for climate research by scientists who feel similarly. You have news organizations and political organizations (who know shit about science) taking the barest of abstracts from a study and runnign with it. You have sceince dumbed down by both sides in order to explain it to voters and policymakers. this sort of thing doesn't happen that much in some branches of science.

Evolutionary biology, genetics, labor economics, sociology, antropology. Those are a short list of disciplines whose conclusions draw people into camps. They also happen to be the same disciplines (not an exclusive list) that people accuse of unscientific practice (and then in doing so, describe the scientific method perfectly, as you have done). That those disciplines and only those disciplines would suffer from a failure to understand the scientific model alone while scores of other disciplines would execute that model perfectly strains credulity.

Re:A step down more like

[Protonk]

They do. All the time.

Prediction: The earth is warming due to man made effects.

Test: Take given data (earth warming) and attempt to sort out all possible other effects.

These models are EXCEEDINGLY complicated. The early ones were pretty damn complicated but were basic by comparison. Models suggested for years that climate change was man made without a doubt. Later, models were revised with the addition of new data and new processes. this means that NEW information was found that NO ONE had before, like the actual oxygen content in ice cores. Like the feedback nature of ocean currents. Those were taken into account and the model changed. We became less sure of the impact of man in the scheme. As the models grew more sophisicated the confidence intervals got better and more information was added. We are now MUCH, MUCH more sure that climate change is real, man made and will impact us in a significant fashion.

All we have left are people like you. People who claim that their rejection of climate change is based on some scientific principle, like they are galileo before the church. I've got news for you. It's isn't some religious theocracy. It isn't an unscientific crusade. It is just science that leads to an unfortunate conclusion. We don't WANT to have this conclusion. We don't WANT to come to the conclusion that life will get demonstrably worse in the next 100 years rather than better. We don't WANT to live on a warming planet. These are just conclusions from the model and evidenced by the world around us.

I have no knowledge of why you don't get this or don't want to get this. All I can say is I'm sorry for you.

Re:

[Kjella]

The cheapest attack on science is to take some marginal doubt and blow it entirely out of proportion to pretend the model is nothing more than a wild guess. Like the socalled "Missing link" that creationists tried to use to attack evolution on the home field. Yes, some transitional stages are missing and if we found them, we could make yet smaller transitional stages but in the overall model it's like saying gravity doesn't exists because we argue if a 0.02m/s**2 discrepancy is due to wind resistance or not

Re:

[wall0159]

"The climatologists keep tweaking the models until they get what they expect and are then smug because the models "prove" their predictions."

That is a load of crap. If you don't know the difference between a priori and post hoc analysis, then please refrain from speaking as if you do. There's enough mis-information regarding climate change already without people like you contributing.

To digress, this attitude that climate scientists' results are due to such well understood logical fallacies is like s

Re:

[wizardforce]

you're assuming that the current administration doesn't realize current protocols do nothing. It's security theatre not security. Had they actually wanted to prevent the kind of threats they claim are the most serious, they'd do well by scraping the police state they've set up and get out of Iraq. Here's a hint: you don't need a supercomputer with advanced algorithms to figure out that you can't lessen terrorism by invading countries for little or no reason, blowing up all their infrastructure and tortur

Re:

[susano_otter]

How does your theory explain 9/11 and all the other scores of terrorist attacks that happened back when we were leaving Iraq alone?

Re:

[wizardforce]

and all the other scores of terrorist attacks that happened back when we were leaving Iraq alone?

Iraq wasn't involved in 9/11. there were however a few attacks after the invasion- just not here. before 9/11 people were told that they should cooperate w/ hijackers to avoid getting hurt as the hicker(s) wanted a destination. after 9/11 people thought differently here- you're not going to see any of that again. people now realize that the hijacker might not be interested in getting anyone to their destina

game theory

[Anonymous Coward]

It's all part of game theory. If your enemy doesn't randomize their tactics, then you can take advantage of any statistical bias or pattern. Soon anyone buying a geiger counter, thermal noise diode, or even a lava lamp, will be a candidate for the terrorist watch list.

Or get change

[EmbeddedJanitor]

Sir, that quarter you have in your pocket is a ramdom number generating device. Spread 'em.

Supposedly one of the better spies (I forget which) always carried a coin in his pocket that he'd flip every few minutes to make random decisions (get to a street corner: turn or go straight? Flip).

He was eventually nabbed when...

[patio11]

counterintelligence realized most people do not flip when crossing the street.

No, I'm joking. Seriously though, one of the things the military does in Iraq when looking for the foreign jihadis is they watch for wrong turns off main thoroughfares. It is apparently pretty effective at sorting out people who aren't from around here -- if you know Main Street less well than the Americans, you just might be from out of town!

Re:game theory

[psykocrime]

Right, and of course the next question is "what's to stop the terrorists from doing the same analysis, and the making it a point to do something other than
what the model predicts?" Now that it's public knowledge that we are using this kind of analysis, wouldn't it be useless?

Re:

[Protonk]

Because terrorists are stupid. That's the sad, sad, conclusion we have to reach. Some methods of communication and control are relatively sophisticated, but by and large, people get caught through old fashioned police work. We have trumped up this threat like we were fighting UNCLE. The administration doesn't want the fact that we easvsdrop leaked because the terrorists will adapt and conquer that threat. They don't want specific torture methods revealed because they will train to be resilient to them

A Deadly Lottery

[Dr. Eggman]

Shortly after the study began however, the patterns began to match-up to something surprisingly familiar. We have determined that the terrorists are using Windows' random number generator [slashdot.org] to pick their targets.

Common Sense at work.

[nexuspal]

FTA
"This study considered two aspects of each attack: the target of the attack, and the time of the attack. Using careful statistical techniques, the team identified correlations between attacks on various target types as a function of time. For instance, if there were an attack on a government target, that somewhat increased the chance of an attack on a police target over the next several days."

Sounds pretty strait forward. If you have a brazen attack against, say, a base, you can expect a higher risk of attacks on other assets. Isn't that why after the 911 attacks there were Combat Air Patrol flights over every major city for days. This is just common sense...

Re:

[milsoRgen]

Yeah from reading the article it seemed like pretty basic stuff they were correlating. Like, it's a clear day: increased risk of sniper attacks. Or it's night: increased risk of people sneaking around.

Re:

[FleaPlus]

If anything, this seems like a way to computationally extract and quantify such "common sense" assumptions, and perhaps even see if old "common sense" ideas are actually not supported by the data (as happens rather often). As an added bonus, new "common sense" tactics might emerge.

Of course, there's also a chance that their work will end up not being useful. That's why it's called research.

Re:

[Protonk]

SOmetimes it is common sense. I haven't read the underlying study, but my thought is that they are putting a little too much faith in covariance. We might argue that large attacks spur copycat attacks and that those attacks occur on similar, but not identical targets. It might be a luddite perspective to dismiss this study as resulting in the same conclusions that ordinary police work would. I don't think this is the case. I also don't feel that this is the results of "patterns everywhere". It seems c

The final solution

[B3ryllium]

I have discovered the final solution:

They attack the weak point for massive damage!

Re:

[geekoid]

If only, Then we could use that.
No they hit 'random' targets at 'random' times.
Bearing in mind 'random' just means you don't know all the variables and there is no obvious pattern. Or possible no pattern...which oddly enough IS a pattern. Just like there are no non-interesting numbers.

We could create the illusion of a weak link, and then know they're will be an attack. Then we could surprise the enemy to death.

Data Mining Principles Applied, Eigenbehaviors

[ngr8]

Although there are clearly many random elements, http://reality.media.mit.edu/eigenbehaviors.php/ [mit.edu]suggest that the "Circular Error Probable" may be improved, the site reads in part:

Eigenbehaviors allow us to identify the structure inherent in daily human behavior with models that can accurately cluster, analyze and predict multimodal data from individuals and groups. We show that it is possible to accurately model many people's lives with just a few parameters - thus allowing accurate prediction of their future behavior from limited observations of their current behavior - as well as to create a similarity metric between individuals and groups that allows accurate identification of group affiliation and behavioral 'style'.

It isn't whether it is an optimal strategy, but whether these tools improve materially the effectiveness of intelligence. "Discovery" AI/Expert systems were finding new materials processes during the 1980s.

Oh ye of little faith. Still, trust in god but lock your car.

Basis for correlation

[caitsith01]

I imagine a strong basis for correlation would be "target is a member of armed forces engaged in hostile occupation of foreign country invaded on false pretences for strategic reasons." E.g. America in Iraq, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Russia in Afghanistan, Germany in France.

In other words, the best way to reduce these types of attacks is to avoid invading other countries without (at least) the invitation of the citizens. Compare, for example, UN peacekeeping forces in Kosovo who are not subject to constant random attacks precisely because the general populace wanted them there.

America needs to learn to address the underlying disease, not the symptoms. Likewise terrorism: remove the underlying motivation (hint: it's not "terrorists hate freedom") and resolve the problem.

Re:

[shiftless]

I imagine a strong basis for correlation would be "target is a member of armed forces engaged in hostile occupation of foreign country invaded on false pretences for strategic reasons." E.g. America in Iraq, Vietnam, Afghanistan,

Why is Afghanistan included on this list..and what "false pretenses" are you referring to? There's nothing false about the bridges, schools, hospitals, factories, etc being built every day in Afghanistan under watch of the ISAF.

Isaac Asimov already predicted it...

[the_skywise]

If these models work out I'd say we might be seeing the beginnings of Psycho-history...

Re:

[martin-boundary]

It's easier to predict a theory that predicts human behaviour than it is to predict human behaviour. Basically, that's the difference between theory and practice :)

another shameful abuse of technology

[nickhart]

The people of Iraq have a right to resist their occupiers by any means necessary. If a government with a century-long history of aggression and crushing democracies were to invade your country, I'm sure you'd agree. That anyone would develop technology to aid the occupiers is shameful. If anything, try to come up with a computer model for ending the war and imprisoning its architects and enablers.

No kidding.

[FatSean]

I love the terrorist-fearing pant-loads crying that the terrorists use women and children to fight off the people who have invaded and occupied their country. Do they really think American women and children wouldn't volunteer to help resist the Chinese, if they entered our nation and set up a puppet government?

All I can say about this conflict is that nobody I give a shit about was stupid enough to believe the government's lies and enlist to fight in Iraq. My deepest condolences for those who enlisted pre-2003 to defend their nation...these men and women are being misused.

Re:

[Ieshan]

This "don't you think you'd help fight the Chinese!" argument is so asinine it's not funny.

If the Chinese came and took over Hawaii, you can bet hard money that citizens wouldn't be setting off bombs in supermarkets or strapping explosives to disabled people to use as weaponry. The disabled people that they strap weapons to aren't fighting "the noble fight", they're people who don't know the difference because of mental disability. Would we use the full force of our military to stop such an attack? Of cours

Re:

[Ieshan]

Please read the entire thread before responding to one post.

I do like what you did there though. You separated attacks on US troops by roadside bombs and suicide bombs on Iraqi civilians as if they weren't being orchestrated by the same people. Reality check - they are.

The quote I was replying to:
"I love the terrorist-fearing pant-loads crying that the terrorists use women and children to fight off the people who have invaded and occupied their country. Do they really think American women and children would

Save Lives?

[MrSteveSD]

If we can draw inferences from those correlations, then we may be able to [b]save lives[/b] by heightening awareness of possible events or changing the allocation of our security assets to provide more protection.

How about saving lives by not using air-strikes in densely populated civilian neighbourhoods? It doesn't take a computer model to tell you that bombing towns and cities is going to kill civilians and create a lot of very angry (and probably armed) people.

Re:

[bendodge]

How's this?
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/12/13/0315230 [slashdot.org]

Re:

[cold fjord]

How about saving lives by not using air-strikes in densely populated civilian neighbourhoods?

If you want to reduce fatalities from explosions in Iraqi neighborhoods, why not take a stand against things that really happen instead of imaginary problems? The explosions that are killing significant numbers of Iraqi civilians are from bus, truck, and car bombs [news.com.au] and suicide bomb [washingtonpost.com] attacks conducted by Al Qaeda and other extremists, not imaginary US air strikes. This isn't exactly an obscure fact. Politically unp

Re:Save Lives?

[NMerriam]

How about not placing artillery and missile positions in densely populated civilian neighborhoods? That way you don't get bombed.

Well, unfortunately the guys placing the artillery are not necessarily the ones who live there, and the ones who do live there will get a gun pointed at their family if they ask for it to be moved.

Which is not to say that civilians getting caught in the middle between two warring sides is anything new or novel, but the least we could do is not try to dismiss it by implying they deserve to get killed.

Re:

[cowwoc2001]

How about not placing artillery and missile positions in densely populated civilian neighborhoods? That way you don't get bombed.

Well, unfortunately the guys placing the artillery are not necessarily the ones who live there, and the ones who do live there will get a gun pointed at their family if they ask for it to be moved.

Which is not to say that civilians getting caught in the middle between two warring sides is anything new or novel, but the least we could do is not try to dismiss it by implying they deserve to get killed.

They don't deserve to be killed but nor do our guys. Our obligation is to do our best to hit the terrorists without harming the civilians. If that becomes impossible then it is perfectly acceptable to go ahead with the strike. Terrorists will embed themselves in civilian centers this way so long as it pays off. That is, so long as it prevents governments from attacking them or it gives those governments a bad name once they do the terrorists will continue to do this. We need to stop practicing double-stand

Re:

[cold fjord]

Which is not to say that civilians getting caught in the middle between two warring sides is anything new or novel, but the least we could do is not try to dismiss it by implying they deserve to get killed.

Someone is implying that Iraqis deserve to get killed? I doubt it is the US military. They seem to be working pretty hard to help Iraq rebuild and protect Iraqis from terrorism.

Focus On Projects That Put Iraqis Back to Work [mnf-iraq.com]
Market Fair Helps Baghdad Residents Plan for Economic Future [mnf-iraq.com]
Soldiers Provide Aid [mnf-iraq.com]

Re:

[DavidShor]

You are given a choice between attacking weapons sites and killing civilians, or letting them utilize their weapons. I have to admit, unless these weapons are truly destructive(IE, nuclear), I'd go with the letting them utilize their primitive and ineffective weapons.

and as soon as US forces react, it's useless

[SuperBanana]

Researchers reviewed the behavior signatures of terrorists on 12,000 attacks between 2003 and mid-2007 to calculate relative probabilities of future attacks on various target types.

All of which will change now because a)they may know about it because of the news story or b)if it works, US forces will behave differently.

The precalculated probabilities and patterns will be worthless. All it will take is the guerrilla fighters changing how they pick targets.

Sadly, Markets

[hey]

Sadly they have lots of data to work with.
I would predict that the worst attacks occur in crowded markets where there are lots of people.

One and only

[yuri2001]

The only pattern I can really agree on is the one where we see the US spending billions in research against something that a simple change of foreign policy could (still?) avoid.

And BTW, I thought you guys stopped relying too much on spy sats and computers an more on HUMINT?

Recently we discovered that some djihad groups are training 8 years old kids to be suicide bombers, that's were we are, the US wants to stop it? Then think with humanity.

that's flawed - here's better methodology

[rubycodez]

I have a fool-proof method for completely avoiding any future attacks upon our troops in Iraq. Get the fuck out of Iraq. Stop invading countries for the purpose of lining the pockets of defense contractors and protecting the interests of oil tycoons and central bankers. Predictable idiotic responses to my idea: the terrorists will have won! The terrorists have already won a new recruiting and breeding ground, thanks to gw, cheney and rumsfeld. Iran will take over Iraq: let them have it. they're probably too smart to want the trouble though. there will be civil war and genocide. we already have that, pay more attention. we'll destabilize the middle east. we already did that.

Re:

[NMerriam]

I have a fool-proof method for completely avoiding any future attacks upon our troops in Iraq. Get the fuck out of Iraq.

Didn't you hear President Bush explain how they'd follow us home if we left Iraq? There's only one guy causing all this conflict. If he's there, he can't be here. But if he doesn't need to be there, he can easily move his family here and cause all sorts of trouble.

Al Qaeda is Platinum on American Airlines, he actually is a million miler from way back, which means free upgrades for life,

Re:

[Dachannien]

Maybe you haven't been keeping up with things, but the Iraqis are actually taking their country back from the insurgents/terrorists now, with US help in training their army and police. While there are still some bad spots - Al Qaeda moved to Mosul after Baghdad started getting too tough for them - things are enormously better in Iraq now. Iraqis who have day-to-day contact with US forces (and a lot of them do) have a very positive image of our troops, often trusting them to get things done because the Ira

Do you really need a refresher?

[Tony]

The ENTIRE THING was preventable by not invading a sovereign nation and killing a messload of innocent civilians in the name of... what exactly was it again? I seem to have forgotten.

*sigh*

I hate it when people trivialize the reason the US went into Iraq.

It's a *very* complex, very powerful function of time. However, it can be simply summarized thusly:

Begin: Terrorists are hiding out in Iraq, and Iraq had something to do with 9/11
Month 1: Weapons of

Re:

[chthonicdaemon]

you reap what you sew

A stitch in time saves nine.

I don't get it

[PPH]

From TFA:

One way to combat these attacks is to identify trends in the attackers' methods, then use those trends to predict their future actions

The whole problem with guerilla tactics is that we don't know who to watch. If we could identify the attackers, don't waste time studying them. Just take them out.

OTOH, if this is an exercise in correlating past attackers behavior with patterns in the general population, it would require surveillance of that population the likes of which we are barely beginning to see.

If any anomalous behavior might get you labeled as a possible terrorist, you'd better think twice about switching from Window

Yeah good luck with that

[EEPROMS]

I recently listened to a podcast about risk analysis using software. What I found amusing is the World Tower (9/11) attacks had a high prediction but the pointy headed ones called it an aberration so ignored it. You can have the best analysis on the planet even with a 99% certainty but all you need is some pin headed public servant to ignore it either for political or personal reason and the whole thing falls apart.

Backtesting doesn't guarantee success...

[MadMorf]

Just like backtesting stock trading strategies doesn't guarantee future success, this probably won't make anyone any safer than making us take off our shoes, or emptying our shampoo bottles, before we get on airplanes...

But, someone will make a fortune from it...

Here's what I propose...It will probably work just as well...

Send emails to half of the people telling them to stay home and to the other half, tell hem to act as usual...

Lather, rinse, repeat...Profit!

How about a study

[Swampash]

...on why the USA is so hated that there have been TWELVE THOUSAND terrorist attacks in three and a half years?

Or is that just crazy defeatist talk?

McCain's Research

[Doc Ruby]

John McCain wants to spend another century collecting data [google.com] for this research project.

What a pantload.

[Ralph Spoilsport]

Terrorist Attacks? What? Some dumbass strapping dynamite to his chest and wandering into a crowded market? OK - that takes munitions. Taking over a plane with razor knives and flying it into a skyscraper? Takes no munitions, just a shitload of nerve and a complacent herd of passengers. Both result in lots of dead innocent civilians.

But then there are other forms of terrorism, such as flying a B2 filled to the gunnels with high explosive munitions that rain down on the homes and hovels of innocent civilians.

Americans like to bark about terrorism as in the form taken by small groups of murderous assholes, frequently on a suicide mission. And they bark louder when a state gets involved in support of such efforts. But they refuse to take responsibility (much less blame) when they themselves act as State Sponsored and funded terrorists by bombing the living fuck out of innocent civilians. Whether it's a team of suicide bombers or a team of bomber flight crew, the results are the same: mass death of innocent civilians.

And don't go cracking a pantload over how the Iraqis attacked your freedom. WHEN did the boat filled with Iraqi soldiers float to the USA and attack your freedom? What day was that? I sure would like to know because I was taking a vacation in this lovely little place called REALITY. The USA is a terrorist nation. Its unwarranted and unwanted and utterly idiotic invasion of Iraq has resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people there. Whether it is death strapped to some delusional team of assholes chanting ALLAH, or some cynical assholes flying at 12,000m dropping ordnance all over a city and thinking it's a job well done, the results are the same: dead civilians at the hands of a team of assholes.

Here's a way to predict terrorists attacks: check the flying sortie records of the US Air Force.

RS

Re:

[ubuwalker31]

I'd like you to slow down a moment, and take the time to actually read and understand what I am trying to say:

Invading a country illegally is NOT TERRORISM. It is a war crime, and completely unjustifiable. Did you read that last sentence? It is a horrid war crime. Bush and cronies should be thrown in jail.

Using military techniques to cause terror to combatants, such as using a flash bang/stun grenades, dropping bombs, dropping leaflets, and killing enemy soldiers in spectacular fashion is not terrorism.

Re:Terrible idea

[caffeinemessiah]

The attacks are surprises and random, how are they going to try to extrapolate patterns with computers?

Even better -- if you look in television static long enough, you are going to find a pattern. Either they've found some hidden predictor of attacks, or maybe someone needs a course in basic Ramsey theory [wikipedia.org], which deals with conditions under which order (patterns) must occur even in random noise.

Consider this example (*not* meant as an analogy for the discrete math nazis): you have an infinite sequence of completely random letters over the alphabet. What is the probability of finding "abc" repeated 15 times with a gap of exactly 10 letters between successive repeats? If the stream is indeed completely random, then the probability is non-zero and you will EVENTUALLY (probably) see the "pattern".

Re:Terrible idea

[FleaPlus]

Either they've found some hidden predictor of attacks, or maybe someone needs a course in basic Ramsey theory [wikipedia.org], which deals with conditions under which order (patterns) must occur even in random noise.

Sure, that's why you have test sets to determine if the models the system learns from the data are useful or not. I think it's safe to assume that the scientists working on this are familiar with the basics of learning theory and modeling.

Re:

[caffeinemessiah]

Sure, that's why you have test sets to determine if the models the system learns from the data are useful or not. I think it's safe to assume that the scientists working on this are familiar with the basics of learning theory and modeling.

Blindly applying learning theory to collected data often leads to models that are apparently highly predictive on your test/validation sets, but are absolute garbage in unseen scenarios. You're assuming that by learning a "model" that the distribution of data remains the

Re:

[Torvaun]

Huntsville is a good school. But yeah, most of Alabama is only useful for dragging down national averages.

Re:Terrible idea

[Dr. Eggman]

But the terrorists have to conform to reality, there are conditions that must be met for an attack to be carried out. Resources and weaponry must be aquired transferred or built. Willing persons must be in the area or transported there. The application of these resources, which are valuable even if they are a disposable one-shot sort deal often, so we know they will be trying to maximize effect in minimizing risk. There may be vastly more targets than terrorists, but that does not mean that every target could be targeted at any one time. If anything, the research should be a useful tool in helping predict not randomized attacks, but rather supplies, logistics, idelogical supports; the true treasures of information warfare.

Re:Terrible idea

[flymolo]

And some targets are preferable to others. So empty warehouse X isn't as interesting as a shopping mall. So the randomness must fall with certain ranges of targets that will cause terror. Pattern analysis may help figure out what targets they pick randomly from based upon the above mentioned logistic, supply and idealogical concerns.

Re:Terrible idea

[Rei]

Really, though, you think they're studying shopping mall attacks? They studied "12,000 terrorist attacks". Bet you didn't know there had been 12,000 terrorist attacks in Iraq in the past four years, did you, let alone 12,000 well documented enough to study? Assuming an average of 20 people killed per attack, that'd mean ~250k people had been killed in well-documented terrorist attacks without the media catching on to the overwhelming majority of it. With that many people being killed by terrorists, who needs insurgents?

Here's a wild notion: they're doing what the US government usually does and calling any insurgent attack a "terrorist attack". Which is why this research is being carried out for the DoD instead of the Department of Homeland Security.

Re:

[Protonk]

No one said anything about limiting the scope of study to iraq. I agree with you that the net drawn across violent attacks around the word that labels them as "terrorist" is a little broad, but that does not mean that there is no value to study of it. And so what if we just find a means to make aggregate guesses about 'insurgent' attacks? Isn't that a victory in itself? Doesn't that mean that the study is worthwhile? They aren't purporting to predict single events from raw data, they are suggesting tha

Re:

[Dr. Eggman]

Well, not to get bogged down in semantics, but I tend to categorize based on goals rather than more specific tactical nuances. Thus, often it comes out, sometimes in a way against me, a bit generalized. I associate insurgents, whom have the goal of demoralizing and terrorizing troops (as in deadly harrasment,) with terrorist, despite the wider range of targets an insurgent will chose (ie. ambushing supply convoys, raiding ammo dumps, rather than just civilian mayhem.) But in general what the gp is saying ma

Re:Terrible idea

[Antique Geekmeister]

The big pattern is that the guerrillas fight dirty. They look for and use any openings: if you close one opening, they'll use the next, least defended one, and it takes them very little time to shift targets because they have little command structure, just enough to keep isolated cells in munitions and shelter.

The second big pattern is "why do they keep attacking"? If the US instigators of this war had listened to their more competent staff, who told them it's a huge mess and they needed 3 times the number of troops and not to use so many mercenaries (who are a massive problem in Iraq as they've been in other "peacekeeping" operatons), we'd have had a much cleaner recovery after the invasion and wouldn't have these issues.

But that's an even bigger picture pattern, and these research studies can do nothing about it.

Re:

[TubeSteak]

But the terrorists have to conform to reality, there are conditions that must be met for an attack to be carried out. Resources and weaponry must be aquired transferred or built. Willing persons must be in the area or transported there

But didn't you read the first sentance of TFA?

"Adversaries the U.S. currently faces in Iraq rely on surprise and apparent randomness to compensate for their lack of organization, technology and firepower."

The terrorists lack organization, so they obviously can't arrange all the logistics you're attributing to them.[/sarcasm]
I seriously wonder what these UA researchers define as "organization."

Re:

[TapeCutter]

That's why the concept of statistical significance exists.

The hypothisis is that terrorist attacks are NOT highly correlated (ie: they are in fact 'random surprises'). If this is true then you expect to find what is true for the pattern 'abc' is also true for every other three letter pattern. If it is not then the pattern 'abc' is significant.

Significance does not mean certain, nor does it mean the correct conclusion is drawn, but it can rule out the 'random surprise' theory.

Re:

[caffeinemessiah]

That's why the concept of statistical significance exists.

Significance only makes sense when the underlying distribution is known, such as the random sequence I listed as an example. When you have no clue what the underlying distribution is, and can NOT safely assume near-normality because of the central limit theorem, all bets are off. I just don't buy that the distribution of terrorist attacks is normal or even near-normal, not without some hard evidence.

Re:

[Venik]

They got a government grant to find patterns in random data, and so they will look for these patterns until their funding dries up.

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:

[readin]

Just how easy is it to think of something truly random? Ask 100 people to pick a random number between 1 and 10 and you will see a pattern. It won't be random because certain numbers will be preferred. Try asking the person to repeatedly pick a random number between 1 and 10 and they won't be able to do it. Throw in other factors they need to consider and being random gets really hard. By using computer pattern matching we have a shot at discovering patterns they don't even know they have, and perhaps

Re:Terrible idea

[DavidShor]

Then terrorists will start rolling dice. They aren't idiots, and they have a bigger stake in this then we do.

Because....

[EmbeddedJanitor]

Using computers sounds far more scientific than reading tea leaves.

Re:Because....

[timeOday]

Before you rush to judgement, I suggest you play a few rounds of rock, paper, scissors [essentially.net]. There's nothing crazy about spending money trying to find patterns in the enemy's behavior, even if he's intentionally trying to be random... that's the entire field of cryptology!

Re:

[timeOday]

PS, it's also what stock investors do. Of course in this case the "enemy" isn't actively trying to act randomly, but your competition is trying to find and exploit (and thus dissipate) patterns, just as you are. Thus the market as a whole amounts to a game where future returns are as random as your competition can make them.

As posted below....

[EmbeddedJanitor]

Yup, we all know that people will tend to be predictable when they think they are being random. Ask a group of people to think of a random number and you'll see a skew towards 7. But it is easy to be far more random than that. Play rock paper scissors using a dice and you'll get 50%.

All you need to do is carry a coin etc around and flip it every now and then to randomise behavior. Good spies did this. So did good submarine commanders etc.

Heads we attack this week, tails we don't. Heads we turn at the next c

Re:

[timeOday]

People have reasons for doing things certain ways. Forcing them to act randomly degrades their effectiveness. And that's under the unrealistic assumption that they think to randomize everything they should and then go to the effort of actually doing it.

Re:

[EricTheMad]

The attacks are surprises and random, how are they going to try to extrapolate patterns with computers?

The article doesn't refer to the attacks as random, but says that they rely on "apparent randomness". Nothing humans do is ever truly random, there are always patterns. They aren't trying to predict when and where and attack will happen, only what target are more likely to be hit. From the article:

For instance, if there were an attack on a government target, that somewhat increased the chance of an attack on a police target over the next several days. Armed with this knowledge, commanders could allocate greater than usual resources to protect police assets more carefully for several days after an attack on a government target.

Re:

[TurinPT]

Human behavior is not entirely random, certain assumptions can be made.
For example, when choosing random locations on a map, people tend to scatter the locations across it, leaving a somewhat similar distance between each one of them.
Real randomness creates clusters on the map, causing some of the chosen locations to end up next to each other.

On the other hand, maybe I've just been watching too much "numb3rs"...

Re:

[Shihar]

You miss the point of the program. The types of attacks is constantly shifting. Where it shifts to might be unpredictable, but that doesn't mean that you can't catch the shift as it happens. So, imagine all of a sudden you get a few small, but successful attacks on Shiite elementary schools in a certain providence. Your correlation notices that there have been a few attacks, it notes that the attacks 'success' matches what counts as 'success' (high body count, media exposure, low losses, political chang

Now, Brian

[smittyoneeach]

The correct question is not "Why use computers"", or "Why not just hire a psychologist?". This is a government funding exercise. The correct answer is, "Why not do both?". We can frivolously blow twice the cash on white-collar welfare if we refuse to limit ourselves. Remember: the proper boolean operator is AND, not OR.
Now, Brian: proceed to your journal, write a post saying "AND, not OR" 500 times, and quit wasting valuable /. time with these half-measures.

Human beings are predictable

[mveloso]

It's not a waste of money, because humans are not random. They may seem random, but that's because you don't know what to look for.

This example explains it the best: if I'm on top of a building and you're at street level and I tell you "there's a red car coming, then a green car, then a yellow car and they should be near you in 2 minutes." Am I seeing the future?

You don't need to be a psychic to see the future. You just have to be able to look at things in the right way.

Re:

[someone1234]

The terrorists got a BSD pseudo random number generator.

Re:

[wall0159]

"Why not just hire a psychologist?"

did you mean an astrologer? a psychologist is a scientist...

Re:

[Arcane_Rhino]

Seriously though, am I the only one who thinks that we are on the cusp of a breakthrough - the ability of traditionally organized mechanized armed forces to effectively engage guerilla tactics?

Wish I had mod points, and you weren't an AC. If you are correct, 2008 (or whatever year this break-through occurs) should be the year that historians look back to when considering the moment/era that the monumental geo-political shift occurred wherein NO small group could ever again hope to stand up to a superpowe

Re:

[DavidShor]

"Seriously though, am I the only one who thinks that we are on the cusp of a breakthrough - the ability of traditionally organized mechanized armed forces to effectively engage guerilla tactics?"

Thats nothing new. Saturation bombing of villages would do the trick. The only way to eliminate a group with massive popular support is to end the support. When you are an occupier, the surest way to do that is to destroy the populace.

Just like every other anti-insurgent measure we've tried, the terrorists will

Re:

[martin-boundary]

What ever happened to spending more on hiring the best talent around and also spending more on intelligence gathering!

It cost too much.

Re:

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

Brilliant! Every time there is a bombing, we'll condemn the entire country and force everyone to move to a different one! When we run out of land, we'll live at the bottom of the sea, grow gills, live in pineapples and wear square pants.