... Not to be picky, but...
1) The correction makes a difference in the credibility of the statement, as you must have felt, since you made the change.
I agree that the change was important, but...
Saying that a reporter called a 40-ish Navy captain a 'whizzkid' is foolish, while questioning the reasonableness of a reporter calling a 20-ish Air Force captain a 'whizzkid' is a difference of opinion (see below).
We don't yet know how old he or she was - let's wait and see before we jump the gun.
Since you said it was the 'actual text', you should have posted the actual text, not your correction of it.
My text was the one published in the IW forum - Risks published first, the error was apparently found and corrected, and thus the IW forum had the corrected text. I will ask iw to inform Risks of the correction - however, I did post the actual text that I got from IW! This IT is so complex, isn't it?
If they sent out two messages, one correcting the other, I find it somewhat difficult to believe that they didn't at least preface it with a "sorry, we goofed" tag.
They were to different forums, hence the "I goofed" tag would seem inappropriate in IW. Perhaps the next risks will include an 'I goofed' let's wait and see.
FC> Even with only 4 years of service (after graduating from College), FC> 25-27 years old is no longer whizzkid age in my book.
2) As I said before, had I remained in ROTC, I would have been 24 when I was eligible to make captain.
3) At 26, I was still being referred to, by non computer-savvy people, in terms comprable to 'whizzkid'.
I must be getting old. When I was growing up, all Wiz kids had to be 21 or less. I guess the media is running out of 18-year olds making a big splash. ...
5) The second independent source backs up the report that the connection was made through the Internet, involving email connectivity, and with a personal computer and modem, all of which were specifically denied in the message from IW.
I must have read it differently. I thought that IW said something like not all email messages, and email messages did not reproduce, not that there were no email messages involved. I guess we both have to start reading more carefully.
Now that I've addressed ALL of the points in the 'denial' from IW, do you see why I characterized it as a military smokescreen? The only thing in it which remains unchallenged is that the original report is inaccurate in detail, and that there is a question as to whether someone in their mid-20s is a 'whizzkid'.
I think that the whole issue is still pretty questionable - whether the experiment was authorized - whether it was a wiz kid - whether they actually took control - whether it came from the Internet or a Mil net - whether there was insider knowledge - etc. One thing I am becoming more certain of though - that there are no active battleships. -> See: Info-Sec Heaven at URL http://all.net/ Management Analytics - 216-686-0090 - PO Box 1480, Hudson, OH 44236