New York Times on the Web Forums Science

Missile Defense

Technology has always found its greatest consumer in a nation's war and defense efforts. Since the last attempts at a "Star Wars" defense system, has technology changed considerably enough to make the latest Missile Defense initiatives more successful? Can such an application of science be successful? Is a militarized space inevitable, necessary or impossible?

Read Debates, a new Web-only feature culled from Readers' Opinions, published every Thursday.

lchic - 04:14pm Mar 24, 2003 EST (# 10433 of 10438)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

Truth - Casualty - Love

After suggesting that Saddam Hussein had a monopoly on lies and deception before the bombing began last week, George Bush's US-led coalition seems to have made up a lot of ground. http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/03/24/1048354530806.html

---------

Sometimes it's love.

"We've identified an emotional cycle in a deployment," said David White, a retired naval flight officer who now is a family and marriage counselor at Whidbey Island Naval Air Station.

"People have to reorient when a spouse is gone. And they don't just snap back when he or she returns."

Sven Wilson agreed. A political science professor at Brigham Young University, Wilson has studied divorce trends among military veterans compared with society as a whole. The divorce rate among veterans is higher than among the rest of the population. Factor in combat time and the numbers go through the roof.

"We're not sure why," http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/113734_wtension22.shtml

rshow55 - 04:31pm Mar 24, 2003 EST (# 10434 of 10438)
Can we do a better job of finding truth? YES. Click "rshow55" for some things Lchic and I have done and worked for on this thread.

There is a vital distinction. It is the distinction between valid statements in different frames of reference and muddle.

One can believe in absolute truth about basic things - especially basic physical things - and facts about real events - including facts about interconnections - and yet acknowledge that there can be many different perspectives about these facts - many different cultural views of these facts. Many maps. Many valid maps.

It is important to be able to tell the difference between different perspectives and muddle or lies.

- - -

Getting agreement, even when everyone is seeing perfectly, without any muddle at all, is a challenge.

That's true about causal relations. The description of objects and physical relations are examples, and which can offer clarifying analogies to more complicated things.

Physical equations that apply to real things, even the nicest of them, are only easy to use and interpret in rather special frames of reference.

In other frames (or when lots is going on at once) the amount of computation involved - even in the "well understood" relations of projective geometry - involve a welter of calculation - and data sets that are, putting the matter mildly - hard to read - and where the same object or scene - from different perspectives, translations or scales - is hard to recognize as the same object or scene.

The amount of shear computation is huge - but for the job of describing objects - an enormous amount is now in hand.

Engineers use in CAD (computer aided design) programs that zoom, translate, and rotate in any orientation - making it possible to handle more complexity than before. Often, these programs let people see how much information - and how many different but clearly related views they need "just" for description.

Much of the computationally fanciest computer geometry handling is in movies.

Such as Toy Story and other animations by Pixar http://www.pixar.com/featurefilms/index.html

http://www.pixar.com/howwedoit/index.html

Models sculpted and articulated http://www.pixar.com/howwedoit/index.html#

https://renderman.pixar.com/

"Pixar’s RenderMan is stable, fast, and efficient for handling complex surface appearances and images."

When we see from different perspectives - how can we know that we're looking at the same thing.

Even if there is no noise - and much available detail - it is challenging even when people finally are able to agree on key points of reference.

Without these geometrical facts in common - coming to agreement - even on something as "well understood" as object geometry - is impossible.

- - -

In problems involving more complex things, expecially if issues of morality or empathy are involved - all these problems exist and are more difficult. Unless people are prepared to find common ground - and do some work - agreement is hopeless.

But when people do that work, agreement very often happens - otherwise the world would be far worse than it actually is.

Though it is bad enough.

- - - -

People can handle a lot of complexity now - and some new mathematical and logical insights are at hand. We only have to be a little straighter to avoid a lot of fights. If the distinction between valid statements in different frames of reference and muddle is acknowledged - there is some hope of getting things stable enough that agreement, though difficult - is at least possible - on a few things.

To avoid bloody fights, only a few things have to be agreed on.

Unless the distinction -and the need to build common ground that can be trusted - is acknowledged - there is no hope of agreement.

Or complex cooperation about anything.

Or a stable peace.

- -

Once

(4 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense