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.

rshow55 - 09:25pm Sep 27, 2003 EST (# 14072 of 14080)
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.

The Jayson Blair scandal happened, in large part - because the NYT has a culture that is based on ascribed status - and not checking.

Times Reporter Who Resigned Leaves Long Trail of Deception http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/11/national/11PAPE.html

A staff reporter for The New York Times committed frequent acts of journalistic fraud while covering significant news events in recent months, an investigation by Times journalists has found.

Maybe I'm wrong - and cantabb is not a salaried NYT employee. But if he is - the NYT organization should be ashamed of him - and wonder what the human standards are that produce his responses.

When the stakes are high - the question -

. what does it cost to check?

is a very good question. These days, the standard seems to be as set out in http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md00100s/md511.htm

With currently accepted cultural moral standards, checking is never morally forcing in the face of high status opposers with a direct stake - checking is one good among a number, but not forcing. In the rare but important cases where paradigm conflicts occur, some accomodations have to be made, so that, for these cases, checking is forcing.

Without that, no amount of hard work, and no amount of effort (including, and I know this, much good faith) will get closure. And on these paradigm conflict issues, closure on simple, clear, but wrenching questions is what is necessary.

In dealing with me, The New York Times showed some very high ethical and technical function, according to a moral standard, that is now accepted throughout society, that blocked the simple, but stark, checking that was needed under conditions of real conflict and perceptual unease of stakeholders.

According to that standard, the TIMES could have hardly done better. But according to that standard, the problem, recognized to be important by almost everybody concerned (at least much of the time) was insoluble.

It is the moral priority decision itself that is wrong, and needs changing, for paradigm conflict circumstances.

That should be clearer now than it was before.

http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md00100s/md510.htm http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md00100s/md511.htm

cantabb - 10:29pm Sep 27, 2003 EST (# 14073 of 14080)

rshow55 - 09:02pm Sep 27, 2003 EST (# 14067 of 14072)

More nonsensical speculations. More of: If you can’t answer the question, start personally attacking the one asking questions !

Cantabb quotes me just above: cantabb says: "NOT a fact. Just a naïve platitude"

How would you check something like that? How does one get closure on something like that?

See if you can make any sense of this. You did NOT state a single “fact”: you just speculated, “if” this or that. And, your speculations are NOT "fact". You even started this off with your “guessing”:

“Check” again [NOT the way you normally do that]. See the exchange:

cantabb: (iv) what's the basis of your various claims, re lives saved, people in government paying attention or learning from your postings, etc.

rshow: I'm guessing . One basis of my guessing is the fine posts by fredmoore and manj on this thread, and the high literary quality of some of gisterme's postings, too. I have some other reasons. Every once in a while, it seems to me that this thread might be influencing, however indirectly, some of the thinking that ends up in articles by the NYT. I don't think I'm guessing that politicians look at things published at the TIMES - and it seems sure that the TIMES knows if TIMES people read this thread. On statistical grounds, that seems likely.

rshow: Here's a fact - a fact that isn't so important to know if explosive fighting without end is the objective - but a fact that is important to know if stable resolutions that pass reasonable tests of fairness are to be achieved.

Cantabb, if you think that doesn't matter - I think you're being b criminally irresponsible.

I wouldn’t stoop to respond to such a baseless personal attack ! Other than to suggest that you read what others say, and mind what you say ! You'll be held accountable !

If the NYT doesn't care about statements like that - many of their editorials don't make much sense. I think many at the NYT do care -or this thread wouldn't go on.

Nonsense !

NYT doesn't seem to care about what YOU say and claim, either !

Some decisions about this thread seem to have been made - if one wants to judge on statistical grounds.

Another circular self referencing. Highly presumuptous of you to even think that your own assessment of yourself represent the “decisions” made about this thread.

There are some good searches of this thread - and I think a search with keywords "nash and game" fits here.

Get over the Nash complex !

If the basic rule is: I am a NYT writer I'm judge, jury and executioner

Imagining things, once AGAIN ? “Check” if you’ve answered the questions asked of you on your claims !

- that's shameful - for you, \and for the New York Times - if, as I suspect, they pay your salary. I don't think the New York Times, as an institution, deserves that. My guess is that "the average reader of the New York Times" would disapprove, and be ashamed, of that stance.

NONSENSE ! Raving & ranting, again ?

Back to your childish speculative paranoia? “shameful” ? You “suspect” that NYT “pay[s] my salary” ? Bah !

(7 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense