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.

cantabb - 10:36pm Sep 27, 2003 EST (# 14074 of 14080)

lchic - 09:10pm Sep 27, 2003 EST (# 14069 of 14072)

Cantabb of(f) course reduces alphabet to dot-dash-dot morse

lchic - 09:11pm Sep 27, 2003 EST (# 14070 of 14072)

Paying him? or Playing him!?

lchic - 09:20pm Sep 27, 2003 EST (# 14071 of 14072)

It's interesting that morse signals were devised to improve communication - that's 'slow' communication, which was 'fast' at that time, and expensive - between human animals.

Were the major international MD communications of the current year re-produced as a series of telegrams .... how would the top-10 read?

If this is supposed to make any sense, hint: it does NOOT, in the least !

IF this is how “It got understood and exposed,” then what more can I say to a dedicated friend and collaborator and defender of rshow55 ! 'Dazzling' duo !

cantabb - 10:38pm Sep 27, 2003 EST (# 14075 of 14080)

bbbuck - 09:05pm Sep 27, 2003 EST (# 14068 of 14074)

The 'nytimes' is paying 'the moniker that can't be named's salary.

Hmmm. That explains alot.

How much are they paying him?

They ain't got enough money !

cantabb - 02:21am Sep 28, 2003 EST (# 14076 of 14080)

I had skipped over this one.

rshow55 - 09:25pm Sep 27, 2003 EST (# 14072 of 14075)

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.

More of your poster identity paranoia ! There's NO end to it, is there ?

IF you can NOT answer straightforward questions put to you several times now, and have NOTHING to show for your claims, it's quite pathetic to see you start accusing other for your deficiencies. How childish.

This is what I think "got understood and exposed," to quote your collaborator, lchic !

When the stakes are high - the question - . what does it cost to check? is a very good question.

Isn't it pathetic that while you constantly talk about "checking," you can't even do the simple 'checking' yourself before stating anything ?

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.

Incoherent !

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.

More incoherence !

(4 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense