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.

bbbuck - 11:21am Sep 29, 2003 EST (# 14119 of 14128)

Forums. Do you learn anything or 'are you wasting your time?'.

People marvel at this forum. They say 'what and the hell is this sht?'.

And they say other things.

But the truth is 'what and the hell is it?'

That's the point. We as a forum are now being scrutinized for our worth and value. We are being weighed and are coming up short. But hey that's okay, we have learned to be symmetrical,we can harmonize, we can evaluate and some of us have taken a rudimentary course in 'dot-connecting' and a follow up course in 'checking'.

I know I'm not wasting my time, are you wasting your time?

Let's see how we stack up against some other forums in the nytimes paper.

The 'bush forum' 2000 posts of slop a day.

'Science in the news': some guy named wangtangtang, not even conversant in english, spouting 4 or 5 posts a day of gibberish.

'Environment' a crew of 'bush forum' idiots that come over and spew nothingness (onchange, dirigent, liquid-paper, etc..)

'Space' a bunch of people with monikers of nick and edith talking about what to eat when you go into space.

'Human Origins' Some guy comes on (doesn't matter who he is, there's always someone) and says the earth is 6000 years old, then 15 regulars come on spew slop on him, this will go on for day and months, and even years, probably to infinity or the life of the nytimes forum.

My point?

Hmmm. I don't think I have a point. I will reference my dot-connecting/checking manual and will get back to you next tuesday.

rshow55 - 11:24am Sep 29, 2003 EST (# 14120 of 14128)
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.

But if these patterns of agreement or disagreement are NOT known - then situations that involve disagreements are inherently unstable.

A great many discourse practices now are set up so that they prevent enough discussion so that it is possible to become clear about agreements and disagreements on the key subjects of logical structure, facts, weights, and team identifications. Stable loops are made impossible - focusing is intentionally made impossible. Some of the fractal circumstances then are wasteful, and some are lethal.

I think this is an area where people can improve, and need to.

- -

The problem is partly intellectual-logical - and partly emotional. People can't admit to themselves or others how much deception, intentional and otherwise - exists. Within their own minds - and in discouse of all kinds. The idea that leaders can intentionally decieve seems unthinkable.

Crosschecking is necessary - and bad mistakes are made when it isn't done.

Agency Belittles Information Given by Iraq Defectors By DOUGLAS JEHL http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/29/international/middleeast/29DEFE.html

A Pentagon review has concluded that debriefings provided by defectors made available by an Iraqi exile group were of little value.

New Criticism on Prewar Use of Intelligence http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/29/international/middleeast/29INTE.html

jorian319 - 11:26am Sep 29, 2003 EST (# 14121 of 14128)
The dogmatism is all on the side that maintains there is no global climate effect ...Anyone who has visited a city like LA on a nice smog filled day knows that's not true. -amzingdrx

My point?

Hmmm. I don't think I have a point. I will reference my dot-connecting/checking manual and will get back to you next tuesday.

LOL!

That was a great, concise synopsis of WhatGoesOnAroundHere, bb!

rshow55 - 11:34am Sep 29, 2003 EST (# 14122 of 14128)
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.

Well - there are some repetitions.

http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md11000s/md11764.htm

rshow55 - 09:41pm Feb 22, 2002 EST (#11765

Issues of concensus matter, and they matter, in practical politics, as they form throughout the world. Not even the United States is comfortable with a "right to lie" when things can be questioned.

If everyone outside the US was convinced of questions of fact -- how long would Americans (who very often make very good decisions) resist the facts? How could they?

This thread, itself, offers plenty of evidence of how much leverage truth has -- and with some force behind such a format -- much more evidence would come.

If political leaders cared -- this subject, and arguments like the arguments here -- would be news - and not an awkward burden on one elite newspaper, running a very awkward, distracting (and expensive) thread, with no direct news outlet, because sufficiently straightforward questions were not being asked.

- - -

Burden and all - it seems to me that this thread is worth it.

Loop tests are useful - and things can and do converge.

http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7a163/483

(6 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense