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 - 01:11pm Sep 29, 2003 EST (# 14123 of 14128)

fredmoore - 07:36am Sep 29, 2003 EST (# 14113 of 14122)

There are many ways to skin an Rcat without jumping on its Rtail and ... many ways to Can a tabby without jumping on its head!

And there is always MORE re-tread from school yard Fred.

cantabb - 01:22pm Sep 29, 2003 EST (# 14124 of 14128)

rshow55 - 07:56am Sep 29, 2003 EST (# 14114 of 14122)

Another series of mindless rote, gone over and over.

Disjointed, inherently flawed logic, based on ‘unvarified’ doesn’t metamorphose into something rational JUST by such senseless rote. “Checking” is NOT just word: involves rational process NOT seen here . Your opinions are NOT facts.

Asking questions on your claims is NOT “fighting.” IF you can not answer simple questions on your basic claims, then try to find out what’s it you think you have been doing. Mere verbiage ain’t gonna carry you anywhere.

I'm not so poetic - but here's a similar point. I get tired and discouraged, like a lot of people. Not as exhausted as good kindergarten teachers get. But sometimes I get a real warm, hopeful feeling - that something is ready to be learned...... I think those points are essential if the hopes of Friedman's The Lexus and the Olive Tree are to become practical in the areas where they are now going wrong.

Whatever your fond hopes, if they are to amount to anything, mere repeating them often is NOT going to do it : you got to do something more, which you still have NOT.

rshow55 - 11:11am Sep 29, 2003 EST (# 14117 of 14122)

P.W. Bridgman , Nobel prize winner - and his emphasis on loop tests

Here was the CENTRAL thing Bridgman knew about calibrating and perfecting a measurement instrument.

See IF your logic and approach can survive the “loop tests.”

What you have NOT shown yet: relevant verifiable facts (“dots”) analyzed and put together rationally (“connected”).

A major reason for the crossreferencing I've been doing - has been to show and focus internal consistency - and relate it to links to external references.

What I see is more an attempt at Orwellian “internal consistency” a la “1984,” than anything that is required on-topic.

rshow55 - 11:24am Sep 29, 2003 EST (# 14120 of 14122)

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 ……decieve seems unthinkable.

NONE of that you can ever have, UNLESS you know or can cogently define the topic area, a reasoned approach to a desired goal. What you say comes across as nothing but swirling confusion.

You have agreement/disagreement on something ONLY when it IS well defined: Not the case here.

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

"Bad mistakes" are also made when you don’t know what it is you should “check” a thing for? “Checking” and “crosschecking” are not done just by saying so. Your constant referencing to it, WITHOUT showing any evidence of you having done that, is laughably naïve.

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

Well - there are some repetitions.

Awww. You’re being so modest.

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

IF want to make it so ["worth it"], use it properly -- NOT abuse it constantly.

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

Useful, ONLY if you CAN apply them, and know how to do that. No evidence of it so far !

(4 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense