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 - 01:10am Sep 30, 2003 EST (# 14159 of 14165)

mazza9 - 11:26pm Sep 29, 2003 EST (# 14156 of 14158)

The solution is to place them, (including Alarmist and Rotteneggs)on the ignore posts.

I think 'ignoring' them would do it. Confronting and challenging them on specifics and rationality might, might (?) fare a little better. I've watched the forum for some time.

I can see that the egotistical rants of Robert continue unabated.

That, I find, as inane unfocused slop, badly in need to be put in its rightful place.

Eventually the NYTimes will take action, (then again maybe not)...

Most likely the latter !

but at least we can get back on point and pursue an intellectual dialogue without these sorry sickos!

I wish they could focus and carry on a rational discussion, without (ad nauseam) self- references, reams of extraneous off-topic stuff, unverifiable details, the soap-box and missionary zeal and endless childish crptograms. A gross abuse of the forum.

I doubt if the situation will improve anytime soon. And, I also doubt if NYT would do anything by itself. Too mired in other problems.

cantabb - 01:12am Sep 30, 2003 EST (# 14160 of 14165)

There I go again:

The first sentence, my last post should read: "I think 'ignoring' them would NOT do it."

rshow55 - 09:55am Sep 30, 2003 EST (# 14161 of 14165)
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.

http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md5000s/md5070.htm includes this:

rshowalter - 07:44am Jun 14, 2001 EST (#5073

A major source of credible information, though only one of many, is the output of THE NEW YORK TIMES. A sampling, from this source, gives, I believe, a sense of what a challenge it is to consider "all the credible data" -- indeed, what an impossible challenge it is.

Even so, I'm posting places where this thread cites specific NYT articles -- (which are about 1/3 of total citations on this thread) i ( as of that time) to give a sense of how much information there is out there to integrate. For every NYT article I posted, I read perhaps 20.

The following postings, though extensive, make a point about the extent of information related, in various ways, to ordinary human argument -- and will be useful, I believe, if staffs wish to consider and coordinate arguments here -- or in threads in the future that use some of the crossreferencing techniques this thread shows.

People "make sense" of their world in a kind of statistical way -- and it matters very much, whether the "information" they condense generalizations from is right or wrong. The only way to see is by crossmatching, and a good deal of intellectual work. This is work that all people, everywhere do, and have to do to be human. We make sense of the world, by a lot of talking, and a lot of thinking -- and bring patterns into focus. Often those patterns are wrong -- but when we look at the same information -- organized in a certain way, most of us, most of the time, make the same patterns.

http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md5000s/md5070.htm

http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md5000s/md5074.htm

http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md5000s/md5076.htm

http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md5000s/md5077.htm

This thread, I believe, is demonstrating some important things - with tools that make the demonstration possible that are only a few years old - about what it means to be a human being.

Association - and sorting of large patterns of associations - are a big part of our humanity.

And work to dissipate order is significantly related to questions of what cheating is .

Some issues - as simple as learning to tie one's shoes - are difficult to get across - until people are ready. But I think they are important - and think that the New York Times is doing a public service ( no doubt with mixed feelings ) permitting this thread to go on.

I feel that a great deal is getting focused that can do great good. I know not everybody agrees.

Searches are useful. A search of Byrd - connects to a great deal that seems important in the news today.

cantabb - 11:38am Sep 30, 2003 EST (# 14162 of 14165)

rshow55 - 09:55am Sep 30, 2003 EST (# 14161 of 14161)

About 5 self-references/links in one single post. Scattered and cliched, as usual; more nonsensical wanderings.

The following postings, though extensive, ....... will be useful, I believe, if staffs wish to consider and coordinate arguments here -- or in threads in the future that use some of the crossreferencing techniques this thread shows.

You think "such crossreferencing techniques" are new or original ? What "techniques" ? Naive, to say the least !

This thread, I believe, is demonstrating some important things - with tools that make the demonstration possible that are only a few years old - about what it means to be a human being.

Is this what you think this thread is or has demonstrated ? Ridiculous !

And the rest is just unmitigated generalized confusion.

(3 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense