New York Times Forums
The New York Times

Home
Job Market
Real Estate
Automobiles
News
International
National
Washington
Business
Technology
Science
Health
Sports
New York Region
Education
Weather
Obituaries
NYT Front Page
Corrections
Opinion
Editorials/Op-Ed
Readers' Opinions


Features
Arts
Books
Movies
Travel
Dining & Wine
Home & Garden
Fashion & Style
Crossword/Games
Cartoons
Magazine
Week in Review
Multimedia
College
Learning Network
Services
Archive
Classifieds
Book a Trip
Personals
Theater Tickets
Premium Products
NYT Store
NYT Mobile
E-Cards & More
About NYTDigital
Jobs at NYTDigital
Online Media Kit
Our Advertisers
Member_Center
Your Profile
E-Mail Preferences
News Tracker
Premium Account
Site Help
Privacy Policy
Newspaper
Home Delivery
Customer Service
Electronic Edition
Media Kit
Community Affairs
Text Version
TipsGo to Advanced Search
Search Options divide
go to Member Center Log Out
  

 [F] 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.


Earliest Messages Previous Messages Recent Messages Outline (14284 previous messages)

rshow55 - 05:00am Oct 4, 2003 EST (# 14285 of 14288)
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.

"This begs the question - If Shakespeare were Commander-in-Chief today and acknowledged for his 'generousity of spirit towards humanity' - then:

"How would Tudor-Bill handle the 'Terrorist Question', Iraq, and Missile Defense?

Looking at the plays, you'd know he'd care a lot about order - multiple perspectives - and finding arrangements that could work. And he'd know how bad explosive fights could be. He'd know something about win-win solutions, too.

The connection to Shakespeare works well in another way. Shakespeare was a great human being - he produced a great corpus - that has been thought over, fought over, considered, reconsidered - and subjected to every kind of discourse analysis including statistics and logic and statistics in interaction - that any discourse has ever been subjected to.

Now, the corpus of this thread is not distinguished in the ways Shakespeare's is - but it does have a serious purpose - and its word count is now several times greater than Shakespeare's (the thread text is now somewhere over 8 million words - and links to billions of words pretty directly. ) Enough so that it could be subjected to every kind of text analysis (including statistics) that is used on Shakespeare's text.

For myself - I think that analysis would be worth it - and would remain worth it if every single one of my posts were excluded from the analysis - unless someone involved in the analysis wanted to make an exception. The NYT - if it wished to - could make a very few phone calls - and this funding would happen - from conventional foundation sources.

I think the analysis would be worth it because negotiation and peacemaking are major problems before us - and so is the process by which human being make sense of their world - and of each other - when they do make sense.

rshow55 - 05:02am Oct 4, 2003 EST (# 14286 of 14288)
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.

13900 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.we7Lbct9Lle.417401@.f28e622/15603

This passage is from Fundamental Neuroanatomy by Walle J. H. Nauta and Michael Feirtag . . . W.H. Freeman, 1986 ( Nauta wrote as a MIT professor - Feirtag from the Board of Editors of Scientific American ).

The passage is the last paragraph of Nauta and Feirtag's Chapter 2 - The Neuron; Some Numbers

"One last conclusion remains to be drawn from the numbers we have cited. With the exception of a mere few million motor neurons, the entire human brain and spinal chord are a great intermediate net. And when the great intermediate net comes to include 99.9997 percent of all the neurons in the nervous system, the term loses much of its meaning: it comes to represent the very complexity one must face when one tries to comprehend the nervous system.

To understand workable human logic at all - to "connect the dots" - and do so well - and form workable judgements - we must face the need to "go around in loops" with a lot of different kinds of crosschecking. To say "no fair doing self reference" is like saying "no fair for a neuron to connect to anything but and input or an output neuron." It doesn't work that way, and can't.

We can find out how this organization works - as it connects to the language we actually use - the thinking we're conscious of (and unconscious of ) - or approach that understanding more closely.

That's happening - and happening on this thread.

More Messages Recent Messages (2 following messages)

 Read Subscriptions  Subscribe  Search  Post Message
 Your Preferences

 [F] New York Times on the Web Forums  / Science  / Missile Defense