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 - 04:59pm Oct 4, 2003 EST (# 14308 of 14311)

lchic - 03:28pm Oct 4, 2003 EST (# 14298 of 14302)

Here's a 'power' question The concept of 'Empire America'? Looking at the straight totalled number of voter in the 2000 election http://www.wittendal.com/usa1.htm it seems so many americans were simply 'out to lunch' on that day -- and/or had their franchaise to vote withdrawn eliminating them a say in their democratic representation ... in the land of 'Liberty' and 'Freedom' ... why do so many have to endure 'internal exile'!? http://www.dogwoodcenter.org/references/Toppo00.html Population USA 281,421,906 in 2000 census http://www.usatoday.com/graphics/census2000/usnav/usnav.htm

ANY relevance to MD ?

I agree "It got understood and exposed."

cantabb - 05:06pm Oct 4, 2003 EST (# 14309 of 14311)

rshow55 - 03:45pm Oct 4, 2003 EST (# 14300 of 14302)

I'm going on - there's not much to the last post, in my opinion.

IF it's your last post – then I agree !

I'm saying that going around in circles is essential to much human logic - and can convege - though it need not. Cantabb is, in general, against the idea.

You keep missing the point: You first need FACTS (verifiable), and NOT a mixture of fact/fiction/opinion passed off as FACTS. Without such "facts," you’ll be doing nothing but “going around in circles” – chasing your own tail, endlessly.

Human logic just doesn’t go around in such circles. Such fact-deficient circles could be mere rote of the same flawed information. Human logic, on the other hand, is progressive: putting rational pieces together, “checking” [confirming] their rational appropriateness, step by step – in order to see a picture emerge [‘convergingly’]: like a jigsaw puzzle. Going round and round the same pieces is NOT going to get you anywhere.

We're dealing with subject matter here that science writers - and "average readers of The New York Times" care about - and it seems to me that illustration of difficulties with "connections of the dots" is worth talking about - and relates to missile defense - ( imho ) because there is already much on this board about the technology of missile defense that can be focused and largely validaded by internal crosscheckings - many of them recursive.

The average NYT reader, interested in MD, does NOT want or need loads of extraneous material, and repeatedly. As I said many times already, the “dots” are relevant verifiable facts – NOT a mixture of facts/fiction/personal opinion passed off as verified [properly “checked”] “FACTS.” AND, “crosschecking” the validity of “facts.” NOT an unreconstructed mishmash of unverified facts and personal opinions.

Can such things converge ? Some "connections of the dots" do not converge - and people make emotion - laden jokes about it. I liked these pieces, that deal with problems of recursion without sufficient convergence - and for all I know, Cantabb might, as well ( though he may object to having them on this board. )

IF you seriously want your thoughts on any issues to “converge” – I sduggest you try NOT to scatter yourself in far flung areas, way off off-topic and relevance.

MIRROR MIRROR A History of the Human Love Affair With Reflection. By Mark Pendergrast. Illustrated. 404 pp. New York: Basic Books. . . was reviewed in

Irrelevant.

rshow55 - 03:46pm Oct 4, 2003 EST (# 14301 of 14302)

Here's a book that makes an only partly tongue-in-cheek effort to provide common culture.

AN INCOMPLETE EDUCATION by Judy Jones and William Wilson Ballantine Books, NY 1987

You’re NOT helping the discussion ‘converge’ or stay focused.

For four days now, I've been trying to respond - in an organized way - to key questions that Cantabb may have - that I think people ought to have:

I already have asked them sometime ago, and repeated them since.

I promised to do a technical posting - on the connection of latent semantic analysis - statisitics - logic - and schema - and the importance of loop tests.

Yesterday - I took incomplete work product that was part of that effort - and posted it ……It cited pieces that I believe an editor of the NYT would respect - that are not subject to the objections I understand from Cantabb - results that don't "go round and round" - but are focused, finished products - within a format. Here they are.

I thought you saw and responded to my comments on your posts yesterday. The rest (including more links to more stuff) is NOT what you need, IF you want to "converge" or answer my simple questions.

Cantabb objected to the illustration of multiple citation to these pieces. But I hope we agree that the pieces themselves

(2 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense