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 (14405 previous messages)

cantabb - 09:15am Oct 6, 2003 EST (# 14406 of 14411)

rshow55 - 08:51am Oct 6, 2003 EST (# 14404 of 14405)

I make cryptograms because I was crypto trained .

So ?

The forum is for a debate !

My guess is that I got the most complete crypto training the US government could possibly offer during the 1967-69 period where I had "hot and cold running tutors" - who were pushing me very hard.

Good ! Put it some good use !

I'm doing the best I can.

So is everybody else !

I may not be "the very model of a modern major general" ....... but I was trained at the command of a (retired) Five Star General.

You don't have to be to post here. Just on-topic stuff, that's all.

Just tell us: What specific thing(s) you've been working so hard on here, relevant to this Science forum on MD ? Any substantiation of your various claims ?

Shouldn't be this traumatically difficult for any one who has been doing this for 2+ years, with a "world asset."

rshow55 - 09:20am Oct 6, 2003 EST (# 14407 of 14411)
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.

Cantabb - this forum has evolved - and I've learned to ignore you, mostly - except when I deal with you in batch fashion - or when you say something sensible.

bbbuck's last post was pretty good, and "Thin Man" is a good search topic.

9955 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.VL69bErnLKQ.773833@.f28e622/11501

http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md11000s/md11893.htm

a nice quote from The Thin Man - a tale that hinges on a "character" who acted villianously, but was really dead - and another good quote from Turfte's Envisioning Information.

Here's Dashiell Hammet in The Thin Man , 1933. Hammet's speaking of a sexy, interesting, treacherous character named "Mimi". He's asked by a police detective what to make of what she says:

" The chief thing," I advised him, "is not to let her wear you out. When you catch her in a lie, she admits it and gives you another lie to take its place, and when you catch he in that one, admits it, and gives you still another, and so on. Most people . . . get discouraged after you've caught them in the third or fourth straight lie and fall back on the truth or silence, but not Mimi. She keeps trying, and you've got to be careful or you'll find yourself believing her, not because she seems to be telling the truth, but simply because you're tired of disbelieving her. "

What if truth broke out?

Peace might break out, too.

" The National Security Strategy of the United States ," http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/20/politics/20STEXT_FULL.html is beautiful in some ways - - ugly in some others. We know that for a fact now.

Is all the ugliness and evasion really necessary?

We need to find end games that are stable, and have good end points. From where we are, that ought not to be so hard.

cantabb - 09:31am Oct 6, 2003 EST (# 14408 of 14411)

rshow55 - 09:20am Oct 6, 2003 EST (# 14407 of 14407)

Cantabb - this forum has evolved -

This Forum has in fact deteriorated !

and I've learned to ignore you, mostly - except when I deal with you in batch fashion -

Who cares ? Am glad your esteemed collaborator not only you 'told' you asbout and has taught you how to do it.

or when you say something sensible.

Wow.

This from a poster who seems so incapable of saying anything "sensible" or coherent or has yet been able to disentangle himself from his own cobwebs ?

One who can't even answer simple questions on what he thinks he has been doing here, with the help of a "world asset," for the past 2-plus years, and show even a fraction of the evidence for the global claims he continues to make !

You are so lucky: You are NOT going to be "ignored."

More Messages Recent Messages (3 following messages)

 Read Subscriptions  Subscribe  Search  Post Message
 Your Preferences

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