New York Times on the Web Forums
Science
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.
(14648 previous messages)
cantabb
- 12:15pm Oct 8, 2003 EST (#
14649 of 14663)
klsanford0 - 11:10am Oct 8, 2003 EST (# 14632 of
14638)
“Ignore” is a personal preference. One size doesn’t fit
ALL.
But constantly suggesting or recommending the same for
others as THE solution, as some tend to do, seems presumptuous
to me -- besides being annoyingly condescending [Oh, you’re
new, you’ll understand later what I’m taking about etc] .
Doesn't it depend on how we individually handle a debate?
Some of us can’t suffer some posters as others do, may have or
tried to. And, some of us seem to know how best to consign
posts and posters where rightfully belong.
It's strange and ironic, but I’ve seen some of the same
posters, now advising “ignore”, engaged here and other forums
in long drawn out debates on things of least interest to many
others. They preferred then NOT to “ignore” for some reason.
They can “ignore” the posters, they can “ignore” the Forum.
In some situations, the path of least resistance may NOT be
the best path. To schieve a desired result. In this case,
you'll see more of what you did not want to see -- wildly
proliferating weeds !
Have safe travel.
rshow55
- 12:17pm Oct 8, 2003 EST (#
14650 of 14663) 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.
Easy. But still - the closer you are . . .
To hit a target with a bullet - you must have position,
angle, and range right. Time - to days - minutes - hours -
second - isn't so critical.
To hit a bullet with a bullet - you have all the problems
above - they are all more critical - and time resolution is
far, far, far more critical.
We need to learn to make peace - though, while we're at it
- we may need defensive weapons that work pretty well.
rshow55
- 12:18pm Oct 8, 2003 EST (#
14651 of 14663) 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.
Damme if these posts don't seem worth another loop through
. . .
14059 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.Hby2b7cSLYO.1186709@.f28e622/15765
14060 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.Hby2b7cSLYO.1186709@.f28e622/15766
14061 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.Hby2b7cSLYO.1186709@.f28e622/15767
For stable end games - people and groups have to be
workably clear on these key questions.
How do they disagree (agree) about
logical structure ?
How do they disagree (agree) about facts
?
How do they disagree (agree) about questions
of how much different things matter ?
How do they differ in their team
identifications ?
Odds are good that if the patterns of agreement (or
disagreement) are STABLE and KNOWN they can be decently
accomodated.
But if these patterns of agreement or disagreement are NOT
known - then situations that involve disagreements are
inherently unstable.
( also N!herently unstable )
That may be an "old and obvious" result. But an important
one that people don't seem to know (or seem to forget) when it
most needs to be remembered. It may be a simple thing to know.
But useful. Knowledge of how to tie your shoes is a humble
thing. But useful in its way, too.
600 plus posts later - - those things still seem right -
still seem to be things people have a tought time remembering
when it matters.
13655-6 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.Hby2b7cSLYO.1186709@.f28e622/15358
from about 1000 posts back bears rereading, too.
If people are scandalized, and panic - and
run around blinded with passion - every time somebody calls
somebody else a ahem "knowing falsifier" - then we're
in a hell of a mess.
The incidence of more or less conscious
deception - and obviously repressed fiction is something
like 10-20 times what people are admitting.
And people are stumped - in all sorts of
obvious and stupid ways - some of them bloody - because
they're missing that.
If people would admit that simple fact we could sort out a
lot - and have more fun.
jorian319
- 12:18pm Oct 8, 2003 EST (#
14652 of 14663) "Statements on frequently important
subjects are interesting." -rshow55
Using boost phase really doesn't remove the
advantage of the attacker, it would seem
Maybe not "remove", but it does place considerable
additional burden. In-flight decoys can be simple objects, but
launch/boost decoys would have to emit credible IR signatures
- a very expensive per-unit undertaking.
Oh crap - now I've done it... never should have mentioned
MD in this place. Forgive me all - I forgot it was verboten.
(11 following messages)
New York Times on the Web Forums
Science
Missile Defense
|