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.

lchic - 04:11pm Oct 20, 2003 EST (# 15290 of 15297)
ultimately TRUTH outs : TRUTH has to be morally forcing : build on TRUTH it's a strong foundation

Showalter has posted on the board wrt crypto problem solving method ... that is to get into the guts of a matter ... and work at the problem long-hand so to speak and for as long as is necessary to resolve it.

Hence initially he's long on long.

Later matter reduces to 'short' on long.

Short can then be packaged for every-man consumption.

Arrival at 'crypto-short' may involve years of 'long-slog' effort.

_______________________________________

cantabb - 04:22pm Oct 20, 2003 EST (# 15291 of 15297)

lchic - 04:11pm Oct 20, 2003 EST (# 15290 of 15290)

Showalter has posted on the board wrt crypto problem solving method ... that is to get into the guts of a matter ... and work at the problem long-hand so to speak and for as long as is necessary to resolve it.

Don't you think most people solve most problems the very same way: getting into "the guts of a matter" -- EXCEPT, rationally and without getting trapped in one's own created personal cobwebs ?

Btw, do YOU know what (re MD) has Showalter solved by HIS 'crpto problem solving method', YET ?

Hence initially he's long on long. Later matter reduces to 'short' on long. Short can then be packaged for every-man consumption.

Arrival at 'crypto-short' may involve years of 'long-slog' effort.

Makes sense the same way as most of your stuff.

"ultimately TRUTH outs : TRUTH has to be morally forcing : build on TRUTH it's a strong foundation."

rshow55 - 04:31pm Oct 20, 2003 EST (# 15292 of 15297)
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.

I think we've got a good shot at having things work out well. And concisely.

http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md2000s/md2391.htm

A senior bureacrat once told a committee I served on this:

" In this town, some think that it is all right to do anything that isn't specifically prohibited. But it isn't that easy. There is one standard, one test, that has to apply, to be effective in this town. You have to ask, of whatever you're going to do . . . .

" What would this look like, and how would it be judged, if it was written up, in detail, in THE NEW YORK TIMES. ( I noticed that, though we were in DC, the TIMES was the paper chosen.)

The man went on to emphasize that the point wasn't that our doings would be reported in the paper. The point was that there were community standards, about what was good function, and what wasn't, on which people with enough literacy and stature to be interested in reading the TIMES would agree. And these community standards made for orderly and effecive behavior, and were of compelling practical and moral force.

- - - -

That's a standard I'm trying to remember. Another is this. Human organizations have to act and it is important, for action, to be positive what you want to do and able to explain it.

If people are to use this board - and if I'm to be able to function - what happened on this board has to be explained concisely in the ways that matter for action.

That doesn't necessarily conflict with any valid interest of the newspaper.

We don't have to be in a "zero sum" or "negative sum" game here. We could arrange a postitive sum game.

The US-NK-Japan-SK-China_Ru interaction could be stable and positive sum, too.

But for that, standards have to be clear.

The average reader of The New York Times ought to be able to understand that.

rshow55 - 04:33pm Oct 20, 2003 EST (# 15293 of 15297)
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.

Lchic and I talk, on average, more than an hour a day - and have for years now. She knows a lot . Cantabb, my guess is that you could get lchic's phone number pretty easily - and she'd talk to you. I think her judgement is excellent - and she knows a lot about what I can and cannot do. A great deal that I can now do is because of her.

I'll try to stay off the board for a while - getting things done that Cantabb has sometimes said he wants done.

(4 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense