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.
(15315 previous messages)
rshow55
- 06:35am Oct 21, 2003 EST (#
15316 of 15318) 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.
Yesterday afternoon, I said this 15292 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.lrCFbCYwQ59.3812404@.f28e622/17005
"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 positive sum
game.
In 1503 Cantab chose to pick a fight about a phrase I used.
"If YOU are “to be able to function” ? More
insinuations.
I need accomodations that permit me to function -and know a
lot about what my needs are. If that sort of thing is
denied in a negotiation - nothing can possibly close in
anything but a fight - or something like rape.
You can always pick a fight. For any stable
accomodation about anything at all complicated - people
have - within limits - and for particular purposes - to
choose not to fight. And be prepared to accomodate the
needs of the people involved.
Otherwise, explosive fights have to be expected.
They are not "bad luck" - they are foreseeable. Masters
of the short term solution - especially masters of the
ultra-short sound bit solution may miss that - and
doing so, they guarantee bad results for themselves and
people who rely on them.
Yesterday's 15284 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.lrCFbCYwQ59.3812404@.f28e622/16997
includes this:
I'm working as hard and as carefully as I
can, trying to produce a satisfactory response to some of
Cantabb's earlier suggestions - in a proposal to the "top
dog" at the NYT that he suggested I make. It seemed like a
good suggestion when he made it, and seems, if anything,
better now. When I think of the logical problems I'm having
- just on my simple, low status, low priority problem of
dealing with the NYT - I can see how the Bush administration
can have its difficulties on the harder problems it faces.
All the same, I'm trying to do a proposal
that would work as a model that the Bush administration -
and other institutions and nations involved with the Korean
problems - could actually learn from in ways that could be
helpful. Whether I'll finish it in the next five hours, I
don't know. Probably not. But it seems to me that the
proposal is converging nicely, everything considered.
I didn't finish - and I'll be continuing. It is hard to do
"under fire." I think the proposal will be good enough
so that it will work as a model that the Bush administration -
and other institutions and nations involved with the Korean
problems - could actually learn from in ways that could be
helpful. If they are actually willing to learn.
(2 following messages)
New York Times on the Web Forums
Science
Missile Defense
|