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.

rshow55 - 05:05pm Nov 3, 2003 EST (# 16369 of 16383)
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.

Well, Jorian, that is a simple posting. This part is simple and correct .

. Jorian: All we have to do is write to someone in a High Position at NYT, and convince them that after much Hard Work, the Corpus has come up with a Win-Win Solution to an Important Problem.

That doesn't require naming names, necessarily - or checking anything in particular - though some specification of what has been checked, and what not - could be useful.

http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.lLx1bEq0USj.1045763@.f28e622/17169

Lchic and I are trying to explain something vital for peace and prosperity - something that has screwed up much too often. How to construct and trim stable oscillatory solutions - where nothing else can possibly work - and where these solutions can do well - if people take their time and fit them carefully. 7789-90 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.lLx1bEq0USj.1045763@.f28e622/9314

Perhaps 14800 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.lLx1bEq0USj.1045763@.f28e622/16511 was a little indelicate. But some other things on this thread are indelicate - and I think 14800 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.lLx1bEq0USj.1045763@.f28e622/16511 bears repeating.

If things I'm trying to demonstrate could work between me and The New York Times - formally analogous things might be possible in negotiations that now cannot get to closure between nations.

If I were permitted to sort my situation with the NYT out on a win-win basis - I could go a long way toward showing them how to do so.

I think I could show it in a way that would be to the advantage of the NYT - and the whole world - and with much lower costs to the NYT in every respect I can think of than the costs the organization is paying already.

That seems like an important problem to me .

And the level of solution I've been asking for lately sure looks easy.

rshow55 - 05:10pm Nov 3, 2003 EST (# 16370 of 16383)
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.

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

. For many situations a clear yes or no - if it does not oscillate - is equally useful. Clarity is all you need. Either stable answer can be stably accomodated - and often the accomodations work equally well.

. For some other situations, stability requires an oscillation between one answer and another - for logical reasons.

That's a lesson I've been working to teach - explicitly, and by example.

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

We need - to find more reasonable solutions - to convert some oscillations to more stable states - move some "open secrets" to "systems of facts acknowleged" - and some implicit "agreements to disagree" into more explicit "agreements to disagree."

This thread - because it is somewhat important - but not too important - is a good place to prototype these things - so that leaders of nation states and large institutions can do analogous things well when the stakes are much higher.

Often - in places where oscillations are occurring in a situation - it makes sense to sort out and frame patterns of exception handling that are, logically switching patterns.

. 1623 http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7b2bd/1792

. 1624 http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7b2bd/1793

That's "just common sense" from some perspectives - but it would be a "paradigm shift" from some other perspectives.

- - -

And at a lower level - is it really so hard for the NYT to talk face to face about how I want to use the " solution " they've given me administratively?

So that the "solution" serves the purpose that I assume (since it was carefully crafted) it was intended to serve?

jorian319 - 05:12pm Nov 3, 2003 EST (# 16371 of 16383)

Post above begs for more dissembly by C&B. I don't have time.

But I can tell you this: You're not allowed to construct and trim stable oscillatory solutions under the terms of your house arrest.

rshow55 - 05:16pm Nov 3, 2003 EST (# 16372 of 16383)
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.

That wasn't a problem involving the New York Times before September 2000 - and before that time I wasn't constrained in the series of multiple binds I've been calling "effective house arrest."

The NYT had quite a big role in getting me into a mess - and should take a little trouble getting me out - in its own interest if not mine.

(11 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense