New York Times Forums
The New York Times

Job Market
Real Estate
New York Region
NYT Front Page
Readers' Opinions

Dining & Wine
Home & Garden
Fashion & Style
Week in Review
Learning Network
Book a Trip
Theater Tickets
Premium Products
NYT Store
NYT Mobile
E-Cards & More
About NYTDigital
Jobs at NYTDigital
Online Media Kit
Our Advertisers
Your Profile
E-Mail Preferences
News Tracker
Premium Account
Site Help
Privacy Policy
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 (16368 previous messages)

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.

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

Perhaps 14800 was a little indelicate. But some other things on this thread are indelicate - and I think 14800 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

. 1624

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.

More Messages Recent Messages (11 following messages)

 Read Subscriptions  Subscribe  Search  Post Message
 Your Preferences

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