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 (16377 previous messages)

cantabb - 06:36pm Nov 3, 2003 EST (# 16378 of 16390)

rshow55 - 05:05pm Nov 3, 2003 EST (# 16369 of 16375)

Lchic and I are trying to explain something vital for peace and prosperity - something that has screwed up much too often.

BUT you and lchic can't even "explain" what you have been working on for the past 3 years. You have also demonstrated often that you are in NO position to understand, let alone "explain" anything [forget "vital"] about "peace and prosperity" that could be remotely considered 'fresh' or 'new'. If you can't do that, how in the world can you even see "something that has screwed up much too often." Tired old platitudes are JUST that -- give you not an iota of understanding.

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.

Too nebulous and ambiguous to mean anything.

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.

How ridiculous: What has your ability to work your undefined problems with NYT got to do with "closure" of difficult negotiations "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.

Who do you think must "permit" you to sort out your situation. You identified NO ONE, or with reason. What you call "win-win" is a compromise; don't keep deluding yourself. That you can "show" NYT or any one how to reach a "win-win" is just laughable.

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.

Self-aggrandizing again. You're in no position to do any of this for yourself or NYT -- forget "the whole world" !

That seems like an important problem to me . And the level of solution I've been asking for lately sure looks easy.

What's important to you is NOT necessarily important to others, and you have NOT shown why it should be.

rshow55 - 05:10pm Nov 3, 2003 EST (# 16370 of 16375)

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.

And, "clarity" is something you do NOT have -- and have never shown on any matter so far.

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.

First, you need to LEARN the lesson -- nebulous, the way you describe it. Leave the teaching to others, qualified !

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."

Too muddled to make sense.

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.

TRY things ON-topic. This forum is NOT a testing ground for your pie-in-sky ideas.

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.

Makes no sense. What about a little "clarity" ?

rshow55 - 05:16pm Nov 3, 2003 EST (# 1637

cantabb - 06:36pm Nov 3, 2003 EST (# 16379 of 16390)

rshow55 - 05:16pm Nov 3, 2003 EST (# 16372 of 16375)

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."

Looks like you'd rather create and live with your problems than make an appropriate effort to resolve them. Personal problems are NOT resolved on a public forum -- and you have NOT even defined what your problem is.

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.

NO evidence. More empty charges !

As I said, with such an approach, I doubt if you can find "truth" if it landed in your lap -- "a better job of finding" it is too much far-fetched !

cantabb - 06:39pm Nov 3, 2003 EST (# 16380 of 16390)

katetimes - 06:31pm Nov 3, 2003 EST (# 16377 of 16379) Senior Community Producer,

We're actually going to be closing this forum soon. I want to give you ample time to save your work.


Thank you rshow55 and lchic for your contribution toward it !

cantabb - 06:40pm Nov 3, 2003 EST (# 16381 of 16390)


Do you think "IGNORE" would have worked ?

More Messages Recent Messages (9 following messages)

 Read Subscriptions  Subscribe  Search  Post Message
 Your Preferences

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