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.
(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, NYTimes.com
We're actually going to be closing this
forum soon. I want to give you ample time to save your work.
THANK YOU, Kate !
Thank you rshow55 and lchic for your contribution toward it
!
cantabb
- 06:40pm Nov 3, 2003 EST (#
16381 of 16390)
B;uestar23:
Do you think "IGNORE" would have worked ?
(9 following messages)
New York Times on the Web Forums
Science
Missile Defense
|