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 (16447 previous messages)

cantabb - 06:54am Nov 4, 2003 EST (# 16448 of 16472)

lchic - 06:30am Nov 4, 2003 EST (# 16445 of 16446)

Cantabb - rides pillon on the soundwave of an echo.

Your shared paranoia.

but thread readers will ask

Readers have asked DIFFERENT questions. NOT interested in poster IDs, your+rshow's obsession.

Who are you? What's your name? Contact information?

Is that a prerequisite for posting on a public forum ? What I post is NOT enough ?

Since you and rshow are so obsessed with this, answer this yourself: Who are YOU ? What's YOUR name ? Contact information ?

Let's have it in your NEXT post. I know rshow has identified you, but .... ? !

Faceless - nameless opinions are weightless and worthless in real world terms.

Usual Nonsense. Expressed opinions don't have to have a name, degree or position attavhed. Opinions stand or fall, on their own merit; name adds nothing to its merit, weight or worth. Your and rshow's obsession is for both of you to share.

"ultimately TRUTH outs : TRUTH has to be morally forcing : build on TRUTH it's a strong foundation": IF you take the "syrup" daily and know where to find the nearest "Truth Dispenser," that is !

rshow55 - 07:09am Nov 4, 2003 EST (# 16449 of 16472)
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.

Cantabb says: "Expressed opinions don't have to have a name, degree or position attavhed. Opinions stand or fall, on their own merit; name adds nothing to its merit, weight or worth.

That is false - and everybody knows it.

For human beings - quantitative questions - questions of how much weight to put on one thing or another - matter all the time. The question of "who is talking" is an essential one when ideas are weighted . And questions of HOW MUCH STATUS is involved, and how, are a big part of most decisions.

Meaningless generalities are worthless. But meaningful generalities are precious. And one generality that is underappreciated is that now - languages do a poor job of communicating issues of "how much" - and we need to do better - and know when there is no substitute for conversation - including some face-to-face conversation - which carries emotional and quantitative cues that are essential for human function.

I'm hoping that lchic and I can do some work that makes that less of a problem. Work that is actually effective.

For stable end games - workable stable arrangements - people and groups have to be workably clear on these key questions. Especially if win-win outcomes are to be possible.

Issues of how much enter into every one of the issues here:

How do people disagree (agree) about logical structure ? ( to judge what structures work - you need "how much" questions.)

How do people disagree (agree) about facts ? ( to judge facts in the real world, with real uncertainties, you need to answer "how much" questions. )

How do people disagree (agree) about questions of how much different things matter ?

How do people differ in their team identifications ? ( all human teams have particular sets of priorities - some of them very carefully calibrated - that can't be described well, these days, with only the printed word - without relying on much else. )

More Messages Recent Messages (23 following messages)

 Read Subscriptions  Subscribe  Search  Post Message
 Your Preferences

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