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 (16558 previous messages)

rshow55 - 07:50am Nov 5, 2003 EST (# 16559 of 16562)
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.

16410 <a href="/webin/WebX?14@13.imMVb1RUVFN.1418439@.f28e622/18125">rshow55 11/3/03 8:55pm</a> includes this:

My involvement with the Missile Defense board started with discussion about nuclear weapons on the old NYT Favorite Poetry board. ( links) . . .

My involvement with the Missile Defense thread began on a Monday, at 07:32am Sep 25, 2000 EST (#266) Ridding the world of nuclear weapons, this year or next year. What would have to happen? rshowalt 9/25/00 7:32am . For the rest of that day, I had a discussion with "becq," . .

ending at #304, which is worth reading in itself ... rshowalt 9/25/00 5:28pm

cantabb - 08:55pm Nov 3, 2003 EST (# 16411 followed with a key question, referring to my 16409

" I was assigned to work on exception handling patterns that neither the formal intelligence apparatus, nor the private sector as it was, nor the academic community could handle - in ways that I thought then, and still think, made sense in the overall national interest - and in the interest of our capitalistic system, our political system - and the academy.

You mean something nebulous and undefined !

- -

In a sense, yes, in another sense, no - and there's no contradiction. Search keys are both "nebulous and undefined" - the patterns used in " fishing expeditions" and organizing principles.

Eisenhower was desperate to get some key problems clarified and solved - he was stumped and diffuse in some ways - and very clear in others.

I'm diffuse in some ways - and very clear in others - and though I don't "have all the answers" I feel confident that lchic and I have gotten some of the most important answers that worried Eisenhower.

Jorian , it seems to me, could object and say "But it is an OUTRAGE to do this on the New York Times' nickel - and without giving them much choice, either."

That may be right - but at the end of the first day I spent on the board - I asked for help that sure seemed reasonable to me then, and still does now:

#304... rshowalt 9/25/00 5:28pm - - and if I'd gotten it - September 25 might have been my only day on the board.

rshow55 - 07:55am Nov 5, 2003 EST (# 16560 of 16562)
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.


14169 seems nice to cite, too. It includes a reference to - which can be called diffuse in some ways - but is pretty specific in others.

For example - it specifically maps to some unsolved problems in game theory that we've discussed on this board.

I think it is interesting why it is so hard for me to get NYT people to meet with me face-to-face. Look at the expense they are willing to go to to avoid it !

And the contortions !

cantabb - 07:56am Nov 5, 2003 EST (# 16561 of 16562)



It's done, Kate. Been done for long time. Stick your fork in it ...

Those who wanted to 'save' this slop have already done so and added to the CORPUS.

Why wait ? Unless NYT want to accumulate this slop only to delete it 10 days later....

More Messages Recent Messages (1 following message)

 Read Subscriptions  Subscribe  Search  Post Message
 Your Preferences

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