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 (16734 previous messages)

rshow55 - 10:24am Nov 7, 2003 EST (# 16735 of 16745)
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.

One can give much weight to considerations of confidentiality - and still worry about issues of logical structure and manipulation. Under the usages MIT is using - quoted in 14769 it makes some sense to think about logical analogs of the

Interactive Graphic: How the Partnerships Worked available at

These usages permit a great many multidimensional shell games. Some exception handling is necessary - when reasons for it are sufficient. Shell games involving information can work much the same when there are hidden elements. Not that hidden elements are avoidable. But mistakes are often avoidable - with decent patterns of exception handling - and feedback.

In my case, there's enough involved for me - in terms of my life - that I need some things in writing. For all I know, they would only be affirmations of standard NYT company policies from a handbook. Nonetheless, I need them in writing.

I know it is not MD - but some may be interested in a lot of dialog that occurred after WWI about the need for "open agreements - openly arrived at" - and the basic reason for the openness was the need for predictability and stability. In the late 1910s and early 1920s, when most of this discussion occurred - the technical barriers to "open agreements - openly arrived at" were insurmountable - and in complicated cases it wasn't even possible to specify workably complete agreements. Now, with the internet - these technical barriers have been removed.

The note I dictated to Apcar's phone line, referred to this morning, includes this.

I'm not asking the NYT to endorse me in any way - surely in no way beyond the respectful language you used about my board work in your letter of Oct 29 - and in the respectful language of our phone conversation. Nor am I asking the NYT to forgo any of the powers it has as a newspaper - if I've done something the NYT wishes to print a story about, or inquire about for a journalistic purpose. Nor am I asking the TIMES to forgo communicating anything that it feels a duty as a citizen to communicate to anyone.

Here are issues where I DID want some discussion - so that we could get a comfortable meeting of the minds. The wording is from the draft I read from

But I DO ask that anything they tell others about me - they also tell me

And whatever agreement we come to about confidentiality or non-confidentiality can be shown to people I interact with - with the expectation that I ask these people to report back to me about whether their communication conforms to it.

Examples - - - for purposes of clarification - - might be discussed over the phone.

I've asked that that be discussed. Perhaps we can do it openly.

I'm cooking and eating breakfast - so I'll be off the board a little while, but while I"m off, could anyone explain to me why either Jorian, or Cantabb, or the Times, or anybody else has any reason to object to these links - not just in general - though generalities matter - but in terms of the specific circumstanes of this board - which is an exceptional board in some ways, though not in others:

What would be the reasonable objections to a similar posting of the collected works of bluestar23 - or myself, or lchic ?

What would the objections be if I were to email or mail these links to embassies - or to news organizations - or to various organizations.

There are points that nee

rshow55 - 10:25am Nov 7, 2003 EST (# 16736 of 16745)
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.

There are points that need to be discussed - so that people involved in necessarily complicated lives can work.

This board is complicated enough that that discussion can and should serve needs that go both ways .

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