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.

lchic - 09:25am Nov 12, 2003 EST (# 17385 of 17395)
ultimately TRUTH outs : TRUTH has to be morally forcing : build on TRUTH it's a strong foundation

Showalter has placed emphasis on the need to learn how to negotiate

Even when the language is 'the same'

it isn't easy for people to come out with their NEEDS fulfilled

as can be seen in today's NYT Editorial - Kristoff

lchic - 09:31am Nov 12, 2003 EST (# 17386 of 17395)
ultimately TRUTH outs : TRUTH has to be morally forcing : build on TRUTH it's a strong foundation

Blue, Cantabb, Jorian, ThePosterMonikers ... understand the same languge .... and WRCooper too

but

Cooper says he can't understand Showalter - yet credits him

The 4Muddleeters above - don't look at concepts

Showalter's ideas sometimes need to be condensed, condensed, condensed. If they aren't understood the first time --- it's may be because there has to be transition from 'redundant' thinking to the acceptance of new ... the mind has to transgress, transform and transcend .... a shift in thought process has to ocurr - a renewed mind can then transmit!

lchic - 09:35am Nov 12, 2003 EST (# 17387 of 17395)
ultimately TRUTH outs : TRUTH has to be morally forcing : build on TRUTH it's a strong foundation

Showalter is a great teacher - his postings on this thread represent a commitment of thoughtful time and effor.

I've learnt a lot!

So too has Showalter by moving through his textual territory.

---

Triangulation demonstrates the quality of Showalter's content as against the muddleeter-Cantabbulator ones.

---

lchic - 10:24am Nov 12, 2003 EST (# 17388 of 17395)
ultimately TRUTH outs : TRUTH has to be morally forcing : build on TRUTH it's a strong foundation

US backs nuclear fusion over particle smashing

12:25 11 November 03

NewScientist.com news service

Making clean energy by nuclear fusion and building supercomputers to speed up scientific research are the top priorities in physical science, according to a new US Department of Energy road map.

Other major projects given a top ranking include designing microbes to scrub the atmosphere of carbon dioxide and the search for the mysterious dark energy that is driving the expansion of the Universe.

However, high energy physics (HEP) experiments that smash particles together did not fare so well in the 20-year plan announced on Monday. HEP experiments could one day unite quantum mechanics and general relativity, and explain why our Universe has mass.

But the Linear Collider, described as "the next big step" in the field, was ranked only 13 in a list of 28 priority facilities. Furthermore, three projects that a HEP task force ranked as "absolutely central" in March did not make the list at all.

"The Linear Collider is down lower than most might have expected," says Ernest Moniz, physics professor at MIT and former Undersecretary at the DoE. "Scientists are hoping that this is purely a timescale factor, although it is clearly disappointing not to be higher up on the list."

Big spender

The DoE is the US's biggest funding body for research in the physical sciences, mathematics and computing, with an annual budget of $3 billion. But over the last two decades spending on these areas has stagnated, while money for biology and space research has increased.

In response, the DoE set up six physical science "task forces" in 2002 to determine where funding for major facilities would be best spent. Over 50 projects made the final shortlist, and the DoE then selected the top 28.

Twelve were given top billing as "near-term priorities", eight as mid-term and eight as far-term. The roadmap does not address funding levels, but provides a guide for how money will be distributed. "This list is the best thinking as of now, but it will be re-examined as we progress," said Ray Orbach the director of the Office of Science at the DoE.

Long wait

Most US physicists welcomed the DoE list as finally giving proper recognition to projects that require many years of commitment before producing results. Mike Lubell, head of media relations at the American Physical Society (APS) says: "People have been starved of this opportunity for a while."

But David Harris, also at the APS says: "If you have a project that's a long way down the list you might find it is going to be a long wait." Orbach acknowledges that funding will have to increase by about 60 per cent if the roadmap is to be realised.

The project in the top spot is the international fusion experiment, known as ITER. Orbach says it won this position because increased computing power now means simulations can help drive the project forward. "If everything works, in 35 years, we could be putting electricity into the grid from fusion," he says.

But some high energy physicists felt sidelined. "If I take the list literally, then HEP is a disappointment," says Leon Lederman, a high energy physicist at the Illinois Math and Science Facility. But he is confident that current HEP experiments will throw up results compelling enough to change the opinion of funding bodies. "Twenty year plans usually get modified," he says.

Celeste Biever

(7 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense