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.

rshow55 - 08:31pm Nov 13, 2003 EST (# 17617 of 17629)
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: http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.1IDdbB4sX91.158976@.f28e622/19331

"Do whatever you feel necessary. You’re NOT indentured. You're a free man. Don’t just talk and talk and talk about “fighting” – DO something about it; show it to NYT or whosoever you want to. "

That will be easier after this board closes. I've got some reservations about cantabb's advice.

On October 25th, cantabb posted this:

"And, had you written THAT "short" "well-crafted" letter to him and called him, as you had been planning to do, you would have returned from NYC by now, after a visit to CIA, FBI, Rummy, GW, Rice and the whole gang-- and their stand-ins

A day later I did write a letter to Arthur Sulzberger Jr - and though I tried to make the letter reasonably short, and well crafted, responses were neither as fast nor as extensive as cantabb suggested. Because Sulzberger had to deal as a real leader - with the real constraints real leaders face.

I thought responses as Sulzberger's level were pretty reasonable.

My guess is that Sulzberger is being ill advised by underlings.

Though maybe not. These postings, 3 months and 4000 posts ago, first one by gisterme 13704 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.1IDdbB4sX91.158976@.f28e622/15397 and then cantabb's first post - 13705 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.1IDdbB4sX91.158976@.f28e622/15398 suggest that the NYT may have gotten itself very, very tightly entwined with the Federal Government. I wonder how much the "average reader of the New York Times" would approve of such closeness. There might be approval. There would be reservations, as well.

cantabb - 09:04pm Nov 13, 2003 EST (# 17618 of 17629)

rshow55 - 08:31pm Nov 13, 2003 EST (# 17617 of 17617)

That will be easier after this board closes. I've got some reservations about cantabb's advice.

Almost there. Won't be long.

You refer to some old stuff, including this:

These postings, 3 months and 4000 posts ago, first one by gisterme .....and then cantabb's first post - 13705 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.1IDdbB4sX91.158976@.f28e622/15398 suggest that the NYT may have gotten itself very, very tightly entwined with the Federal Government.

My first Post made NO suggestion about NYT getting too "entwined with federal government," as you say How did you divine that ? I've kept the link so that you and interested posters can see for themselves.

I wonder how much the "average reader of the New York Times" would approve of such closeness. There might be approval. There would be reservations, as well.

You ARE basing this on your own erroneous reference to my post (Don't know what gisterme suggested: you may want to check again).

rshow55 - 09:13pm Nov 13, 2003 EST (# 17619 of 17629)
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.

14736 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.1IDdbB4sX91.158976@.f28e622/16447 includes this:

" Some "complicated" things involve simple lessons. For instance - some people learn mixing theory - which has some important lessons for dealing with Cantabb - and other microscale, noisy events.

" For efficient mixing - you have to worry about scale - and get reasonable mixing at larger scales before messing much at microscales. The logic of chopping carrots is much the same - you don't start micro-dicing at one end of the carrot. You'd never finish if you did it that way - anyway it would be, far, far less efficient than dealing with large scale matters (well enough) and working along a properly chosen cascade of scales.

Cantabb's comments are small.

cantabb - 09:26pm Nov 13, 2003 EST (# 17620 of 17629)

rshow55 - 09:13pm Nov 13, 2003 EST (# 17619 of 17619)

In your post [rshow55 - 08:31pm Nov 13, 2003 EST (# 17617 of 17617)[, you NOT only misrepresented my comments but have also based your own closions on this mis representation.

Your carelessness !

Cantabb's comments are small.

Your misreprsentation of my comments is NOT small !

Then you quote passages your own post (#14736) --- about 3,000 posts ago and of NO relevance to your most recent comments (quoting gisterme & me) --- that I had already responded to and dismissed as nonsense.

Your desperation shows !

(9 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense