New York Times on the Web Forums Science
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
(2041 previous messages)
- 04:36pm May 5, 2002 EST (#2042
5/5/02 4:30pm . . . truth also focuses. A LOT converges. I think
there is a lot of progress to hope for.
People see things differently. But not that differently. Very,
very often, when people share facts, and "connect the dots" in
situations where facts, relationships, and proportions can be
examined, and are, they draw similar conclusions.
Condemnation Without Absolutes by Stanley Fish http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/15/opinion/15FISH.html
- 04:56pm May 5, 2002 EST (#2043
" When large news organizations such as The New
York Times cannot solve problems by covering the facts about
them -- why don't the solutions happen, when they often seem very
A lot of the time, the problems can't be solved because the
"dots" are not collected so that people, as they are, can actually
connect them. People have to "connect the dots" that they see
together, or closely connected, in space and time. A problem with
the newspaper format, wonderful as it is, is just there. It is a
sequential format - and presents torrents of information -- over
days, weeks, months. People can't "connect the dots" - almost nobody
except specific beat reporters has the facts together.
For example, it would be hard to find a story that better
deserves to be remembered -- and connected to details, than
Requiem for an Honorable Profession By GRETCHEN MORGENSON http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/05/business/yourmoney/05CULT.html
and a key point it makes, that is concerned with most of
the times when newspapers are less influential than they ought to
be, involves money.
"Meanwhile, Wall Street watches and waits as
Merrill Lynch and Mr. Spitzer wrestle over solutions to the
problem of tainted research. All the former analysts interviewed
for this article said they were not surprised that brokerage firms
had been less than eager to reform their firms and eliminate the
potential for conflicts. Research, after all, does not generate
income; it drains it.
Checking is a cost. Presentation and collection of information
have costs. Analysis has costs. For most newpaper articles, it seems
to me that we have every reason to be thankful, and presentation may
be just sufficient. But suppose it happens (and I bet this happens
often) that the journalistic teams involved in coverage feel that
some issues deserve MORE coverage, or better collection than just
the streaming flow of a newspaper can provide? How is it to be done?
Who can pay?
In the case of Enron, the NYT did a great service by setting up a
web digest - http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/14/business/_ENRON-PRIMER.html
- as well as a separate thread. But to do that very often, with the
economics of the business as it is, there would need to be support
5/3/02 5:02pm . . . there is a great deal of foundation money
out in the world - looking for good things to do - and often spent
in ways that the people involved find marginal. If the NYT wanted
foundation support for web digests, and other extensions of the
medium - it would only have to ask. Would there be problems,
operational and ethical, to deal with? Sure. But they could be
Some of the problems that newspapers fail to solve can be solved
- and solutions could be found fairly soon - but there would be work
required at the level of technique (and the engineers court format
of this thread could be a test bed for resolving most of these) ---
but in addition, for particular purposes -- journalistic powers will
have to ask for help to supplement their work for valid pubic
purposes. They could get that support -- and should.
- 11:20pm May 5, 2002 EST (#2044
Yes. And Barbara Olson is being held incognito on that same
mysterious island where JFK, Martin Luther King, and Batboy lives!
- 11:45pm May 5, 2002 EST (#2045
Lchic and I just had a two hour, 70 post session on negotiation
in the middle east in the Guardian thread Anything on
Anything from http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.eea14e1/1253
that includes many links to this thread.
We considered the question -- if Thomas Friedman wanted to use
web resources (with a staff) to facilitate the search for peace in
the Middle East, what could he do?
- 07:10am May 6, 2002 EST (#2046
B O http://www.nationalreview.com/coulter/coulter091301.shtml
- 08:03am May 6, 2002 EST (#2047
bears reading - - - right down to the end.
Search "coulter", this thread.
4/22/02 7:32pm .. includes
"I suspected that kangdawei , who posted
extensively (48 times) on this thread in August and September, had
some "connections" - though I didn't suspect a name until Ann
Coulter's web site was put under kangdawei , and I noticed that
kangdawei wrote like Ann Coulter
New York Times on the Web Forums Science