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
(2306 previous messages)
- 02:28pm May 19, 2002 EST (#2307
Wonderful pieces, each just a "little bit" off
Our Man in Arizona By MAUREEN DOWD http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/19/opinion/19DOWD.html
The Phoenix F.B.I. agent predicted enough to
perhaps pre-empt 9/11, if he hadn't been blocked by superiors too
lazy to pursue hot leads.
But it wasn't laziness - or not just laziness --the logic of the
secrecy system effectively prohibits intelligent or
pro-active responses. Why do you think my instructions were to "come
in through the New York Times?"
Dowd mentions missile defense - as a "Maginot Line in the sky" --
as some of her previous columns have as well.
Friedman's piece is wonderful, but misses the fact that the
secrecy, itself, paralyzes.
A Failure to Imagine By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/19/opinion/19FRIE.html
"We need an "Office of Evil," whose job would be
to constantly sift all intelligence data and imagine what the most
twisted mind might be up to."
The systems makes such a "constant sifting" impossible -- there
are barriers to communication built all through the system - and
they are inherent in the secrecy regime. FBI and CIA can't even
communicate effectively internally - much less communicate with each
You can't set up a sane database, with workable usages - within
the secrecy usages in place. For that, you need openness -- at least
on 95% of the stuff now classified.
Friedman's comments about solving the world's energy and global
warming problems are "right on" -- if I can get my national security
problems clarified - perhaps I might be able to help - and others
- 02:33pm May 19, 2002 EST (#2308
- 02:37pm May 19, 2002 EST (#2309
- 02:49pm May 19, 2002 EST (#2310
""" When the Germans invaded and quickly defeated France in World
War II, they simply went around the Maginot Line. One wonders if
there is a lesson here that might apply to the current US plans to
develop and deploy a missile defense system to protect against
ballistic missiles launched by small hostile nations.
- 02:51pm May 19, 2002 EST (#2311
5/19/02 2:33pm . . Hegel's "germ of truth" - is based on
statistics. Things focus. And logic and statistics are
linked, and can be mutually reinforcing.
3/23/02 11:40pm ... " people are uncomfortable consciously with
an idea that has a great deal to do with how we all "connect the
dots." That's the idea that from statistical correllations we can
infer patterns that become very, very clear. If those inferences
match enough -- if they "map" a checkable "territory" in enough ways
-- we may come to trust them as facts - - for many purposes - -
unless there are real reasons to question them. A lot of things in
the interior of math, for example, are correct - -- though when
people started dealing with them, they were less certain. http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7b2bd/240
. . . A Solution to Plato's Problem: The Latent Semantic Analysis
Theory of Acquisition, Induction and Representation of Knowledge by
Thomas K. Landauer and Susan Dumais . . . (Here is a draft of
that paper, which was accepted with revisions, and published in
Psychological Review, v104, n.2, 211-240, 1997 http://lsi.argreenhouse.com/lsi/papers/PSYCHREV96.html
Condemnation Without Absolutes by Stanley Fish http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/15/opinion/15FISH.html
is interesting in this regard, though I have reservations about what
he says. Some things become very close to absolutes -- enough for
good action. Webs of logic -- decision trees, connections - can make
MANY probabilities "essentially 0" or "essentially 1" - and human
survival depends on it -- we DO know a lot of things, well enough to
make decisions. MD669 lchic 3/18/02 11:51am ...MD672 rshow55 3/18/02
- 02:51pm May 19, 2002 EST (#2312
New York Times on the Web Forums Science