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 - 01:28am Jul 25, 2002 EST (#3296 of 3327)

A comment from the Prez on this please
http://www.drparsons.fsnet.co.uk/georg.html
Exactly!

kalter.rauch - 06:15am Jul 25, 2002 EST (#3297 of 3327)
Earth vs <^> <^> <^>

lchic......

I just want to TOUCH YOU...register your IR signature so I can split you...define you from your decoys...make out your profile against the midnight blue......

rshowalt - 06:45am Jul 25, 2002 EST (#3298 of 3327)

Within the last hour, a post by Mazza

(perhaps I'm wrong - and it was Cooper -- I wasn't paying that much attention, since I was going about the business of copying the thread, and the possibility of deletion didn't occur to me.)

I think it was Mazza -- anyway, it had words like

"Lchic says link . . . but you stink! "

The New York Times can check that what I say here, if it wishes.

Only worth remembering now because it was deleted. (Normally, it may be a bad thing to repeat deleted postings -- especially ones such as that -- but there ought to be an exception here, I think - - because an issue of fraud -- a great deal of effort over years - - a great deal of money belonging to people who "Mazza" or "Cooper" should have nothing against -- and serious issues of public safety are all at stake.)

Mazza-Cooper-Johnson - - whether you are individual people, as you say, or monikers of George Johnson, as lchic and I believe - with things having gone so far - why not talk about getting things checked?

You may have valid objections to doing so (besides the obvious one) - but so far I haven't heard them.

Checking is hard to get in our culture - and frauds can go on a long time - as Herbert points out today http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/25/opinion/25HERB.html

But sometimes the costs of NOT CHECKING are prohibitive -- in money, other things - and to our values -- including values of decency. Johnson's privacy is one value among a number. But does it justify what (I believe, subject to checking) he's done?

MD3290 rshowalt 7/24/02 10:28pm

The stakes are pretty high here - and not only for me.

Again, I believe that it makes sense to remember what has been accomplished, something about the stakes involved, and who has done the work:

1999 rshow55 5/4/02 10:35am ... 2000 rshow55 5/4/02 10:39am
2001 rshow55 5/4/02 11:36am

rshowalt - 09:55am Jul 25, 2002 EST (#3299 of 3327)

The Market Rally? So It Goes When the Mayor Says to Buy By JENNIFER STEINHAUER http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/25/nyregion/25BLOO.html

"Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg often says that New Yorkers need a businessman for mayor, and yesterday he dispensed a quick bit of business advice to his constituents: buy low.

"In a short appearance on John Gambling's morning radio show on WABC, Mr. Bloomberg suggested that "thoughtless despair" was contributing to the recent and sharp declines in the stock market, and suggested that listeners should buy equities.

"Sure enough, the markets bounced back yesterday, with the Dow rising 570 points after he spoke. Some credited stock buybacks by companies. Others said the market had finally hit bottom. But the timing of Mr. Bloomberg's comments could not have been more serendipitous, and it contrasted sharply with Monday, when President Bush suggested that stocks were a good buy. That day, the Dow fell 234 points, and it dropped an additional 82 points on Tuesday."

Looking at the DJA graph in the paper edition of the story, the market was trending down just before my MD3269 rshowalt 7/24/02 12:26pm ..., which included this:

" Markets hate uncertainty. That means that there are good reasons to "nail down" what can be checked. And good reasons to avoid muddle and deception when possible. I've had some problems with uncertainty myself.

"Anyway, the markets won't listen to me, but I hope prices stabilize, and head up. Based on honest evaluations and valuations.

Now, it makes sense to attribute a market move to Mayor Bloomberg -- and I don't make any such assumption about anything I say -- because I'm sure so many, many more people listen to Mayor Bloomberg than would ever pay attention to me.

I do hope that the markets continue to go up - and that the steps being taken to make for more honest accounting work well - so we can all be more prosperous. Since those steps look real and promising, there seems good reason for some upward motion.

MD2900-2901 rshow55 7/6/02 12:08pm

And they should listen very carefully to Krugman - - attend and check the things Krugman sets out as facts in Succeeding in Business http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/07/opinion/07KRUG.html

2905 lchic 7/8/02 5:36am ... 2906-7 rshow55 7/8/02 6:56am

(28 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense