New York Times Readers Opinions
The New York Times
Home
Job Market
Real Estate
Automobiles
News
International
National
Politics
Business
Technology
Science
Health
Sports
New York Region
Education
Weather
Obituaries
NYT Front Page
Corrections
Opinion
Editorials/Op-Ed
Readers' Opinions


Features
Arts
Books
Movies
Travel
Dining & Wine
Home & Garden
Fashion & Style
New York Today
Crossword/Games
Cartoons
Magazine
Week in Review
Multimedia
College
Learning Network
Services
Archive
Classifieds
Personals
Theater Tickets
Premium Products
NYT Store
NYT Mobile
E-Cards & More
About NYTDigital
Jobs at NYTDigital
Online Media Kit
Our Advertisers
Member_Center
Your Profile
E-Mail Preferences
News Tracker
Premium Account
Site Help
Privacy Policy
Newspaper
Home Delivery
Customer Service
Electronic Edition
Media Kit
Community Affairs
Text Version
TipsGo to Advanced Search
Search Options divide
go to Member Center Log Out
  

 [F] 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.


Earliest Messages Previous Messages Recent Messages Outline (3910 previous messages)

rshow55 - 09:19pm Aug 22, 2002 EST (# 3911 of 3920) Delete Message
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.

We're getting to a point where society is close to being ready to ask for checking on things that actually matter for our safety. It will take some courage from a few people with status to take us over the top. Perhaps not too many.

I'm off for tonight. I'll be working carefully to set things out tomorrow.

People are GREAT at perceiving (and imposing) order. If we keep at it, and are willing to DISCARD old ideas that PROVE to be wrong -- we could all be safer, and more prosperous, pretty soon.

Often, when we're honest and careful, the truth emerges quickly and surely -- for all to see. The Odds of That are often VERY good - - for basic statistical reasons that need to be understood - - for reasons that ought to be compelling, practically and morally.

If "common people" are routinely expected to know odds in dice games and card games (and they are) we should be able to teach, and expect, some broader understanding of odds that matter for human life, efficiency, and safety, as well.

Intellectually, the job is easier than jobs already casual and routine when we are at play.

lchic - 09:55pm Aug 22, 2002 EST (# 3912 of 3920)

Uncommon men Uncommon women - why do some stand out?
    Science, Ethics, and Moral Status
    http://www.phil.vt.edu/Miller/papers/science.html

    The scientific status of the labour theory of value / Cockshot Cotterall 1977
    http://www.wfu.edu/~cottrell/eea97.pdf

    Are people paid what they are worth - per unit of output -
    or otherwise ...
    Where do Enron Directors sit ?

    Or, is GJ worth his salt ... uuhhmmm ... muddle ! ? Should he be paying them rather than they him ... if muddle is used to prevent closure!
:)

lchic - 10:43pm Aug 22, 2002 EST (# 3913 of 3920)

STATUS - 'tag' questions ~ Gender

    http://viadrina.euv-frankfurt-o.de/~wjournal/1_00/KUNSMANN.HTM
    Conclusion
    We have seen that both the dominance and the difference approaches can be employed to explain variation in speech situations. In addition, the personality of the individual and the vitality of the group are also involved in the explanation of variability in language use. There is evidence that the vitality factor in the female subculture is increasing resulting in growing assertiveness. Given such a process, the significance of structures such as tag-questions and of behavioral patterns such as interruptions will diminish for a determination of the differentiation of men and women with respect to language use. Gender and status rather than gender or status will be the determinant categories.
    (nb 'paper above also noted that women had better language skills overall than men)
The strategy of women using 'tag' questions has a different explanation http://www.rridge.dircon.co.uk/choice/lit/richard.html - search(down) 'Foucault' / tag.
    Men use strategies for controlling converstion - eg altering the topic.
    Women inobtrusively insert 'tag' questions at the end of a sentence alluding to a new topic
    In this way women move from 36% chance of introducing a new topic - 72% chance.
lchic asks : So why would women stop using 'tag' questions when they can 'get their way' through using them ?

~~~~~~~~~~~

Raises a point regarding status - is it partly the 'bullying' of people into the believe that that their status or contribution is less than first rate. Many instances of this on MD board wrt Monikers/GeorgeJohnston attempting to bully, defame and degrade the contributions of Showalter.

Noted in the Nanobes link above that Scientists who thought they were on a roll with NEW KNOWLEDGE had this STATUS problem hanging over them ... if their follow-through was seen as RIGHT - huge benefits ..... but if the hunch didn't eventuate then, rather than being congratulated for trying, they lost status ... and hopes for funding.

The search for knowledge for knowledge's sake has almost dried up - funding being conditional on the giver's perceived needs. The gap in science discoveries is the failure to fund the curious mind that wants to explore 'ideas and hunches'.

Why do ideas and hunches arise? Must be bases on something?
Showalter might say 'they've seen a pattern worth exploring' !!
He might worry that failure to interpret the significance of patterns could be holding back the progress of science.

Progress in science has a flow-on to all people .... who 'pay' when denied.

More Messages Recent Messages (7 following messages)

 Read Subscriptions  Subscribe  Search  Post Message
 Your Preferences

 [F] New York Times on the Web Forums  / Science  / Missile Defense





Home | Back to Readers' Opinions Back to Top


Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company | Privacy Policy | Contact Us