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 (4546 previous messages)

lchic - 11:14pm Sep 25, 2002 EST (# 4547 of 4554)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

Patents - don't know why they're 20years only, don't know why they can't be obtained under a unified international license.

Having insights into a worthwhile project just moving (hopefully) out of the testing phase to thinking of manufacture and production - a day will tell - it seems

that much of the precious 'venture capital' is absorbed getting patents around the world - and then maintaining them.

Wouldn't a universal patent - at least with USA-EU-CHINA-INDIA-INDONESIA-S.America-RUSSIA the BIG players cut costs and make lots of sense - it should be possible.

Too many players linked into projects don't have the 'interest of the project' at heart - so many greedy, self-interested, rogues around.

Interesting to see the struggle of a project ... small beginning start ...

so hard to get up and running - fighting rogues, fighting to master technology -

... even though unique, necessary, worthwhile and a bonus for our world.

Note a different 'local invention' gained on the market today - 'metal storm' - as it moves into production. 'New' products are of interest and keep building value.

mazza9 - 11:48pm Sep 25, 2002 EST (# 4548 of 4554)
"Quae cum ita sunt" Caesar's Gallic Commentaries

Thirty two posts since I last looked in yesterday. One by Commondata, One by Kalter, and 30 by robert and his side chick!

And you know, not any attempt to display balance. Just the same old same old!

when logic fails just talk yourself silly and hope that no one notices your lack of acumen! What a load of horse pucky!

lchic - 04:48am Sep 26, 2002 EST (# 4549 of 4554)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

Note a different 'local invention' gained on the market today - 'metal storm' - as it moves into production. 'New' products are of interest and keep building value.



our favourite catastrophes .. they abound in nature - without looking to man


"" The crooked E logo that used to sit outside the firm's head office was bought for $44,000 by a Houston computer store which plans to use it as an advertising gimmick .



lchic - 05:14am Sep 26, 2002 EST (# 4550 of 4554)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

Shares & GDP FALL
"" Among industrialised countries, the recovery in the US is now expected to be considerably weaker than earlier thought. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2279477.stm



Ethics
"" ... committee concluded that data in the disputed research, published between 1998 and 2001, had been improperly manipulated, even fabricated, confirming suspicions raised by outside scientists .... case also raises questions about the core of the scientific process, in which scientists critique each other's work for errors but rely on trust that the data is honest. ... an individual who didn't live up to the scientific requirement for integrity."

professor of physics at Cornell spotted the fraud

In a way, said Dr. Beasley, the head of the investigative panel, the scandal proves that the scientific process succeeded in battling fraud. "It got understood and exposed," he said.

But he said the case of Dr. Schön also showed the need for scientists to consider how much responsibility they needed to take for their collaborators' work.

"Organizations that represent the profession need to examine these issues," he said

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/26/science/26FRAU.html

[Auditors rely on other's work - especially re supposed 'offshore' investments]

[Above an instance of fraud in science - reputations at stake.

Are there instances of fraud in areas of government - if so - would there be 'whistle blowers' - what's the natinal-policy for such heros?

a concern re fraud here rshow55 9/25/02 11:11pm ]




lchic - 05:57am Sep 26, 2002 EST (# 4551 of 4554)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

Aussie Defence

Former Aussie leaders - United Nations is the way http://abc.net.au/news/2002/09/item20020926122259_1.htm

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/s685875.htm
http://www.abc.net.au/am/s686256.htm
http://abc.net.au/7.30/
http://abc.net.au/news/2002/09/item20020926080308_1.htm

More Messages Recent Messages (3 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