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.

lunarchick - 03:40pm Dec 22, 2002 EST (# 6947 of 6960)

Tortology - Tommo's overdone himself here - i don't think Churchill's Basic would be happy ...

à la the Godfather, .... à la the Donald.

lunarchick - 04:05pm Dec 22, 2002 EST (# 6948 of 6960)

Gisterme 'Sir' .... how come 'The Poster' uses 'Sir' re Gisterme but not re Showalter ... Howzat?

lunarchick - 04:08pm Dec 22, 2002 EST (# 6949 of 6960)

Post 6945

rshow55 - 06:19pm Dec 22, 2002 EST (# 6950 of 6960)
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.

6945 rshow55 12/22/02 2:01pm

I haven't hidden the assumption that I've made that this thread has had gisterme as a "Bush administration stand-in" and almarst as a "Putin administration stand-in" - and to check that, you can do better than "connecting the dots" in the sense of making assumptions. You can connect the links - starting with the link in the upper left hand corner of this posting - connected to a caption that says "click rshow55."

When one matches that complexity against checkable things - some things that are real may be mapped almost exactly - or even exactly. Even when the match is exact, the map remains virtual . A paper map that happens to match the territory it depicts in every way that matters is still paper - still a map, not the territory. But very useful. A pattern in human minds may match what it models exactly - but it is still "only in people's heads". And it can be doubted (and rechecked) accordingly. I think that virtual mappings that are correct in every way that matter are precious - and think people are getting clearer on how they happen - by "connecting the dots" and keeping at it.

Gisterme has been very active here lately - and asked good questions. I'm doing my best, within my limitations, to respond, not only in ways that should interest gisterme - but in ways that I hope "the average reader of the New York Times" - if (s)he was paying attention, would approve of. But sometimes, for a while, especially around this season - I have other things to do.

gisterme - 06:47pm Dec 22, 2002 EST (# 6951 of 6960)

rshow55 12/22/02 2:01pm

"...I haven't hidden the assumption that I've made that this thread has had gisterme as a "Bush administration stand-in" and almarst as a "Putin administration stand-in"..."

And both almarst and I have said we aren't and don't like being "assumed" by you into a game we're not a part of.

Almarst has said (s)he's not a Russian and doesn't like being a stand-in and I've said I have nothing to do with the Bush administration or the US government other than being a voter and a taxpayer and am not a stand-in for them.

Would you believe it if somebody smacked you across the face with a wet mackrel? I doubt it. You'd probably announce it as an Atlantian stand-in.

Just let it go, Robert. Trying to "package" people's sincere comments as if they were words from somebody else's mouth is both dishonest and childish. The whole idea is nonsense because it is entirely "open loop". I suppose another way to say that is that it's uncheckable.

How can you accuse me of presenting "straw man" arguements when you're doing far worse? Don't be such a hyprocrite.

"...I've also assumed, from the quality of gisterme's and almarst's posting - and especially gisterme's postings - that gisterme had good communication and some support from a staff..."

I'm glad you're impressed, Robert but I've told you straight out that it isn't so.

"...There have been various reasons that this has seemed reasonable, about 1000 posts since I made the assumption public, repeatedly, on this thread and on the guardian..."

You've made 10,000 posts, Robert yet I don't assume you have a staff. And who cares who makes false assumptions public?

"...I've even suspected that gisterme was a team - and even thought that that team included President Bush himself and Condolleezza Rice herself..."

Again, I'm glad you're impressed, Robert. I hope you're making progress with your analyst.

"...I think that virtual mappings that are correct in every way that matter are precious..."

Those correct-in-every-way virtual mappings are far better than reality, right Robert?

(9 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense