New York Times Readers Opinions
The New York Times

Home
Job Market
Real Estate
Automobiles
News
International
National
Washington
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
Crossword/Games
Cartoons
Magazine
Week in Review
Multimedia
College
Learning Network
Services
Archive
Classifieds
Book a Trip
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 (7596 previous messages)

rshow55 - 06:59pm Jan 11, 2003 EST (# 7597 of 7600) 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.

Some things are clear - and some not - and I'm at a stage where I've got to make a decision.

A. For some sequences, you have to do clear bookeeping about loop counting - and the guesses you make about the counts. There are some big advantages and disadvantages to these sequences.

B. For some other sequences, you can't possibly do clear bookeeping about loop counting - except in a statistical sense that can be VERY good or VERY bad depending on cases - and you have no hope of achieving any but oscillatory solutions - which can be VERY good if the oscillations are small enough in magnitude, high enough in frequency, and have little enough crosscorrellation. There are times when you can do beautifully with these oscillatory solutions - and they can occur in rather predictable, safe sequences.

If you're to work carefully, some of the time, you have to know that you're either in case A, or case B. You can be pretty sure of that, but not certain.

If I return lunarchick's phone call, I know that I'm in case B - I can't possibly count loops - or keep track of my guesses about them - and talk to lunarchick . I have to listen to her when I talk to her, for one thing. She's much too fast and switchy, for another. That makes her superb for case B sequences - but poison for case A sequences - of the kinds I'm thinking about now.

I don't know whether it is better, on balance, to call lunarchick back now, or not. I can't even guess. Flipping a coin can be a totally arbitrary and deeply biased way of guessing (a lot of probabilities are VERY different from .5) but it is determinant.

I need to make a decision. This time - I will flip a coin.

bbbuck - 07:14pm Jan 11, 2003 EST (# 7598 of 7600)
"You can't eat this, it's people, it's people"-B....."What about the cherry pie?"

Someone please rip the modem out of this idiot's computer.
Thanks in advance.

rshow55 - 07:30pm Jan 11, 2003 EST (# 7599 of 7600) 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.

Tails. Maybe a bad choice - but I'll choose to accept it.

I won't return luncarchick's phone call. I'm certain that I regret not doing so in a lot of ways - and certain that I need to apologize.

Sorry partner.

I'm also certain that as long as she does things that make sense to her - and posts on this board as she has - connecting the board to external facts - and external-uncorrellated sequences we can use to make judgements on this board - I'll be grateful- and the posts will be helpful. I think lunarchick is the most valuable mind I've ever encountered - and think she's beautiful in every way that matters to me.

I'm going to work through some problems about canonicity - for a while. We're at a point where if we just keep moving carefully - in small enough steps - step by step - we can do much better.

Some things are sure on the basis of many different assumptions - or from many different perspectives.

It is sure that neither the Iraqis nor the N. Koreans want to fight us.

It is sure that we're a lot bigger than they are.

It is sure that we don't have to agree on everything - even at basic levels - to live together without killing or injuring each other.

If we're careful, and take some reasonable time - and move in small steps - we can certainly reduce the incidence of death and agony from war -for the forseeable future - and do better in a lot of other ways.

More Messages Recent Messages (1 following message)

 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 2003 The New York Times Company | Privacy Policy | Contact Us