New York Times on the Web Forums
Science
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.
(7752 previous messages)
rshow55
- 03:36pm Jan 17, 2003 EST (#
7753 of 7760)
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.
OK, maybe not so smart as that. But not real slow.
Smart enough that I had to fight. I found that, if I worked
desperately hard enough - I could usually avoid fighting. But
when I had to - I did fight. And found, somewhat to my
surprise, that I could win them.
People have told me "don't fight" from time to time. But in
my situation - I've never figured out how to survive without
being willing to stand, when it matters enough.
I worry a lot about peacemaking. Steve Kline and a list of
other people thought I was a fair mathematician, as well.
lchic
- 03:45pm Jan 17, 2003 EST (#
7754 of 7760) ~~~~ It got understood and exposed
~~~~
I wonder if HTML will ever be restored to NYT-Opinion ?
'wonder if 'beauty' via order-symmetry-harmony of page will
return
Many NYT postings now have an 'ugly' veneer - pity!
rshow55
- 03:58pm Jan 17, 2003 EST (#
7755 of 7760)
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.
I got seriously interested in some math problems - because
I had to be as a kid. I was trying to be the very best boy I
could - and I felt sure that my mother and father would kill
me for fighting. They were against it. And I did the best I
could to avoid fights, but got into some, and was terrified of
losing the kinds of fights I was getting into.
I was finding I had to go against groups - and after a
while, some people came at me with knives. Sometimes in
rehearsed groups. Sometimes without consciously giving
warning. I got very interested in series solutions of various
kinds. I became interested in strength of materials, dynamics,
combinatorics, differential equations, logic switching,
signalling - the sort of things that seemed logical to be
interested in, when you're a kid, trying to avoid fights, but
trying not to lose them, too. I never dared admit to my
parents that I had such interests. When I got into the Cornell
6-year Ph.D. program, a big problem was finding a way to admit
to anyone that I was interested in math, and had been doing
some at levels that worked. For obvious reasons, I had to do
almost all of this work in my head, and found that I could -
and that it worked in the ways I needed it to. Never did quite
get to admit how much I cared about math, and how I cared, to
Marti - in all the ways I wanted to - though we got close. I
was desperately in love with her - she with me - and we knew
each other at least well enough to know that - as far a math
went - we were very well suited to each other. Though there
were the usual sexual distinctions to be expected.
I feel like going slowly here.
rshow55
- 05:49pm Jan 17, 2003 EST (#
7756 of 7760)
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.
This board has been going on a while - and I've done my
very best to tell the truth. Never claimed to be infallible -
or completely without ulterior motives, either. But if people
actually started checking - a lot would hang together. I've
been doing just exactly what I told Casey I'd do - and what I
believe a lot of people all over the world want done. I stand
by everything you'll see linked if you click " rshow55
" in the upper left hand corner of this post, for example.
These hopes seem reasonable still . . . in fact, practical,
from where we are - step by step, and pretty quickly, if some
tragic mistakes can be avoided. http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7b2bd/1662
I think that they can be.
People ought to know that sometimes they have to
tolerate "contradiction" - and that when there is a
contradiction, a logical structure that alternates
approaches may be exactly what is needed.
They also need to know something more clearly - something
people already know a lot of times. If a solution seems the
right one - it takes care to implement it step by step. And
exactly the same endpoint that is unstable if
approached in too-large-steps can be stable - and good
for all concerned - when it is implemented in a more gradual
fashion, so that people, as individuals and institutions - can
do the fact- checking, thinking, and adjusting that they
actually have to do.
We already know the basics of what a solution in North
Korea will take - but have to approach it gradually.
In Iraq - we know a lot. Here's a fact that we ought to
know. World opinion exists for reasons that are not
accidental - and world opinion is practically important.
Word opinion does not support some of the fast, draconian
moves that the US is advocating, and may undertake. That's
important.
(4 following messages)
New York Times on the Web Forums
Science
Missile Defense
|