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 (7900 previous messages)

lchic - 09:17am Jan 22, 2003 EST (# 7901 of 7907)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

Film 'Thirteen Days' - Cuban Missile Crisis cost $80m to make ... earned this from one review site:

Report Card

Script: B-

Acting: A

Cinematography\Lighting: C

Special Effects\Make Up: A

Music: C

Final Grade: B

http://www.filethirteen.com/reviews/13days/13days.htm from a review that has troubles with KNOW-now.

Had Thirteen days been made in SILENT movie vein, how would it have been simplistically depicted ?

________________________

If current diplomatic crisis were reduced to simple report cards - what would be the essential categories ... and how would they be scored?

lchic - 10:34am Jan 22, 2003 EST (# 7902 of 7907)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

Backtracked to read Showalter's interesting series of postings beginning starting here : - 08:26am Jan 22, 2003 EST (# 7895 of 7901)

Here's a DEMO - Non linear control systems (with variables) -- wait for it to load -- http://www.mathworks.com/products/ncd/demos.jsp#

rshow55 - 11:09am Jan 22, 2003 EST (# 7903 of 7907) 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.

http://www.mathworks.com/products/ncd/demos.jsp is wonderful - and illustrates a nonlinear control problem solved for a carefully defined set of inputs - according to some simple criteria on fit - and speed - that would disqualify the solution for many other criteria. It is beautiful - and I'll spend a little time relating it to diplomatic interactions - where stability and fit to purpose matter.

A key thing to see, if you follow the simulation - is how tuned the thing has to be - for a very simple nonlinear system. For more complicated systems, you need a lot more tuning - problems increase with N! where N is an index of complexity in principle - but if you know what you're doing - VERY good solutions are possible. The best of them not at all obvious. Until you see them, matched to what they are supposed to do. Then these solutions are "obvious." Thomas Edison searched for obvious solutions in that sense.

Back in a bit.

Both Iraq and N. Korea are trillions of times more complex, and have fancier nonliearities, than the problem in the demo of http://www.mathworks.com/products/ncd/demos.jsp#

But with information flows carefully handled, and taking time - very good solutions for every reasonable criterion are possible.

The chance of disater if you "just wing it" on a problem like this is essentially 100%. Unless you like extermination, or some other asymptotic solution, as a "solution."

Usually, for people, such solutions are gutwrenchingly ugly. Though linear programming has wonderful applications for linear problems.

Back in a bit. Wonderful simulation.

I'll try to handle some thing in detail - and say some things about switching - while keeping my promise to gisterme , who asked for a simple definition of an oscillatory solution.

Problem is, after the problem gets complicated, some things about the definition get complicated, too. Though the basics stay simple.

rshow55 - 11:20am Jan 22, 2003 EST (# 7904 of 7907) 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.

<a href="/webin/WebX?14@93.BmRoa1pS1V7.0@.f28e622/9428">rshow55 1/22/03 11:09am</a>

This is a test. Did "the powers that be" give me back the ability to cite from this thread - when they made my life much harder by wiping out the search facility.

If you keep adding constraints - or eliminating options - you do make things much harder.

Couldn't somebody have a little mercy?

More Messages Recent Messages (3 following messages)

 Read Subscriptions  Subscribe  Post Message
 Email to Sysop  Your Preferences  Logout

 [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