New York Times Forums
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  / Resource Area for Forum Hosts and Moderators  /

    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 (4562 previous messages)

rshow55 - 03:32pm Sep 26, 2002 EST (# 4563 of 17697)
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.

lchic 9/26/02 9:56am -- the "reading wars" might be good exemplars for studying all wars - and showing the possibility of great and healing progress. Here are some references to reading instruction, and possibilities of improvement.

3969 rshow55 8/24/02 6:38pm ... 3970 rshow55 8/24/02 6:44pm
3971 rshow55 8/24/02 6:45pm

Can a rudimentary orthographic processor connected at first only to the phonological processor, and working only for the most common words, be trained first ?

Is it easy to do this?

Even if it is easy, is it worthwhile?

I'm arguing that it IS easy, and that it IS worthwhile. Both testable assumptions.

3923 rshow55 8/23/02 10:10am ... 3924 rshow55 8/23/02 10:16am
3925 rshow55 8/23/02 10:29am ... 3930 <rshow55 8/23/02 4:52pm
3931 rshow55 8/23/02 4:55pm ... 3932 <rshow55 8/23/02 5:00pm

3972-3975 rshow55 8/24/02 6:46pm

3992-3999 rshow55 8/26/02 7:44pm

4013-4014 rshow55 8/29/02 7:18pm

MD, physical laws, and politics: 4016 rshow55 8/29/02 9:01pm

rshow55 - 03:34pm Sep 26, 2002 EST (# 4564 of 17697)
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.

Casey liked C.P. Snow, and I think this passage fits here.

" It is one of the firmest convictions of most of the best administrators I have known that scientists, by and large, cannot do their job. There are many reasons for this conviction, including various human frailties . . . . . But there is one good one. Many administrators have had to listen to the advice of scientis-gadgeteers. To Bridges and his colleagues, to a good many of the high civil servants who played a part in the Tizard-Lindemann story, it must have appeared scarecely human that men should be so lacking in broad and detatched judgement. Most administrators would go on to feel that there is something of the gadgeteer hiding in every scientist.

" I have to admit that there is something in it. I should phrase it rather differently. The gadgeteer's temperament is an extreme example of a common scientific temperament. A great many kinds of creative science, perhaps most, one could not do without it. To be any good, in his youth at least, a scientist has to thinkof one thing, deeply and obsessively, for a long time. An administrator has to think of a great many things, widely, in their interconnections, for a short time. There is a sharp difference in the intellectual and moral temperaments. I believe . . . that persons of scientific education can make excellent administrators and provide an element without which we shall be groping: but I agree that scientists in their creative periods do not easily get interested in administrative problems, and are not likely to be much good at them.

" The euphoria of secrecy goes to the head very much like the euphoria of gadgets. I have known men, prudent in other respects, who became drunk with it. It induces an unbalancing sense of power. It is not of consequence whether one is hugging to oneself a secret about one's own side or about the other. It is not uncommon to run across men, superficially commonplace and unextravagent, who are letting their judgement run wild because they are hoarding a secret about the other side - quite forgetting that someone on the other side, almost indistinguishable from themselves, is hoarding a precisely similar secret about them. It takes a very strong head to keep secrets for years, and not go slightly mad. It isn't wise to be advised by anyone slightly mad.

Casey and I talked about this, because it was clear that, subject to conditions and promises, I was going to have to keep secrets - for a long time. I've done so, and kept faith.

And tried hard to keep my head straight.

More Messages Recent Messages (13133 following messages)

 Read Subscriptions  Subscribe  Search
 Your Preferences

 [F] New York Times on the Web Forums  / Resource Area for Forum Hosts and Moderators  / Missile Defense