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 (7787 previous messages)

rshow55 - 12:58pm Jan 18, 2003 EST (# 7788 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.

Some things ought to be clearer.

One is that language - well written, internally consistent language, can "convicingly" say anything - can "justify" anything -- can praise or blame anything . Anything at all. The language code, which is very good for description (though deficient where quantitative notions are concerned) is very treacherous for proving anything. Finding how well a set of ideas fits reality - you have to check for consistency with external things that can be known - or believed as a matter of probability.

Another thing is that, for workable results - standards of orderliness, symmettry, and harmoniousness are important again and again and again from many points of view. When there are contradictions or tensions, connected to real circumstances - there is work to do - and some prices to pay.

Again and again and again, aesthetic standards - the feelings of the people involved - are important - and when things seem dissonant and ugly - that's very good reason for checking. For finding aesthetically better solutions. Checking against reality. (Not just construction of language to justify one position or another.)

rshow55 - 01:00pm Jan 18, 2003 EST (# 7789 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.

It seems to me that a lot could work out very well - and I appreciated Gisterme's joke about the talking dog - an interesting multilevel contradiction.

Here's one of my favorite passages, quoted "in fun" - at the beginning of Donald E. Knuth's The Art of Computer Programming

" Here is your book, the one your thousands of letters have asked us to publish. It has taken us years to do, checking and rechecking countless recipes to bring you only the best, only the interesting, only the perfect. Now, we can say, without a shadow of a doubt, that every single one of them, if you follow the directions to the letter, will work for you exactly as well as it did for us, even if you have never cooked before. . . . McCall's Cookbook (1963).

A computer can model anything - if you take your time. Or mislead you. Some programs are very much better than others, when you check, for clear reasons - including reasons of orderliness, symmetry, harmoniousness - and total cost. All a mathematician, working as a mathematician, or a computer programmer, working as a computer programmer, can possibly do is show patterns that can work based on assumptions. That's an improvement - when new patterns can do things that need to be done and haven't been possible before.

I'm trying to explain something vital for peace and prosperity - something that has screwed up much too often. How to costruct and trim stable oscillatory solutions - where nothing else can possibly work - and where these solutions can do well - if people take their time and fit them carefully.

More Messages Recent Messages (9908 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