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.

lchic - 08:22pm Feb 5, 2002 EST (#11271 of 11295)

Vision : Mission : Objectives : Goals : Priority/Redundancy : Process

rshow55 - 08:27pm Feb 5, 2002 EST (#11272 of 11295)

gisterme , I'll be back in the morning.

I'm supposed to trust you?

You and Ken Lay perhaps?

rshow55 2/5/02 7:53pm

MD11261 rshow55 2/5/02 8:28am

Issues of trust and believing "good people" in the sense of not checking their facts, have been the subject of this board pretty often -- often central to the arguments of gisterme and Mazza .

MD11206 rshow55 2/3/02 1:22pm ... quotes Enron Panel Finds Inflated Profits and Few Controls by KURT EICHENWALD http://www.nytimes.com/2002/02/03/business/03ENRO.html and the language on that fine article (part of a fine series!) is worth looking at again.

Connections between the "culture of deception" at Enron , and deceptions in the missile defense establishment are too close for comfort.

You're asking me to have faith in you, gisterme ?

out.

gisterme - 08:28pm Feb 5, 2002 EST (#11273 of 11295)

rshow55 2/5/02 7:53pm

"...Working through your deceptions, gisterme , takes a lot of doing, because there are so many..."

I only asked for one, Robert.

"... I'll be dealing with some of your points tomorrow - - - but I'll take some time -- because the subject matter is important..."

I've learned that that's what you say when you don't intend to answer, Robert. Manana. Just like the last time...should I post that link too? I could easily enough. Doing that wouldn't reveal anything that folks don't aready know. Ah, what the heck...

rshowalter 7/6/01 7:55pm

"...I'm wondering about units -- and have only just a little time - I'll look at much more in the morning..."

...followed by a bunch of Showbabble ending in a couple of unanswered questions followed by a conclusion...

That was in response to the exact same post! You never quite got around to answering the specific numbers based on references that were presented. That's because you can't. So, you evaded the checkable (and checked) points, and submerged back into your sea of babble...like a U-boat trying to dodge a destroyer.

rshow55 - 08:30pm Feb 5, 2002 EST (#11274 of 11295)

lchic 2/5/02 8:22pm . . . all those things, to work, require working on the basis of right answers at the level of fact.

really out.

lchic - 08:33pm Feb 5, 2002 EST (#11275 of 11295)

.. for the count ?

Just Checking!

rshow55 - 08:33pm Feb 5, 2002 EST (#11276 of 11295)

rshow55 2/5/02 7:53pm - - how about some real checking, gisterme , not "your word" - - or my word - - - real umpires.

I've talked to some folks who are for it . . might support it - - but for a long time, you were against it.

What do you say?

You seem upset . . . be careful.

rshow55 - 08:42pm Feb 5, 2002 EST (#11277 of 11295)

Perhaps Paul Krugman is right when he writes that we're " ending an era of laxity, in which nobody asked hard questions as long as everything looked O.K."

If, as Krugman (and others are writing in a similar vein) is right that " That era is now over ...." then we may be able to get good answers, and get them more quickly, than we have before.

The Great Divide by PAUL KRUGMAN

That would be nice.

OUT. Gotta cook.

gisterme - 08:48pm Feb 5, 2002 EST (#11278 of 11295)

"...You're asking me to have faith in you, gisterme ?..."

It would be a first; but, sure, why not? Despite all your shouting, I notice you haven't quite got around to pointing out all the lies and deception you accuse me of. Since we only know each other from web forums, what else do we have to go by? The fact is, Robert, that I have not ever lied to you that I know of. I've been wrong about something a couple of times but have admitted it and even apologized in those cases. Where are the grounds for distrust in that?

We are all judged by our own words, Robert; but not just for the sake of their existance, rather for the integrety of the ideas they transmit.

Finally, I'd estimate that the human ability to have faith in others is the thing that rests at the basis of our intuition, a thing that enables accumulation of knowledge...the building of culture. Seems to me that without the trust that is initated and nourished by faith, we'd just be like other animals.

lchic - 08:53pm Feb 5, 2002 EST (#11279 of 11295)

the human ability to have faith

(16 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense