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.

rshow55 - 04:59pm Aug 13, 2003 EST (# 13293 of 13298)
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 and I have been working on a number of issues connected to the idea of getting "canonicity" - as that word is used technically, by "connecting the dots" ( every which way ) and keeping at it.:

7564-7567 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.asH7bogIy5g.3197512@.f28e622/9087

canonical equations - are transforms from one perspective, in one set of variables - to a fully consistent other perspective, in related but different variables. One where you can jump back and forth, and keep track of the information that is perserved, and the information that is lost.

7879 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.asH7bogIy5g.3197512@.f28e622/9404

The notion of canonicity is important - and a notion that I'm trying to elaborate and focus. We need order, symmetry, harmony - in necessary conventional orders - and mixed up orders, and every which way - in ways that fit the real aesthetic needs of the decent people involved. Impossible? Certainly, in a sense. But we can do much better than we've done.

This board goes some way toward showing how.

Fredmoore wrote this on Aug 5, - http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.asH7bogIy5g.3197512@.f28e622/14932

Jorian,

"NOBODY "FOLLOWS" THIS BOARD! ...mainly because it doesn't go anywhere! "

Yeah .. but we have a lot of FUN getting to nowhere. At least I do.

Besides, Robert has just made some major concessions:

"" Nobody can do everything - or conflicting things at the same time.

This thread has been an experiment - and I think, on balance, worth the effort of the people involved. But what fits it well for some purposes makes it useless for others.

Closure, on anything that counts, has to happen elsewhere (committees, opinion polls, experiments?) , though prototyping of what closure would take can sometime be modelled in a format like this one. ""

I've thought that the prototyping was significant. I think Eisenhower would have thought so, too. I'm doing just exactly what I've promised to do, sometimes in tight quarters.

rshow55 - 05:05pm Aug 13, 2003 EST (# 13294 of 13298)
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.

rshowalter - 10:00pm Aug 11, 2003 BST (#1623 -1624 http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7b2bd/1792 is a long passage that starts:

" I've been arguing for the need for a paradigm shift that is both intellectual and moral - and simple enough to explain and use."

That shift involves switching back and forth between different viewpoints. And getting new focuses - and achieving new stabilities.

Without contradiction, (though the "good guys" and "bad guys" may shift from one view to another ) - finding and getting clear about things that are "right every which way you look at them" - if an effort is made to look without lies and distortion.

There are many things that are "right every which way you look at them" - if an effort is made to look without lies and distortion" and that is why people agree on as much as they do - and can figure out as much as they can. If we were clearer about the process by which we all work when we communicate and understand things - we can do much better - from many, many points of view.

On power: http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7b2bd/1771

I set out to do jobs where my own power would be limited - in some ways, nonexistent. But the assumption was that I would be able to communicate effectively with power.

And I was encouraged to do things. I was assigned projects. Every single thing I was assigned to do required some essential support from a nation state in two ways.

First of all, they all involved such complex cooperation that they were fragile - they could be stopped with "a few well placed phone calls."

Secondly, they all involved such complex cooperation that occasionally, the idea that the government wanted the work done had to be conveyed.

I have been working very hard to present technical proposals to the US government - so that I can hope to get the essential support described above. I've been rebuffed. It is reasonable - submitting to censorship on issues that are reasonably classified - for me to ask for assistance from firms with connections with other nation states - including Germany and France. I need to be able to work. The nation owes me that, at least.

I'm not "clowning around" or "joking" when I say that. Though "clowning" and "joking" are powerful. But they can be dangerous, and need to be controlled.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=clown http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=clown

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=joke http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=joke

I'm in a bind because it is so easy, and has long been so easy, to hide things - or classify them out of existence, on the basis of national security. ( For instance - since CIA activities at Mena airport were forbidden - because they occurred within the US itself - they "didn't exist." ) http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/MENA/let_to_lawrence_walsh.html

Fredmoore , could you tell me more about what you mean by "trust" - and "garner trust" - - - - ?

(4 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense