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 - 01:05pm Sep 22, 2003 EST (# 13844 of 13847)
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.

Just now, I'd prefer to respond to gisterme - who says some interesting things.

gisterme - (# 13806 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.gUAmbPlIH6i.1117733@.f28e622/15499 contains this:

There's probably no place you can go on the web, in the world, solar system, galaxy or universe where the participants have more experience in dealing with endless repetition. . . . ;-)

People who work on series - and know the difference between convergent and divergent series - have an astonishing amount of experience with "endless repetition" of "infinite series" that converge - often quickly and to very high accuracy. Successive approximation very often works. Most mathematical functions that anybody uses ( practically all the ones people tabulate ) are series solutions.

When people want to get right answers by successive approximation - they often can - but they usually can't see how easy it is to produce divergence - and how often efforts to avoid divergence are intentional and malicious. http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.597a9376/154

Ann Coulter shows, in very pure form - the patterns of discourse - involving team standards above all else - and those standrds intolerantly concieved - that classify out of existence the chance for either convergence on truth or fairness.

. . . . I suspect that Ann Coulter found the NYT Missile Defense thread interesting, for reasons that are partly logical, but partly statistical. They offer an interesting example about checking, I think. http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.597a9376/137

http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.597a9376/139 discusses a "cast of characters" of this thread that I think is fair. Perhaps some others disagree - I don't include a description of cantabb. http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.597a9376/137

I do think that "the odds" of gisterme having close connections with the Bush administration are very good.

Gisterme's 13807 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.gUAmbPlIH6i.1117733@.f28e622/15500includes a profoundly important quote - that is true as stated - that I think some people in the United Nations ought to consider:

" In my opinion "redistribution of wealth" schemes haven't yet and won't ever satisfy the insatiable...the jealous, the greedy or the plain old lusters for power. "

Of course that's true - but it is also a long, long way from the whole story - and very often collective cooperation IS the most efficient way - by so much that it is also the most equitable way - by most sane accountings.

Look at how huge the increases - beyond "the state of nature" that come from sociotechnical systems:

http://www.mrshowalter.net/Kline_ExtFactors.htm

With extension factors in the millions, tens of millions, and hundreds of millions very often - the value of cooperation is very high - and jealousy and greed are not the whole story - or anything like it.

Cantabb comes very close - whenever it matters - to saying "change is cheating" - and that classifies a great deal of hope out of existence.

And Gisterme , quite often - preaches the virtues of "no sharing - no tolerance" - for people who disagree with him - in ways that can cut off hope.

I've made a suggestion for towed PV arrays that is technically workable - with a huge payoff - but that requires large scale cooperation. It would require some exception hansling. Are such approaches cheating ? Is exception handling cheating? By standards like

rshow55 - 01:10pm Sep 22, 2003 EST (# 13845 of 13847)
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.

I've made a suggestion for towed PV arrays that is technically workable - with a huge payoff - but that requires large scale cooperation. It would require some exception handling. Are such approaches cheating ?

Now, in practice, people say yes .

Is exception handling cheating? By standards like cantabb's - the answer is much too often "yes."

The consequences of cantabb's standards impoverish and endanger us all much too often - and classify hope out of existence.

It is not "naive" to think that cooperation is useful .

It takes care to make complex cooperation work - but the things human beings do most successfully all involve complex cooperation.

And the payoffs from complex cooperation are so great that everyone (including the rich) is vulnerable. The payoffs from being "on the team" can be huge - and the penalties from being "off the team" can be huge. The penalties for not putting teams together in sensible ways can be huge, too. - http://www.mrshowalter.net/Kline_ExtFactors.htm - - and there are technical issues of detail involved.

Usually to change anything large for the better - you have to work out some exception handling.

What's fair ? is a key question. A difficult question. And usually a question of details - and weightings.

Including many that have to be calibrated. - That is - adjusted to fit circumstances and needs.

(2 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense