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 - 08:41pm Sep 23, 2003 EST (# 13893 of 13898)
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.

Mazza,, perhaps you know more than I do. I'm only guessing. Whoever gisterme is - he-she works hard http://www.mrshowalter.net/PostsBy_Gisterme.htm .

Internal consistency counts for a lot.

Cantabb says:

"NOTHING new or focused in the links you posted."

Here are those postings:

1623 http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7b2bd/1792

1624 http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7b2bd/1793

For the life of me, I thought there was new and focused stuff in those postings. I'll have to sleep on some things - to try to adjust to cantabb's point of view.

Cantabb also says

To "focus" ? Really ? NOT the way most others understand "focus."

No, Cantabb, I'm trying to do something I believe to be new in some significant ways - maybe I'm muddled about that - but it seems clear - but I'll do some sleeping before responding.

Jorian319 asks why the self referential links. The answer is to show internal consistency - but it seems to me that there's a lot more to say. I'll do some sleeping before responding.

Cantabb , for all I know, you're a really great editor - and maybe jorian is as well. Maybe I'm doing everything wrong.

766-767 http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7726f/856 seem clear to me, and they start

I'm interested in what simple facts about combinations can tell us about the odds of recognizing patterns that are orderly rather than coincidental. (Not that our explanation of the order will be right at first - - but some odds favor us if we keep working. . .

It seems to me that the passage (though now old) involves ideas that are culturally new, and focused - and useful. But maybe, after sleeping on it - I'll see that I'm all wrong.

cantabb - 10:04pm Sep 23, 2003 EST (# 13894 of 13898)

rshow55 - 08:41pm Sep 23, 2003 EST (# 13893 of 13893)

Internal consistency counts for a lot.

Repeating the same thing [a generality, an error or a piece of misinformation] over and over is ALSO "consistency."

For the life of me, I thought there was new and focused stuff in those postings. I'll have to sleep on some things - to try to adjust to cantabb's point of view.

Nothing "new" or original, am afraid.

No, Cantabb, I'm trying to do something I believe to be new in some significant ways - maybe I'm muddled about that - but it seems clear - but I'll do some sleeping before responding.

To do WHAT ?

By posting parts of published articles and newsreports (on anything under the sun), and commenting on them in generalities. And, continuing speculations on posters' identity, motives, and so-called conspiracies etc !

Cantabb , for all I know, you're a really great editor - and maybe jorian is as well. Maybe I'm doing everything wrong.

I don't think I know what specifically are YOU trying to do ? And in what ways do you think it ii different and "new" from other ideas and approaches in that area ? You haven't yet expressed this with any clarity or coherence.

Your personal biographical stuff: Irrelevant to the Topic, and immaterial to most readers.

I'm interested in what simple facts about combinations can tell us about the odds of recognizing patterns that are orderly rather than coincidental. (Not that our explanation of the order will be right at first - - but some odds favor us if we keep working. . . .....It seems to me that the passage (though now old) involves ideas that are culturally new, and focused - and useful.

Anything to do with MD ? You can collect a LOT of 'simple facts' on anything and everthing, and see whatever patterns you want to. Depending on what's copnsidered a 'simple fact', how it's "checked" for what, and its relevance !

Do you think NO body else is doing similar things ? With LOT more privileged and relevant information ?

mazza9 - 10:41pm Sep 23, 2003 EST (# 13895 of 13898)
"Quae cum ita sunt" Caesar's Gallic Commentaries

cantabb: Go easy on the Robert. After all his pedegogical prediliction is based on the "100 monkeys pounding on typewriter keyboards!" Kinda like Arthur C. Clarke's famous story "The Nine Billion Names of God!" The data processing consultant is leaving the monastery high in the Himalayas. He had helped them write a program to deduce and print the Nine Billion names of God. As he is riding down the trail he calculates that the task is finally complete. "He looks up to the sky and one by one the stars blink and are extinguished!"

It's sad that Robert is allowed this forum to pursue a similar task and surely the stars will be extinguished before Robert is extinguished.

(3 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense