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.

cantabb - 11:51am Oct 2, 2003 EST (# 14222 of 14232)

More OFF-topic irrelevance, with the usual dose of over-simplistic comment and self-references. May be, makes sense to your supporters.

rshow55 - 07:34am Oct 2, 2003 EST (# 14216 of 14219)

85 Percent Of Public Believe Bush's Approval Rating Fell In Last Month ……….- and can guess that Onion folks think so, too - since they've made it available on the net again.

rshow55 - 07:39am Oct 2, 2003 EST (# 14217 of 14219)

This passage is from Fundamental Neuroanatomy by Walle J. H. Nauta and Michael Feirtag . . . W.H. Freeman, 1986

To understand workable human logic at all - to "connect the dots" - and do so well - and form workable judgements - we must face the need to "go around in loops" with a lot of different kinds of crosschecking.

What are the “dots” ? Verifiable facts ? Or, personal opinion [based on a lack of relevant “dots,” and the 'unique' way you supposedly do the “checking”] ?

It’s the verification of each component and all of them together into some coherent rational pattern that matters. Going “around in loops” with irrelevant, unchecked facts or despite the facts, and replacing facts with fiction/figments of one’s imagination : Orwellian ‘1984’, or age-old propagandist tactics.

To say "no fair doing self reference" is like saying "no fair for a neuron to connect to anything but and input or an output neuron." It doesn't work that way, and can't.

Here, “self referencing” is mostly to unrelated matters, baseless opinions, half-baked ideas, conspiracy speculations peddle, etc.

Repeating the same baseless opinions don’t make them sane pronouncements after an X number of repetitions over a certain time.

Journalists, including journalists at the NYT, have fully mastered the art of "hiding things in plain sight" –

And, you can’t see things out in “plain sight.”

...and the prohibition on loops, and crosschecking - is a way to do that. The crossreferencing on this thread isn't accidental - and it shows something basic. With the crossreferencing shown - a lot can be knit together - both in terms of internal logic - and reference to external facts. It becomes clear enough to TEST . Not necessarily true - though, after a time "the odds of that" improve. Good enough to test.

You think NO body else “cross check” things ?

The haphazard way you seem to do this [eg: poster identification, conspiracies, etc, to name a couple of categories] is hardly ‘checking’, let alone ‘cross checking’. Loops a la “1984” are called something else.

The VERY first “TEST” is to test your “facts” which you seem NOT to be asble to do or do well when you do this. Then, don’t mix facts & opinions/fiction and pass on as ‘FACTS,” “dots” or whatever !

Without the cycling - clarity is strictly impossible dealing with complicated subject matter.

Mere rote doesn’t give you any ‘clarity’, much less an understanding. Understanding and verifying ‘facts’, their place in a larger picture [pieces of jigsaw puzzle] and their rational analysis, DOES: nothing you’ve posted here shows you can do this, or do it at the level needed

(10 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense