New York Times Forums
The New York Times

Home
Job Market
Real Estate
Automobiles
News
International
National
Washington
Business
Technology
Science
Health
Sports
New York Region
Education
Weather
Obituaries
NYT Front Page
Corrections
Opinion
Editorials/Op-Ed
Readers' Opinions


Features
Arts
Books
Movies
Travel
Dining & Wine
Home & Garden
Fashion & Style
Crossword/Games
Cartoons
Magazine
Week in Review
Multimedia
College
Learning Network
Services
Archive
Classifieds
Book a Trip
Personals
Theater Tickets
Premium Products
NYT Store
NYT Mobile
E-Cards & More
About NYTDigital
Jobs at NYTDigital
Online Media Kit
Our Advertisers
Member_Center
Your Profile
E-Mail Preferences
News Tracker
Premium Account
Site Help
Privacy Policy
Newspaper
Home Delivery
Customer Service
Electronic Edition
Media Kit
Community Affairs
Text Version
TipsGo to Advanced Search
Search Options divide
go to Member Center Log Out
  

 [F] 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.


Earliest Messages Previous Messages Recent Messages Outline (14265 previous messages)

rshow55 - 01:41pm Oct 3, 2003 EST (# 14266 of 14270)
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.

Cantabb , just now I'm tired.

I think "connecting the dots" and "loop tests" are useful. Not perfect, not complete in themselves, but still essential to human cognition. And not well enough understood today. It seems clear that Cantabb disagrees.

I'm running behind on a lot of things I'd like to do - and need to rest a little, too.

Whether or not you like the "connections of the dots" illustrated, it seems to me that the articles related to the cites are well worth reading. They are written by people I respect - because of the writing - and the placement of the articles. Perhaps cantabb respects these people and this work, too. But maybe not . It seems to me that he goes way out of his way to acknowledge any common ground about anything.

Cites for Plato's Problem

http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md01000s/md1431_1433.htm http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md2000s/md2565.htm http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md5000s/md5361.htm http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md7000s/md7970.htm

Cites for Latent Semantic Analysis

http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md01000s/md1431_1433.htm http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md2000s/MD2076.HTM http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md2000s/md2565.htm http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md5000s/md5353.htm http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md5000s/md5361.htm http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md7000s/md7970.htm

More Messages Recent Messages (4 following messages)

 Read Subscriptions  Subscribe  Search  Post Message
 Your Preferences

 [F] New York Times on the Web Forums  / Science  / Missile Defense