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 - 12:00pm Nov 12, 2003 EST (# 17401 of 17404)
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.

We've also been trying, since September 2000 - to find ways to get me out of a set of restrictions that have made it essentially impossible to work - a condition that I've been calling "house arrest" - and into a situation where I could work . Sometimes "It is easier to get forgiveness than it is to get permission" . . If things are done gradually - it may slowly clarify that, in the ways that matter - you have permission - or something like permission - for an exceptional circumstance - bending but not breaking a more basic rule.

10437 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.WscjbWS6XsM.0@.f28e622/11986

12160 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.WscjbWS6XsM.0@.f28e622/13797 . . .

120170 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.WscjbWS6XsM.0@.f28e622/13695

To accomplish all these objectives - and as an objective in itself - we've worked to communicate - and sometimes challenge - people and institutions with power - including the people who influence the powerful institution that is The New York Times.

- - - -

Have we failed at everything ?

Well, anyway, we've tried.

We both try to be entertaining , too.

cantabb - 12:50pm Nov 12, 2003 EST (# 17402 of 17404)

rshow55 - 11:20am Nov 12, 2003 EST (# 17393 of 17396)

Shakespeare lived before there was much math - but he'd have understood the connections to math needed here, I think. ………..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. 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.

Yet another re-hash of something that had been dismissed as meaningless a few times before. Not surprised that you’re still trying to peddle it in the last couple of days of this thread.

rshow55 - 11:32am Nov 12, 2003 EST (# 17395 of 17397)

cantabb - 10:48am Nov 12, 2003 EST (# 17391 of 17393) is a fascinating post - and exactly backwards. Which is hopeful - just a sign switch, and a lot would sort out. I got a warm and fuzzy feeling ( search topic ) when I read this from cantabb: ...

Wish someone would make head and tail of this gibberish. You mixed up lchic’s comment about you and my response to her. This is the correct version:

cantabb - 10:48am Nov 12, 2003 EST (# 17391 of 17399) [My response to lchic]

lchic - 09:25am Nov 12, 2003 EST (# 17385 of 17387) : Showalter has placed emphasis on the need to learn how to negotiate

cantabb: He should know that you can NOT negotiate anything -- much less effectively or well -- with highly ambiguous statements, disjointed thoughts/logic and paranoia-driven speculations and irrationality.

Also in the same post by me (#17391), but NOT 17385 (lchic’s to which I was responding) was this (which you had also quoted): "And even in ‘the same’ language, if one side is too fuzzy (in thinking, words and logic), extremely unfocused, has unsubstantiated facts and is given to irrationality, you can kiss any hope of negotiation good-bye." [cantabb]

To get to an initial focus where there is a chance for mutual accomodation - where people know enough - highly ambiguous statements, disjointed thoughts/logic - "paranoia-driven speculations" and irrationality are just what you need.

Nonsense : “highly ambiguous statements, disjointed thoughts/logic - "paranoia-driven speculations" and irrationality” [cantabb] are not what you need -- unless you’re bent on defeating yourself. Amply demonstrated hre.

And TYPICAL of real human negotiation when it is successful. You need clarity in the end .

What you get at the end is a resolution, a compromise (the so-called “win-win solution”). NO negotiation based on your ambiguities and irrationality is ever going to be “successful” in YOUR favor; it may have “clarity” but NOT in your favor. What you say may be YOUR way, but hardly ‘TYPICAL’ of any “real human negotiation” --

NOT before needs are known, weights are known, and it is possible to "AGREE TO AGREE OR DISAGREE" clearly and in enough detail to have the agreement work.

Wait TILL you know your “needs” and “weights” are known, then. To try to negotiate (with ambiguities and irrationality in your package) when your own “needs” and “weights” are NOT “known” or clear to you --- IS a sure way to make a fool of yourself. You have no better chance than a sitting duck ! Also demonmstrated here.

People who tape record good negotiators at work and actually read the transcripts can't escape knowing that. And they do. Beautiful, crystal clear negotiations happen after a lot of initial focusing. Disciplined beauty - compactness and fit - happen AFTER people get focused.

Mere verbiage. Besides, I think you’re reversing yourself (see what you said earlier): “ To get to an initial focus where there is a chance for mutual accomodation - where people know enough - highly ambiguous statem

(2 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense