New York Times Readers Opinions
The New York Times
Home
Job Market
Real Estate
Automobiles
News
International
National
Politics
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
New York Today
Crossword/Games
Cartoons
Magazine
Week in Review
Multimedia
College
Learning Network
Services
Archive
Classifieds
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 (3276 previous messages)

rshowalt - 09:55am Jul 25, 2002 EST (#3277 of 3339)

The Market Rally? So It Goes When the Mayor Says to Buy By JENNIFER STEINHAUER http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/25/nyregion/25BLOO.html

"Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg often says that New Yorkers need a businessman for mayor, and yesterday he dispensed a quick bit of business advice to his constituents: buy low.

"In a short appearance on John Gambling's morning radio show on WABC, Mr. Bloomberg suggested that "thoughtless despair" was contributing to the recent and sharp declines in the stock market, and suggested that listeners should buy equities.

"Sure enough, the markets bounced back yesterday, with the Dow rising 570 points after he spoke. Some credited stock buybacks by companies. Others said the market had finally hit bottom. But the timing of Mr. Bloomberg's comments could not have been more serendipitous, and it contrasted sharply with Monday, when President Bush suggested that stocks were a good buy. That day, the Dow fell 234 points, and it dropped an additional 82 points on Tuesday."

Looking at the DJA graph in the paper edition of the story, the market was trending down just before my MD3269 rshowalt 7/24/02 12:26pm ..., which included this:

" Markets hate uncertainty. That means that there are good reasons to "nail down" what can be checked. And good reasons to avoid muddle and deception when possible. I've had some problems with uncertainty myself.

"Anyway, the markets won't listen to me, but I hope prices stabilize, and head up. Based on honest evaluations and valuations.

Now, it makes sense to attribute a market move to Mayor Bloomberg -- and I don't make any such assumption about anything I say -- because I'm sure so many, many more people listen to Mayor Bloomberg than would ever pay attention to me.

I do hope that the markets continue to go up - and that the steps being taken to make for more honest accounting work well - so we can all be more prosperous. Since those steps look real and promising, there seems good reason for some upward motion.

MD2900-2901 rshow55 7/6/02 12:08pm

And they should listen very carefully to Krugman - - attend and check the things Krugman sets out as facts in Succeeding in Business http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/07/opinion/07KRUG.html

2905 lchic 7/8/02 5:36am ... 2906-7 rshow55 7/8/02 6:56am

mazza9 - 10:19am Jul 25, 2002 EST (#3278 of 3339)
"Quae cum ita sunt" Caesar's Gallic Commentaries

RShowalter says:"I think it was Mazza -- anyway, it had words like "Lchic says link . . . but you stink! " The New York Times can check that what I say here, if it wishes.

Only worth remembering now because it was deleted."

Think! Don't know! How convenient that this alleged statement is deleted. Since I don't remember any such statement and you have no proof of it ever being posted since you say it was deleted how do we "connect the dots"? On your say so?

I take umbrage!

Main Entry: um·brage Pronunciation: '&m-brij Function: noun Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin umbraticum, neuter of umbraticus of shade, from umbratus, past participle of umbrare to shade, from umbra shade, shadow; akin to Lithuanian unksme shadow Date: 15th century 1 : SHADE, SHADOW 2 : shady branches : FOLIAGE 3 a : an indistinct indication : vague suggestion : HINT b : a reason for doubt : SUSPICION 4 : a feeling of pique or resentment at some often fancied slight or insult <took umbrage at the speaker's remarks> synonym see OFFENSE

LouMazza

More Messages Recent Messages (61 following messages)

 Read Subscriptions  Subscribe  Search  Post Message
 Email to Sysop  Your Preferences

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





Home | Back to Readers' Opinions Back to Top


Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company | Privacy Policy | Contact Us