New York Times Readers Opinions
The New York Times
Home
Job Market
Real Estate
Automobiles
News
International
National
Washington
Campaigns
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
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 (7198 previous messages)

rshow55 - 06:57pm Jan 1, 2003 EST (# 7199 of 7204) Delete Message
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.

Feared by All, Even Giants and Tyrants By NATALIE ANGIER http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/01/books/01ANGI.html

In "Pox," Ms. Hayden, an independent scholar and marketing executive, presents the fascinating thesis that many eminent figures in history very likely suffered from syphilis and that the disease may explain at least some aspects of their behavior, their career decisions and how they accomplished their feats of divinity or defiance. Her parade of likely or possible syphilitics includes Beethoven, Nietzsche, Flaubert, van Gogh, Schubert, James Joyce, Goya, Mary Todd and Abraham Lincoln, Al Capone, Ivan the Terrible and Hitler.

Central to Ms. Hayden's premise is the fact that in the later stages of syphilis the disease can affect the brain in much the same manner as does manic-depressive illness, another condition often associated with artistic genius.

The idea is widespread that creativity is itself a disease, explained as a disease and an aberration. A comforting thought, in a certain way. But with just a little work, people should be able to see that this idea that "creativity is a disease" is wrong. Though the efforts involved in being fully human can be a burden.

What would happen if people looked at the magical, wonderful things we all do, and concluded that the beautiful things "geniuses" do happened because these "geniuses" were human beings - - and kept at it ?

We'd all be somewhat more ambitious and hopeful in spots. And more humble in others.

rshow55 - 07:01pm Jan 1, 2003 EST (# 7200 of 7204) Delete Message
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.

Looking back- 2002 was a good year - and I don't think, in terms of what I can know, that we're so very far, logically, from the hopes expressed in Someday At Christmas by Stevie Wonder http://www.webfitz.com/lyrics/Lyrics/xmas/97xmas.html

Can we sort the remaining logical problems out soon - and communicate them well enough so that people agree in the ways that matter for action.

It looks possible to me.

People need to collect "the dots" and connect the dots to form ideas - from the perspectives that matter to them - and that fit what they know and then check those ideas against other things - - and go at it again -- at the same time evaluating their ideas in terms of order and symmetry and harmony in the ways that make aesthetic sense to them when applied to the particular details of the case.

If people did this, and kept at it , we'd live in a lot safer, more hopeful world.

Nobody would have to be any smarter than they are today. I'm hopeful - and feel that we have time to get a number of things sorted out.

So I'm taking some time, worrying about stability. But a lot ought to be possible this coming year.

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





Home | Back to Readers' Opinions Back to Top


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