Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 24th Dec 2016 20:46 UTC
In the News

Every technology embodies the values of the age in which it was created. When the atomic bomb was being developed in the mid-nineteen-forties, the destruction of cities and the deliberate targeting of civilians was just another military tactic. It was championed as a means to victory. The Geneva Conventions later classified those practices as war crimes - and yet nuclear weapons have no other real use. They threaten and endanger noncombatants for the sake of deterrence. Conventional weapons can now be employed to destroy every kind of military target, and twenty-first-century warfare puts an emphasis on precision strikes, cyberweapons, and minimizing civilian casualties. As a technology, nuclear weapons have become obsolete. What worries me most isn’t the possibility of a cyberattack, a technical glitch, or a misunderstanding starting a nuclear war sometime next week. My greatest concern is the lack of public awareness about this existential threat, the absence of a vigorous public debate about the nuclear-war plans of Russia and the United States, the silent consent to the roughly fifteen thousand nuclear weapons in the world. These machines have been carefully and ingeniously designed to kill us. Complacency increases the odds that, some day, they will. The “Titanic Effect” is a term used by software designers to explain how things can quietly go wrong in a complex technological system: the safer you assume the system to be, the more dangerous it is becoming.

Donald Trump, the next president of the United States and commander-in-chief of the most powerful nuclear arsenal in the world, said in a tweet this week: "The United States must greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability until such time as the world comes to its senses regarding nukes". He also told a TV host "let there be an arms race".

In response to these remarks by the next president of the United States and commander-in-chief of the most powerful nuclear arsenal in the world, Vladimir Putin, president of the Russian Federation and supreme commander-in-chief of the other most powerful nuclear arsenal in the world, said "We need to strengthen the military potential of strategic nuclear forces, especially with missile complexes that can reliably penetrate any existing and prospective missile defence systems".

Sleep tight, and merry Christmas.

Order by: Score:
This is the new normal
by FuriousGeorge on Sat 24th Dec 2016 20:56 UTC
FuriousGeorge
Member since:
2010-08-26

Remember when everyone was all pissed off that the Obama administration's FCC wanted to mandate transistor radios in every phone, in case of emergency?

That scary Big Brother seems absolutely quaint by comparison now, doesn't it?

We should get used to this, because it's the new normal.

Edited 2016-12-24 20:57 UTC

Reply Score: 7

RE: This is the new normal
by project_2501 on Sat 24th Dec 2016 22:12 UTC in reply to "This is the new normal"
project_2501 Member since:
2006-03-20
v Gimme a break...
by decuser on Sat 24th Dec 2016 22:20 UTC
RE: Gimme a break...
by kwan_e on Sat 24th Dec 2016 23:18 UTC in reply to "Gimme a break..."
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

Sheesh, Thom. Did you buy rations for Y2K as well,


While Y2K was nothing (although IBM got some nice contracts to fix those date time bugs), date/time bugs do cause trouble. Like when some computers in fighter jets fail when crossing over the international date line.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/f22-squadron-shot-down-by-the-i...

when Reagan was prez?


Reagan didn't have a twitter account to put his unfiltered thoughts on, and he was senile, not unstable.

Cooler heads prevailed during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Compared that to the conspiracy driven appointees that Trump is surrounding himself with. We already seen what happens when you have a Bush surrounded by a Cheney and Rumsfeld echo chamber.

Reply Score: 7

RE[2]: Gimme a break...
by decuser on Sun 25th Dec 2016 16:02 UTC in reply to "RE: Gimme a break..."
decuser Member since:
2006-10-30

Cuba was JFK, not Reagan.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Gimme a break...
by kwan_e on Sun 25th Dec 2016 17:39 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Gimme a break..."
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

Cuba was JFK, not Reagan.


Yes, I was giving an extra contrasting example for good measure.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Gimme a break...
by timl on Sun 25th Dec 2016 00:05 UTC in reply to "Gimme a break..."
timl Member since:
2005-12-06

Sheesh, Thom. Did you buy rations for Y2K as well, maybe a bunker when Reagan was prez?


Huh? I was under the impression that Reagan supported nuclear DISarmament. He actively seeked to at least decrease the active arsenal of nuclear weapons, leading to the START-treaties.

Even SDI (of "Star Wars", as the missile shield was popularly called) was meant as an active measure to protect from hostile (nuclear) missiles. Consequently, the USA would have less need for lots of nukes as a deterrent.

That's a far cry from Trump's internally inconsistent "The world needs less nukes, so we need more now".

Reply Score: 6

RE[2]: Gimme a break...
by Frak on Tue 27th Dec 2016 01:35 UTC in reply to "RE: Gimme a break..."
Frak Member since:
2016-12-26

I don't think Thom was alive when Reagan was in office ...and some of the comments here are internally inconsistent. The reason we arm ourselves is to deter others from attack. If you want to learn about Nuclear Deterrence, I recommend the book, "War and Peace in the Nuclear Age" by John Newhouse. A PBS (circa 1988) 13-part companion series (i.e., college telecourse) was produced by the Annenberg/CPB Project and is very difficult to obtain. Interviews from the series are still available via the PBS website at: http://openvault.wgbh.org/collections/war_peace/interviews

Reply Score: 1

Confused
by Undomiel on Sat 24th Dec 2016 22:24 UTC
Undomiel
Member since:
2007-11-23

So Putin helped Trump win the election to have an excuse to kick off an arms race?

Reply Score: 3

RE: Confused
by Morgan on Sun 25th Dec 2016 05:10 UTC in reply to "Confused"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

That's one theory.

I'm of the mind that Putin's hackers meddled with the elections with the explicit goal of destabilizing the nation, and obviously it's working. We now have a megalomaniac president-elect who is creaming his pants at the thought of waging new wars. After all, war means big money for him and his cronies. I just wonder how many Trump supporters knew it would get this bad, and still support him in his obvious madness.

Reply Score: 7

RE[2]: Confused
by kwan_e on Sun 25th Dec 2016 07:40 UTC in reply to "RE: Confused"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

I just wonder how many Trump supporters knew it would get this bad, and still support him in his obvious madness.


Outside of mainstream media and moderate-oh-this-can't-possibly-happen opinion, people who would become Trump supporters were already praising Putin for being a strong leader. They know full well what they were wanting, and Trump provided it to them.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Confused
by Seeprime on Tue 27th Dec 2016 20:42 UTC in reply to "RE: Confused"
Seeprime Member since:
2014-05-02

I don't see how Russian hackers meddles in the US election. The DNC email hacks took place in 2015. They should have known about it, through penetration testing, and prevented it. Instead, arrogance prevailed. Wikileaks released the hacked emails that did nothing more than show how biased the DNC was. Russia did not damage the DNC. They did that to themselves, then lied or laughed about it implying that past actions don't matter. A lot of US citizens felt the DNC's contempt for them and acted in the only legal way possible.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Confused
by The1stImmortal on Wed 28th Dec 2016 04:24 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Confused"
The1stImmortal Member since:
2005-10-20

I don't see how Russian hackers meddles in the US election. The DNC email hacks took place in 2015. They should have known about it, through penetration testing, and prevented it. Instead, arrogance prevailed. Wikileaks released the hacked emails that did nothing more than show how biased the DNC was. Russia did not damage the DNC. They did that to themselves, then lied or laughed about it implying that past actions don't matter. A lot of US citizens felt the DNC's contempt for them and acted in the only legal way possible.


This.
Even if it was Russian government agencies behind the intrusions of the DNC and of Podesta (something I sorely doubt to be honest), all it did was publish actual info showing precisely how the establishment operated. Had the same info come from a reputable news agency other than Wikileaks (for example the NYT or something) then no one would have called it into serious question or gone on conspiracy rants about Russia.

The only reason we didn't see the RNC copping the same flack was that Trump came out of nowhere and made the RNC establishment basically irrelevant in the campaign.

Trump is no more or less unstable than many other politicians of the past. He's *unpredictable* however, which leaves many political junkies uneasy as they can't tell what'll come next.

Don't get me wrong, I disagree with about 80% of his actual politics, but he's neither an incarnation of Hitler nor of the Joker.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Confused
by Alfman on Wed 28th Dec 2016 08:38 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Confused"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

The1stImmortal,

Trump is no more or less unstable than many other politicians of the past. He's *unpredictable* however, which leaves many political junkies uneasy as they can't tell what'll come next.


Funny then how "unpredictable" is listed as a synonym for "unstable":
http://www.freethesaurus.com/unstable


To be clear, he's not mentally unstable, but he certainly is behaviorally unstable. You say "Trump is no more or less unstable than many other politicians of the past.", but I think you'd be hard pressed to identify them. Think back about Obama, Bush Jr, B. Clinton, Bush Sr. There's no denying they were often disliked by partisan groups, but Trump takes unstable/unpredictable behavior to a whole new level - at least for presidential politicians in my lifetime.

Some people actually like this kind of disruption, your other post makes that much clear: "It's been nearly a century since WWII, time for another shakeup perhaps.". But you must concede that a world war today with thousands upon thousands of nukes in play is far more dangerous to humanity than for any previous world wars. Despite your assurances that "It's highly unlikely we'll manage to wipe the human race out that way. We're pretty darn resilient." The fact is the worst case scenario changes drastically with nuclear proliferation.


Don't get me wrong, I disagree with about 80% of his actual politics, but he's neither an incarnation of Hitler nor of the Joker.


Hitler himself didn't start out that way, he became that way through unchecked power and demagoguing tendencies.

Trump himself fits the definition of demagogue perfectly.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/demagogue
1: a leader who makes use of popular prejudices and false claims and promises in order to gain power

2: a leader championing the cause of the common people in ancient times



I hope our system of checks and balances stops things from getting too far out of hand, and I believe it's going to be put to the test this presidency like never before. Frankly I was taken aback that so many republican voters were willing to elect such an authoritarian candidate in the first place, it just seems contrary to the republican values towards individual freedoms I thought I understood and even agreed with at times.

Edited 2016-12-28 08:42 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: Confused
by viton on Sun 25th Dec 2016 16:35 UTC in reply to "Confused"
viton Member since:
2005-08-09

So Putin helped Trump win the election to have an excuse to kick off an arms race?

You have at least 4 years to cook some conspiracy theories.
Arms race was kicked by uncontrolled NATO expansion and Missile Defence in Europe. How will you react if Russia placed MD system in Cuba?

Edited 2016-12-25 16:35 UTC

Reply Score: 4

Re: ~ WWIII
by cade on Sat 24th Dec 2016 22:43 UTC
cade
Member since:
2009-02-28

It's called balance.

Reply Score: 1

Comment by philcostin
by philcostin on Sun 25th Dec 2016 02:14 UTC
philcostin
Member since:
2010-11-03

Just out of curiosity, what OS do those nukes run? VxWorks? QNX?

Reply Score: 6

RE: Comment by philcostin
by leech on Sun 25th Dec 2016 08:03 UTC in reply to "Comment by philcostin"
leech Member since:
2006-01-10

Clearly it is Windows 95, it only has to launch then crash shortly after.

Reply Score: 11

RE: Comment by philcostin
by ironhead on Mon 26th Dec 2016 10:55 UTC in reply to "Comment by philcostin"
ironhead Member since:
2012-04-24

Just out of curiosity, what OS do those nukes run? VxWorks? QNX?


The modernized nukes will probably run Linux. Maybe using a (nuclear) cloud service?

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by philcostin
by CodeMonkey on Mon 26th Dec 2016 20:12 UTC in reply to "Comment by philcostin"
CodeMonkey Member since:
2005-09-22

Just out of curiosity, what OS do those nukes run? VxWorks? QNX?


A former colleague of mine is a software engineer for General Dynamics, a large U.S. defense contractor, and used to develop ADA code for missile systems. According to him, several of the control systems on board some of the newer cruise missiles at the time actually ran Windows XP Embedded, amongst other things. They use a modular design with a number of distinctly independent computers dedicated to different tasks. Each one is often developed by a separate contractor and so long as it speaks the appropriate protocols they could be running 5 or 10 different embedded OSs or some with none just using bare microcontrollers all on a single missile. Apparently, it was a running joke amongst them that it gave a new meaning to "Blue Screen Of Death".

While I can't personally confirm his assertion, it was his day job, so...

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by philcostin
by Alfman on Mon 26th Dec 2016 20:49 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by philcostin"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

CodeMonkey,

According to him, several of the control systems on board some of the newer cruise missiles at the time actually ran Windows XP Embedded, amongst other things. They use a modular design with a number of distinctly independent computers dedicated to different tasks. Each one is often developed by a separate contractor and so long as it speaks the appropriate protocols they could be running 5 or 10 different embedded OSs or some with none just using bare microcontrollers all on a single missile. Apparently, it was a running joke amongst them that it gave a new meaning to "Blue Screen Of Death".


This reminds me when the navy fleet was upgraded from unix to win NT. There was a report of a warship incapacitated for several hours among other issues. While I don't know that it was ever officially blamed on winnt or if it was just a coincidence, there was dissent over the choice of NT internally at the time.

https://gcn.com/articles/1998/07/13/software-glitches-leave-navy-sma...

But according to DiGiorgio, who in an interview said he has serviced automated control
systems on Navy ships for the past 26 years, the NT operating system is the source of the
Yorktown’s computer problems.

NT applications aboard the Yorktown provide damage control, run the ship’s control
center on the bridge, monitor the engines and navigate the ship when under way.

“Using Windows NT, which is known to have some failure modes, on a warship is
similar to hoping that luck will be in our favor,” DiGiorgio said.

Pacific and Atlantic fleets in March 1997 selected NT 4.0 as the standard OS for both
networks and PCs as part of the Navy’s Information Technology for the 21st Century
initiative. Current guidance approved by the Navy’s chief information officer calls
for all new applications to run under NT.

Ron Redman, deputy technical director of the Fleet Introduction Division of the Aegis
Program Executive Office, said there have been numerous software failures associated with
NT aboard the Yorktown.

“Refining that is an ongoing process,” Redman said. “Unix is a better
system for control of equipment and machinery, whereas NT is a better system for the
transfer of information and data. NT has never been fully refined and there are times when
we have had shutdowns that resulted from NT.”



At least according to this source, the decision to replace unix with windows was political rather than technically motivated, which doesn't surprise me very much since I've seen it too with projects I've been involved in.

The Yorktown has been towed into port several times because of the systems failures, he
said.

“Because of politics, some things are being forced on us that without political
pressure we might not do, like Windows NT,” Redman said. “If it were up to me I
probably would not have used Windows NT in this particular application. If we used Unix,
we would have a system that has less of a tendency to go down.”

Although Unix is more reliable, Redman said, NT may become more reliable with time.

The Navy is moving the service’s command and control applications from Unix to NT
as part of IT-21. Under IT-21, the Navy also plans to modernize ships in the Atlantic and
Pacific fleets with asynchronous transfer mode LANs. Large ATM networks running NT have
already been installed on the USS Abraham Lincoln and USS Essex.


Edited 2016-12-26 20:53 UTC

Reply Score: 4

Stick to OS news
by joshv on Sun 25th Dec 2016 11:17 UTC
joshv
Member since:
2006-03-18

Your political slip is showing Thom. Stick to hobby OSes, I don't come here to get your political opinions.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Stick to OS news
by Thom_Holwerda on Sun 25th Dec 2016 11:34 UTC in reply to "Stick to OS news"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Your political slip is showing Thom. Stick to hobby OSes, I don't come here to get your political opinions.


Then don't come here. Nobody is forcing you to read and/or comment on this story.

Reply Score: 5

v RE[2]: Stick to OS news
by edincleve on Sun 25th Dec 2016 16:11 UTC in reply to "RE: Stick to OS news"
RE[3]: Stick to OS news
by Vanders on Sun 25th Dec 2016 16:43 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Stick to OS news"
Vanders Member since:
2005-07-06

Your response has nothing to do with the post Thom is replying too, nor Thoms reply. It's Christmas, I can't be bothered to pick it apart.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Stick to OS news
by Thom_Holwerda on Sun 25th Dec 2016 17:01 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Stick to OS news"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Quite some mental gymnastics to turn an ultimate example of freedom - you are free to not read what I write - into an anti-freedom thing.

Quite, quite an achievement.

Reply Score: 3

v RE[4]: Stick to OS news
by edincleve on Sun 25th Dec 2016 18:54 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Stick to OS news"
RE[5]: Stick to OS news
by Vanders on Sun 25th Dec 2016 19:32 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Stick to OS news"
Vanders Member since:
2005-07-06

Sigh okay I guess I'll pick it apart:

joshy: This has nothing to do with Operating Systems. Please stop posting stuff like this.
Thom: I can post what I like. You don't need to read it if you don't like it.
You: WAAAA! FREEDOM OF SPEECH! LEFTISTS! MEDIA CONSPIRACY!

Just shut up.

Reply Score: 8

RE[6]: Stick to OS news
by acobar on Sun 25th Dec 2016 21:55 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Stick to OS news"
acobar Member since:
2005-11-15

Vanders,

I suspect you are wasting your time. It is quite telling when someone use disparaged assertions and wild accusations instead of concentrating on the issue at hand.

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: Stick to OS news
by Thom_Holwerda on Sun 25th Dec 2016 20:32 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Stick to OS news"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

In other words, don't come here, but if you do, just don't express your opinions.


You are free to come here, but on OUR website, WE decide what gets posted - NOT you. And we are FREE to tell you that certain comments are simply not welcome - and as you can see, there's no leftist conspiracy or any of that bullshit, because in every one of these threads, there are countless people who disagree with me. It's just that the endless barrage of people telling us - THE OWNERS OF THIS PLACE - what we supposedly can and cannot post, is f--king dumb.

WE decide what WE post on OUR website, and WE decide WHICH comments we are f--king tired of.


The is the same thing that is happening on college campuses now. Disagree with the left and be prepared for the consequences.


This website is our own personal property. We can do whatever the f--k we like here within the boundaries of the law. This includes deleting comments we don't like, for whatever reason - including because we just really hate people named Tim.

That is why the left wants EVERY political contribution to be public knowledge, so they can harass those that disagree with them.


Who is harassing who here? You come onto OUR website, and tell us, THE OWNERS, what we can and cannot post here - and yet WE harass YOU?

Please.

Edited 2016-12-25 20:33 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Stick to OS news
by Langalf on Sun 25th Dec 2016 21:57 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Stick to OS news"
Langalf Member since:
2006-04-25

Gotta love your comment. It was always the conservatives, the right wingers, who said "America, love it or leave it" during the 60's.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Stick to OS news
by Morgan on Mon 26th Dec 2016 01:31 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Stick to OS news"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

Whether I disagree with you or not, I wish you would leave only because of your transparent attempt at trolling. If you want an echo chamber, find or build one and shitpost to your heart's content.

Coming here and telling the editor-in-chief to only post what you want him to post is like going into a coffee shop and demanding that they stop selling crumpets because crumpets aren't coffee and goddammit you just want to see your personal favorite flavor of coffee in that shop.

Notice how pathetic, childish, and self-centered that sounds? Congratulations, that's you.

Edited 2016-12-26 01:32 UTC

Reply Score: 6

RE[2]: Stick to OS news
by The1stImmortal on Wed 28th Dec 2016 04:29 UTC in reply to "RE: Stick to OS news"
The1stImmortal Member since:
2005-10-20

Out of curiosity Thom, is the political topics of late a symptom of simply not having enough "on-topic" articles to post? IE, if you received additional "on-topic" article submissions or full written posts the political and other "off-topic" posts would wane?

Or is it simply you've decided to take the site in a different direction, editorially, and branch out overall?

Serious question, not trying to attack you ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Stick to OS news
by decuser on Wed 28th Dec 2016 15:37 UTC in reply to "RE: Stick to OS news"
decuser Member since:
2006-10-30

Silly editor. What shreds of credibility you have remaining are at risk. Although your rants and mobile fixation are usually just distracting, the OS related material generally outweighs such drivel, but, if you start politically ranting, you'll prolly bleed readers... ultimately your choice. Maybe you'd rather be blathering on about foreign politics than tech?

Reply Score: 1

v RE: Stick to OS news
by edincleve on Sun 25th Dec 2016 14:20 UTC in reply to "Stick to OS news"
RE[2]: Stick to OS news
by Spiron on Mon 26th Dec 2016 10:00 UTC in reply to "RE: Stick to OS news"
Spiron Member since:
2011-03-08

Funny you say that's the schtick of the left when it was just now the Right that elected Trump to justify not electing Hillary. Now there ARE some legitmate reasons why she wasn't the most trustworthy candidate ever, but to elect an even more untrustworthy cadidate just because you don't like the cut of her gib reaks of that level of Hypocrisy that only conservative Americans seem to be able to peddle.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Stick to OS news
by quackalist on Mon 26th Dec 2016 16:54 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Stick to OS news"
quackalist Member since:
2007-08-27

'don't like the cut of her gib'...eh, a rabid neo-con, neo-liberal who seemed bent on pushing the world into armageddon...hell no, I don't like the cut of her gib or the rest of the barbarians. What sort of world do we live in when Trump is actually a better option fr us all.....sick

Reply Score: 2

that tune is at least 36 years old
by gus3 on Sun 25th Dec 2016 11:37 UTC
gus3
Member since:
2010-09-02

People made the same prediction about Ronald Reagan.

Last time I checked, the world is still here, but the Berlin Wall is gone.

Reply Score: 2

ngaio Member since:
2005-10-06

Did you even read the article? That we're still here is because we're lucky.

See also: probability theory.

Reply Score: 1

gus3 Member since:
2010-09-02

It's "luck" because giving credit where credit is due (i.e. admitting Reagan knew what he was doing) would be too much for the New Yorker.

Reply Score: 1

ngaio Member since:
2005-10-06

So you didn't read the article, and you don't understand probability.

Let me spell it out for you: supposing every year there is a 1% chance of something bad happening. After one century, chances are that bad thing will have happened.

That has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with reality.

Reply Score: 1

gus3 Member since:
2010-09-02

I understand probability well enough to know that it isn't what you're talking about. You're referring to the "law of averages."

There's also "consider the source," which you clearly haven't done. The New Yorker isn't serious journalism. Its intended audience is New York elites, first and foremost. Anyone who would ever say something respectful about Ronald Reagan's policy record could never get a job there, except maybe as a janitor (with strict instructions to keep his mouth shut).

Reply Score: 1

ngaio Member since:
2005-10-06

Well gee, I guess Eric Schlosser was so naive to cite the testimony of all those military and political figures and nuclear policy experts.

You didn't read the article.

Reply Score: 1

Unfair
by dsmogor on Sun 25th Dec 2016 12:44 UTC
dsmogor
Member since:
2005-09-01

All good but it was exactly the reverse to what you're saying.
It was Russia that starter vigorously modernizing its nuclear arsenal long before anybody even thought of Trump comment to power.
They are close the bringing completely new rockets to service while USA have only recently decided about developing replacements to 70ies minutemans, after years of futile efforts to get Russia into further reduction treaties.
It's also Russia who openly declared that nukes have use *outside* of deterrence in their military strategy.
Recently they have revoked a treaty limits on plutonium production and storage.
Putting a blame on US here is completely uninformed in line with Kremlin propaganda. Sadly you're turning yourself into Putin's usefull idiot Thom.

Reply Score: 3

ah well
by Darkmage on Sun 25th Dec 2016 12:53 UTC
Darkmage
Member since:
2006-10-20

All of this is nice conjecture, but did anyone else notice that Obama wanted to spend $350 billion - $1 Trillion modernising America's Nuclear weaponry? The fact is the minuteman silos are launching using 8" floppy disks, at the same time that Russia has a fully modernised Nuclear launch platform. It might be time to upgrade systems which can't even get spare parts made for them. What I'm seeing so far is a very large media beat up on Trump when he hasn't been in office yet and he hasn't passed any laws yet. So far he's promised through his justice department to investigate H1Bs, at least make an effort to look like they're trying to keep jobs in the USA. (something Obama never even bothered to do, and yes threatening companies is at least an action, whether it works or not remains to be seen). There's a lot about Trump I don't like, but right now the Democrats are looking like a joke. Wait and see, if Trump slips up be ready for it, but don't pre-judge what's going to happen based on what your side promised would happen if they won office. Remember Hillary was a shit candidate in her own right, she offered and still offers nothing for anyone who's job was outsourced out of the United States. She had to be dragged kicking and screaming into offering free college tuition and all the other progressive policies the Democrat platform had this year. A Trump win if it forces the Democrats to really change and consider candidates like Bernie, could end up being a better thing for the Democrats than anyone realises at the moment.

Edited 2016-12-25 12:56 UTC

Reply Score: 7

RE: ah well
by TechGeek on Tue 27th Dec 2016 14:51 UTC in reply to "ah well"
TechGeek Member since:
2006-01-14

You're right. He isn't President yet. So he should keep his damn mouth shut and stop trying to set Presidential policy until he IS President. I'm sure if the roles were reversed, Tiny Hands Trump would be having kittens that Obama was setting policy before being sworn in.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: ah well
by kwan_e on Wed 28th Dec 2016 02:03 UTC in reply to "RE: ah well"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

You're right. He isn't President yet. So he should keep his damn mouth shut and stop trying to set Presidential policy until he IS President. I'm sure if the roles were reversed, Tiny Hands Trump would be having kittens that Obama was setting policy before being sworn in.


Remember when conservatives kept referring to Obama as just a "community organizer" and that he was learning on the job?

Reply Score: 2

Trump is right in this case
by jgfenix on Sun 25th Dec 2016 15:15 UTC
jgfenix
Member since:
2006-05-25

There are such "nice" countries developing nuclear weapons such as North Korea, Iran ir Pakistan that it isn't the best time to look weak.
This is ridiculous. Obama won the Nobel Prize before being president while Trump is being attacked no matter what. Some people should cure their Trumpitis.

Reply Score: 3

Military
by Treza on Sun 25th Dec 2016 17:13 UTC
Treza
Member since:
2006-01-11

Beyond destroying cities, nuclear weapons can have some real military purposes. Nagasaki was an important port, Hiroshima an industrial centre with weapons factories.

And nuclear bombs can have different sizes.

Destroying at once a port with aircraft carriers and submarines, an aircraft factory, a whole industrial complex...
In a total war, being able to destroy important assets with only one bomb evading missile defence is of real strategic importance.

With efficient defences, carpet bombing don't work, the target must be destroyed with only one bomb.

Scary, heh !

Reply Score: 2

Comment by Phloptical
by Phloptical on Sun 25th Dec 2016 18:57 UTC
Phloptical
Member since:
2006-10-10

I have a feeling trump and his buddy putin are giggling every time they make one of these ridiculous statements.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by Phloptical
by acobar on Sun 25th Dec 2016 22:28 UTC in reply to "Comment by Phloptical"
acobar Member since:
2005-11-15

The problem is not if the arguments are ridiculous, they are, the problem is that the money spent on these things are not going to where they are needed the most, education, health and improvements on infrastructure that would foster the life quality of the whole society. As it is, once more the taxpayer is going to get the least from their contributions and the friends of the king will be lining their pockets.

Reply Score: 4

Comment by philcostin
by philcostin on Sun 25th Dec 2016 23:06 UTC
philcostin
Member since:
2010-11-03

It's totally up to you what you post or allow on your own website. However, in my opinion, instead of being called "OSNews" (as it is titled) it should actually be called "Thom's Blog". The content used to be interesting to me, but since I don't agree at all with your leftist political claptrap (and came here for the OS stuff), I'm not going to bother reading this site any more. You won't care, I'm sure, but I'm suggesting that you at least advertise this as your own blog instead, since that's all it is now.

If I want to hear Globalist, One-World BS, I'd read the Huffington Post, the New York Times, or Reddit.

Edited 2016-12-25 23:07 UTC

Reply Score: 0

v Thanks Thom
by edincleve on Mon 26th Dec 2016 13:35 UTC
RE: Thanks Thom
by Lava_Croft on Mon 26th Dec 2016 18:08 UTC in reply to "Thanks Thom"
Lava_Croft Member since:
2006-12-24

If a few articles outside of the expected scope of this website is too much for you to bear, it's probably best for everybody if you stop frequenting this website.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Thanks Thom
by openwookie on Tue 27th Dec 2016 04:57 UTC in reply to "Thanks Thom"
openwookie Member since:
2006-04-25

Cool story from a guy with one day old account.

Reply Score: 2

v Welcome to poltics News
by uridium on Tue 27th Dec 2016 05:41 UTC
RE: Welcome to poltics News
by Morgan on Wed 28th Dec 2016 04:13 UTC in reply to "Welcome to poltics News"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

Nice try, edincleve. Two accounts less than 48 hours old is about as amateur as a troll can get. I bet you don't even have a bridge to sleep under, poor thing.

Reply Score: 2

Arms race delays a war isn't it
by pns.sri on Tue 27th Dec 2016 06:06 UTC
pns.sri
Member since:
2009-06-20

In case of nuclear Arms race, I expect it will delay war. If it happens, it will shorten the war. Both are good for humanity. War will happen if it has to happen whether there are nuclear arsenal or not.

Look at middle east: War is happening and Arms race is not the reason and war is going on and on because there are no good arms (or big guys helping doesn't want to use the major ones) to get the conclusion fast. People are suffering because of it.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Arms race delays a war isn't it
by acobar on Tue 27th Dec 2016 10:45 UTC in reply to "Arms race delays a war isn't it"
acobar Member since:
2005-11-15

OK, I was going to stop to post on this news but your post needs a reply.

In case of nuclear Arms race, I expect it will delay war. If it happens, it will shorten the war. War will happen if it has to happen whether there are nuclear arsenal or not. Both are good for humanity.

Nuclear war can shorten the war, but it will kill scores on numbers never seen. Hiroshima bomb killed something like 120,000 people and Nagasaki 60.000 in the first 4 months, the huge, immense majority of them civilians. And the effects of radioactivity continued to kill for many years. So, it killed scores, its effects persisted for years and you don´t really have any control of who is going to be affected, if you see any benefit on this I really would not have you as a friend.

War is happening and Arms race is not the reason and war is going on and on because there are no good arms

Arms race is not the reason of any war I´m aware of. Desire for power, dreams of grandiosity, miscalculation of risks, hysteria, racism or the old "blame others" for your problems is (or all that together, what is the common scenario).

The lack of "good" arms was not the reason the war is taking so long but because it is a urban war, with the population being stuck between a rock and a hard place, on this case, their own people but with different religious variations, but not really big ones. The war happened for many reasons, a "dick" dictator in power, radical people on opposition, American and Saudi disgraceful interventions and insufflation of conflicts on the whole region to gain power/influence, radicalism from all involved. Not even USA was logical/rationale about how things could evolve. What makes me surprised is that after all these years, centuries of wars, we still handle conflict situations trying to apply the same unreliable/catastrophic methods. Anyone that reaches top power on any region does so constructing alliances, convenience ones, between antagonistic groups, if your remove the top the groups will start to fight to reach the top position. Have never seen an outcome that could be assured on these cases, except, of course, chaos and tragedy.

Reply Score: 3

pns.sri Member since:
2009-06-20

60M died in WWII and 0.18M (0.3%) killed in 2 nuclear bombs and brought the war to closure. It was expected there would have been huge losses for months to come if nuclear bombs were not dropped. So, if you set aside emotions, you would say this was a good thing. By the way, do you hate Harry truman and the Americans who supported his decision?

Reply Score: 1

acobar Member since:
2005-11-15

If you had read more about the decision to use the bombs you would know that the final decision was very controversial. They were not developed to be used against Japan but out of fear that Germans could develop them. At the end of the II War it was clear that the Germany did not have the capacity to do so.

About the death count, yes, looking how the Japanese behave on Iwo Jima and on many other battles there is a suspicion that if USA tried to invade Japan the blood bath would be tremendous but what you think would happen if USA decided to demonstrated its new arm on some uninhabitable island with Japanese observers at a safe distance, do you think they would hesitate to sign a peace deal on the same base they did after seeing how powerful the new bomb was? I don´t think so. The bomb, more than a way to break Japan resistance was a power show for the world, a warning to any other country that USA had the power to decimate anyone that would try to hurt its interests.

I don´t hate the ones that decided to use the bomb, I feel sorry for them and think they had to live with that terrible doubt to the end of their lives "but if ..". I am happy I never ever have been in such a position to decide the fate of another human being. Obviously, my main condolences are toward the victims.

Using a sentence that is not mine: when you kill someone you take all he has and all he ever could.

I hate wars, I hate our violent nature, I hate the unjustifiable loss of life the happens all the time on our societies for big and small motives. With such powerful brains we should be above any quarrels, we aren't.

I feel compelled to read about wars since my twelves but never wanted to pursue a military career. For me it was always a "how can we be so mean" thing. I can not watch the documentaries about Omaha without feel ashamed I'm human and, at same time, envy of the courage and honor many of that poor man demonstrated under such terrifying conditions.

Reply Score: 2

Roughly 75%...
by brichpmr on Tue 27th Dec 2016 10:27 UTC
brichpmr
Member since:
2006-04-22

of registered voters either failed to vote or did not vote for Donald Trump. He lost the popular vote by a greater margin than any 'elected' president in American history.

Not achieving even a plurality indicates that Trump lacks anything close to a mandate from the citizens, and of course, he continues to get savaged on Twitter every day as he spews in 140 character brain farts.

He's dumb all day long, but appears to have self-described core competencies...ie., grabbing p*ssies, etc.

Reply Score: 2

WWIII
by The1stImmortal on Wed 28th Dec 2016 04:12 UTC
The1stImmortal
Member since:
2005-10-20

I have no issue with Trump's comments in this regard, except that I'm not a fan of the US doing *yet more* military spending when there's other more vital things in the US that are going unfunded or underfunded.

In principle as I see it either everyone or no one should have nukes, and arms races have driven technological development like crazy in the 20th Century.

Even if we end up having a major world war - we'll survive. It's highly unlikely we'll manage to wipe the human race out that way. We're pretty darn resilient. And the world needs a major catastrophe and political shakeup every century or two or three. It's been nearly a century since WWII, time for another shakeup perhaps.

<shrug>

Reply Score: 1

How???
by SojoPhoto on Wed 28th Dec 2016 13:20 UTC
SojoPhoto
Member since:
2011-12-08

I hear all the time from your types. A bunch of pansies, who cry at the drop of a snowflake. Why not provide details of what you speak of?

And if you are going to claim the Putin hacked the elections, please provide the necessary proof and let the US Govt know, or just shut the hell up, and quit your inane lies and conspiracies.

I was in the booth when I voted, and I can honestly tell you there were no Russians in there with me. I made my decisions, and I voted.

If you want to talk Politics, why not start with proofs and reality, rather than uneducated and idiotic opining???

Reply Score: 1

RE: How???
by Lava_Croft on Wed 28th Dec 2016 14:40 UTC in reply to "How???"
Lava_Croft Member since:
2006-12-24

President Obama, CIA and FBI versus President-elect Donald Trump and President Vladimir Putin.

I wish your country the best of luck in the coming 4 years.

Reply Score: 2

I don't post often.
by TM99 on Wed 28th Dec 2016 15:17 UTC
TM99
Member since:
2012-08-26

But I have been a regular daily reader since y'all began and a signed up member since 2012.

You are right. This is your site, and you can do as you please. But I, and I am sure others, come here for discussions and news about tech and OS's.

If I wanted discussions about feminists and Gamersgate, Brexit and racism tropes, and now posts from a liberal Dutchman about president elect Trump here in the US (I am no more qualified to speak on the internal politics of your country than you are of mine), I would be going elsewhere.

So I will be finding my tech news from here on out at other sites that don't feel the need to lecture a captive audience about their own personal political issues. Professional boundaries are a good thing. You might consider finding some.

Edited 2016-12-28 15:21 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: I don't post often.
by decuser on Wed 28th Dec 2016 15:42 UTC in reply to "I don't post often. "
decuser Member since:
2006-10-30

Well said

Reply Score: 1

RE: I don't post often.
by Alfman on Wed 28th Dec 2016 21:43 UTC in reply to "I don't post often. "
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

TM99,

But I have been a regular daily reader since y'all began and a signed up member since 2012.

You are right. This is your site, and you can do as you please. But I, and I am sure others, come here for discussions and news about tech and OS's.

If I wanted discussions about feminists and Gamersgate, Brexit and racism tropes, and now posts from a liberal Dutchman about president elect Trump here in the US (I am no more qualified to speak on the internal politics of your country than you are of mine), I would be going elsewhere.

So I will be finding my tech news from here on out at other sites that don't feel the need to lecture a captive audience about their own personal political issues. Professional boundaries are a good thing. You might consider finding some.


I understand the sentiment, but reality might not back that up. Often times the genuinely technical topics, those that you and I like to learn about, really struggle hard to generate enthusiasm. Meanwhile "off topic" opinion pieces often climb past a hundred comments. It's the exact same phenomenon that caused the media to cover every stupid little thing about Trump while completely glossing over more serious campaign policy issues. While I want to blame the media for that, it's actually the readers who drove the trend by gobbling it all up and wanting more. The media are merely covering what sells.


Maybe you expect osnews to be above all that for some reason, but all too often when there are "on topic" articles they fail to generate much interest at all. For example it is questionable whether "The little book about OS development" will even get five comments and the only comment there so far is even critical of it. So while I understand your dislike for this political news coverage, you really have to blame us, the readers, as well as Thom.

Also, as an aside, as much as it saddens me to say it: The days when operating system tech was interesting are behind us. The operating system industry is mature now and economics strongly favor consolidation and the status quo. The more money and time we have invested in a particular technology, the less likely it is to change.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: I don't post often.
by TM99 on Wed 28th Dec 2016 21:58 UTC in reply to "RE: I don't post often. "
TM99 Member since:
2012-08-26

While true, the editor of such a site is tasked with generating topics that will stir interest and enthusiasm within the stated field of discussion.

It really doesn't matter if only five people reply to one topic as long as it is on the subject at hand.

I don't go to KVR Audio to discuss the latest Kanye Tweets. I don't go to retro gaming sites to discuss gourmet cuisine.

I and others come here for what is stated as being offered - tech and OS news. When the lead editor allows his own personal political beliefs to dominate such that more and more topics are started on those instead of the site's purpose, it will come back to bite him on the ass professionally.

Bottom line is if I or others want to read about liberal politics, we can go to AlterNet not OSNews. There are other sites now where I can get the tech news I am seeking and loyalty to this site is meaningless when the supposedly professional editor whines in his own topics about it being his site and he will do what he wants.

Yes, he is entitled to do so. And we are entitled to say bye bye.

Edited 2016-12-28 22:00 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: I don't post often.
by Alfman on Wed 28th Dec 2016 23:33 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: I don't post often. "
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

TM99,

While true, the editor of such a site is tasked with generate topics that will stir interest and enthusiasm within this field of discussion.


Of course, yet I still feel that all the growth at the top and consolidation at the bottom has inherently resulted in much less of the diversity that kept our field interesting to begin with. All of our lives revolve around a few entrenched platforms and all the apple/microsoft/google centric news is a byproduct of that.

It really doesn't matter if only five people reply to one topic as long as it is on the subject at hand.


I think does matter. It's the community aspect that makes it lively. And indirectly the community pulse also indicates whether something will ultimately remain viable or not.


Yes, he is entitled to do so. And we are entitled to say bye bye.


Over the years I've had ideas for improving osnews, hiring technical writers could really help quality alot. I think osnews could organize special projects and/or fun little competitions, etc. But I really don't know how to make it financially viable.

Money plays a huge role. For better or worse professional reporters have to compete for viewer attention with low budget bloggers. It is a sad state of affairs when quality reporting is trounced by thoughtless celebrity pieces and top ten lists. Yet this is the direction we're moving in. Many of my favorite tech publications like byte magazine, pc magazine, dr.dobbs (I loved their technical content!) ceased amid revenue trouble with online business models. Ad revenue is continuing to drop so I think more redundancy is on the horizon before we can reach an economic steady-state equilibrium.

I don't expect you to have the answers, but I'd be interested in hearing what you would try if you ran your own publication.

Edited 2016-12-28 23:46 UTC

Reply Score: 2