Slashdot Mirror
The World's Most Dangerous Password
NonNullSet writes "Minutemen ICBMs were deployed in the early 1960s, and grew to over 1000 in number. They were allegedly protected from a "rogue launch" by an approach known as PAL (Permissive Action Link). The PAL required that the correct 8-digit launch code be entered by the missiliers before the missile would establish ignition. What if all the PAL codes had been set to '00000000,' and 'everyone' in the Strategic Air Command knew it? That is unbelievably what happened, as described in this article from the Center for Defense Information. Not exactly a great example for getting people to choose difficult passwords!"
fp
www.slashdot.com
FAQ
1. What makes asphyxia or breath control different from other autoerotic practices?
The short answer is the "fantasy" is the difference. I think it involves an aspect of "control". A big part of the fantasy is the person's control over their own death. It's a bit "self-sacrificial", a death fantasy, if you will. Not a wish to die, but a fantasy of death. Like a daredevil cheating death. Not far apart, in my opinion. Make sense?
I'll take this opportunity to espouse my opinion on AEA vs. "Breath Control Play" (BCP). AEA is not the same as BCP. Many people confuse the two. AEA is a solo sexual practice with many unique characteristics that go beyond the euphoria of hypoxia. BCP is something that is mostly done among sexual partners to increase sexual pleasure with hypoxia. Enough said.
2. Why do you think people engage in breath control? How do you think they come to this practice?
(I'll assume you mean AEA). This is a long, complicated and elusive answer. People engage in AEA because they quite simply have to. It becomes, for most, the only way they can "get off". Even those that have sex with a partner most likely fantasize about AEA while engaging in normal sex. How they start, is a question that can't be answered directly because it is a product of many variables in sexual development. My best guess from speaking to practicing AEA'ers is that they stumble onto hypoxia by accident or experiment and associate that with sexual arousal. Most in their early teens or pre-teen years. About half had experiences with other adult males in their lives. Not sexual experiences, but innocent games that become sexualized by the young one. Physiology plays an important role in this. Priapism is what happens when someone gets choked to hypoxia.
Here's a scenario. A kid is playing cowboys and Indians with his uncle. The kid wants to be the bad guy and gets caught and tied up by the good guy. Kid gets and erection, likes it and wants to do it again. It gets elaborated over time and viola, AEA.
3. Do you think autoerotic breath control can be engaged in safely? What about breath control play with a partner?
Safety is a relative term. My answer is NO. BCP is safest, with a partner. AEA is solo and more dangerous. Even the most elaborate escape mechanism relies on the user's judgment. Most are impaired by alcohol, which effects their judgment. It's a fine line of consciousness. Lose it and you're dead. The irony of this is that many have told me that the harder it is to escape, the better the fantasy is. **See death fantasy above.
All that is one aspect of safety. Then we get into physiological aspects. If you lose consciousness at the right phase of the sinus rhythm, your heart stops and can't be restarted by CPR. This is the cause of many deaths when couples are engaging in BCP or when police use the choke hold and the suspect dies. Read the article on the internet called "The Medical Realities of Breath Control Play" for more detailed information. Written by a MD. I have it if you can't find it.
4. What are the differences between adults who practice autoerotic asphyxia and adolescents who practice autoerotic asphyxia?
Elaboration. Kids experiment with it. Choking games. Most likely with a friend small group of friends. If it gets linked with sexual arousal and the personality is right, it gets elaborated over time. It becomes AEA, ritualistic and necessary for the practitioner. As adults progress with AEA, their appetite increases for more intense fantasies. This is where you may get clustering of paraphilias....bondage, cross-dressing. Things get complicated from there.
5. Why do you think more men engage in autoerotic asphyxia than women?
It's biology. Simple? (Generally speaking, knowing there are exceptions) Men are visual in their stimulation. Women are emotional in their stimulation. AEA is a visualization of a scenario which brings sexual gratification. That's why when a woman dies from AEA there are not always the
What about god?
Tankers
We generally agree, except that the current Iraq Jr War is run by competent politicians and incompetent warriors, as I mention in another post.
--
make install -not war
I think you are being entirely too charitable. The mods have been real dumbasses lately. Yeah, I know that's you and me, so you and me have been real dumbasses lately. We should get a fucking clue already.
Saddam honestly thought he had those weapons. His own people were lying to him about what they were doing. The facts are that they didn't have any active programs, but they did have plenty of precursor programs. In fact, all the Republican Guard officers assumed that the other units had the chemical weapons. So, it wasn't just made up by Bush. The Iraqis thought they had them too.
There is solid evidence of links to Al Qaeda, but just because you don't believe it doesn't make them not real. I assume that you know about them but relegate them to the "low level" contacts, not policy makers.
You are right that it isn't our job to police the world. However, I have found that saying is often invoked by people who don't want to do something, say for instance, the Republicans when talking about the Balkins. Now it is the Democrats over Iraq. Most of them are just fine being the policemen over things they care about.
Most people are so one-sided on this that it isn't even funny. The fact is that Bush didn't lie. He was mistaken, as was everyone else (though most forget that rather conveniently now). Being mistaken and lying are two entirely different things, but Bush-haters can't (or more realistically - won't) tell the difference.
Frankly, I wasn't happy with the decision to go to war with Iraq, but once it started that became irrelevant. I believe we have to see the effort to rebuild the country through. We simply cannot afford to fail for either us or the Iraqis. Fortunately, I think both major parties in the US understand that even if they aren't totally sure how to finish.
Well? Are you in Halliburton's marketing department, or do you just believe only everything you watch on FoxNews? Change the channel - it might be a good start at imagining how badly the war is going.
--
make install -not war
Amputations are hell, but they can have positive outcomes in the long run. But you don't amputate when you have the flu.
Plenty of people warned before the invasion that the war wasn't being planned well enough to succeed. And now the chorus is chiming in. The thousands of wounded and killed Americans is bad enough. But it's obvious that Iraq is in a state like Cuba, where the American liberation was coopted by native opposition leaders, and the country turned into an enemy of the US.
As for the Clinton embargoes, they achieved the goal that Bush used to con us into this war: disarming Hussein. If national security somehow required we actually replace him with someone friendly to us, we could have achieved success by backing an in-country coalition of Kurds, Shia and Sunnis, letting them take the risks and reap the rewards. The absence of such a coalition correlates exactly with the absence of a governing consensus, regardless of the regime change method. Instead we backed Chalabi, who's still steering us along the Castro course. But of course the destruction/reconstruction of Iraq serves the purpose of filling the Halliburton (Cheney) banks, and distracting from the actual war against Al Qaeda, which is going approximately as badly as Iraq.
If we had pursued an actual foreign policy in the region, we could have built allies, including new states. Instead, we're breeding enemies, alienating our existing allies, and squandering our soldiers' lives, the Treasury, and the American reputation for lawfulness and peacemaking.
--
make install -not war
I'll repeat: you are crazy to think the war in Iraq is going well. The only people who agree with you are people with vested corporate interests, in the government, media and military, and those they've duped. If you're buying their propaganda without watching TV, I suppose you're creative in your self deception. If you're insulted by my assessment of you, in face of the terrible state of the war of which you approve, well I guess we're just going to have disagree about your values.
--
make install -not war
"If Saddam Hussein didn't have WMDs, all he had to do was cooperate with the inspecters, verify he didn't have them, and there would have been no war. He'd still be alive,"
That's American stupidity at its best. Let's twist the facts, ignore the obvious and yell it so loud that there will be enough idiots to believe it without checking.
Saddam cooperated, the inspectors were pulled out one week prior to the attacks and Saddam is still alive. Would you mind explaining your "argument" on basis of these facts?
Yeah, you are way ahead on the road to ruin. If only you were comic characters, I'd laugh you off as kid's stuff. But instead I have to repeat the truth, which is actually obvious: the Iraq war is going badly, passing through the brink of disaster. For Iraqis, Americans, and everyone else in the world vulnerable to its spiraling fallout.
This is a complete disagreement about a very big, serious matter. Where's your evidence that the consensus, that Iraq is in really bad shape, is wrong? Not just the pronouncements of the discredited Rumsfeld, his Iraqi puppeteers, or the rightwing echo chamber which parrots their press releases. Some kind of real evidence.
--
make install -not war