China will one day be second to India. They (the Chinese) also have their hands full trying to keep their country together. While they can 'win' against smaller nations by sheer pig-headedness and bullying (see its recent stoush with Japan) the Chinese long-term prospects are dimmer than many suppose when you look at the internal situation of the country (demographics of the western part of the country, environmental catastrophies currently hushed up, corruption, political dissent growing, increasingly unpopular world image due to support of very nasty regimes, etc).
You do realise that most combat pilots consider the Kobra a great air show stunt but basically worthless in combat. The weakness of the Russian radars, radar warning system and lack of flight time make the Su-27 far less lethal in practice than on paper. Shame you are still thinking in terms of 1995 - global airpower has moved on a lot (and Russian airpower is falling apart due to corruption and lack of maintenance and small serviceable numbers of aircraft).
The parent was talking about Macs working out of the box. I was stating how sometimes it doesn't work (and, incidentally, Linux did in this case). Th reason why is interesting, but beside the point. As far as an ordinary (on-Slashdotter) user is concerned that had to ask their 'guru' (Slashdotter) friend to get it to work. Without bing able to write even I considered the NTFS support in OS X as 'broken'.
nb. Who uses FAT32 anymore? Most of my USB devices are now NTFS or ext3 due to their very large capacities, and I do like to write to them [both of these points have also been pointed out by subsequent posters]. Linux was better for me out-of-the-box in this regard (obviously not for everything, but it is one more data point).
Hmm, NTFS is not supported natively on my MacBook Pro, and neither is ext3. Sure you can get downloads for them, but it is a hassle and not every user knows how to do tis. Linux supports these out-of-the-box. In general Macs are considered way better than Linux for usability but these days it is not as one-sided as people think (which space do you think innovations like CUPS originally came from?). I also miss a lot of my little productivity and admin utilities from Linux that simply don't exist on the Mac.
+1 Interesting for your post though (sorry, blew all my mod points yesterday).
The funny thing is that the Chinese government already considers itself in a competitive "war" with you, and has done for several decades. They will do whatever it takes to "win", primarily for nationalistic reasons (they certainly don't do it for the ordinary citizen, although it is sold as that). Just because you didn't notice it doesn't mean they weren't thinking in those terms. This is quite different to the US where the government funds innovation itself rather than a systematic program of stealing (corporations are trans-national and another thing entirely).
Rubbish. Laws can be made that stop this kind of thing and China must abide by Western laws when doing business in the West (just as Western businesses must operate by Chinese laws in China). Stop the unfounded sensationalism please. Here the EU is clearly creating regulatory laws as is their sovereign right - and China is subject to them whether they like it or not (if they are caught stealing tech the full force of such laws is used against them). I applaud the EU for protecting the innovators in this case.
You do know that the author of X-Plane make 3.5 million personally in the release of X-Plane for the iPhone and sold half a million units within a month of release? That's a substantial number for a 'tiny tiny niche'. Sure it is a niche, but actually not that small and even so is still pretty profitable (except if you're a lumbering giant the size of EA with colossal overheads).
X-Plane is an interesting outlier. Built by a hobbyist not by a professional gaming outfit. Arguably not as good a 'game' as LockOn, BlackShark etc but point taken.
> This is just a non-sequitur. "Most of the gamer press" is not interested in flight simulators, because most gamers are not interested in flight simulators.
Most gamers don't know about flight simulators because the press doesn't report it thinking people aren't interested. It's chicken and egg. The press writes a lot about inane racing games yet a masterpiece like RFactor hardly gets a mention.
Unfortunately most game companies are so growth focused (like most of the US Business world) that it is not good enough to be profitable, but instead must be the most profitable it can be for the next quarter (eg. tactical gains rather than strategic ones). This means that even profitable niche genres don't get a look in - which is why all the great flight sims are written by Russian companies rather than US ones. The US companies that used to make decent sims have evaporated or their work moved offshore (in the same way the rare earth element mining has). If you are a US citizen (disclaimer: I'm not one) you ought to be concerned - this is the reason for your gradual downfall (and pretty much the same reason the Roman Empire declined - barbarians ended up doing all the real work).
Unfortunately these Russian companies don't have the marketing budget of EA, so gamers are usually very unaware of their products or how far the 'art' of gaming has advanced through various sims far more than another me-to yawn-worthy Madden clone. A diverse ecosystem is a good thing. To use your words, this is why we should be 'worried' that console gamers have niche games to choose from. Actually I have a PS3 and good PC, and the games on the PC3 are so unimaginative and 'samey' and so far short of even their direct PC equivalents [compare Battlefield 2 on both, for example]) that it is worth lamenting how the state of the gaming art has been skewed towards the banal by the consoles and what the big players do with them.
In the form of 'Wings of Prey'? It's kind of a sim, looks lovely but you don't always do take offs and landings (in a 'real sim' you often have to land in cross-winds, with one engine out etc etc and this is a challenging as the combat). So I'm still reserving the right to be snobby about console sims - although WoP is a great leap forward.
I think it was their (Oleg, 4c) use of Java and OpenGL in Il-2 that allowed them to port easily from PC to console. They have their alternate DirectX rendering pipeline but that probably wasn't used for the PS3.
Well, there is at least one entire class of games that PC has that consoles don't: flight simulators. Some of this is due to the hardware: serious PC flight-simmers have TrackIR head tracking devices, rudder pedals, HOTAS (throttle & stick joysticks), throttle quadrants, multi-function displays (MFDs), assignable keypads, & touchcreens. These are simply not available for consoles where H.A.W.X. is considered to be the equivalent of LockOn, DCS:BlackShark, DCS:Warthog, Falcon 4, Flight Simulator X, Il;-2 1946, or even the lightweight Third Wire series. The consoles are no where near the same league for this, admittedly niche, genre - all you get are kinda basic FPS, RPG, and RTS with lousy moddability. Unfortunately most of the gamer press is mostly oblivious/uninterested in sims, which means the punters are so poorly informed they still think the one console or the other is the bees knees (understandable if you have the gaming budget of a teen).
What you propose is not justice, that's vigilanteeism. While you might not be the guy that puts the noose around the neck it appears you are happy to stand in the background with a pitch fork.
There is a huge difference between leaking the private affairs of individuals (what you are proposing) and those of corporations and governments (which Wikileaks restricts itself to).
I your own example how do you know that the photograph was not of a woman who was willing to be handcuffed at the time (some people actually do practice such things and enjoy it)- even if she changed her story later?
Maybe you ought to spend more time thinking about your position.
It's hard to argue with the "Holier than thou" attitude we're seeing a lot these days. There will be no-one within Microsoft who can stand up and say "Enough!" as the retort will be, "So you don't believe in protecting the children then?" (or "You are supporting the terrorists then", or "Supporting transparent government is helping getting our boys killed", or any other position that no reasonable person would take - yet not a direct or certain consequence of opting for real freedom). This is how most social/political groups get more and more radical over time (expect this trend to accelerate with Microsoft now a precedent has been set). The "nanny corporation" makes out (lol) as if having fun during sex is taboo. Since when did technologists adopt the old puritannical position (lol) of "Oh no, you only do it for procreation"? (in a married relationship, in the bedroom only, in the authorized missionary position, in the front-door only [lurlz] etc etc).
Sure, having smut in front of young children is not desirable, but c'mon, have you seen a music video lately (probably not if think a Zune would be cool for your sounds)? Also, Microsoft have no problem with their devices being used to represent (in increasingly high definition) people being dismembered, gutted, run over, shot, bombed, zapped, crushed, stabbed, exploded, etc. etc. on their console but can't stand to have people have natural human relations while also messing around with an XBox. "Just think of the shareholders" is a ridiculous excuse for being so heavy handed to their development partners and clients.
What gets put on an XBox should be at the discretion of the owners and the marketplace supplying those owners, provided all relevant laws are adhered to. Both adults and parents can manage that with enough the need of a nanny state or nanny corporation just as they already can manage what is on their DVD player or computer (and if they can't, they can purchase from a large range of software to sort it out for them). Microsoft are as big dickheads as Apple (for all you haters out there slamming Apple as if they were the only ones).
Simple solution. Don't reward Microsoft by buying or giving an XBox. Corporates only listen to money, and they notice trends, so do your duty.
Mate, when a woman has a new man he's the 'World's Best Screw' (or at least that what she tells her friends). Later on, as time has passed, his standing in her mind changes. The man has probably not changed that much (although passion diminishes, so possibly less effort is involved) but mostly the woman's perception of him. It is a change mostly in her own mind and feelings for someone. Here we have a classic case of it. Two women who were hot for Julian suddenly changed their minds when they found out he is a 'playa'. Not only did they change their minds about him but they also selectively re-wrote history ("oh, he's a bad lay" despite them coming back for more over weeks) as they are wont to do. Perhaps they were the lousy lays but never think of turning the mirror on themselves? The funny thing is that a Big Deflection is going on and governments and media are trying to make it about Julian's sex life and hairstyle rather than the content of the leaked cables... and suckers fall right into it.
You do know that the Pentagon is given the released documents and get a chance to tell wikileaks if they have missed anything important before release? Did they not tell you that in your part of the World (hence you rabid reaction)?
Only if I am found *guilty* can you violate my/your privacy, since your are presumed innocent until that point (or at least, that is how it is supposed to work, even of governments and media selectively ignore this). You can't violate privacy on *accusation* alone (which is all we have so far with Assange and you are suggesting is a *duty*). Even if you are found guilty you can still get name suppression and sealed documents. Even convicted criminals have rights dontcha know.
> But my usual disclaimer when I say that: I don't support censorship of it. Kids will learn to screw. I watched a bunch of porn as a kid, and it was only a minor contributor to why I'm a miserable piece of crap adult.
Oh, kids can see murder every day in a lot of gruesome ways on TV and movies - but a naked human is, gasp, indecent and it is justified to trample every human right to prevent *anyone* be seeing or thinking about this, just think of the children!
What a load of fascist fantasy bullshit. Your writing is so wrong on so many levels for a supposed former "Nuke/ChemBio defence officer":
Here are some of the obvious defects:
The US lets junior and non-planning officers see its nuclear war plans. Yeah right.
The US had a lot of megaton weapons. Simply not true. Smaller weapons were preferred.
The US would nuke every hamlet with a "population over 500". What would that achieve? A counterforce strategy may target cities but usually for petroleum refining and storage facilities, logistics hubs, shipyards and other means of waging war. Destroying cities was collateral and deliberate targeting seems only to be considered as a means of breaking the enemy's will, not as an end in itself.
The megaton weapons the US did have was for *counterforce* strikes. The whole point of these was to preserve them. Using them on Korean villages and not keeping them for use against Soviet and Chinese ICBMs is simply rubbish.
Most of the warheads the US had were low-yield tact nukes for the Honest John and variable-yield B61 gravity bomb etc. There weren't actually that many ICBM and SLBM compared to tac nukes.
"Glassing" (what a rabid warmongering word that is) North Korea extensively is more likely to bring in the ire of Russia, China, and the rest of the World (eg. wavering French commitment to unified NATO command). The US planners would try use as few nukes to achieve their objective, nor many.
Sure, all armies trained on the nuclear battlefield to maneuver near recent explosions to maximize exploitation of the effects. Doesn't mean the US was going to zap cities willy-nilly with "Metaton" weapons as you write.
Calculating yes. Smarter than Westerners, no. They achieve tactical gains but actually slowly have been losing strategically. The South Koreans are starting to close up to the North (it was different even a few years ago). Once the South hardens its hearts it is inevitable the North will lose. The Norks have fewer resources, allies, population. The military balance is shifting in favor of the South and the will to fight is increasing in the South and decreasing in the North. Remember Iraq had the fourth largest army in the world in 1991 and was battle tested and they were fighting for their country but they were still taken apart by a fraction of America and the West's combat power (which is only got better in the last two decades). The Norks are being retards by playing bully, and ruining their own future. Shame you don't know history. The NK Army was smashed in the Korean War, and only the massive intervention of the Chinese (and supplies from the Soviet Union) stabilised the situation. Neither of them will save the North now. Shame that the Norks still believe their own bullshit (as you appear also to do). The reality is that the South is running out of patience and the North is running out of time (from an internal implosion, not an insurrection but simply an inability of the government to function - just as the much more mighty Soviet Union eventually fell apart).
Nuclear arsenals were so large because of the "counter force" strategy of winning my blasting your opponents arsenal while retaining some yourself. With sub,arine launched missiles this because impossible to achieve, and the lower accuracy of sub-launched missiles made hitting hardened silos even more unlikely to succeed (both reducing the effectiveness of emplyoing a first strike on an opponent, and reducing the effect of a first strike made against you - decreasing the need to "launch on warning" which was very risky). The strategy of destroying cities in "counter value" strikes was not actually the main objective, although was an option. Killing an opponents population was not the best way to win a nuclear war. The idea was to destroy their forces and then *threaten* the cities. You would win without actually having to do it - but that isn't as dramatic as everyone dying in a nuclear winter so people don't talk about it or even bother to find out. It is actually unlikely that more than a few cities would have been destroyed (as awful as that is), so the whole "wiping ourselves out" was possible but not actually very probably (the largely uninhabited missile silos in the steppes and praries would have been roasted pretty hard - with flow on environmental effects - but that is not actually enough to cause extinction).
I use Firefox regularly on a Mac (typing now), Win7 and Linux is pretty much the same experience. The differences are pretty much negligible because you spend your time looking inside the window rather than at the menu bar or outside the frame. But yes, the arguments are rationalizations of decisions made mostly by instinct.
Slashdot Mirror
China will one day be second to India. They (the Chinese) also have their hands full trying to keep their country together. While they can 'win' against smaller nations by sheer pig-headedness and bullying (see its recent stoush with Japan) the Chinese long-term prospects are dimmer than many suppose when you look at the internal situation of the country (demographics of the western part of the country, environmental catastrophies currently hushed up, corruption, political dissent growing, increasingly unpopular world image due to support of very nasty regimes, etc).
You do realise that most combat pilots consider the Kobra a great air show stunt but basically worthless in combat. The weakness of the Russian radars, radar warning system and lack of flight time make the Su-27 far less lethal in practice than on paper. Shame you are still thinking in terms of 1995 - global airpower has moved on a lot (and Russian airpower is falling apart due to corruption and lack of maintenance and small serviceable numbers of aircraft).
The parent was talking about Macs working out of the box. I was stating how sometimes it doesn't work (and, incidentally, Linux did in this case). Th reason why is interesting, but beside the point. As far as an ordinary (on-Slashdotter) user is concerned that had to ask their 'guru' (Slashdotter) friend to get it to work. Without bing able to write even I considered the NTFS support in OS X as 'broken'.
nb. Who uses FAT32 anymore? Most of my USB devices are now NTFS or ext3 due to their very large capacities, and I do like to write to them [both of these points have also been pointed out by subsequent posters]. Linux was better for me out-of-the-box in this regard (obviously not for everything, but it is one more data point).
Hmm, NTFS is not supported natively on my MacBook Pro, and neither is ext3. Sure you can get downloads for them, but it is a hassle and not every user knows how to do tis. Linux supports these out-of-the-box. In general Macs are considered way better than Linux for usability but these days it is not as one-sided as people think (which space do you think innovations like CUPS originally came from?). I also miss a lot of my little productivity and admin utilities from Linux that simply don't exist on the Mac.
+1 Interesting for your post though (sorry, blew all my mod points yesterday).
The funny thing is that the Chinese government already considers itself in a competitive "war" with you, and has done for several decades. They will do whatever it takes to "win", primarily for nationalistic reasons (they certainly don't do it for the ordinary citizen, although it is sold as that). Just because you didn't notice it doesn't mean they weren't thinking in those terms. This is quite different to the US where the government funds innovation itself rather than a systematic program of stealing (corporations are trans-national and another thing entirely).
Rubbish. Laws can be made that stop this kind of thing and China must abide by Western laws when doing business in the West (just as Western businesses must operate by Chinese laws in China). Stop the unfounded sensationalism please. Here the EU is clearly creating regulatory laws as is their sovereign right - and China is subject to them whether they like it or not (if they are caught stealing tech the full force of such laws is used against them). I applaud the EU for protecting the innovators in this case.
You do know that the author of X-Plane make 3.5 million personally in the release of X-Plane for the iPhone and sold half a million units within a month of release? That's a substantial number for a 'tiny tiny niche'. Sure it is a niche, but actually not that small and even so is still pretty profitable (except if you're a lumbering giant the size of EA with colossal overheads).
Umm, X-Plane? A 100% American product.
X-Plane is an interesting outlier. Built by a hobbyist not by a professional gaming outfit. Arguably not as good a 'game' as LockOn, BlackShark etc but point taken.
> This is just a non-sequitur. "Most of the gamer press" is not interested in flight simulators, because most gamers are not interested in flight simulators.
Most gamers don't know about flight simulators because the press doesn't report it thinking people aren't interested. It's chicken and egg. The press writes a lot about inane racing games yet a masterpiece like RFactor hardly gets a mention.
Unfortunately most game companies are so growth focused (like most of the US Business world) that it is not good enough to be profitable, but instead must be the most profitable it can be for the next quarter (eg. tactical gains rather than strategic ones). This means that even profitable niche genres don't get a look in - which is why all the great flight sims are written by Russian companies rather than US ones. The US companies that used to make decent sims have evaporated or their work moved offshore (in the same way the rare earth element mining has). If you are a US citizen (disclaimer: I'm not one) you ought to be concerned - this is the reason for your gradual downfall (and pretty much the same reason the Roman Empire declined - barbarians ended up doing all the real work).
Unfortunately these Russian companies don't have the marketing budget of EA, so gamers are usually very unaware of their products or how far the 'art' of gaming has advanced through various sims far more than another me-to yawn-worthy Madden clone. A diverse ecosystem is a good thing. To use your words, this is why we should be 'worried' that console gamers have niche games to choose from. Actually I have a PS3 and good PC, and the games on the PC3 are so unimaginative and 'samey' and so far short of even their direct PC equivalents [compare Battlefield 2 on both, for example]) that it is worth lamenting how the state of the gaming art has been skewed towards the banal by the consoles and what the big players do with them.
In the form of 'Wings of Prey'? It's kind of a sim, looks lovely but you don't always do take offs and landings (in a 'real sim' you often have to land in cross-winds, with one engine out etc etc and this is a challenging as the combat). So I'm still reserving the right to be snobby about console sims - although WoP is a great leap forward.
I think it was their (Oleg, 4c) use of Java and OpenGL in Il-2 that allowed them to port easily from PC to console. They have their alternate DirectX rendering pipeline but that probably wasn't used for the PS3.
Well, there is at least one entire class of games that PC has that consoles don't: flight simulators. Some of this is due to the hardware: serious PC flight-simmers have TrackIR head tracking devices, rudder pedals, HOTAS (throttle & stick joysticks), throttle quadrants, multi-function displays (MFDs), assignable keypads, & touchcreens. These are simply not available for consoles where H.A.W.X. is considered to be the equivalent of LockOn, DCS:BlackShark, DCS:Warthog, Falcon 4, Flight Simulator X, Il;-2 1946, or even the lightweight Third Wire series. The consoles are no where near the same league for this, admittedly niche, genre - all you get are kinda basic FPS, RPG, and RTS with lousy moddability. Unfortunately most of the gamer press is mostly oblivious/uninterested in sims, which means the punters are so poorly informed they still think the one console or the other is the bees knees (understandable if you have the gaming budget of a teen).
What you propose is not justice, that's vigilanteeism. While you might not be the guy that puts the noose around the neck it appears you are happy to stand in the background with a pitch fork.
There is a huge difference between leaking the private affairs of individuals (what you are proposing) and those of corporations and governments (which Wikileaks restricts itself to).
I your own example how do you know that the photograph was not of a woman who was willing to be handcuffed at the time (some people actually do practice such things and enjoy it)- even if she changed her story later?
Maybe you ought to spend more time thinking about your position.
It's hard to argue with the "Holier than thou" attitude we're seeing a lot these days. There will be no-one within Microsoft who can stand up and say "Enough!" as the retort will be, "So you don't believe in protecting the children then?" (or "You are supporting the terrorists then", or "Supporting transparent government is helping getting our boys killed", or any other position that no reasonable person would take - yet not a direct or certain consequence of opting for real freedom). This is how most social/political groups get more and more radical over time (expect this trend to accelerate with Microsoft now a precedent has been set). The "nanny corporation" makes out (lol) as if having fun during sex is taboo. Since when did technologists adopt the old puritannical position (lol) of "Oh no, you only do it for procreation"? (in a married relationship, in the bedroom only, in the authorized missionary position, in the front-door only [lurlz] etc etc).
Sure, having smut in front of young children is not desirable, but c'mon, have you seen a music video lately (probably not if think a Zune would be cool for your sounds)? Also, Microsoft have no problem with their devices being used to represent (in increasingly high definition) people being dismembered, gutted, run over, shot, bombed, zapped, crushed, stabbed, exploded, etc. etc. on their console but can't stand to have people have natural human relations while also messing around with an XBox. "Just think of the shareholders" is a ridiculous excuse for being so heavy handed to their development partners and clients.
What gets put on an XBox should be at the discretion of the owners and the marketplace supplying those owners, provided all relevant laws are adhered to. Both adults and parents can manage that with enough the need of a nanny state or nanny corporation just as they already can manage what is on their DVD player or computer (and if they can't, they can purchase from a large range of software to sort it out for them). Microsoft are as big dickheads as Apple (for all you haters out there slamming Apple as if they were the only ones).
Simple solution. Don't reward Microsoft by buying or giving an XBox. Corporates only listen to money, and they notice trends, so do your duty.
> I guess my wife and I should turn ourselves in to Child Protective Services right now.
Lol. Don't worry, they'll come to you. Is that a knock on your door?
Mate, when a woman has a new man he's the 'World's Best Screw' (or at least that what she tells her friends). Later on, as time has passed, his standing in her mind changes. The man has probably not changed that much (although passion diminishes, so possibly less effort is involved) but mostly the woman's perception of him. It is a change mostly in her own mind and feelings for someone. Here we have a classic case of it. Two women who were hot for Julian suddenly changed their minds when they found out he is a 'playa'. Not only did they change their minds about him but they also selectively re-wrote history ("oh, he's a bad lay" despite them coming back for more over weeks) as they are wont to do. Perhaps they were the lousy lays but never think of turning the mirror on themselves? The funny thing is that a Big Deflection is going on and governments and media are trying to make it about Julian's sex life and hairstyle rather than the content of the leaked cables ... and suckers fall right into it.
You do know that the Pentagon is given the released documents and get a chance to tell wikileaks if they have missed anything important before release? Did they not tell you that in your part of the World (hence you rabid reaction)?
Only if I am found *guilty* can you violate my/your privacy, since your are presumed innocent until that point (or at least, that is how it is supposed to work, even of governments and media selectively ignore this). You can't violate privacy on *accusation* alone (which is all we have so far with Assange and you are suggesting is a *duty*). Even if you are found guilty you can still get name suppression and sealed documents. Even convicted criminals have rights dontcha know.
Doesn't matter, The document should still be presented or else it is all 'hearsay'.
> But my usual disclaimer when I say that: I don't support censorship of it. Kids will learn to screw. I watched a bunch of porn as a kid, and it was only a minor contributor to why I'm a miserable piece of crap adult.
LOL! +1 Funny.
Oh, kids can see murder every day in a lot of gruesome ways on TV and movies - but a naked human is, gasp, indecent and it is justified to trample every human right to prevent *anyone* be seeing or thinking about this, just think of the children!
What a load of fascist fantasy bullshit. Your writing is so wrong on so many levels for a supposed former "Nuke/ChemBio defence officer":
Here are some of the obvious defects:
Sure, all armies trained on the nuclear battlefield to maneuver near recent explosions to maximize exploitation of the effects. Doesn't mean the US was going to zap cities willy-nilly with "Metaton" weapons as you write.
Calculating yes. Smarter than Westerners, no. They achieve tactical gains but actually slowly have been losing strategically. The South Koreans are starting to close up to the North (it was different even a few years ago). Once the South hardens its hearts it is inevitable the North will lose. The Norks have fewer resources, allies, population. The military balance is shifting in favor of the South and the will to fight is increasing in the South and decreasing in the North. Remember Iraq had the fourth largest army in the world in 1991 and was battle tested and they were fighting for their country but they were still taken apart by a fraction of America and the West's combat power (which is only got better in the last two decades). The Norks are being retards by playing bully, and ruining their own future. Shame you don't know history. The NK Army was smashed in the Korean War, and only the massive intervention of the Chinese (and supplies from the Soviet Union) stabilised the situation. Neither of them will save the North now. Shame that the Norks still believe their own bullshit (as you appear also to do). The reality is that the South is running out of patience and the North is running out of time (from an internal implosion, not an insurrection but simply an inability of the government to function - just as the much more mighty Soviet Union eventually fell apart).
Nuclear arsenals were so large because of the "counter force" strategy of winning my blasting your opponents arsenal while retaining some yourself. With sub,arine launched missiles this because impossible to achieve, and the lower accuracy of sub-launched missiles made hitting hardened silos even more unlikely to succeed (both reducing the effectiveness of emplyoing a first strike on an opponent, and reducing the effect of a first strike made against you - decreasing the need to "launch on warning" which was very risky). The strategy of destroying cities in "counter value" strikes was not actually the main objective, although was an option. Killing an opponents population was not the best way to win a nuclear war. The idea was to destroy their forces and then *threaten* the cities. You would win without actually having to do it - but that isn't as dramatic as everyone dying in a nuclear winter so people don't talk about it or even bother to find out. It is actually unlikely that more than a few cities would have been destroyed (as awful as that is), so the whole "wiping ourselves out" was possible but not actually very probably (the largely uninhabited missile silos in the steppes and praries would have been roasted pretty hard - with flow on environmental effects - but that is not actually enough to cause extinction).
I use Firefox regularly on a Mac (typing now), Win7 and Linux is pretty much the same experience. The differences are pretty much negligible because you spend your time looking inside the window rather than at the menu bar or outside the frame. But yes, the arguments are rationalizations of decisions made mostly by instinct.
Don't forget gravitational microlensing as a technique!