There is, however, a problem with this line of thought. Broken down rather simply thusly:
When both nations had thousands, or 10's of thousands of warheads, and the capability to deliver these, then Mutually Assured Destruction was very evident and very real.
Reduce by half. Now we have five thousand. Still enough to reduce any nation to a pile of radioactive slag.
Reduce again and again.
Suddenly you and another country only have 200 missles left.
A first strike option is now survivable.
Think of it this way: get in close with subs and bombers to reduce reaction time, hit launch sites (ICBM's aren't really that easy to hide) and command posts and rely on your defense system to get a bunch of the rest. If you take out half, then there are a hundred that can launch or be used, and since you struck first, you're on alert for counter-attacks and can plan accordingly. Your defenses are on alert and ready for any retaliation, if any is coming.
Yes, you'll take some casualties, but as a whole, you've survived and the enemy hasn't.
I don't see this happening, as the climate between the nations that could do this has warmed, and current leadership asside, neither country wants to see this happen. At least with the regimes we both have.
You can see, however, that with the right leadership, this calculus can change.
I've been travelling fulltime for around 4 years, now, so I have a bit of insight into the process. I do technical consulting with Lawson-so it's big clients and lots of IT people.
First off, lemme address the "cyberbabes" you talked about.
Have you looked at the local IT departments? If I haven't been to one where I met an attractive, female techie yet. Most people there are 40+...easy. Now, I generally deal with the upper level techies, not the operators, help desk staff and what not, so that may have something to do with it.
Being on the road means you have no life. None. The only activity I can reasonably do is run. I haven't made any new friends since traveling, at those I'd call good friends, and have barely kept the one I have.
Traveling is overrated, and unless you're being WELL compensated for it, it's just not worth it.
This is, of course, all IMHO. I thought the same way you did when I first started, and the first six or so months were actually pretty cool. It gets old really fast, however.
Why? Internet access isn't a right, just like (despite what your average American might think) driving a car is not a right.
Let's follow that logic a bit:
Who defines who can and can't drive? There are, cops on the road and licensing bureau's to do this (unless you like in Illinois and then you can bribe your local DMV). There are, however, no such entites on the "info-highway."
Who would you have act in this manner? Who would be responsible for the virtual pulling over and ticketing of irresponsible users?
Is this the job of the ISP?
Where should these new users go for training? As has been put forward here more than once, most, if not all ISP's don't do anything at all!
I agree with what the ISP did. They removed a nuisance from the rest of the community, and allowed the rest of the community to funtion as normal. These people had to jump through some extra hoops to get their access back, but when they did, they were most likely a) completely pissed and the ISP for doing that and b) more educated (even if it had to be crammed down their throat) then they were before and, therefore (theoretically) better users.
Again, the analogy breaks down somewhat, becuase if I go to traffic school for a speeding ticket, you can be assured that it is merely for keeping the points off my license and not to learn anything!
If there aren't going to be any "netcops" than the ISP's are justified in policing their little patched of the frontier.
I have been reading a lot about these viruses in mainstream and off-line media, and not one has yet to say this has to do with a very specific Windows weakness.
Not one mentions the fact that Apples can't get this. I don't know who Microsoft's spin-meisters are, but they should be patted on the back for this one. They have managed to avoid taking any blame for faulty software.
As was pointed out in an earlier post, Apples are immune to this sort of thing. Say what you will about them, this is just another reason why it is a superiour OS.
Don't get me wrong, I don't have a Mac anymore, as they don't run the games I want to play, nor does the ERP I consult on have a Mac front-end, but for the "75 year old" who just wants email-they are great.
This is one area I have to disagree with him (El Presidente) about.
The best thing to happen to the FPS world isn't the neat-o engine of Q3, but was the networking for these games. I have played, and I'm sure others have, CS and Q3 for hours on-line. It's the same thing, but against people it's much more interesting and viceral.
If Nintendo ignored the online side of games, then I don't see how they can survive. IMHO, this goes for the rest of they game makers. Oh, don't get me wrong, they will survive, because plenty of people will buy and play single player games, but they won't be the dominate force they are now.
Slashdot Mirror
There is, however, a problem with this line of thought. Broken down rather simply thusly:
When both nations had thousands, or 10's of thousands of warheads, and the capability to deliver these, then Mutually Assured Destruction was very evident and very real.
Reduce by half. Now we have five thousand. Still enough to reduce any nation to a pile of radioactive slag.
Reduce again and again.
Suddenly you and another country only have 200 missles left.
A first strike option is now survivable.
Think of it this way: get in close with subs and bombers to reduce reaction time, hit launch sites (ICBM's aren't really that easy to hide) and command posts and rely on your defense system to get a bunch of the rest. If you take out half, then there are a hundred that can launch or be used, and since you struck first, you're on alert for counter-attacks and can plan accordingly. Your defenses are on alert and ready for any retaliation, if any is coming.
Yes, you'll take some casualties, but as a whole, you've survived and the enemy hasn't.
I don't see this happening, as the climate between the nations that could do this has warmed, and current leadership asside, neither country wants to see this happen. At least with the regimes we both have.
You can see, however, that with the right leadership, this calculus can change.
david
oh nellie...where to begin
I've been travelling fulltime for around 4 years, now, so I have a bit of insight into the process. I do technical consulting with Lawson-so it's big clients and lots of IT people.
First off, lemme address the "cyberbabes" you talked about.
Have you looked at the local IT departments? If I haven't been to one where I met an attractive, female techie yet. Most people there are 40+...easy. Now, I generally deal with the upper level techies, not the operators, help desk staff and what not, so that may have something to do with it.
Being on the road means you have no life. None. The only activity I can reasonably do is run. I haven't made any new friends since traveling, at those I'd call good friends, and have barely kept the one I have.
Traveling is overrated, and unless you're being WELL compensated for it, it's just not worth it.
This is, of course, all IMHO. I thought the same way you did when I first started, and the first six or so months were actually pretty cool. It gets old really fast, however.
david
Why? Internet access isn't a right, just like (despite what your average American might think) driving a car is not a right.
Let's follow that logic a bit:
Who defines who can and can't drive? There are, cops on the road and licensing bureau's to do this (unless you like in Illinois and then you can bribe your local DMV). There are, however, no such entites on the "info-highway."
Who would you have act in this manner? Who would be responsible for the virtual pulling over and ticketing of irresponsible users?
Is this the job of the ISP?
Where should these new users go for training? As has been put forward here more than once, most, if not all ISP's don't do anything at all!
I agree with what the ISP did. They removed a nuisance from the rest of the community, and allowed the rest of the community to funtion as normal. These people had to jump through some extra hoops to get their access back, but when they did, they were most likely a) completely pissed and the ISP for doing that and b) more educated (even if it had to be crammed down their throat) then they were before and, therefore (theoretically) better users.
Again, the analogy breaks down somewhat, becuase if I go to traffic school for a speeding ticket, you can be assured that it is merely for keeping the points off my license and not to learn anything!
If there aren't going to be any "netcops" than the ISP's are justified in policing their little patched of the frontier.
david
I have been reading a lot about these viruses in mainstream and off-line media, and not one has yet to say this has to do with a very specific Windows weakness.
Not one mentions the fact that Apples can't get this. I don't know who Microsoft's spin-meisters are, but they should be patted on the back for this one. They have managed to avoid taking any blame for faulty software.
As was pointed out in an earlier post, Apples are immune to this sort of thing. Say what you will about them, this is just another reason why it is a superiour OS.
Don't get me wrong, I don't have a Mac anymore, as they don't run the games I want to play, nor does the ERP I consult on have a Mac front-end, but for the "75 year old" who just wants email-they are great.
david
This is one area I have to disagree with him (El Presidente) about.
The best thing to happen to the FPS world isn't the neat-o engine of Q3, but was the networking for these games. I have played, and I'm sure others have, CS and Q3 for hours on-line. It's the same thing, but against people it's much more interesting and viceral.
If Nintendo ignored the online side of games, then I don't see how they can survive. IMHO, this goes for the rest of they game makers. Oh, don't get me wrong, they will survive, because plenty of people will buy and play single player games, but they won't be the dominate force they are now.
david