Look - my point is very simple and you are completely failing to address it. If there was fear it would have been an instant cave-in instead of a drawn out situation and a deal resulting in the US removing the missiles from Turkey and Italy (which IMHO was a huge backdown). If you want to assert that such a backdown was a non-event I can't see how I can continue to even pretend to take you seriously without looking like an idiot as well.
F65.3 seems to be providing half the packets on the internet. Ever looked at a picture of someone having sex? You can be defined as a voyeur for that if someone nitpicks enough. This "mental disorders" ban is fucking insane, but it makes the sort of reactionary pricks that push this sort of thing look "conservative" to their support base. Yet another symptom of what happens when a state is under the control of a very small number of powerful people.
I do not see how you can look at this and see an outcome where we gave up nothing
It's even on wikipedia FFS
On October 27, after much deliberation between the Soviet Union and Kennedy's cabinet, Kennedy secretly agreed to remove all missiles set in southern Italy and in Turkey, the latter on the border of the Soviet Union, in exchange for Khrushchev removing all missiles in Cuba
Yes I get that you are showing off your patriotism but there is no need in this situation.
Did you even read my posts before replying? It's clear that you have a point to push, a flag to wave and someone to cheer for but I was merely writing about how the "detterant effect" didn't really deter before you jumped in here to push your little barrow. None of your cheering changes that point.
I remember just how big a loss everyone thought the Russians took
So? What part of "not as good as the first offer" do you not understand? What part of not unconditional do you not understand? There was vast superiority yet the USSR did not just flee in terror but offered diminishing deals. Why are you putting so much "spin" on this when it's done and dusted history and just a dry example as to why it's not the fear of nukes that does it but the fear of someone using the nukes. They knew how much they could push Kennedy despite his "pay any price" speech - ultimately it's stupid to pay a high price for not much even if it sounds good in a speech.
Losing the Cuban missiles left the Russians with nothing comparable.
They lost that option in exchange for the US having to make some changes - seriously, take a look at the two deals offered. If the detterant really did deter then there would be no deal, especially not the one accepted, and the USSR would just have had to scurry off with nothing in exchange. Is that clear enough to understand yet? The cries of "me big atomic man, you run away" were not enough to scare away the limping atomic midget in comparison. It did not deter in that situation and that's as extreme as it got thanks to insane brinksmanship and the "missle gap" myth spouted to win an election (the myth being that the US was behind the USSR, there was a huge gap but it was the US that was vastly ahead).
Removal of the missiles from Cuba was a major strategic setback for the USSR
Bullshit - it was tit for tat posturing and it was most likely over before any missiles could even get off the boat.
We had the George Washington class subs... far more fire power
That is my point. An overwhelming nuclear "detterant", yet people were still played and the political outcome didn't end up as one sided as the military threat.
Think again about whether it's easier to agitate for funding against a perceived military threat or a bunch of script kiddies ripping off credit card numbers. If you had a choice which squeaky wheel would you pick to demand some oil?
Consider the two deals - the private one and the far worse publicly announced deal the next day that Kennedy decided he had to accept, then get back to me. As context consider what you correctly pointed out was a vast nuclear superiority on the US side. It didn't seem to be an absolute trump card in that situation did it?
If you can't follow the loops you are asleep since it paces them out, and it's consistent. The Space Corps stuff is a good bit of background scenery to the main story and is the main thing that tells you it's in Heinlein's idea of the 1970s and a good way to tell the viewer that you don't have to worry about events in the film that never happened in the 1970s. Very good casting, good plot, good acting (some people will hate the accent of one character but I think it fits) - maybe a bit slow in parts but that could be so that the viewer can keep track of the time loops while half asleep or drunk.
So how did I see it? I'm in the future (international date line), and it had a limited release in Australia a few months ago.
Various empire building "cyberwarfare" types do even if it's to the detriment of other parts of the government that are defunded to feed their growth. I've spoken to someone who managed to get out of N.K. so I'm well aware that it's a basket case of evil, but we're just being misdirected by self serving pricks in this case. The links were suggested long after the hack and the very convenient story started building after that.
I think it's Sony trying to get some sort of PR out of being hacked by blowing a flimsy rumour out of proportion and linking it to that movie to salvage something out of it. Seriously, what are the consequences? The rumour existed, cynically using it for their profit is not something that's going to rebound because it "might be true" in some sort of weird and incredibly unlikely chain of events, so people are going to give them the benefit of the doubt no matter how much they cynically twist it, especially since reality is unlikely to be as interesting a story.
It's handy for departmental empire building, cheap politics and demands for funds if it's North Korea instead of the ordinary bunch of criminals that it appeared to be until long after the actual hacks happened. North Korea complaining about a movie about the killing of their high priest of a cult to his dead ancestors (that place is weird) is a given whether they were involved or not and is not evidence of any kind. I'm sure they would have loved to have done it, but it's very unlikely that they did
The deal you are talking about left the USSR only bombers to hit the U.S..... ICBM
Think a little bit about what ICBM stands for and you'll get a bit of an idea why they didn't care about a deal that meant they couldn't site in Cuba. Then think about what was offered in the first private offer and how much less was in the public offer the next day - the offer that Kennedy decided he had to take.
The comparison is completely laughable, I don't even want to go into the differential between the west and eastblock on submarine launched nukes.
Precisely, that is my point - despite the vast superiority Kennedy caved in which is an illustration of the nuclear threat not deterring the USSR anywhere near as much as is assumed by soundbite history.
All up it there are some that suggest that the nuclear deterrent value against the USSR is overstated since they did whatever they wanted to anyway, and in the end had more nukes than the USA (which was more of a symptom of them fucking up their economy than anything else - far more very expensive nukes than they could ever possibly find rockets for, as distinct from the USA with a lot less nukes but most potentially usable). I used balls because in hindsight there was so much ridiculous posturing when the stakes were high - the Cuban missile crisis was testosterone ruling over common sense and the outcome showed that Kennedy had taken things so far that the USSR had him by the balls and he had to take whatever was offered in case the deal got worse for a second time.
The above poster has pointed at implementation but not implications.
The whole idea sucks in a massive way for everyone. Your company now has people with full access to the internet banking details of any employee that logged in from the workplace. Now you've got an extra level of potential fallout from disgruntled employees or an outright criminal that has wormed their way in. Being a man in the middle with SSL is a liability for anyone law abiding in the middle - so counter those fools that want to put in "SSL accelerator" devices with the possibility of having to go toe to toe with lawyers from a major bank. Then there's the less than zero possibility that the vendor of the device can see that traffic that you are so conveniently letting the device see in the clear. Can you trust their employees? Can you trust anyone they are giving access to? Is some government contractor two steps removed like Snowden going to have access? It appears that sort of thing has already happened, I think it was some Cisco devices with backdoors but it may have been another vendor.
This sort of fucking stupid breakage of what is supposed to be trusted communication just for the sake a of a bit of convenience goes against the entire point of the communication and is an accident waiting to happen. The sort of controlling pricks that make their staff wear voice recorders at work may like it for voyeristic reasons, but it's stupid on a variety of levels. If a workplace is large enough for an SSL proxy to have any effect you can notice on performance then it large enough that multiple people will have access to the traffic and the risk of abuse increases dramatically.
So yes, becoming very common, but very stupid and the wet dream of identity thieves, NSA etc
Because outright fraud was more convenient than blocking.
If it wasn't happening on a computer we'd be seeing people getting dragged into court instead of the casual acceptance of fraud we see around a lot of SSL issues.
Slashdot Mirror
Look - my point is very simple and you are completely failing to address it. If there was fear it would have been an instant cave-in instead of a drawn out situation and a deal resulting in the US removing the missiles from Turkey and Italy (which IMHO was a huge backdown). If you want to assert that such a backdown was a non-event I can't see how I can continue to even pretend to take you seriously without looking like an idiot as well.
It's a common side effect of a leader removing any potential competition for his job.
F65.3 seems to be providing half the packets on the internet. Ever looked at a picture of someone having sex? You can be defined as a voyeur for that if someone nitpicks enough.
This "mental disorders" ban is fucking insane, but it makes the sort of reactionary pricks that push this sort of thing look "conservative" to their support base. Yet another symptom of what happens when a state is under the control of a very small number of powerful people.
"Lost" sort of did Ubik badly.
Sarah Snook is awesome in the role of the "man" who writes short stories for a living.
Your HR department and your payroll staff.
It's even on wikipedia FFS
Yes I get that you are showing off your patriotism but there is no need in this situation.
So? What part of "not as good as the first offer" do you not understand? What part of not unconditional do you not understand? There was vast superiority yet the USSR did not just flee in terror but offered diminishing deals. Why are you putting so much "spin" on this when it's done and dusted history and just a dry example as to why it's not the fear of nukes that does it but the fear of someone using the nukes.
They knew how much they could push Kennedy despite his "pay any price" speech - ultimately it's stupid to pay a high price for not much even if it sounds good in a speech.
They lost that option in exchange for the US having to make some changes - seriously, take a look at the two deals offered.
If the detterant really did deter then there would be no deal, especially not the one accepted, and the USSR would just have had to scurry off with nothing in exchange. Is that clear enough to understand yet? The cries of "me big atomic man, you run away" were not enough to scare away the limping atomic midget in comparison. It did not deter in that situation and that's as extreme as it got thanks to insane brinksmanship and the "missle gap" myth spouted to win an election (the myth being that the US was behind the USSR, there was a huge gap but it was the US that was vastly ahead).
Bullshit - it was tit for tat posturing and it was most likely over before any missiles could even get off the boat.
That is my point. An overwhelming nuclear "detterant", yet people were still played and the political outcome didn't end up as one sided as the military threat.
Yes, but AK47 levels of support not MIG levels of support. More a desire than a plan backed with the sort of cash required for world domination.
Think again about whether it's easier to agitate for funding against a perceived military threat or a bunch of script kiddies ripping off credit card numbers. If you had a choice which squeaky wheel would you pick to demand some oil?
I was discussing what was happening after Stalin died, but fair enough.
Consider the two deals - the private one and the far worse publicly announced deal the next day that Kennedy decided he had to accept, then get back to me. As context consider what you correctly pointed out was a vast nuclear superiority on the US side. It didn't seem to be an absolute trump card in that situation did it?
Not almost, guess who drafted the thing. It's acting as designed and the "perjury" that never applies was a trick to get it passed.
That's how it is in the movie and it's done well IMHO. Sarah Snook is awesome in her parts of it.
If you can't follow the loops you are asleep since it paces them out, and it's consistent.
The Space Corps stuff is a good bit of background scenery to the main story and is the main thing that tells you it's in Heinlein's idea of the 1970s and a good way to tell the viewer that you don't have to worry about events in the film that never happened in the 1970s.
Very good casting, good plot, good acting (some people will hate the accent of one character but I think it fits) - maybe a bit slow in parts but that could be so that the viewer can keep track of the time loops while half asleep or drunk.
So how did I see it? I'm in the future (international date line), and it had a limited release in Australia a few months ago.
Various empire building "cyberwarfare" types do even if it's to the detriment of other parts of the government that are defunded to feed their growth.
I've spoken to someone who managed to get out of N.K. so I'm well aware that it's a basket case of evil, but we're just being misdirected by self serving pricks in this case. The links were suggested long after the hack and the very convenient story started building after that.
I think it's Sony trying to get some sort of PR out of being hacked by blowing a flimsy rumour out of proportion and linking it to that movie to salvage something out of it. Seriously, what are the consequences? The rumour existed, cynically using it for their profit is not something that's going to rebound because it "might be true" in some sort of weird and incredibly unlikely chain of events, so people are going to give them the benefit of the doubt no matter how much they cynically twist it, especially since reality is unlikely to be as interesting a story.
It's handy for departmental empire building, cheap politics and demands for funds if it's North Korea instead of the ordinary bunch of criminals that it appeared to be until long after the actual hacks happened. North Korea complaining about a movie about the killing of their high priest of a cult to his dead ancestors (that place is weird) is a given whether they were involved or not and is not evidence of any kind. I'm sure they would have loved to have done it, but it's very unlikely that they did
Think a little bit about what ICBM stands for and you'll get a bit of an idea why they didn't care about a deal that meant they couldn't site in Cuba. Then think about what was offered in the first private offer and how much less was in the public offer the next day - the offer that Kennedy decided he had to take.
Precisely, that is my point - despite the vast superiority Kennedy caved in which is an illustration of the nuclear threat not deterring the USSR anywhere near as much as is assumed by soundbite history.
Desire - yes. Plan to commit more than token resources to, not so much.
All up it there are some that suggest that the nuclear deterrent value against the USSR is overstated since they did whatever they wanted to anyway, and in the end had more nukes than the USA (which was more of a symptom of them fucking up their economy than anything else - far more very expensive nukes than they could ever possibly find rockets for, as distinct from the USA with a lot less nukes but most potentially usable).
I used balls because in hindsight there was so much ridiculous posturing when the stakes were high - the Cuban missile crisis was testosterone ruling over common sense and the outcome showed that Kennedy had taken things so far that the USSR had him by the balls and he had to take whatever was offered in case the deal got worse for a second time.
The above poster has pointed at implementation but not implications.
The whole idea sucks in a massive way for everyone. Your company now has people with full access to the internet banking details of any employee that logged in from the workplace. Now you've got an extra level of potential fallout from disgruntled employees or an outright criminal that has wormed their way in. Being a man in the middle with SSL is a liability for anyone law abiding in the middle - so counter those fools that want to put in "SSL accelerator" devices with the possibility of having to go toe to toe with lawyers from a major bank.
Then there's the less than zero possibility that the vendor of the device can see that traffic that you are so conveniently letting the device see in the clear. Can you trust their employees? Can you trust anyone they are giving access to? Is some government contractor two steps removed like Snowden going to have access? It appears that sort of thing has already happened, I think it was some Cisco devices with backdoors but it may have been another vendor.
This sort of fucking stupid breakage of what is supposed to be trusted communication just for the sake a of a bit of convenience goes against the entire point of the communication and is an accident waiting to happen. The sort of controlling pricks that make their staff wear voice recorders at work may like it for voyeristic reasons, but it's stupid on a variety of levels. If a workplace is large enough for an SSL proxy to have any effect you can notice on performance then it large enough that multiple people will have access to the traffic and the risk of abuse increases dramatically.
So yes, becoming very common, but very stupid and the wet dream of identity thieves, NSA etc
Because outright fraud was more convenient than blocking.
If it wasn't happening on a computer we'd be seeing people getting dragged into court instead of the casual acceptance of fraud we see around a lot of SSL issues.