How would you feel if he'd posted negative information about a government program? Seems like if you want people to be free to act as whistle blowers, you have to allow them to be free to act to correct misinformation too. Or anything they see as misinformation for that matter.
I just clicked the link here at work, and Google seems to have done something. Now it doesn't have the "I'm feeling lucky" behaviour - i.e. it displays a page of search results for goatse.ca instead. Very interesting! Even more interesting, my slashdot post is on the second page of Googling for goatse.ca
Actually one of the reasons Microsoft took over from IBM is that IBM was mainframe centric, and mainframes imply that users have a lack of control of their data. So ironically Microsoft was on the pro privacy side from the beginning. It reminds me of a remarkable quote from Systems Programming for Windows 95. Walter Oney describes in great detail the protection system implemented by the 80386. At the end he says "by now you must be wondering how you can subvert this stuff. It's too easy to bother. You can make a trap gate to get to ring 0, but there you'll crash and burn because you don't handle interrupts correctly. It's your personal computer after all and you're free to do this, just like you're free to run your car without oil until the engine seizes up".
The Internet put paid to that philosphy of course as Windows NT and successors got progressively hardened against malware. Even when I read it back in 1995 it seemed a bit questionable. But back then there was an assumption that the only software on peoples machines was stuff that they bought and if it made them unstable they would not buy from the same company in future. So those companies had an incentive to make it reliable.
You keep inventing obfuscations, and I'll keep decoding them.
HINT: If an Anonymous Coward (or anyone else) posts any links to snipurl, tinyurl or any such site, check the moderation before clicking on it. Unless it got a +1, don't click.
Funny, I don't recall him mentioning anything to do with sex.
The whole point of eugenics is the idea that stupid (and therefore evolutionarily unfit) people breed faster than smart and (therefore evolutionarily fit) ones. Which from a Darwinian point of view is nonsense. Breeding means you're evolutionarily fit, passing IQ tests or learning Klingon or Vi doesn't. The right people are breeding, by definition. Elitist nerds aren't breeding, but that's not a problem with evolution, just for them.
Speaking of stupid people, let's introduce alcohol to the situation and instead we get stupid, drunk, inhibitions-diminished desperate people instead! Great fun!
It is true that unskilled, poor, unintelligent people have more children. They simply have more time on their hands and less grasp of the consequences children will have on their lifestyle and they tend to have less access (voluntarily or financially) to proper modern birth control methods and hey, when you've got a lot of time on your hand sex is a great passtime!
Shockley did conclude through his research that this happens more with black families than with whites, however he proposed that all people with sub-100 IQs (no further qualification) should be paid for voluntary sterilization.
Oh come on, his views are despicable. It's the standard nerd whine that other people get more sex than nerds. But rather than staying in the lab or learning to talk to people in bars (which is actually not that hard if you really are above average intelligence), he wants to sterilize the competition from the 'dumb' people. Dumb being naturally defined as 'does poorly on IQ tests', which is sort of convenient for people like Shockley who did very well indeed on them.
But intelligence is a much more intangible thing than that, and he should have known that 'late in life' which is when the wiki article says he started to be interested in eugenics.
And actually apart from the transistor he did some seriously stupid things -
The ensuing publicity generated by the "invention of the transistor" often thrust Shockley to the fore, much to the chagrin of Bardeen and Brattain. Bell Labs management, however, consistently presented all three inventors as a team. Shockley eventually infuriated and alienated Bardeen and Brattain, and he essentially blocked the two from working on the junction transistor. Bardeen began pursuing a theory for superconductivity and left Bell Labs in 1951. Brattain refused to work with Shockley further and was assigned to another group. Neither Bardeen nor Brattain had much to do with the development of the transistor beyond the first year after its invention.[6]
Shockley's abrasive management style caused him to be passed over for executive promotion at Bell Labs, which also felt he was a greater asset as a research scientist and theorist. Shockley wanted the power and profit he felt he deserved. He took a leave from Bell Labs in 1953 and moved back to the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) for four months as a visiting professor.
Shockley Semiconductor
Eventually he was given a chance to run his own company, as a division of a Caltech friend's successful electronics firm. In 1955, Shockley joined Beckman Instruments, where he was appointed as the Director of Beckman's newly founded Shockley Semiconductor Laboratory division in Mountain View, California. With his prestige and Beckman's capital, Shockley attempted to lure some of his former colleagues from Bell Labs to his new lab, but none of them would join him. Instead, Shockley started scouring universities for the brightest graduates to build a company from scratch, one that would be run "his way".
"His way" could generally be summed up as "domineering and increasingly paranoid". In one famous incident, he claimed that a secretary's cut thumb was the result of a malicious act and he demanded lie detector tests to find the culprit.[7] It was later demonstrated the cut was due to a broken thumbtack on the office door, and from that point the research staff was increasingly hostile. Meanwhile, his demands to create a new and technically difficult device (originally called a Shockley diode and now known as the Thyristor), meant that the project was moving very slowly.
Shockley separated from his wife Jean in the Spring of 1954, finally divorcing her in the Summer of 1954. Shortly after forming the company, on November 23, 1955, Shockley married Emmy Lanning, a teacher of psychiatric nursing from upstate New York. They had a very happy
Searchq is ignored by Google. The next few things are obfuscation too. At the end we see q=goatse.ca and btnI which means I'm feeling lucky. First hit on goatse.ca is the dreaded image and btnI means "I'm feeling lucky", i.e. jump to the first hit.
Fair abrigement seems to be about the right to quote small sections copyrighted work for the purposes of criticism or parody. Fair use, at least when people mention it here seems to be about Sony v Universal Studios where the US Supreme Court decided that time shifting was fair use or the Audio Home Recording Act
The Straight Dope summarised these rights as
http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mcopyright2.htm * It's OK to copy music onto an analog cassette, but not for commercial purposes. * It's also OK to copy music onto special audio CD-Rs, mini-discs, and digital tapes (because royalties have been paid on them) but again, not for commercial purposes. * Beyond that, there's no legal "right" to copy the copyrighted music on a CD onto a CD-R. However, burning a copy of a CD onto a CD-R, or transferring a copy onto your computer hard drive or your portable music player, won't usually raise concerns so long as: * The copy is made from an authorized original CD that you legitimately own. * The copy is just for your personal use. It's not a personal use in fact, it's illegal to give away the copy or lend it to others for copying. * The owners of copyrighted music have the right to use protection technology to allow or prevent copying. * Remember, it's never OK to sell or make commercial use of a copy that you make
Which are still quite a bit less than what people here view as an absolute right to backup media and then do what you want with the backups.
Going to the web to find some app to do some task you are interested in, downloading it, installing it and running it are all "too complicated" for grandma?
Enter the business schools. Managers start believing they can command any corporation without understanding how the production works. They start doing things like transplanting a CEO from Pepsi to Apple. Dismal results.
Oddly enough the other day I read an article from an ex Microsoft guy making the same point -
You mean when he sleeps in his huge mansion after spending a day working on whatever he wants because he funds it himself out of his huge personal fortune? No, I seriously doubt that.
If you don't like the new movies, your not special around here, but I want to remember a time when Star Wars ment something.
You mean when you were eight?
These conversations are pretty creepy to be honest. Star Wars was a kids film in 1979 and the new films are aimed at the same demographic. Back when you were a kid, it was cool. But if you saw it now, it would be just another formulaic sci fi action movie. That's the problem - it's not that the new movies are sillier than the old ones, it's that you have grown up. I read an interview with Lucas about this. Someone mentioned that old Star Wars fans were complaining on the Internet that the new films were worse than the old ones and he said something like "I don't know what people saw in the old films. I made both the new and old films for kids".
It's pretty noticable that Lucas makes money out of merchandise. A zillion kids around the world is a better target market than 30 something basement dwellers. You know what, he'd probably rather that you didn't watch the new movies, because soccer moms might decide to take their kids to see something else if they see a bunch of old nerds in the line in front of them.
You're not supposed to enjoy this stuff when you're 30+. Go read a novel or something. Or watch movies that were made for adults. Your chilhood is over, and it has been for 20 years. That's not Lucas's fault.
It's the same with CSS and so on as far as I can see. Microsoft invents a way of doing things and implements it in IE. Everyone else decides that the standard will do things as differently as possible from that, and a standard is released several years later. Microsoft ignores the standard and web site authors end up using the Microsoft implementation, since they want their site to work on IE.
ODF vs OOXML is similar too. Office has been around for ages and loads of legacy cruft in it. E.g. the date format in Office copies a bug from Lotus 1-2-3 so that Excel uses the same internal date representation as Lotus 1-2-3. And this date format is preserved in OOXML. The ODF people came along and whined and whined that OOXML was making bugs the standard and ODF was technically superior. But if you save Excel spreadsheets into ODF, my guess is that the ones that rely on this sort of thing will stop working.
Now most people don't care about the internals of this stuff. People back when Office took over from Excel did things like calculating date serial numbers using a formula and they wanted to be able to load that Lotus sheet into Excel and have it generate the same date. So Microsoft copied the bug. The few percent of people now that embed dates in spreadsheets as a numeric constant will find that saving as OOXML works for them and saving as ODF doesn't. But Microsoft's monoply is built out things like this. There are loads of quirks in their platform that a few percent of people rely on. If you want to replace them, you need to handle this. Just like when Microsoft took over from Lotus they copied Lotus quirks and outright bugs.
I like Opera (using it now) but this standards thing is ridiculous.
E.g. now people complain that IE doesn't support SVG. There's a reason for that - in 1998 Microsoft, Visio and Autodesk proposed VML as a standard, already implemented in IE 5.0. Everyone else hates Microsoft so they decided to standardise on an SVG instead which is as different from VML as possible. It took them about 4 years, until 2001 so there was no chance of it being in IE 6.0 (released in 2001). It's not exactly widely used on the web as far as I can tell. MS decided not to bother supporting it in IE 7.
If users want SVG, they can download a free plugin. Actually websites using SVG could make a web page that autodownloads a signed ActiveX control like flash does. Flash isn't natively supported by IE either, and yet virtually all sites use it. Or like Google maps they could use VML instead to render vector content on IE. I don't see what the complaint is really.
Well, Japan's actions in WWII bordered on genocide in China and Korea. The Chinese and Koreans definitely haven't forgotten it, and the Japanese know. If they ever fought again with modern weapons, I think both would expect the other side to be utterly ruthless, and that would be a self fulfilling prophecy since they would want to preempt that.
I also think there is something essentially dysfunctional about the politicians in all those countries. They don't discuss disputes openly and attempt to compromise, they just deliver lectures ostensibly to their enemies, but really aimed at a home audience. And that home audience is incredibly hostile to any sort of compromise with people they regard quite seriously as racially inferior. It's hard to describe how much ordinary people from these countries hate and fear neighbouring countries. When politicians meet each other, I suspect they just avoid the issue. Politicians actually stoke this hatred up - look at the Chinese and Korean response to anything Japan does, or is rumoured to be doing. As a European, this seems incredibly irresponsible to me. Since WWII, Western European politicians have very consciously avoided this sort of thing and any politician who breaks ranks will quickly be ostracised.
The American presence in Asia hides the problem - the State Department criticises allies when they say something stupidly provocative and the President can order a show of force to discourage their enemies. My point is that if America left, and these politicians had to settle country to country disputes between themselves, it's quite possible that it could end in a very nasty way. Of course, it's no good thing - a nuclear war in Asia would spread fallout around the world and send the global economy into a deep depression as well as killing vast numbers of people. But it's also sadly not impossible, unlike a nuclear war in Europe.
Slashdot Mirror
Islam certainly teaches a system of morality. Whether it is the one you want taught is another matter.
http://humanists.net/alisina/islamic_morality.htm
How would you feel if he'd posted negative information about a government program? Seems like if you want people to be free to act as whistle blowers, you have to allow them to be free to act to correct misinformation too. Or anything they see as misinformation for that matter.
I just clicked the link here at work, and Google seems to have done something. Now it doesn't have the "I'm feeling lucky" behaviour - i.e. it displays a page of search results for goatse.ca instead. Very interesting! Even more interesting, my slashdot post is on the second page of Googling for goatse.ca
http://www.google.com/search?q=goatse.ca&hl=en&start=10&sa=N
Does this mean that Google is reading this conversation?
Actually one of the reasons Microsoft took over from IBM is that IBM was mainframe centric, and mainframes imply that users have a lack of control of their data. So ironically Microsoft was on the pro privacy side from the beginning. It reminds me of a remarkable quote from Systems Programming for Windows 95. Walter Oney describes in great detail the protection system implemented by the 80386. At the end he says "by now you must be wondering how you can subvert this stuff. It's too easy to bother. You can make a trap gate to get to ring 0, but there you'll crash and burn because you don't handle interrupts correctly. It's your personal computer after all and you're free to do this, just like you're free to run your car without oil until the engine seizes up".
The Internet put paid to that philosphy of course as Windows NT and successors got progressively hardened against malware. Even when I read it back in 1995 it seemed a bit questionable. But back then there was an assumption that the only software on peoples machines was stuff that they bought and if it made them unstable they would not buy from the same company in future. So those companies had an incentive to make it reliable.
I see you are a worthy opponent! Good show!
You keep inventing obfuscations, and I'll keep decoding them.
HINT: If an Anonymous Coward (or anyone else) posts any links to snipurl, tinyurl or any such site, check the moderation before clicking on it. Unless it got a +1, don't click.
Funny, I don't recall him mentioning anything to do with sex.
The whole point of eugenics is the idea that stupid (and therefore evolutionarily unfit) people breed faster than smart and (therefore evolutionarily fit) ones. Which from a Darwinian point of view is nonsense. Breeding means you're evolutionarily fit, passing IQ tests or learning Klingon or Vi doesn't. The right people are breeding, by definition. Elitist nerds aren't breeding, but that's not a problem with evolution, just for them.
Speaking of stupid people, let's introduce alcohol to the situation and instead we get stupid, drunk, inhibitions-diminished desperate people instead! Great fun!
Yeah, it is actually.
It is true that unskilled, poor, unintelligent people have more children. They simply have more time on their hands and less grasp of the consequences children will have on their lifestyle and they tend to have less access (voluntarily or financially) to proper modern birth control methods and hey, when you've got a lot of time on your hand sex is a great passtime!
Shockley did conclude through his research that this happens more with black families than with whites, however he proposed that all people with sub-100 IQs (no further qualification) should be paid for voluntary sterilization.
Oh come on, his views are despicable. It's the standard nerd whine that other people get more sex than nerds. But rather than staying in the lab or learning to talk to people in bars (which is actually not that hard if you really are above average intelligence), he wants to sterilize the competition from the 'dumb' people. Dumb being naturally defined as 'does poorly on IQ tests', which is sort of convenient for people like Shockley who did very well indeed on them.
But intelligence is a much more intangible thing than that, and he should have known that 'late in life' which is when the wiki article says he started to be interested in eugenics.
And actually apart from the transistor he did some seriously stupid things -
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Shockley
The ensuing publicity generated by the "invention of the transistor" often thrust Shockley to the fore, much to the chagrin of Bardeen and Brattain. Bell Labs management, however, consistently presented all three inventors as a team. Shockley eventually infuriated and alienated Bardeen and Brattain, and he essentially blocked the two from working on the junction transistor. Bardeen began pursuing a theory for superconductivity and left Bell Labs in 1951. Brattain refused to work with Shockley further and was assigned to another group. Neither Bardeen nor Brattain had much to do with the development of the transistor beyond the first year after its invention.[6]
Shockley's abrasive management style caused him to be passed over for executive promotion at Bell Labs, which also felt he was a greater asset as a research scientist and theorist. Shockley wanted the power and profit he felt he deserved. He took a leave from Bell Labs in 1953 and moved back to the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) for four months as a visiting professor.
Shockley Semiconductor
Eventually he was given a chance to run his own company, as a division of a Caltech friend's successful electronics firm. In 1955, Shockley joined Beckman Instruments, where he was appointed as the Director of Beckman's newly founded Shockley Semiconductor Laboratory division in Mountain View, California. With his prestige and Beckman's capital, Shockley attempted to lure some of his former colleagues from Bell Labs to his new lab, but none of them would join him. Instead, Shockley started scouring universities for the brightest graduates to build a company from scratch, one that would be run "his way".
"His way" could generally be summed up as "domineering and increasingly paranoid". In one famous incident, he claimed that a secretary's cut thumb was the result of a malicious act and he demanded lie detector tests to find the culprit.[7] It was later demonstrated the cut was due to a broken thumbtack on the office door, and from that point the research staff was increasingly hostile. Meanwhile, his demands to create a new and technically difficult device (originally called a Shockley diode and now known as the Thyristor), meant that the project was moving very slowly.
Shockley separated from his wife Jean in the Spring of 1954, finally divorcing her in the Summer of 1954. Shortly after forming the company, on November 23, 1955, Shockley married Emmy Lanning, a teacher of psychiatric nursing from upstate New York. They had a very happy
Umm, this?
http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Vandalize_Every_Equation
The community is non notable, that's why.
You can spot these hidden goatse links quite easily. Let's break the code
Here's a search for "test" on google
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=test&btnG=Google+Search
Now q is the search string. btnG is the function. If I clicked I'm feeling lucky I'd have got btnI instead.
Let's look at the parent link.
http://www.google.com/search?Searchq=old+world+case+mod&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=navclient&gfns=1&gn=10&refer=4e9fd9f4624c02685096769364a81d95&ref=cff0e9b1f2db017a44b88bb0d174771d&q=goatse.ca&btnI&link=hooray
Searchq is ignored by Google. The next few things are obfuscation too. At the end we see q=goatse.ca and btnI which means I'm feeling lucky. First hit on goatse.ca is the dreaded image and btnI means "I'm feeling lucky", i.e. jump to the first hit.
Fair abrigement seems to be about the right to quote small sections copyrighted work for the purposes of criticism or parody. Fair use, at least when people mention it here seems to be about Sony v Universal Studios where the US Supreme Court decided that time shifting was fair use or the Audio Home Recording Act
The Straight Dope summarised these rights as
http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mcopyright2.htm
* It's OK to copy music onto an analog cassette, but not for commercial purposes.
* It's also OK to copy music onto special audio CD-Rs, mini-discs, and digital tapes (because royalties have been paid on them) but again, not for commercial purposes.
* Beyond that, there's no legal "right" to copy the copyrighted music on a CD onto a CD-R. However, burning a copy of a CD onto a CD-R, or transferring a copy onto your computer hard drive or your portable music player, won't usually raise concerns so long as:
* The copy is made from an authorized original CD that you legitimately own.
* The copy is just for your personal use. It's not a personal use in fact, it's illegal to give away the copy or lend it to others for copying.
* The owners of copyrighted music have the right to use protection technology to allow or prevent copying.
* Remember, it's never OK to sell or make commercial use of a copy that you make
Which are still quite a bit less than what people here view as an absolute right to backup media and then do what you want with the backups.
Going to the web to find some app to do some task you are
interested in, downloading it, installing it and running it
are all "too complicated" for grandma?
Umm yeah, it is.
Good lord, what kind of a dresscode do they enforce at Apple?
Scene?
Maybe no one wants to honour a notorious racist like William Shockley
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Shockley#Beliefs_about_populations_and_genetics
Enter the business schools. Managers start believing they can command any corporation without understanding how the production works. They start doing things like transplanting a CEO from Pepsi to Apple. Dismal results.
Oddly enough the other day I read an article from an ex Microsoft guy making the same point -
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2006/06/16.html
You mean when he sleeps in his huge mansion after spending a day working on whatever he wants because he funds it himself out of his huge personal fortune? No, I seriously doubt that.
Not really, wookies are clearly carnivorous - you can see from their large canine teeth. Maybe he's just picking up Christmas lunch.
The whole time we're in line my friends are giving shit to this absolute slut in front of us. I don't use that word lightly. This girl was a disgrace.
I'm sorry, I'm not a native English speaker, and I don't know what 'slut' means.
Did she kill someone or steal their money or something?
If you don't like the new movies, your not special around here, but I want to remember a time when Star Wars ment something.
You mean when you were eight?
These conversations are pretty creepy to be honest. Star Wars was a kids film in 1979 and the new films are aimed at the same demographic. Back when you were a kid, it was cool. But if you saw it now, it would be just another formulaic sci fi action movie. That's the problem - it's not that the new movies are sillier than the old ones, it's that you have grown up. I read an interview with Lucas about this. Someone mentioned that old Star Wars fans were complaining on the Internet that the new films were worse than the old ones and he said something like "I don't know what people saw in the old films. I made both the new and old films for kids".
It's pretty noticable that Lucas makes money out of merchandise. A zillion kids around the world is a better target market than 30 something basement dwellers. You know what, he'd probably rather that you didn't watch the new movies, because soccer moms might decide to take their kids to see something else if they see a bunch of old nerds in the line in front of them.
You're not supposed to enjoy this stuff when you're 30+. Go read a novel or something. Or watch movies that were made for adults. Your chilhood is over, and it has been for 20 years. That's not Lucas's fault.
It's the same with CSS and so on as far as I can see. Microsoft invents a way of doing things and implements it in IE. Everyone else decides that the standard will do things as differently as possible from that, and a standard is released several years later. Microsoft ignores the standard and web site authors end up using the Microsoft implementation, since they want their site to work on IE.
ODF vs OOXML is similar too. Office has been around for ages and loads of legacy cruft in it. E.g. the date format in Office copies a bug from Lotus 1-2-3 so that Excel uses the same internal date representation as Lotus 1-2-3. And this date format is preserved in OOXML. The ODF people came along and whined and whined that OOXML was making bugs the standard and ODF was technically superior. But if you save Excel spreadsheets into ODF, my guess is that the ones that rely on this sort of thing will stop working.
Now most people don't care about the internals of this stuff. People back when Office took over from Excel did things like calculating date serial numbers using a formula and they wanted to be able to load that Lotus sheet into Excel and have it generate the same date. So Microsoft copied the bug. The few percent of people now that embed dates in spreadsheets as a numeric constant will find that saving as OOXML works for them and saving as ODF doesn't. But Microsoft's monoply is built out things like this. There are loads of quirks in their platform that a few percent of people rely on. If you want to replace them, you need to handle this. Just like when Microsoft took over from Lotus they copied Lotus quirks and outright bugs.
I like Opera (using it now) but this standards thing is ridiculous.
E.g. now people complain that IE doesn't support SVG. There's a reason for that - in 1998 Microsoft, Visio and Autodesk proposed VML as a standard, already implemented in IE 5.0. Everyone else hates Microsoft so they decided to standardise on an SVG instead which is as different from VML as possible. It took them about 4 years, until 2001 so there was no chance of it being in IE 6.0 (released in 2001). It's not exactly widely used on the web as far as I can tell. MS decided not to bother supporting it in IE 7.
If users want SVG, they can download a free plugin. Actually websites using SVG could make a web page that autodownloads a signed ActiveX control like flash does. Flash isn't natively supported by IE either, and yet virtually all sites use it. Or like Google maps they could use VML instead to render vector content on IE. I don't see what the complaint is really.
Which they invented before SVG was standardised, in 1998 rather as opposed to 2001.
I killed my brother for using IE. I stole my Dad's gun and shot him in the head. Now I'm serving life without parole in prison.
They should have called it NULL.
Well, Japan's actions in WWII bordered on genocide in China and Korea. The Chinese and Koreans definitely haven't forgotten it, and the Japanese know. If they ever fought again with modern weapons, I think both would expect the other side to be utterly ruthless, and that would be a self fulfilling prophecy since they would want to preempt that.
I also think there is something essentially dysfunctional about the politicians in all those countries. They don't discuss disputes openly and attempt to compromise, they just deliver lectures ostensibly to their enemies, but really aimed at a home audience. And that home audience is incredibly hostile to any sort of compromise with people they regard quite seriously as racially inferior. It's hard to describe how much ordinary people from these countries hate and fear neighbouring countries. When politicians meet each other, I suspect they just avoid the issue. Politicians actually stoke this hatred up - look at the Chinese and Korean response to anything Japan does, or is rumoured to be doing. As a European, this seems incredibly irresponsible to me. Since WWII, Western European politicians have very consciously avoided this sort of thing and any politician who breaks ranks will quickly be ostracised.
The American presence in Asia hides the problem - the State Department criticises allies when they say something stupidly provocative and the President can order a show of force to discourage their enemies. My point is that if America left, and these politicians had to settle country to country disputes between themselves, it's quite possible that it could end in a very nasty way. Of course, it's no good thing - a nuclear war in Asia would spread fallout around the world and send the global economy into a deep depression as well as killing vast numbers of people. But it's also sadly not impossible, unlike a nuclear war in Europe.