We had enough to destroy them 10x over. Being able to do it 20x over doesn't make us any more powerful.

Of course, it does. Your logic only works, if all missiles available will remain operational and reach their targets if launched.

But that's not a valid assumption. Consider, for example, the possibility of one side's launchers — submarines, bombers, mobile launchers, or stationary silos — being disabled and/or taken-over somehow. They aren't run always by the best, unfortunately...

If a mere handful of such installations need to survive for us to remain capable of annihilating the enemy, they would not risk it. But, if our counter-attack requires, say, 50% of them to be operational, the enemy might attempt such an action.

Similar arithmetic applies, if the target's defenses are deemed capable of destroying a significant fraction of incoming missiles. Russia already fears our interception technology, for example, and has its own. If such defenses can take out 90% of the incoming, you do need to fire 10x more. And you better use 20x more to be sure...

• What do we want?
• Equal gravity!!
• When do we want it?
• Now!!!!

The Big Astronomy does not want you to know, that big planets are getting bigger, while the small ones are getting smaller.

While such advice is by all means well-intentioned

Well-intentioned, but still wrong — even in the case of nuclear weapons. For all the treaties, both USA and USSR retained enough nukes to destroy each other (and, probably, the rest of the planet) many times over — officially.

Unofficially it put the US, where the government is (somewhat) accountable to citizens, at a disadvantage — we had to abide by the agreements, while the rulers of USSR — unafraid of inquisitive lawmakers and "nosy" journalists — did not.

Cyber-weapons are even worse in this regard, because their use and development can be delegated to a nominally private organization or even a person — the way Russia's propaganda war is already delegated too.

On February 8, after crossing the French border patrol agents of the National Police (CNP) was stopped at the toll Jonquera. "They told me it was a search routine, but it was very strange for an hour and a half because the vehicle was out of my field of vision, an agent took it and then came back to me" claims without understanding the reason for this police action.

I'm going to guess, this was when police installed the tracker.

On March 1, in the city of Valencia, where he traveled to participate in the Circumvention Tech Festival , the second incident occurred.

And this was, when they first checked-up on her.

Perhaps, the lady is suspected of being a Basque separatist or some such...

... I decided to inspect the car

Don't know about Spain, but the fun and friendly Canada might charge someone with "Obstruction of Justice" in similar circumstances...

Self-Driving Cars Will Be In 30 US Cities By the End of Next Year

Now, if only we could have a self-governing country...

(Please, don't hate.)

The typical compromise (see what I did there?) when a customer or Federal Government auditor wants to run scans of any sort on your private network is to agree on tools (to be provided by the auditing group if you don't already have them) running an agreed configuration/profile/whatever against an agreed limited scope target list (typically a VLAN or set of VLANs unless that entire network is devoted to just that one customer, which is sometimes the case, though less so these days with public/private/hybrid clouds being all the rage). When it comes to web application and database testing, you'll typically agree on a non-production target list that's a mirror of the production system (with appropriate verification of the two being a mirror outside the automated testing) so as to avoid impacting the production systems. When it comes time to run the tests, over-the-admins'-shoulder monitoring ensures the proper tools with the proper configurations hitting the proper targets is being done and that the output is being handed over unaltered.

Seen this done in plenty of places and 99% of the time, the auditing group is fine with it because at the end of the day, it's getting them exactly what they want; just in a slightly more red-tape riddled way. Meanwhile, the group being audited has the assurance that nothing is running wild all over their network unsupervised. If you don't have anything to hide, you're typically fine with this approach. If you aren't fine with this approach, something else is going on behind the scenes and most of the time that'll be something you're trying to hide.

I've been using debian vservers in the past, and now lxc. RedHat 7 and its LXC integration is amazing. I use KVM as my hypervisor of choice, so I'm already using virtual machine manager, so now I can manage my LXC hosts with VMM, its really a nice touch.

What really interests me is LXD. LXC containers in a real isolated container that I can just move. Right now, I'm stuck to zipping and moving LXC's directories if I want to move them. I tend to use OS containers stripped down, because I want app/tcp/ssh/nrpe installed, so I can make sure the service is alarmed, and I use ssh for remote management.

Docker tends to be aimed at enterprise usage, if you have lots of single applications appliances, you can roll out and tear down, docker is a great idea.
That is a different use case, so I don't need docker, but docker is built on LXC, so I get that added benefits from support from Redhat. (and Centos7 support)

I'm running an IT shop, so my servers run for years, and I need to be able to manage, and support them. LXC containers is the perfect middle ground for me. LXD is the only thing I'm missing, moving file based containers.

So, I'm happy docker is pushing technology, because the stack it runs on is also benefiting from it.

BTW, I wish Redhat would support LXC VM's on its REHV (ovirt) platform, then I could consolidate even more VM's into single VM's. Guests with bridges with macs are filtered due to IP spoofing rules. Kinda silly when RedHat pushes LXC on 7, but doesn't test LXC on its Visualization platform.

Put it this way, Obama can't fire Wheeler without just cause.

He does not need to fire him — he just hired him in the first place. FCC is part of the Executive branch and the commissioners are appointed by the President.

Do you not think, full agreement with the President is one of the job-requirements for the Chairman? It better be, or else the President is not doing his job...

WE DONT trust them

Ah, but you do! The well-moderated comment I quoted states, that the Federal Government is the most trust-worthy institution in America...

It must take some special kind of schizophrenia to trust FCC and not trust NSA or the Marshas Service at the same time...

If the Federal Government can't determine what's fair, then who can?

why don't we trust the Marshals Service to be fair as well? Are they being controlled by a different President or something?

nobody can refute your argument without being attacked by feminists

Yes, we have so many of them here on /., it is frightening.

regardless of how poor an analogy it is.

Fortunately, it is not poor at all. Own mistakes, that lead one into trouble, are rarely an excuse for those, who cause the actual trouble itself.

It does not matter, whether the "trouble" is rape or unjust incarceration.

How else would you suggest that society could make sure that people driving vehicles on public roadways have at least some basic knowledge of how to safely operate a motor vehicle? The honor system?

At the boundary between your private land and the public road system.

It's not clear what the distinction you are trying to make is. What is the significant difference between "a privilege" and "a right subject to safety regulations", exactly? Call it what you want, either way you are allowed to drive as long as you follow the traffic laws, but if you abuse the right/privilege, it can be taken away from you.