2 ms·
> I hadn't thought of that as a serious possibility Not serious? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_nuclear_accidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wik
by acqq 10y ago
> I hadn't thought of that as a serious possibility
Not serious?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_nuclear_accidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_nuclear_accid...
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/12/launch-code-for-us-nukes-was-00000000-for-20-years/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/12/launch-code-for-u...
"Launch code for US nukes was 00000000 for 20 years"
http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/01/21/air-force-swears-our-nuke-launch-code-was-never-00000000/ http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/01/21/air-force-swears-our-nuk...
So it was not actually eight zeros but apparently 6 zeroes and the "key under the doormat" (in the safe, but not really something you needed the president to access, the opposite of what was claimed then).
- AnimalMuppet 10y agoThat's all very different from "launch because of a Y2K bug", though...
- acqq 10y agoNo technology is perfect, it's always a process. And effectively every computer-related technology has undiscovered bugs. https://around.com/ariane.html https://around.com/ariane.html ""The board wishes to point out," they added, with the magnificent blandness of many official accident reports, "that software is an expression of a highly detailed design and does not fail in the same sense as a mechanical system." (...) (...) really important software has a reliability of 99.9999999 percent. At least, until it doesn't. " The statistics is against that generous number of nines.