Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Military Data Storage Media

US Nuclear Missile Silos Use Safe, Secure 8" Floppy Disks 481

Posted by timothy
from the not-the-onion dept.
Hugh Pickens DOT Com (2995471) writes "Sean Gallagher writes that the government built facilities for the Minuteman missiles in the 1960s and 1970s and although the missiles have been upgraded numerous times to make them safer and more reliable, the bases themselves haven't changed much and there isn't a lot of incentive to upgrade them. ICBM forces commander Maj. Gen. Jack Weinstein told Leslie Stahl from "60 Minutes" that the bases have extremely tight IT and cyber security, because they're not Internet-connected and they use such old hardware and software. "A few years ago we did a complete analysis of our entire network," says Weinstein. "Cyber engineers found out that the system is extremely safe and extremely secure in the way it's developed." While on the base, missileers showed Stahl the 8-inch floppy disks, marked "Top Secret," which is used with the computer that handles what was once called the Strategic Air Command Digital Network (SACDIN), a communication system that delivers launch commands to US missile forces. Later, in an interview with Weinstein, Stahl described the disk she was shown as "gigantic," and said she had never seen one that big. Weinstein explained, "Those older systems provide us some, I will say, huge safety, when it comes to some cyber issues that we currently have in the world.""
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

US Nuclear Missile Silos Use Safe, Secure 8" Floppy Disks

Comments Filter:
  • That big? (Score:5, Funny)

    by jonnythan (79727) on Tuesday April 29, 2014 @10:08AM (#46867601) Homepage

    "I've never seen a floppy that big!"

    "Wait til you see it spinning."

    • According to Wikipedia, Leslie Stahl was born in 1941, joined CBS news in 1972 and became a correspondent in 1974. So, she started working for a major news organization right about the time the 8-inch floppy hit its peak. Hard to believe she didn't see one somewhere. Maybe she just forgot, but the PDP-11 and the RX01/02 would have been ubiquitous in a news organization, one would think.
      • Re:That big? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by NicBenjamin (2124018) on Tuesday April 29, 2014 @05:55PM (#46872887)

        She may actually have used a terminal for data entry, or research in the 70s; but she wouldn't have been saving to her personal floppy disk. She'd have been saving to a file in her space (highly unlikely), printing out hard copy (more likely), or hitting some "file" button to send it to her editor (most likely).

        But she'd have no more clue which disks they used then a subsistence farmer from Mozambique. Her first exposure to disks would probably be reporting on the Apple II, which used Woz's famous new disk-drive-control circuits and 5 1/2" disks.

    • that to mount a "man in the middle" attack, you need a horse and a lance.

  • They say 8" (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 29, 2014 @10:09AM (#46867621)

    They say 8", but their wives privately shared that they were only 6" on a good day.

  • by QilessQi (2044624) on Tuesday April 29, 2014 @10:10AM (#46867625)

    "Uh... phrasing."

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 29, 2014 @10:14AM (#46867669)

    Those older systems provide us some, I will say, huge safety, when it comes to some cyber issues that we currently have in the world.

    No, they don't. Claiming obsolete hardware and software is more secure is just a thinly veiled security through obscurity claim. There are other claims here; the machines are airgapped, and I suspect that the physical site security is pretty good; but the use of old software and hardware adds nothing at all to that.

    • by mrchaotica (681592) * on Tuesday April 29, 2014 @10:19AM (#46867719)

      There are other claims here; the machines are airgapped, and I suspect that the physical site security is pretty good; but the use of old software and hardware adds nothing at all to that.

      You have to admit, the old hardware makes it hard for some random officer to violate the air gap by plugging in his USB-using cellphone.

      • by Collective 0-0009 (1294662) on Tuesday April 29, 2014 @11:18AM (#46868363)
        I used to work for SAC, specifically on SACDIN. I was a programmer for the system, but turned into network admin when they told us to complete the air gap and setup an offline network just for the source code, testing and administration of the system. I am not sure how much I am allowed to say, as my security clearance restricts me for like 75 years or something. But since most of what I will tell you can already be found here: http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/... [fas.org], I figure I won't get a knock on the door.

        SACCS and SACDIN are nearly the same, often interchanged in terminology. Most of us called it SACCS. We were the BALLS. That kind of stuff went on and on... it never got old.

        The systems are not nearly as outdated as you think. The endpoints are old, but the stuff in the middle is much newer. The code is reviewed every 6 months. There is probably code in there from the 60's, but it has been reviewed hundreds of times. There is new stuff and changes all the time.

        There are modern computers that the programmers code with. There are modern computers in the links from SAC to silo. They are hardended and locked down, but let's be honest, the airmen have physical access. That's why you need a clearance just to touch the computers that make the code that runs the network.

        That's all I have to say about that.
    • by gurps_npc (621217)
      Old software does have an advantage in that it is more thoroughly bug tested. But that's about it.
    • Sure, you can get the same security by isolating modern machines from a network and loading code using USB's or CD's and DVD's, but why fix something that's not broken? These systems only have one job, and they were a significant investment when they were installed, and the still do their job pretty effectively. The US therefore has little to no incentive to upgrade the systems already in place.

      The other thing worth mentioning is the simplicity of these systems. Older hardware is suprisingly easy to servic
      • Sure, you can get the same security by isolating modern machines from a network and loading code using USB's or CD's and DVD's,

        Except that's not the same security - Anybody these days can get their hands on USB drives, CDs, and DVDs, but you'd be hard pressed to find a working 8" floppy, drive, and computer to write it with.

    • Indeed. The principle security here seems to be that they are in a well-secured facility and are airgapped. Windows 95 would be relatively secure in such an environment.

      • by Xest (935314)

        I don't think that's true, how long would it take you to ensure no backdoor had been slipped into even the Windows 95 binaries you're installing on the machine compared to auditing the source code and compilation process of even say an early version of DOS? let alone something even more simplistic again.

        The fact is more code = more chance of missing malicious code. Older hardware and software almost always means smaller codebases, more simplicity, and less scope for malicious code.

    • by Attila Dimedici (1036002) on Tuesday April 29, 2014 @10:36AM (#46867905)
      Actually, it does. The fact that you cannot load data on these machines using a USB device does mean that they are more secure. The fact that anybody carrying around something that would allow them to quickly and easily load software (whether malicious or not) onto these machines would be obvious to anyone watching them does in fact increase security. The security does not come from the fact that the hardware is old, but from the fact that attempts to load software onto it are obvious. And on the software side it is not the fact that it is old that adds security, rather it is that the people who are knowledgeable enough about it to hack it are extremely rare. In both cases, these facts are a result of them being old, but the age is not what he is claiming makes them more secure. Rather it is a side effect of them being old.
    • by Xest (935314)

      Actually I'd argue that's not entirely true. It's far easier to verify there's no back door in vastly simpler hardware and software from back then than there is in the vastly more complex hardware and operating systems of today.

      That was a time before I believe we even had computers automatically attempting to optimise circuitry - it was all hand done and the reasons for designs were entirely understandable and known by humans.

      Back then processors did exactly what you told them to, nothing more, and nothing

    • by bluefoxlucid (723572) on Tuesday April 29, 2014 @10:41AM (#46867947) Journal

      Actually, you're wrong.

      These old networks are airgapped in so many ways, not just by removing the CAT6 to the Internet. The disks themselves are airgapped, as they're not constantly in systems which can read them; likewise, there's a huge airgap between a spy and a reader: if the disks are stolen, they need a huge honkin' machine to read them, or they need to use base facilities which have cameras and guards. Further, the media is low-density: you need to physically transport a truckload to get what fits on a modern CD-R, much less on a 64GB microSDHC.

      Just as with 1000 iteration hashing, these large systems impose a time limitation on mass copy. If you want to access this top-secret file, it's merely 15kB of text stored on a 40kB disk. If you want to steal the wealth of information archived here, you must find the disks you want and then copy each of them. If you want it all, you must spend weeks if not months copying each individual disk to a portable flash drive.

      There are some real difficulties involved in stealing this much data in this form. That provides a layer of security by requiring high-visibility or excessively slow methods of data access, both of which sharply increase risk in espionage. You are more likely to catch and interrupt any significant espionage attempt in this model than in a model where we put all our stuff on a USB drive that's taken to a modern machine in a secure room.

    • by bunratty (545641)
      Correlation is not causation. I don't see any claim that the systems are secure because they're obsolete. I think the fact that they use technology from many decades ago means that they are simple, and the fact that they are simple means it was easy to make them secure and show that they are secure today. I think we could just as easily make a secure system today if we use modern technology, as long as we keep everything very simple. It's slapping on layer after layer of general purpose hardware and code th
  • by jcochran (309950) on Tuesday April 29, 2014 @10:14AM (#46867679)

    Instead of "Security through obscurity", we now have "Security though obsolescence."

    • by barlevg (2111272)
      I wonder how many modern hackers would be able to make sense of, say, a PDP-7 [slashdot.org] if given physical access.
    • by Registered Coward v2 (447531) on Tuesday April 29, 2014 @10:52AM (#46868065)

      Instead of "Security through obscurity", we now have "Security though obsolescence."

      Actually, obsolete is in the eye of the user. Sure, you wouldn't want that as a computer you use for watching videos; but if it reliably does its designed job than it is not obsolete. Old hardware has an advantage; it has been tested and debugged and known to work as planned. Replacing it would involve a lot of work for little gain if the old stuff works; and you run the risk of introducing new bugs and problems that could cause serious problems. A system designed today probably wouldn't rely on ancient hardware; however as long as you can keep it working replacing it is neither cost nor operably beneficial. Security is an added benefit.

    • by rjune (123157)

      Is something obsolete if it can still perform it's design function effectively and economically? About 5 years ago, I gave a friend a Windows 98 computer as a backup for the one he had running an engraving machine. (For plaques that go on awards and trophies) The system is stand-alone and is designed for that type of computer. A replacement system would cost thousands and would not provide any additional benefit to his business. I wonder about the supportability issue, but otherwise I don't see a probl

  • by EmagGeek (574360) <gterich@@@aol...com> on Tuesday April 29, 2014 @10:15AM (#46867683) Journal

    The silo wins the security battle through two things:

    1) Physical security
    2) Not being on the Internet

    Yes, it's old stuff. Who cares? Nobody can touch it, and it's not on the global network. Not much else is required.

  • Are there any old drives around that can read these disks? What do they do if the drives fail? I am surprised this really still works, but I guess the stuff works, so they have no real inclination to upgrade it anytime soon. What old operating system do you need to read 8" floppy disks? Would DOS 6.22 work or would you need something even older?

    • by wiggles (30088) on Tuesday April 29, 2014 @10:20AM (#46867727)

      IBM PC architecture never used the 8" FDD to my knowledge.

      I seem to remember those 8" drives on old DEC equipment - VAX minicomps and the like.

      • by OzPeter (195038)

        IBM PC architecture never used the 8" FDD to my knowledge.

        I seem to remember those 8" drives on old DEC equipment - VAX minicomps and the like.

        I worked on systems in the late 80's that used 8 inch floppies (Network 90 DCS - which I think ABB owns nowadays). These were installed in the Operator Interface Units (OIUs) for backups etc. In my case I was running a pseudo multi-tasking program written in TI-Basic that read and wrote data to the floppies by overlaying variables in the Basic address space with absolute sectors from the floppies.

        Yes .. it was primitive, even for its time.

      • A lot of CP/M machines had them too. I have a TRS-80 Model 4p at home that has two built-in 8" drives.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T... [wikipedia.org]

    • by lowen (10529) on Tuesday April 29, 2014 @10:27AM (#46867805)

      Yes, there are. I have one, and a Catweasel controller that can read and write basically any format on it.

      The 8 inch standard format is very similar to the 1.2MB 5.25 inch format. Actually, it's the other way around, as when IBM built the PC AT and the high-density drives for it they apparently intentionally made the formats nearly identical. They're so close that computers that use 8 inch diskettes can typically be modified to run with 1.2MB HD 5.25 drives and media with only a new controller to drive cable and new drive power supply (8 inch drives typically take either AC mains power to run the spindle or 24VDC, and 5.25 drives take 12VDC to run the spindle). See http://nemesis.lonestar.org/co... [lonestar.org] for some tech info on how to do this with one of the first multiuser 'personal' computers, the Radio Shack TRS-80 Model 16 (and descendents the 16B and the 6000). Also see http://www.dbit.com/fdadap.htm... [dbit.com] for the 'proper' adapter board.

      8 inch diskettes are famously reliable with good quality media, and the bits aren't packed so densely that an EMP event will wipe them out, as long as they're in a faraday cage with sufficient attenuation and power handling capacity.

      Current production high-density PC FDC's can easily handle the 8 inch drive with the proper adapter cable, but the number of supported formats is small. More flexible is the USB interfaced Kryoflux, and the PCI Catweasel MK3 and MK4 (the Kryoflux is currently in production and available for purchase; the Catweasels have been out of production for a while and are a bit difficult to obtain last I checked; I bought my MK4 from amigakit.com, but they appear to only have the Amiga-specific MK2's in stock.

    • I still have my CP/M computer, twin 8" floppies, 64k memory, 4 mhz z80 processor. Every two years or so I fire it up just for fun, and it runs just fine. Agreed it shouldnt, but it does. And Wordstar runs just about as fast as the latest Word 2013. Not that I'd want to go back to those days, but there is no doubt in my mind it will outlive any computer and server in my office.
    • Doesn't magnetic storage start to degrade after 40 years?

    • by FlyingGuy (989135)

      Do you really think that the United States military, very specifically, the part of it that can unleash a version of hell that you have trouble even imagining, does not have the budget to get those drives manufactured, one off or any other part of the system?

    • Anything from the 70's and the early 80's will work.
      Some VAX computers (11/780 series) used 8" floppy to read the boot loader. OSes like VAX/VMS, RSX-11, RT-11 will read/write them. I also suspect that any old IBM computer/OS will read them.

      The main problem is that hardware was more proprietary in those days. You cannot just plug in any 8" drive.
      File systems and formatting were different between OSes and vendors, so you need the OS that wrote it to be able to read it (or an emulator).
  • Penis jokes aside... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by barlevg (2111272) on Tuesday April 29, 2014 @10:16AM (#46867687)

    I see no downside to this. There's no reason for our nuclear silos to be networked or to run modern hardware. If it works, don't fix it.

    Related: anyone remember in the pilot of the Battlestar Galactica remake how they explained that the reason there was all that old tech (phones with cords, manual doors) aboard a starship made with technology hundreds of years superior to our own was that they designed it that way on purpose to prevent hacking? Kinda makes you wonder--if there's actually a cyber warfare component to the next major conflict, will the military tech that's developed afterwards end up resembling 1970s (or earlier) era hardware more so than the "futuristic" tech you see in most modern SF?

    • I suspect that would be the case. One good war where you lose because your computer controlled weapons system got zero-dayed and the enemy was launching your own missiles at you via TeamViewer while your mouse refused to respond and I suspect your replacement ships would require you to manually program the coordinates and launch the missile by pulling a piece of string from behind a blast screen.
      • launch the missile by pulling a piece of string from behind a blast screen.

        From the manual: "Antiship missile (with loud report). Light, and get away".

    • Exactly. When the Clinton "young uns" moved in to the White House after Bush One they made a big deal of the old phone system and low-tech offices.

      They upgraded to new systems and guess what? The WH started leaking like a sieve because it became easy to do. There was a reason the Bush White house was low-tech.

    • by Andy Dodd (701) <atd7@@@cornell...edu> on Tuesday April 29, 2014 @10:31AM (#46867849) Homepage

      It was interesting, that also in BSG they claimed that the fleet did have much newer starships - the Galactica was being decommissioned due to being obsolete.

      All those other starships in the fleet perished quickly due to network infiltration by the Cylons. The only remaining operational hardware was the non-networked stuff.

    • by smooth wombat (796938) on Tuesday April 29, 2014 @10:35AM (#46867897) Homepage Journal
      anyone remember in the pilot of the Battlestar Galactica remake . . . designed it that way on purpose to prevent hacking?

      I do and I grinned when I heard those lines. Like so many of us on here, I work in the IT field (mainly solving problems created by others), and want to continually smack people upside the head when I hear them talking about wanting to add devices at random to the network or all the things they do on their smart phones.

      The amount of people, in IT especially, who think networking everything is the be all and end all is staggering simply because these people, do not think the process through to realize the HUGE security issues they are opening themselves up to. These are the same people who think pushing the envelope of technology is a good thing until it bites them in the ass and they come running to my area to fix what it is they broke.

      In a way, I get a sense of schadenfreude when I hear about people who have their phones lost/stolen with all their information on it, or who install the latest and greatest piece of software and find themselves wide open to attack.

      Like most things, there is a reason not being at the forefront of technology is a good thing. You let others make the mistake and get exploited so you know how to be safe. In the case of Galactica, not being networked and not having the latest and greatest was its strongest defense.
    • I see no downside to this. There's no reason for our nuclear silos to be networked or to run modern hardware. If it works, don't fix it.

      Related: anyone remember in the pilot of the Battlestar Galactica remake how they explained that the reason there was all that old tech (phones with cords, manual doors) aboard a starship made with technology hundreds of years superior to our own was that they designed it that way on purpose to prevent hacking? Kinda makes you wonder--if there's actually a cyber warfare component to the next major conflict, will the military tech that's developed afterwards end up resembling 1970s (or earlier) era hardware more so than the "futuristic" tech you see in most modern SF?

      People keep hyping up drones as the way of the future but I can't help but wonder if that enthusiasm won't be dampened by the first large scale incident of drone formations being hijacked or brought down by hacking or shot down in droves after their command links have been jammed. One good thing about pilots, they are very hard to jam and pretty resistant to hacking. There is a persistent rumour that the RQ-170 (aka. "The Beast of Kandahar") was brought down by jamming its satellite and ground control signa

    • Reality (Score:5, Insightful)

      by DerekLyons (302214) <`fairwater' `at' `gmail.com'> on Tuesday April 29, 2014 @11:37AM (#46868567) Homepage

      Related: anyone remember in the pilot of the Battlestar Galactica remake how they explained that the reason there was all that old tech (phones with cords, manual doors) aboard a starship made with technology hundreds of years superior to our own was that they designed it that way on purpose to prevent hacking?

      You find it surprising to find that a fictional world is built to accommodate the plot set in it? Seriously, fiction is a very, very, bad way to evaluate things for the real world.
       

      I see no downside to this. There's no reason for our nuclear silos to be networked or to run modern hardware. If it works, don't fix it.

      Disclaimer: While I don't play a nuclear weapons technician on TV, I was one in real life. (Fire Control Technician (Ballistic Missiles) Second Class (Submarines), USN Submarine Service 1981-1991.) I've worked with weapons system components (both installed and spare) that were years and decades old, and have studied the issues as a civilian as well.
       
      Actually, there's a number of downsides, most of which should be obvious with a few minutes serious thought:

      • Spares - as your systems recede ever further from current technology, the cost of spares goes up and the number of potential suppliers goes down. One of things that drove the (many times delayed) conversion of the SSBN's from Trident-I to Trident-II in the late 90's/early 00's was the drying up of the spares pool. (One of the key reasons they were able to delay so long was they were able to rely on a pool of spare salvaged from the older '41 boats when they were decommissioned in the early 90's.)
      • Maintenance - as components age (and they do age, whether installed or sitting in a warehouse), you start climbing up the right hand side of the bathtub curve [wikipedia.org]. This means that your maintenance costs and downtime start rising sharply and also exacerbate the spares issues. I've personally had to replace cables where the insulation was damaged by aging - and had to go through three sets of spare cables to make up one good one. (And the trainers really kill you here, as they're used and abused much harder than the operational hardware.)
      • Support - as with spares, the farther you recede from current technology and practices, the harder it becomes to find people and companies with the experience to support and maintain the systems. Eventually you reach a closed ecosystem where the military relies on local tribal knowledge and contractors rely on a pool of specialists that dwindles as the old guys retire. (You can overcome this, but it costs significant money.)
      • Compatibility - when you (as the USAF has done) upgrade parts of the system but not the rest, you end up with all manner of compatibility issues. You either have to limit the performance of the new hardware, or build specialized interfaces, or build in emulators, etc... (The latter two drive up costs and increase the potential sources for faults and bugs.)

      Etc..., etc...
       
      The USAF claiming that older tech makes them more 'safe' is just making lemons into lemonade. (And the situation is mostly a product of how far the missiles are from being a priority.) Mostly, I evaluate the claims as a way to deflect attention from the number of serious incidents they've had recently and from their significant personnel problems.

  • quoth ICBM forces commander Maj. Gen. Jack Weinstein

    "Those older systems provide us some, I will say, huge safety, when it comes to some cyber issues that we currently have in the world.""

    Note that the guy in charge of all the nuclear missiles in the United States invokes a security-though-obscurity argument to justify obsolete systems.

    • by Richy_T (111409)

      More like security through not pandering to user ease-of-use.

    • by mlts (1038732)

      Security is about forcing the blackhats to go through time and expense. STO usually doesn't work, but with using thirty year old technology, it would require an attacker to jump through a lot of hoops just to even procure a computer that can read an 8" floppy drive, the drive itself, and the exact media used (hard-sectored or soft-sectored). Even then, there are different ways to format the disk, be it CAV or CLV, one read/write head or two.

      Of course, once a usable disk is obtained, it is a lot harder to

    • by FlyingGuy (989135) <{moc.liamg} {ta} {yuggniylf}> on Tuesday April 29, 2014 @10:30AM (#46867835)

      to justify obsolete systems.

      Wow, you just don't get it! Your remark implies that he is some sort of Luddite with the attitude of, "it worked for my grand pappy so it is good enough for me!"

      What the man said is that they did a complete audit of the systems and given the requirements they determined that what they have is the most secure system they can come up with.

      Your remark also implies that they should be all modern with a nice tomcat stack running php, python or god alone only knows what bit of Swiss cheese stack of cruft to control the very things that could quite easily turn this entire planet into a spinning ball of radioactive fire."

    • quoth ICBM forces commander Maj. Gen. Jack Weinstein

      "Those older systems provide us some, I will say, huge safety, when it comes to some cyber issues that we currently have in the world.""

      Note that the guy in charge of all the nuclear missiles in the United States invokes a security-though-obscurity argument to justify obsolete systems.

      Well, he does have a point.

      For starters, if there's no modern input method (i.e., network connection, USB ports), there's no way to hack the system with modern electronics, and I doubt you could successfully sneak an era-specific "portable" computer [wikipedia.org] in unnoticed.

      The other good reason I thought of* is the fact that old, analog electronics are more likely to survive the EMP from a nuclear blast than modern, solid-state stuff. To wit, if a well-placed air-burst nuke drops EM radiation across the continental US

    • by medv4380 (1604309)
      No, it's not security though obscurity, it's security though not being on the internet, not needing the internet, and not wanting the internet. The older tech prevents someone from even being able to hook it up to the internet even if they wanted to. The internet is one big security hole, and if you don't need it then anything that prevents you from having it is a plus for security.
    • by meustrus (1588597)

      Running obsolete systems isn't quite on par with typical security through obscurity. It's not a matter of guessing the right URL to access elevated permissions. It's a matter of procuring 50-year old technology, which by the way nobody outside of the US ever actually got good at producing. How exactly would you go about hacking into a system not connected to any networks and controlled by 8" floppy disks? Especially since, in addition to the obscurity, there are armed guards everywhere?

      It's also important t

  • "Cyber engineers"?

    I'm sorry, but anyone that uses this phrase is highly suspect.

    I don't think it affects the information in this case, but there is a reason we think that journalists are stupid when it come to tech.

  • My concern here is not cybersecurity, but data integrity. Not sure what's on those ancient floppy disks, but if it is mission critical, then that's a problem. The failure rates on those would be unacceptably high.

    • by JDG1980 (2438906)

      That was my first thought, too. Decades-old floppy disks might well have developed bad sectors – they do have backups, don't they?

    • I am quite confident that they have a source of new disks. The technology may be ancient, but I doubt the actual disks are.
    • by lowen (10529)

      Hmmm.....

      I know this is opening things up for lots of bad jokes..... but, it really boils down to whether the cookie's lubricant is still effective at allowing the cookie to spin to the correct RPM, +/- the FDC's tolerance. And that is dependent upon the storage conditions (mostly humidity) and the media quality. Being in a military application, this media is likely the most expensive made, if not the highest quality.

      Yes, the actual magnetic media is called a 'cookie.' And the word 'cookie' is a bit more

  • The TRS-80 Model II was the business version of the early Radio Shack computers.

    We bought one in 1979 and used it for for five years until we bought one of the first Macs in 1984.

    The Model II had a word processor, database, and spreadsheet program.

    http://www.trs-80.com/wordpres... [trs-80.com]

  • by chiefcrash (1315009) on Tuesday April 29, 2014 @10:31AM (#46867845)
    "Galactica is a reminder of a time when we were so frightened by our enemies that we literally looked backward for protection"
  • What side to you want.

    1. USA
    2. USRR
    3. United Kingdom
    4. France
    5. China
    6. India
    7. Pakistan
    8. North Korea
    9. Israel

  • "...Stahl described the disk she was shown as "gigantic," and said she had never seen one that big."

    And she realized only when the last syllable rolled off her tongue the double meaning of her words, punctuated by the shit-eating grin the General couldn't wipe off his face as he tried to explain that nuclear cowboys wrangling silos must swing big disks to be "secure"...

  • by istartedi (132515) on Tuesday April 29, 2014 @10:42AM (#46867951) Journal

    This is way out of date. We need to put our missiles in The Cloud, and re-do the launch control UI so it looks pretty. Get on it right away, I expect nothing less than $10 billion spent for a non-working system. Boy though, the guy wearing the fedora will think it's the best thing in the world. It is good for him too. It'll pay off most of his student debt.

Our business in life is not to succeed but to continue to fail in high spirits. -- Robert Louis Stevenson

Working...