PDA

View Full Version : Meanwhile, in Pentagon


yks 6nnetu hing
05-26-2016, 06:47 AM
linky (http://edition.cnn.com/2016/05/26/us/pentagon-floppy-disks-nuclear/)

The U.S. is still using floppy disks to run its nuclear program
By James Griffiths, CNN
Updated 0438 GMT (1238 HKT) May 26, 2016


(CNN) — Want to launch a nuclear missile? You'll need a floppy disk.

That's according to a new report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), which found that the Pentagon was still using 1970s-era computing systems that require "eight-inch floppy disks."

Such disks were already becoming obsolete by the end of that decade, being edged out by smaller, non-floppy 3.5 to 5.25-inch disks, before being almost completely replaced by the CD in the late 90s.

Except in Washington that is. The GAO report says that U.S. government departments spend upwards of $60 billion a year on operating and maintaining out-of-date technologies.

That's three times the investment on modern IT systems.

The report says the Pentagon is planning to replace its floppy systems -- which currently coordinate intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), nuclear bombers and tanker support aircraft -- by the end of 2017.

Other departments were also put on notice to update their systems. The U.S. Treasury for example, still depends on assembly language code "initially used in the 1950s."

Bringing government departments into the 21st century has proven difficult across the board.

Megan Smith, the current U.S. Chief Technology Officer, told the New York Times in 2015 of the "culture shock" experienced by the tech-savvy Obama campaign when they took control of a White House still dependent on floppy disks and Blackberrys.


just let that sink in.

http://iruntheinternet.com/lulzdump/images/floppy-disk-open-if-1994-1303494960E.jpg






In other news, since Microsoft bought Skype back in 2011 which has a head office still in Estonia, they seem to have found a very interesting and interested partner to test new things out. Linky (http://www.winbeta.org/news/digital-continuity-government-services-gets-head-start-estonia)

Digital continuity for government services gets a head start in Estonia with Microsoft Azure

Microsoft has published a new post about the company’s partnership with the Estonian Government in digitalizing the country’s systems, the latest effort of which involves building “digital resilience.”

In recent years, Estonia has risen to become the hub of innovation not just in Europe but the world over, with new transformative ideas being embraced readily and thoughtfully to drive positive changes away from legacy processes, into the future. The country especially has been at the forefront of digitalizing governmental procedures, with projects like e-Residency and digital “data embassy”.

The sensitive and important nature of the information involved in these projects, should they come to fruition, means data and digital services must be able to withstand interferences – the concept behind “digital resilience,” also referred to as “digital continuity.” This area is where Microsoft is working with the Estonian government on with its Azure cloud services. Using the cloud, data like digital land ownership records can be migrated to the cloud in case of disruptions. Microsoft has also provided a Summary Report detailing their findings.

Of course, there are still many technical and policy issues to consider before such a system can be implemented; nevertheless, it is an important part of the digitalization process, and hints at a bright future for not just Estonians, but countries the world over, as we fully enter the digital age.

Davian93
05-26-2016, 06:53 AM
If you are ever bored (and want to terrify yourself) go read Command and Control by Eric Schlosser. It goes super into the details of just how terrible the US has been over the past 70+ years and protecting its nuclear arsenal. It discusses this legacy IT issue a couple times along with a bunch of other even scarier security issues we've had over the years.

GonzoTheGreat
05-26-2016, 07:27 AM
Look on the upside of it: it'll be a whole lot more difficult for a spy to buy an eight inch floppy in a shopping mall nowadays than it used to be, so sabotage will be more difficult as a result. Looked at that way, this could even be a safety feature.

The last (and only) time I used an 8 inch floppy disk was somewhere in the early 90s. At my father's workplace they happened to have a couple of them that were alleged to have the source code for a useful program on it, but they no longer could read them. I thought it an interesting challenge, and spend about a day looking around at the university for someone who still had a working drive for the things. I eventually did find one; it hadn't been used for years but it still functioned.

An interesting problem nowadays is of course that modern computers just simply do not have any way to attach a floppy disk drive to them, so you'll have to custom build that if you switch to a new computer.
Looking on the Internet showed me that there are USB floppy drives, but the only ones I could find with a simple search (without looking at the second or later result pages) were 3.5 inch. There was the suggestion of emulating floppies, which might be a good idea for the American nuclear programme as well. If they then also switch to emulated nukes, the world would be a lot safer.

As an aside: does North Korea also use 8 inch floppy disks, or have they gone one better and invented the 16 inch floppy?

Rand al'Fain
05-26-2016, 01:19 PM
Look on the upside of it: it'll be a whole lot more difficult for a spy to buy an eight inch floppy in a shopping mall nowadays than it used to be, so sabotage will be more difficult as a result. Looked at that way, this could even be a safety feature.

The last (and only) time I used an 8 inch floppy disk was somewhere in the early 90s. At my father's workplace they happened to have a couple of them that were alleged to have the source code for a useful program on it, but they no longer could read them. I thought it an interesting challenge, and spend about a day looking around at the university for someone who still had a working drive for the things. I eventually did find one; it hadn't been used for years but it still functioned.

An interesting problem nowadays is of course that modern computers just simply do not have any way to attach a floppy disk drive to them, so you'll have to custom build that if you switch to a new computer.
Looking on the Internet showed me that there are USB floppy drives, but the only ones I could find with a simple search (without looking at the second or later result pages) were 3.5 inch. There was the suggestion of emulating floppies, which might be a good idea for the American nuclear programme as well. If they then also switch to emulated nukes, the world would be a lot safer.

As an aside: does North Korea also use 8 inch floppy disks, or have they gone one better and invented the 16 inch floppy?

Too insecure to go that big.

Terez
05-26-2016, 03:23 PM
My first impression was that this was actually a security precaution rather than a security risk. Isn't it basically impossible to hack a system running on floppies?

Weird Harold
05-26-2016, 07:34 PM
My first impression was that this was actually a security precaution rather than a security risk. Isn't it basically impossible to hack a system running on floppies?
Yes and no.

In general you would have to have physical access to a floppy based system to hack it. Once you have physical access, it is pretty easy to boot from a clean disk and bypass all of the protections on the disk you want to hack.

PS: gaining physical access to a missile launch facility or the disks with the launch codes is the "security" aspect.

Davian93
05-26-2016, 07:38 PM
Yes and no.

In general you would have to have physical access to a floppy based system to hack it. Once you have physical access, it is pretty easy to boot from a clean disk and bypass all of the protections on the disk you want to hack.

PS: gaining physical access to a missile launch facility or the disks with the launch codes is the "security" aspect.

In general, our handling of our nuclear triad from a security standpoint has been dreadful over the years. We've just been incredibly lucky to not have more major incidents and/or accidents (although that's more of a workplace safety issue than a straight up security one...but any security professional will tell you that those often work hand in hand)

We've had a ton of "close calls" over the years.

yks 6nnetu hing
05-27-2016, 04:28 AM
In general, our handling of our nuclear triad from a security standpoint has been dreadful over the years. We've just been incredibly lucky to not have more major incidents and/or accidents (although that's more of a workplace safety issue than a straight up security one...but any security professional will tell you that those often work hand in hand)

We've had a ton of "close calls" over the years.

that's what the two S's stand for in HSSE (or however you choose to compile that acronym, I've also seen EHSS and HSES. It all stands for the same thing): Health, Safety, Security and Environment

Nazbaque
05-27-2016, 04:53 AM
Aren't safety and security the same thing?

GonzoTheGreat
05-27-2016, 05:52 AM
Aren't safety and security the same thing?
Security means being in another building when your idiot co-worker tries out the flame thrower. Safety means not having such a flame thrower on site in the first place.

yks 6nnetu hing
05-27-2016, 06:08 AM
Security means being in another building when your idiot co-worker tries out the flame thrower. Safety means not having such a flame thrower on site in the first place.

in my experience it's more... Security means that the flame thrower cabinet is locked. Safety means that *if* there's a flamethrower present, people are aware of how and when to use it but even more importantly, how and when NOT to use it.

Nazbaque
05-27-2016, 11:12 AM
Why did you choose flame throwers for the analogy?

But my point is that as the two are practically synonyms or at the very least security is a specialised form of safety, why add both words in the litany?

Terez
05-27-2016, 11:27 AM
Why did you choose flame throwers for the analogy?
Because it's Theoryland.

Nazbaque
05-27-2016, 11:50 AM
Because it's Theoryland.

I was looking for a more detailed answer.

GonzoTheGreat
05-27-2016, 11:55 AM
I was looking for a more detailed answer.Since I don't have a drive for 8 inch disks, I don't have nuclear weapons*. So what else, apart from flame throwers, could possibly be relevant when discussing the difference between safety and security?

* Or maybe the other way around. Whatever.

Davian93
05-27-2016, 12:48 PM
in my experience it's more... Security means that the flame thrower cabinet is locked. Safety means that *if* there's a flamethrower present, people are aware of how and when to use it but even more importantly, how and when NOT to use it.

Safety also means you have the proper fire extinguisher available and properly mounted on the wall next to that cabinet and that the monthly and annual inspections for that extinguisher have been made and annotated.

Etc etc


Can you tell I do both safety and security for a living these days?

Nazbaque
05-27-2016, 12:54 PM
Since I don't have a drive for 8 inch disks, I don't have nuclear weapons*. So what else, apart from flame throwers, could possibly be relevant when discussing the difference between safety and security?

* Or maybe the other way around. Whatever.

Sex?

Davian93
05-27-2016, 12:58 PM
Safety and Security are both sides of the same coin. A lot of the same principles apply but the end goal is different. For nukes, safety would be making sure they don't go off accidentally through risk mitigation like making the bomb case more secure and the trigger mechanism less twitchy so to speak. It would also include things like practice exercises in loading and unloading both silos and bombers to make sure procedures work and the crews aren't at risk. Even things like teaching proper lifting techniques and ergonomics fall under "safety"

Security would be the prevention of tampering, having armed guards, patrols, CCTV systems, a fence line, concentric perimeter defenses, a hardened silo that can survive a nearby first strike attempt, etc.

Both come down to the concept of risk management and 99% of what I do every single day at my job is risk assessment and risk management regardless of whether I'm focused on safety or security.

DahLliA
05-27-2016, 05:10 PM
Both come down to the concept of risk management and 99% of what I do every single day at my job is risk assessment and risk management regardless of whether I'm focused on safety or security.

Bit off-topic, but your job sounds like the career I want to get into. So just wondering how you got into it and if you got any specific certifications or education?

Davian93
05-27-2016, 08:50 PM
I have a bunch of classroom instruction in both fields...probably a few hundred hours at this point. That's hours of classroom training, not credit hours. My actual degree is in history which doesn't really apply obviously. As far as commercially available certs, I have a Certified Protection Professional (CPP) cert and a Six Sigma Green Belt (not a specific safety or security cert but it definitely helps with the planning side of it). For other cents I have a physical security certification from Defense Security Services (DSS) a few Personnel Security certs, an Emergency Management Coordinator certification from DHS. Those are all govt owned or run entities and they're basically only open for federal or fed contract employees.

Most of my experience was learned OJT though. Those certs and classroom training was all basically paid for by my employer and I have to keep current with continuing education to maintain them.

It's fairly boring on a day to day basis but overall I find it fascinating.

As to how I got into it, I kinda fell backwards into it. I used to be in the Intelligence world but couldn't find a good job in that specialty when we moved from DC to Boston about 10 years ago for my now-wife's career (she was a engineer at the time for a big defense contractor) so I took a job in the security realm that still needed a high security clearance (something I still had from those Intel days). I went back to the Intel world a couple years later and found I no longer really liked it as much as security. Due to that realization, I quit and took a job in private sector with a large company as a security manager for a few of their facilities and then parlayed that back into a much higher federal security job a few years later and I've been with that employer ever since basically. I also ended up in Vermont of all places so go figure.

Khoram
05-27-2016, 09:22 PM
Woo! Go History degree! :p

That has always fascinated me - trying to think of all the different possibilities, and solutions to problems. Hopefully I'll be able to learn more about it, if I ever do end up getting into the military.

Can you believe that it's been nearly two years since I applied!? And I was supposed to be gone now, too. :(

Terez
05-28-2016, 06:35 AM
That's a rare English slip for yks in the title. Just mentioning it because Theoryland is boring, and because yks can usually pass for a native speaker. (It's always "the Pentagon" unless it's used as an adjective, like "Pentagon aides".)

GonzoTheGreat
05-28-2016, 06:59 AM
That's a rare English slip for yks in the title.Wouldn't an English slip be called "knickers"?

Of course, it's possible that yks did it on purpose; this seems to be a topic that requires short, simple words combined with simplified grammar.

Terez
05-28-2016, 08:01 AM
Sometimes headlines do drop grammatically necessary articles, but this just reads as wrong/weird. Perhaps another native would be willing to argue that point; this is Theoryland after all.

Nazbaque
05-28-2016, 09:26 AM
Is it a language thing, though? Isn't it more an American thing? If Brits, Aussies, Canadians etc. commonly leave the article out, then yks still passes for a native. So how does the rest of the English speaking world refer to the American Pentagon?

Kimon
05-28-2016, 11:42 AM
Sometimes headlines do drop grammatically necessary articles, but this just reads as wrong/weird. Perhaps another native would be willing to argue that point; this is Theoryland after all.

It has a feel similar to "in Russia...". Whether or not that was intentional is another question, but this is yks, and a similar splicing of the Russia joke would be rather fitting considering the topic.

GonzoTheGreat
05-29-2016, 03:29 AM
Well, yeah, but that explanation makes sense, which often is no fun at all.

yks 6nnetu hing
05-30-2016, 01:59 AM
Safety and Security are both sides of the same coin. A lot of the same principles apply but the end goal is different. For nukes, safety would be making sure they don't go off accidentally through risk mitigation like making the bomb case more secure and the trigger mechanism less twitchy so to speak. It would also include things like practice exercises in loading and unloading both silos and bombers to make sure procedures work and the crews aren't at risk. Even things like teaching proper lifting techniques and ergonomics fall under "safety"

Security would be the prevention of tampering, having armed guards, patrols, CCTV systems, a fence line, concentric perimeter defenses, a hardened silo that can survive a nearby first strike attempt, etc.

Both come down to the concept of risk management and 99% of what I do every single day at my job is risk assessment and risk management regardless of whether I'm focused on safety or security.

Safety and Security can also have a bit of a conflict - let's say you have followed all the Security regulations, but thereby your Safety procedures become ridiculously cumbersome.

I forgot to add the Q for quality that's often added in the acronym; at least... in the early stages of projects, during production/construction the Q is its own department usually.

The best clusterfucks happen when somebody bypasses the security (usually in order to speed things up), thereby 80% of the cases messing up both the safety and quality.

Woo! Go History degree! :p

That has always fascinated me - trying to think of all the different possibilities, and solutions to problems. Hopefully I'll be able to learn more about it, if I ever do end up getting into the military.

Can you believe that it's been nearly two years since I applied!? And I was supposed to be gone now, too. :( History degrees rock! you can do almost anything with a history degree. I'm about to transition form Document Control (=archiving) into Data Analysis. Which is the same technique as statistical historiography, really. Booyah!

It has a feel similar to "in Russia...". Whether or not that was intentional is another question, but this is yks, and a similar splicing of the Russia joke would be rather fitting considering the topic.

this was indeed the reason. Well, and the fact that I'd only had one cup of coffee at that point in the day when I posted it :p

GonzoTheGreat
05-30-2016, 02:23 AM
Well, and the fact that I'd only had one cup of coffee at that point in the day when I posted it
Should that be filed under breach of:
A. safety?
B. security?
C. quality?
D. none of the above?

Nazbaque
05-30-2016, 03:35 AM
Should that be filed under breach of:
A. safety?
B. security?
C. quality?
D. none of the above?

I think it would be either health or environment, so D.

Would it be correct to define security as safety from intentional harm? And in this I define playing with fire type of behaviour as intentionally harmful.

And as the safety approach is entirely dependent on what one wants to be safe from, it is completely normal for safety protocols to be in conflict.

DahLliA
05-30-2016, 04:57 AM
<snip>

Cheers. Guess I'll just have to keep trying to sneak some more certifications through my current job then :p

yks 6nnetu hing
05-30-2016, 05:11 AM
Should that be filed under breach of:
A. safety?
B. security?
C. quality?
D. none of the above?

quality. Since neither safety nor security of any person or institution would be compromised by omitting the "the"; however the quality of the title is sub-par.

I think it would be either health or environment, so D.

Would it be correct to define security as safety from intentional harm? And in this I define playing with fire type of behaviour as intentionally harmful.

And as the safety approach is entirely dependent on what one wants to be safe from, it is completely normal for safety protocols to be in conflict.

Unless someone would get a serious physical/mental reaction as a result of the missing "the", it's not health. And since it doesn't influence the environment in any way, it's not environment.

By and large, yes intentional actions which could cause harm. Whether the harm was intended or not, that's a whole different topic: then it becomes a question of sabotage versus incompetence/ negligence/ thoughtlessness.

Nazbaque
05-30-2016, 06:08 AM
quality. Since neither safety nor security of any person or institution would be compromised by omitting the "the"; however the quality of the title is sub-par.



Unless someone would get a serious physical/mental reaction as a result of the missing "the", it's not health. And since it doesn't influence the environment in any way, it's not environment.
I was refering to the cause of the missing the (and I think the 'in' should be 'at' if you included 'the' in the sentence). If lack of coffee has such effects on you, it must be a case of health. Or it could be that an environment without coffee is harmful to people.
By and large, yes intentional actions which could cause harm. Whether the harm was intended or not, that's a whole different topic: then it becomes a question of sabotage versus incompetence/ negligence/ thoughtlessness.

How does the topic become different for sabotage? Flawed security is flawed security.

yks 6nnetu hing
05-30-2016, 07:39 AM
I was refering to the cause of the missing the (and I think the 'in' should be 'at' if you included 'the' in the sentence). If lack of coffee has such effects on you, it must be a case of health. Or it could be that an environment without coffee is harmful to people.


ah. Yes, then it would be health. Albeit a really mild case of not being completely awake.

Davian93
05-30-2016, 08:53 AM
Great example of where safety and security can clash. You have a facility that has mag-lock doors (i.e. Big electro magnets serve as locks rather than a bar or latch system)...when you lose power, the doors are unlocked as there isn't any power to the magnets. So...to secure the building, you have an issue. You can't just chain the door shut because even if no one is inside, it violates the fire code (a safety regulation) so you have to post a guard, preferably armed. One mitigation is to have a backup power source...even just an UPS but those aren't 100% reliable either so it can get messy.

I ended up pushing for and getting an entire backup generator instead since it was such an issue.

But as you say, they can definitely be in conflict at times.

GonzoTheGreat
05-30-2016, 10:01 AM
Or it could be that an environment without coffee is harmful to people.Well, duh!

Nazbaque
05-30-2016, 10:55 AM
Well, duh!

You don't get to take that attitude, Gonzo.

GonzoTheGreat
05-30-2016, 11:19 AM
You don't get to take that attitude, Gonzo.
In Pentagon, attitude takes you.

Khoram
05-30-2016, 12:09 PM
Great example of where safety and security can clash. You have a facility that has mag-lock doors (i.e. Big electro magnets serve as locks rather than a bar or latch system)...when you lose power, the doors are unlocked as there isn't any power to the magnets. So...to secure the building, you have an issue. You can't just chain the door shut because even if no one is inside, it violates the fire code (a safety regulation) so you have to post a guard, preferably armed. One mitigation is to have a backup power source...even just an UPS but those aren't 100% reliable either so it can get messy.

I ended up pushing for and getting an entire backup generator instead since it was such an issue.

But as you say, they can definitely be in conflict at times.
Sounds like the problems in Jurassic Park. They should have had better contingency plans.

Nazbaque
05-30-2016, 12:15 PM
In Pentagon, attitude takes you.

You mean the name comes from all that pent up agony and the building shape is just a coincidence?

Nazbaque
05-30-2016, 12:18 PM
Sounds like the problems in Jurassic Park. They should have had better contingency plans.

Don't you mean sequals?

Khoram
05-30-2016, 12:35 PM
Don't you mean sequals?

They lose power in the first one. Mag locks are useless against the raptors.

Davian93
05-30-2016, 02:26 PM
Sounds like the problems in Jurassic Park. They should have had better contingency plans.

Its one of those things where reality (ie money) comes into it. Mag lock doors are super reliable when they have power as opposed to crash bar doors (a door where you hit the opening "bar" to retract the locking rods...think your standard "push to exit" type of door). For a heavy usage door, those rods tend to break or jam up quite regularly so using Maglocks becomes much more practical. Also, its nearly impossible to force a mag-lock door as long as its got power...unless of course you are a super human...the lock is just too strong. The power issue is one of those "hey now, we didnt think you'd ever lose power" type of things you get when multiple people are in on the planning process unfortunately. A generator was initially shot down as "too expensive" but shockingly it looked much more reasonable when they were scrambling to arrange 24/7 guard service on a friday afternoon before a holiday (shockingly these sort of things always seem to break on a weekend or holiday). Thus, the money suddenly became available after that.

So...mag locks make more sense from a practical standpoint but you have to have those secondary security backups to make it practical from that standpoint.

Every security decision ultimately comes down to 2 factors:

1. Is it practical from a misison standpoint?
2. Can we afford it?

The latter has more impact than any other though.

GonzoTheGreat
05-31-2016, 03:36 AM
Every security decision ultimately comes down to 2 factors:

1. Is it practical from a misison standpoint?
2. Can we afford it?
You are forgetting a very important third factor:
3. Do we want to bother?

Very often, the ones most affected by security breaches are not the ones making the decisions about them. In such a case the ones deciding not to spend the money won't be expected to deal with the resulting problems, which makes that money a lot more important than some added security to them.

I'll admit that this third option usually does not make it onto official decision making lists, but that doesn't make it any less real.

yks 6nnetu hing
05-31-2016, 04:49 AM
You are forgetting a very important third factor:
3. Do we want to bother?

Very often, the ones most affected by security breaches are not the ones making the decisions about them. In such a case the ones deciding not to spend the money won't be expected to deal with the resulting problems, which makes that money a lot more important than some added security to them.

I'll admit that this third option usually does not make it onto official decision making lists, but that doesn't make it any less real.

Also, the good old "how likely is it to happen" versus "how extensive would the damage be if it were to happen" If it's rather likely and has rather nasty consequences, you probably want to do something about it, and it's going to cost you. How much, depends on how much you want to mitigate. But if it has theoretically catastrophic consequences while the likelihood of it ever happening is infinitesimal, then you look at the costs of mitigation, which, in case of a catastrophy tend to be rather high... and usually you'll do nothing about it. Maybe write up a procedure or something, but no actual physical safety/security measures.

GonzoTheGreat
05-31-2016, 06:39 AM
Also, the good old "how likely is it to happen" versus "how extensive would the damage be if it were to happen" If it's rather likely and has rather nasty consequences, you probably want to do something about it, and it's going to cost you. How much, depends on how much you want to mitigate. But if it has theoretically catastrophic consequences while the likelihood of it ever happening is infinitesimal, then you look at the costs of mitigation, which, in case of a catastrophy tend to be rather high... and usually you'll do nothing about it. Maybe write up a procedure or something, but no actual physical safety/security measures.
Coupled with "if it goes wrong, there won't be any courts in which anyone could sue us anyway" this neatly explains the nuclear weapon situation, doesn't it?

Davian93
05-31-2016, 07:09 AM
You are forgetting a very important third factor:
3. Do we want to bother?

Very often, the ones most affected by security breaches are not the ones making the decisions about them. In such a case the ones deciding not to spend the money won't be expected to deal with the resulting problems, which makes that money a lot more important than some added security to them.

I'll admit that this third option usually does not make it onto official decision making lists, but that doesn't make it any less real.

That is quite true...and that's almost always the person/persons that hold the purse strings so to speak.

The hardest thing with security in general is that you have to prove that it matters...which can be difficult because good security means there is an absence of issues at which to point and say "see, this is why we need it". So, if you are too good (or just lucky), it starts to become a "why do we bother paying for this stuff when nothing ever happens". They ignore, of course, the concept of deterrence.

yks 6nnetu hing
05-31-2016, 11:11 AM
That is quite true...and that's almost always the person/persons that hold the purse strings so to speak.

The hardest thing with security in general is that you have to prove that it matters...which can be difficult because good security means there is an absence of issues at which to point and say "see, this is why we need it". So, if you are too good (or just lucky), it starts to become a "why do we bother paying for this stuff when nothing ever happens". They ignore, of course, the concept of deterrence.

it's all fun and games until some moron with an iDiot decides to delete the shared Dropbox because "his laptop was being slow". true story.

and THAT's when you get to say "I told you so". I've gotten to say "I told you so" on about 4-8 different occasions over the last 6 months but of course now it's too late to change anything. Should've listened when I f'ing TOLD you so.

Davian93
05-31-2016, 12:27 PM
it's all fun and games until some moron with an iDiot decides to delete the shared Dropbox because "his laptop was being slow". true story.

and THAT's when you get to say "I told you so". I've gotten to say "I told you so" on about 4-8 different occasions over the last 6 months but of course now it's too late to change anything. Should've listened when I f'ing TOLD you so.

ROFL...that's awesome. Just awesome.

Fun story on "safety": One time, I was at a OSHA instructors course. The best "story" we got on "idiots at my office" from another guy there was during fire extinguisher training. A guy was telling us about one of his students who swore up and down he knew how to use a fire extinguisher. So they get to the certification part of the test and the student supposedly picked up the extinguisher, pulled the pin and then tossed it in the fire. You know, because extinguishers are like big grenades that put out fires.

Now, I dont know how true that story is but the guy telling it swore up and down it was 100% true.

I could totally see someone being that stupid though.

Khoram
05-31-2016, 12:41 PM
ROFL...that's awesome. Just awesome.

Fun story on "safety": One time, I was at a OSHA instructors course. The best "story" we got on "idiots at my office" from another guy there was during fire extinguisher training. A guy was telling us about one of his students who swore up and down he knew how to use a fire extinguisher. So they get to the certification part of the test and the student supposedly picked up the extinguisher, pulled the pin and then tossed it in the fire. You know, because extinguishers are like big grenades that put out fires.

Now, I dont know how true that story is but the guy telling it swore up and down it was 100% true.

I could totally see someone being that stupid though.
Seeing as we're going into crazy stories... :rolleyes:

When I was in Trenton back in November, the pilot giving us the RJP told us a story about this particular fighter pilot, who, while sitting on the runway preparing to take off, got the hose connecting his oxygen supply to his mask tangled up in the ejection seat handle. He then proceeded to move his head, which caused the handle to be pulled, propelling him through his canopy. Apparently he's now a trainer in Portage-la-Prairie. XD

Subsequent attempts to replicate this feat came up empty.

Davian93
05-31-2016, 12:51 PM
Seeing as we're going into crazy stories... :rolleyes:

When I was in Trenton back in November, the pilot giving us the RJP told us a story about this particular fighter pilot, who, while sitting on the runway preparing to take off, got the hose connecting his oxygen supply to his mask tangled up in the ejection seat handle. He then proceeded to move his head, which caused the handle to be pulled, propelling him through his canopy. Apparently he's now a trainer in Portage-la-Prairie. XD

Subsequent attempts to replicate this feat came up empty.

So one time my buddy and I were talking about jump training to be Airborne. He was telling me about his first jump at Fort Benning (you do 5 jumps to qualify and get your jump wings). Anyway, he and his stick (think squad) were in the C-130 and all hooked up, ready to jump from the plane. He was at the back of the stick...last man out of the plane basically. Anyway, he was basically in full panic and would not jump out. So, the Jumpmaster (Instructor leading the jump) who was a huge black guy...think like 6'6", 250 pounds of pure muscle, looked right at him and says "Look private, if you don't jump out of this plane, I'm gonna shove my d!ck up your a$$" I was figured he was kidding at this point, but he looked at me straight in the eye and said "I shit you not, that's what the man said word for word". Finally after an awkward pause, I asked "Well, did you jump or what?"

His response? "Well, a little at first".

Khoram
05-31-2016, 12:58 PM
So one time my buddy and I were talking about jump training to be Airborne. He was telling me about his first jump at Fort Benning (you do 5 jumps to qualify and get your jump wings). Anyway, he and his stick (think squad) were in the C-130 and all hooked up, ready to jump from the plane. He was at the back of the stick...last man out of the plane basically. Anyway, he was basically in full panic and would not jump out. So, the Jumpmaster (Instructor leading the jump) who was a huge black guy...think like 6'6", 250 pounds of pure muscle, looked right at him and says "Look private, if you don't jump out of this plane, I'm gonna shove my d!ck up your a$$" I was figured he was kidding at this point, but he looked at me straight in the eye and said "I shit you not, that's what the man said word for word". Finally after an awkward pause, I asked "Well, did you jump or what?"

His response? "Well, a little at first".
He got jerked around a bit. Then, once he got used to the feeling, it was all smooth sailing from there on out. XD

yks 6nnetu hing
06-01-2016, 01:05 AM
ROFL...that's awesome. Just awesome.

Fun story on "safety": One time, I was at a OSHA instructors course. The best "story" we got on "idiots at my office" from another guy there was during fire extinguisher training. A guy was telling us about one of his students who swore up and down he knew how to use a fire extinguisher. So they get to the certification part of the test and the student supposedly picked up the extinguisher, pulled the pin and then tossed it in the fire. You know, because extinguishers are like big grenades that put out fires.

Now, I dont know how true that story is but the guy telling it swore up and down it was 100% true.

I could totally see someone being that stupid though.

I've heard a VERY similar one, also from a fire awareness trainer. Supposedly it happened at another warehouse of my then employer: There was a fire and one of the warehouse workers thought he'd help; so he went and got the fire extinguisher and threw it in the fire.


The best one that happened somewhat recently - the kind of stuff you think only happens in cartoons, really. So, this guy, very experienced, team leader that day, he was fastening an extra rope (I say rope, I mean a rope made out of strong enough stuff to lift about 900 tons of steel) for some lifting activities. Now, since the thing he was fastening was quite... bulky, he decided to throw the rope over rather than use additional guiding ropes to get it over. This is actually quite common practice, the rope does need an extra weight on one end so it flies well enough; so common practice is to make a knot in the end. But instead of a knot, he thought he'd be quick and put the shackle on the rope already. Threw it up, it didn't reach the top, bounced right back and hit the guy on the head. While he was looking up at it. Helmet on and everything, but he got hit under the helmet because of the looking up. Thankfully there was no serious injury, just a few stiches.

Sarevok
06-05-2016, 04:20 PM
That item about the nuclear security rang a bell. Wanna get really scared?

http://www.cracked.com/personal-experiences-1588-5-things-learned-guarding-nuclear-missiles-as-teenager.html
and
http://www.cracked.com/personal-experiences-1858-drugs-cheating-5-realities-being-nuclear-missileer.html

yks 6nnetu hing
06-06-2016, 01:35 AM
That item about the nuclear security rang a bell. Wanna get really scared?

http://www.cracked.com/personal-experiences-1588-5-things-learned-guarding-nuclear-missiles-as-teenager.html
and
http://www.cracked.com/personal-experiences-1858-drugs-cheating-5-realities-being-nuclear-missileer.html

Those are great. just... so depressingly typical.