Actually, TopGear did tests with sports cars and the distance was like 70 feet. It took the reasonably priced car going 115mph to stop in 240 feet.
It's reaction time (notice and react) + braking time. If you're paying attention it's 1/4 to 1/2 a second to notice, and another 1/4 to 3/4 of a second to react - then add the braking time.
At 100kph (~60mph) in dry conditions with good brakes in an ordinary car that's about 18.3m (60ft) to start braking, another 59.4 (195ft) to stop. A total of 77.7m (255ft), One and a half Olympic swimming pool lengths.
How fast do I need to be going to out drive my headlights? I thought C was pretty quick:/
You should follow drinkiepoos advice - then you wouldn't need to ask stupid questions. You need to drive no faster than a speed that will allow you to stop within the distance lit by your headlights. If you can't work out what that means, then don't fucking drive you quibbling fool.
the only people who don't see the value in them are those who don't have the skills/experience or sufficient free time and disposable money to throw away necessary to acquire them.
TFTFY.
some people who don't see the value in them haven't done them so their only frame of reference is a sphincter.
TFTFY
I only drive Fords because all Holdens are crap - that's why I've never driven one. != I only drive Fords because I've driven Holdens and found they were crap.
How does going to the moon do a better job of lining the corporate pocket than just gutting the NASA budget (and others) and giving a them a tax cut?
That's witling fool like you said about going to the moon the first time. Or are you still clinging to the belief that it didn't happen? Shirley McLaine wants says that's her tree.
This time it's about staying on the moon. Which will likely result in more technological development and scientific discoveries than the first mission. What - you can't think of any results? How did you post arrive here - by pigeon?
So Melbourne uni had a great cluster. Spent a fortune on it. It's switched off because they couldn't afford the power. Let's hope the BOM remembers to factor that into the estimate. I guess we know now why they want to increase the GST.
I didn't know that, thanks - if I had mod points I'd mod that up.
I'm pretty sure the push to increase the GST is so Abbott can lower the tax rates for his coal mining mates - and to pay for more helicopter flights by politicians of all parties to fly more instead of having to drive.
Australian weather forecasts are easy: Just report that it will be hot! Most of the time you will be right on the money.
Except when it's -6C (last night) or lower. Canberra, National Capital, of Australia - which is not a small island off the coast of California you geographically challenged fool.
Try camping out overnight in the Death Valley and see how "mostly hot" that is - don't worry about a sleeping bag. Please.
Probably a result of ashleymadison going after lowest bidder contracts when trying to get their security sorted. You get what you pay for.
What I found most interesting was the similarity between the correspondence Joel Erickssonn of Cycura says he had with the "people" (person?) behind Cicada 3301 and the nature and wording of the "attackers" demands/claim of responsibility for the ashleymadison breach.
And his company (basically just him) is very unlikely to be the lowest bidder, he's also much more of an attacker and cryptographer than a security engineer.
I'm not sure that firefighters as an analogy should be stretched too far (we have female firefighters in Australia - a higher percentage than you) - police work would be perhaps a better comparison. I suspect there's more of a "duty" call there - with all respect to firefighters.
You make a lot of interesting points, the intersection of contracted forces and pregnancy is an interesting one that I haven't put much thought into, but I'd thought I'd just limit myself to this one point.
The main difference between police and fire fighting I would say is that the former has physical requirements they're based on a situation that will never arise. I.e. police (like most soldiers to tell the truth) train and prepare for a situation that will never come. The overwhelming majority of police never draw their service weapon in the line of duty for example. And comforting crying children after a traffic accident, or filling in the umpteenth burglary report can of course be fulfilled with a minimum of physical prowess. (OK, most uniformed police in "outer" service do a bit of impromptu wrestling during their stint, so there's that.
Agreed.
Firstly - the main reason I wanted to avoid the firefighter analogy because I've not met many firefighters (CFA doesn't count) so I don't know what shapes the desire to do that job (which doesn't have a lot of non-active roles), and I don't know a lot about it. But I've met a lot of soldiers and police. With the exception of countries where women are drafted the female soldiers who make a career of "active" roles "usually" entered the forces because their families had a history of service. i.e. it was a role they were born into and they often had family support. Likewise police.
Secondly - you make some good points I hadn't considered. I suspect there may be a problem with the physical standard requirements, though never-the-less female police do serve a very important place in the police forces. Not particularly relevant, but the most common response when asking what's the worst part of a cops job, is "telling the families someone is dead".
But we also know that this is where WPCs fair the worst. And in Sweden we've seen an up-tick in police brutality reports as we've had more WPCs. They have to go for the Mace/pepper spray instead of wrestling...)
Interesting - I haven't noticed that here, but we have some weird institution police cultures. i.e. preferential treatment for entrants who play professional male sports, deeply rooted corrupt culture in some states (over a hundred years of baton changing). We do get a fair bit of justifiable brutality complaints about cops, mostly male, but I don't know how that translates into gender ratios. There have been a couple of recent cases where women were involved - but they were definitely not the result of lack of weight (e.g. part of a group of police illegally invading, handcuffing and stomping on someone). When I used to run a pub it was always male police that were sent out if there was a problem - we sponsored the local police football team so I got to know them better than I'd like. Strong culture of corruption and they sidelined anyone who didn't belong to their "boys club" - so any bloke who read books, wasn't corrupt, or women were given the shit work. Physical standards for cops here are pretty low.
<snipped>
P.S. In the Swedish army we were taught that the Israeli experience was that while women soldiers in combat postings did fine, the men around them didn't. The "cave man reflex" (not my terminology) made men expose themselves far to much when women were in danger, to the detriment of the mission. But perhaps that's the sort of macho behaviour that training and indoctrination can deal with, and I don't know how large this effect was in either case. It's just a point of interest.
I've heard the same thing, I've also heard from people that did their
Watching videos and selective reading doesn't make your "opinion" any less invalid. If you haven't made the grade your opinion is irrelevant. It only makes you unworthy of benefitting from the actions of those that do.
It doesn't really change things. She wants to argue that if we give lots and lots of runway to women they can do as well as marginal men in strength. Don't you find this suggestive?
Suggestive. No. Fact no. The only fact in that paragraph is the fact that you can't or won't fucking read. Her argument is that the standards should be the same. That you pretend the words mean something other than what they say is "suggestive" - just not the way you'd wish them to be. Do strong women scare you? Do you prefer them all to be petite and submissive?
But there came a point when I could not persuade my body to perform. It wasn’t a matter of will but of pure physical strength. My mind wanted more, but my muscles quivered in failure after multiple attempts. I began to shiver as I got cold. I was told I could not continue
If she ends up with her wish, that men and women are judged by the exact same standards it will end up even worse for women than it is now.
And now you leap from bank to bank astride the horse of desperation. First you say women can't make it - then you say that those that do somehow make life worse for other women. Which is bullshit - unless you're arguing that your dick has shrunk because some of us men did make the cut - but you couldn't. You also build on bullshit, a sloppy foundation for an argument worth serious consideration - she never made the 'wish' you imply she did. She failed, so what, she should have had the same second chance as men. If she failed again - so what? People are supposed to fail selection - and most do.
Take the "gender norming" out of the fitness tests and women's scores will plummet.
Not only is that a red herring, it's utter bullshit. Are you hoping people won't read the article? There is no gender norming in those tests. "Marine Sgt. Maj. Micheal P. Barrett, the senior enlisted adviser to the commandant, affirmed: “Our plan is deliberate, measured and responsible. We will not lower our standards.”
So she knows what she is talking about,
Yes she does, as does the jarhead who posted earlier. But not you
and the other more experienced women that say this is an unnecessary bad idea don't?
That doesn't even make sense. All she said was that when she attempted the test she was only allowed one try - and that men were allowed two. That is equal standards. What other more experienced women? Capt Petronio - it's OK for me, but not for general infantry, cos it breaks the brotherhood, people leave the career damaged (no shit, it's hard,), and rape (and that's gender specific)? That's her opinion - typical of REMFs. Now you're so desperate to prove women can't make the cut you're basing your claims on, um, women who have made the cut.
And you're back to your unequal claim that those that do qualify somehow make life worse for those that don't - patently a gender biased view.
Or are their views not worth considering?
Another red herring - of course "their" views are not worth considering if they haven't qualified, the same as yours. Failure is not the qualification for determining the success of others. Those that don't make the cut should not have a say. In the case of Capt Petronio she is entitled to an opinion and she's given one, about infantry. Captains do that.
Apropos of which, Sergeants don't write essays.
A very quick reply with out proof reading. Apologies if it reads like it was written in short burst - it was, I'm multitasking.
I don't believe in equality - it's a myth. Equal opportunity is different. In no way am I suggesting that equal number of women, can, or should be in active duty - only that the criteria should be meeting the operational standards.
If women meet the same standards required for active service - good for them, good for those they serve, and good for those they serve with.
While that is a laudable sentiment, and one that I can get behind, don't be surprised if you end up with approximately no women in your battalions.
We'll have to wait and see if the current trend continues - I'm wary of extrapolating my experience (it's almost two decades and a half since I turned 40 and left service, and infantry is a completely different cultural mentality) to women everywhere. Average physique and cultural psychology vary. I previously mentioned particular elite units in which women serve in roles the same as men - it's not a comprehensive list. The women I have met and observed in those roles are just as dedicated to their service as the men - so that proposal was made in reference to wider deployment of women in shooting roles, especially in the USA where abortion is a very contentious subject and in some US states it's illegal. Pregnancy happens - so what happens if women do make the cut in elite US units, become pregnant and wish to seek an abortion - will the US military support them? General infantry roles are different as the training costs are much lower. How will the US military deal with the economics of the return on investment for those women currently close to completing the final stages of Ranger training? If they do decide that abortion services is something they provide will they provide the same services to US service women in other units? What will the political ramifications be? As I previously noted we don't have a problem with using the same titles for soldiers of both genders - that's different in the US. I'm not proposing compulsory abortion, just considering that a small number of women doing what a lot of men have done - joining up so that they can scam their way out of active service just to reap the benefits. Abortion on demand - and a policy what options are available if a soldier becomes pregnant. I mentioned this is likely redundant in the case of elite units, having made the grade most soldiers of any gender tend to dedicate themselves (corp de esprit). If abortion is a service the military won't provide then they have to decide what to do when a female soldier becomes pregnant. Note also that many of the units I mentioned are in countries where military service is compulsory (that's not the case in Australia). If a male soldier knocks up a woman it has no effect on his service and it's unreasonable to automatically decide that if a female soldier becomes pregnant it's the equivalent of negligence. As it stands male soldiers do get special consideration when their partner has a child - but that's a much shorter break from service than women require if pregnant. Given the cost of training it'd be impractical not to require that a female soldier contract to not have a child during their contracted period of service. The US and Australia tend to bend the rules with smaller elite units i.e. it's technically illegal but one unit which I was familiar with was composed solely of soldiers who were either left-handed or ambidextrous and had a degree. It also had women in shooting roles. Women were told they were not allowed to have children during their contract period (none complained that I heard of. That degree of autonomy is not possible in larger units - so the military will have to create rules which require legislative support. In most countries abortion is not an issue - I seriously doubt the USA will allow the military to give serving women the right to seek abortions - it'd
The Snapchat CEO has a good point. Why would I look at the tiny picture on a phone when I can look at a big one on my desktop?
He's probably wrong, though. People are both dumber than a box of rocks and richer than they deserve to be. This is why fools and their money are soon parted. They'll pay for the watch, they'll pay for the apps, and they'll be no better off for it. It just takes a little time, that's all.
Sigh. A Watt is a unit of power, not energy. Every second our bodies consume 100J of energy, which means
on average we're burning about 100 watts (J/s). We consume around 8Mj per day, or 2000 Kcalories, or the equivalent of 40 of my laptop's batteries (56Wh) or 634 of my phone's batteries (3.5Wh).
Seriously, the average human sheds the equivalent heat of a 100W incandescent light bulb. (~350,000 Jph)
There, fixed that myself. (distracted by the more interesting Cicada/Cycura/Ashley Madison story)
Some of his demonstrably patent bullshit about their security.
"We have always had the confidentiality of our customers' information foremost in our minds, and have had stringent security measures in place". Um, encryption - have you heard of it? And PCI - yeah, right, a bus protocol.
The "security" fail company - they would have done better employing CyCura® the "binary ex-situ bioremediation system".
I'm guessing they got confused and deployed this Cycura instead. Which'd explain why alarms didn't go off until after the successful attack. When their teeth started grinding.
Candidate for sociopath of the year award, Joel Eriksson, CTO, Cycura, we will continue to be a leader in the services we provide. "I have worked with leading companies around the world to secure their businesses. I have no doubt, based on the work I and my company are doing, Avid Life Media will continue to be a strong, secure business,". Continue? Fail. To continue you need to start somewhere. Secure? Fail.
Makes me wonder if he faked his widely promoted cracking of the Cicada.
This is the most interesting bit Anyone else see similarities and strangely missing information?
He certainly he fucked up big time "protecting" his client, and he shouldn't have (because he does seem to have the ability to know how to secure a system).
Curiouser and curiouser. But not so curious I want to follow that rabbit down a hole.
" which is conveniently enough to power a modestly used smart phone". Actually 2000 calories per day is about 100W. That's a pretty damned big smartphone.
New smart phones are often more power efficient. The article is talking about a "used" one, the modest kind.
Seriously, humans tend to shed far more than 100W of heat energy per day (~350,000 Jph), so - that's a "bunch" (psyntifik term) of those old Motorola bricks (nothing modest about those used phones, though they were consider smart in their heyday).
Boeing is a military contractor. When considering providing a service to the military or one of their contractors the first step is to ask "How much?".
"Can we deliver?" comes later.
There are exceptional companies, but Hacking Team is not one of them - a personal opinion based on reading much of the leaked data (without questioning it's authenticity).
"You want the moon? Didn't you see page 27 of our latest brochure [sound of keyboard, then printer] I'll send you another copy in a minute".
Addendum - a re-read of the referenced article says nothing about Boeing, though it may be the parent company. The actual leaked documents say nothing about attacking the networks of ordinary people.
Boeing is a military contractor. When considering providing a service to the military or one of their contractors the first step is to ask "How much?". "Can we deliver?" comes later.
There are exceptional companies, but Hacking Team is not one of them - a personal opinion based on reading much of the leaked data (without questioning it's authenticity).
"You want the moon? Didn't you see page 27 of our latest brochure [sound of keyboard, then printer] I'll send you another copy in a minute".
"As you've noted - most men won't qualify for the U.S. Marines. But that's a false standard and it presupposes that because someone can, they would wish to (I note that qualifying as a Marine doesn't mean you automagically qualify as a Ranger, no disrespect to Marines)."
I think you have it backward.
It's your view, and you're welcome to it. If that's regimental pride I salute it. If, as is more likely, it's a groupie thing, or an undisciplined desire to give an opinion, you're just an idiot that argues without good reason. In the latter case try chewing gum if you need jaw exercise.
Just because you qualify as a Ranger, doesn't mean you can qualify with the Marines.
I never said it did, or that the analogy wasn't reversible. They have different purposes - only idiots that qualified for neither debate about which is better. Both Rangers and Marines (which encompasses a range of special units) do have demonstrated the capability to meet general infantry standards (does context elude you, or did your lips get sore?). Both points are what you failed to grasp. Probably because you have a habit of not bothering to pay attention.
Nit picking is nothing to be proud of when razors and medicated treatments are available.
There are many anecdotal stories of an army company or battalion calling for relief, and waiting for a division to come in. A squad of marines shows up, announcing, "We are your relief, Sir!"
Actually, given your username, are you maybe trying to bias the conversation because you are afraid of being exorcised?
[smile] If so I'm not aware of it (possessed?).
I forgot the password for a much older account setup with a long-since defunct email provider. The username was quickly chosen from the slashdot survey of that day. Not assigned by Lucifer (he gave me a special name which I can't tell you or he'll snatch back my gold guitar)
Some economists propose that the economy can be cheerled. They may be right in the very short term (if buying houses with loans you can't pay is a measure) - but in the long term I "believe" that's mind over matter.
The US probably has their own small and quiet equivalent (or has had).
The US has a whole slew of these spec ops groups.
Context. I wasn't rating regiments - as a general rule they all tend to be the best at what they do. Just referring to those that include women. SpecOps everywhere tend to include temporary units with compositions and tasks outside of the norm.
Small correction. COM1 aren't sole operators. Strictly speaking.
There are SpecOp units with women. Russia's 5th Spetsnaz, France's 11th Parachute Brigade, 13th Parachute Dragoon Reg., Israel's Sayeret Matkal. SpecOp Reconn units like Britains SRR, South Koreas 707th, and that's a far from complete list of units with much higher physical and psychological selection criteria than general infantry (and my military experience is 15 years out of date, more elite units have allowed women since then). what you will generally find is that they didn't go through the same selection and training process as the primary members of the force.
I think if you examine the presence of women in most special forces type units.
I suspect that if you bother to research the regiments I mentioned, rather than over-invest the "most" strawman, you may be surprised. I'd suggest you don't trot that belief out in front of a female SRR unless you'd like to experience a condensed version of P Company selection testing. Or not - it could prove an education.
You sound like an armchair general. There's a difference between direct experience and sophist "knowledge". No amount of reading or watching videos will bridge that gap. I trained and competed with some of those regiments - as have many regiments from the USA. Mutual respect is more common than not.
Lest you get distracted from your original claim - my point is that if women can meet the standards of elite forces, they can meet the standards of general infantry. They can, and they do.
Women did well as snipers, pilots, anti-aircraft, and many other duties for the Soviets. They were used as infantry at times, and they were removed from that role as soon as the Soviets could manage as I recall.
Your recollections are correct - though it leaves out tank crews (a brutally hard job). There were some instances of women serving on the front lines - and many instances of them being executed for it. Notable exceptions would be (WW1) the Perm Battalion and the 1st Russian Women's Battalion of Death.
The actual reasons they were deployed in both WWs in active roles was because necessity overcame the military culture of men only (despite political ideals). I suspect they'd have been deployed in the infantry more often if not for the ready supply of zeks. Despite military cultural bias (I blame the nepotism that's standard amongst the REMF in the military everywhere) the Russian command recognised that women were superior snipers. But the Russian experience is unique so I don't know if that applies to all women. The reason they were removed from active service after both WWs was partially due to the changes in military command, and mostly due practical reasons - a need to repopulate.
The Soviet war effort, not to mention the US and UK war effort, would have been greatly weakened without the participation of women.
Agreed.
That still doesn't mean that general purpose infantry is a good place to use them.
On that point we disagree. From my point of view - if I was 40 years younger and re-enlisted I'd prefer to serve along side soldiers selected on the basis of meeting practical standards not cultural biases.
and there are very few women that really have an interest in it.
A weak argument. I'm opposed to the draft - for either gender. And that's been a defining difference between the USA and Australia (, England, and New Zealand) for a long time. Possibly because we have a smaller pool of candidates and less resources to supply them.
I don't believe in equality - it's a myth. Equal opportunity is different. In no way am I suggesting that equal number of women, can, or should be in active duty - only that the criteria should be meeting the operational standards. If women meet the same standards required for active service - good for them, good for those they serve, and good for those they serve with.
Slashdot Mirror
That's fine. Most Americans don't want anything to do with that metric shit anyway. How many tons in 234,670lbs anyway (let alone tonnes)
117.335 short tons, 104.763393 long tons, 106.444521 tonnes. Have you heard of the internet?
Actually, TopGear did tests with sports cars and the distance was like 70 feet. It took the reasonably priced car going 115mph to stop in 240 feet.
It's reaction time (notice and react) + braking time. If you're paying attention it's 1/4 to 1/2 a second to notice, and another 1/4 to 3/4 of a second to react - then add the braking time.
At 100kph (~60mph) in dry conditions with good brakes in an ordinary car that's about 18.3m (60ft) to start braking, another 59.4 (195ft) to stop. A total of 77.7m (255ft), One and a half Olympic swimming pool lengths.
Which is why I hate tail-gaters.
How fast do I need to be going to out drive my headlights? I thought C was pretty quick :/
You should follow drinkiepoos advice - then you wouldn't need to ask stupid questions. You need to drive no faster than a speed that will allow you to stop within the distance lit by your headlights. If you can't work out what that means, then don't fucking drive you quibbling fool.
Josh may not be dead of fowl play,[...]
What! There is no killer chickens on the loose. That's a relief.
the only people who don't see the value in them are those who don't have the skills/experience or sufficient free time and disposable money to throw away necessary to acquire them.
TFTFY.
some people who don't see the value in them haven't done them so their only frame of reference is a sphincter.
TFTFY
I only drive Fords because all Holdens are crap - that's why I've never driven one. != I only drive Fords because I've driven Holdens and found they were crap.
Bing users aren't afraid of challenge...
TFTFY ~ Clippy
How does going to the moon do a better job of lining the corporate pocket than just gutting the NASA budget (and others) and giving a them a tax cut?
That's witling fool like you said about going to the moon the first time. Or are you still clinging to the belief that it didn't happen? Shirley McLaine wants says that's her tree.
This time it's about staying on the moon. Which will likely result in more technological development and scientific discoveries than the first mission. What - you can't think of any results? How did you post arrive here - by pigeon?
What good does going back to the moon do? Well, other than lining the pockets of corporations.
For the betterment of mankind, obviously.
Tell me sending Trump and the Bushes there wouldn't be a good thing.
So Melbourne uni had a great cluster. Spent a fortune on it. It's switched off because they couldn't afford the power. Let's hope the BOM remembers to factor that into the estimate. I guess we know now why they want to increase the GST.
I didn't know that, thanks - if I had mod points I'd mod that up.
I'm pretty sure the push to increase the GST is so Abbott can lower the tax rates for his coal mining mates - and to pay for more helicopter flights by politicians of all parties to fly more instead of having to drive.
Australian weather forecasts are easy: Just report that it will be hot! Most of the time you will be right on the money.
Except when it's -6C (last night) or lower. Canberra, National Capital, of Australia - which is not a small island off the coast of California you geographically challenged fool.
Try camping out overnight in the Death Valley and see how "mostly hot" that is - don't worry about a sleeping bag. Please.
Probably a result of ashleymadison going after lowest bidder contracts when trying to get their security sorted. You get what you pay for.
What I found most interesting was the similarity between the correspondence Joel Erickssonn of Cycura says he had with the "people" (person?) behind Cicada 3301 and the nature and wording of the "attackers" demands/claim of responsibility for the ashleymadison breach.
And his company (basically just him) is very unlikely to be the lowest bidder, he's also much more of an attacker and cryptographer than a security engineer.
I'm not sure that firefighters as an analogy should be stretched too far (we have female firefighters in Australia - a higher percentage than you) - police work would be perhaps a better comparison. I suspect there's more of a "duty" call there - with all respect to firefighters.
You make a lot of interesting points, the intersection of contracted forces and pregnancy is an interesting one that I haven't put much thought into, but I'd thought I'd just limit myself to this one point.
The main difference between police and fire fighting I would say is that the former has physical requirements they're based on a situation that will never arise. I.e. police (like most soldiers to tell the truth) train and prepare for a situation that will never come. The overwhelming majority of police never draw their service weapon in the line of duty for example. And comforting crying children after a traffic accident, or filling in the umpteenth burglary report can of course be fulfilled with a minimum of physical prowess. (OK, most uniformed police in "outer" service do a bit of impromptu wrestling during their stint, so there's that.
Agreed.
Firstly - the main reason I wanted to avoid the firefighter analogy because I've not met many firefighters (CFA doesn't count) so I don't know what shapes the desire to do that job (which doesn't have a lot of non-active roles), and I don't know a lot about it. But I've met a lot of soldiers and police. With the exception of countries where women are drafted the female soldiers who make a career of "active" roles "usually" entered the forces because their families had a history of service. i.e. it was a role they were born into and they often had family support. Likewise police.
Secondly - you make some good points I hadn't considered. I suspect there may be a problem with the physical standard requirements, though never-the-less female police do serve a very important place in the police forces. Not particularly relevant, but the most common response when asking what's the worst part of a cops job, is "telling the families someone is dead".
But we also know that this is where WPCs fair the worst. And in Sweden we've seen an up-tick in police brutality reports as we've had more WPCs. They have to go for the Mace/pepper spray instead of wrestling...)
Interesting - I haven't noticed that here, but we have some weird institution police cultures. i.e. preferential treatment for entrants who play professional male sports, deeply rooted corrupt culture in some states (over a hundred years of baton changing). We do get a fair bit of justifiable brutality complaints about cops, mostly male, but I don't know how that translates into gender ratios. There have been a couple of recent cases where women were involved - but they were definitely not the result of lack of weight (e.g. part of a group of police illegally invading, handcuffing and stomping on someone).
When I used to run a pub it was always male police that were sent out if there was a problem - we sponsored the local police football team so I got to know them better than I'd like. Strong culture of corruption and they sidelined anyone who didn't belong to their "boys club" - so any bloke who read books, wasn't corrupt, or women were given the shit work.
Physical standards for cops here are pretty low.
<snipped>
P.S. In the Swedish army we were taught that the Israeli experience was that while women soldiers in combat postings did fine, the men around them didn't. The "cave man reflex" (not my terminology) made men expose themselves far to much when women were in danger, to the detriment of the mission. But perhaps that's the sort of macho behaviour that training and indoctrination can deal with, and I don't know how large this effect was in either case. It's just a point of interest.
I've heard the same thing, I've also heard from people that did their
I've seen it before.
Watching videos and selective reading doesn't make your "opinion" any less invalid. If you haven't made the grade your opinion is irrelevant. It only makes you unworthy of benefitting from the actions of those that do.
It doesn't really change things. She wants to argue that if we give lots and lots of runway to women they can do as well as marginal men in strength. Don't you find this suggestive?
Suggestive. No. Fact no. The only fact in that paragraph is the fact that you can't or won't fucking read. Her argument is that the standards should be the same. That you pretend the words mean something other than what they say is "suggestive" - just not the way you'd wish them to be. Do strong women scare you? Do you prefer them all to be petite and submissive?
But there came a point when I could not persuade my body to perform. It wasn’t a matter of will but of pure physical strength. My mind wanted more, but my muscles quivered in failure after multiple attempts. I began to shiver as I got cold. I was told I could not continue
If she ends up with her wish, that men and women are judged by the exact same standards it will end up even worse for women than it is now.
And now you leap from bank to bank astride the horse of desperation. First you say women can't make it - then you say that those that do somehow make life worse for other women. Which is bullshit - unless you're arguing that your dick has shrunk because some of us men did make the cut - but you couldn't. You also build on bullshit, a sloppy foundation for an argument worth serious consideration - she never made the 'wish' you imply she did. She failed, so what, she should have had the same second chance as men. If she failed again - so what? People are supposed to fail selection - and most do.
Take the "gender norming" out of the fitness tests and women's scores will plummet.
Not only is that a red herring, it's utter bullshit. Are you hoping people won't read the article? There is no gender norming in those tests.
"Marine Sgt. Maj. Micheal P. Barrett, the senior enlisted adviser to the commandant, affirmed: “Our plan is deliberate, measured and responsible. We will not lower our standards.”
So she knows what she is talking about,
Yes she does, as does the jarhead who posted earlier. But not you
and the other more experienced women that say this is an unnecessary bad idea don't?
That doesn't even make sense. All she said was that when she attempted the test she was only allowed one try - and that men were allowed two. That is equal standards.
What other more experienced women? Capt Petronio - it's OK for me, but not for general infantry, cos it breaks the brotherhood, people leave the career damaged (no shit, it's hard,), and rape (and that's gender specific)? That's her opinion - typical of REMFs. Now you're so desperate to prove women can't make the cut you're basing your claims on, um, women who have made the cut.
And you're back to your unequal claim that those that do qualify somehow make life worse for those that don't - patently a gender biased view.
Or are their views not worth considering?
Another red herring - of course "their" views are not worth considering if they haven't qualified, the same as yours. Failure is not the qualification for determining the success of others. Those that don't make the cut should not have a say. In the case of Capt Petronio she is entitled to an opinion and she's given one, about infantry. Captains do that. Apropos of which, Sergeants don't write essays.
Bravery is no substitute for br
A very quick reply with out proof reading. Apologies if it reads like it was written in short burst - it was, I'm multitasking.
I don't believe in equality - it's a myth. Equal opportunity is different. In no way am I suggesting that equal number of women, can, or should be in active duty - only that the criteria should be meeting the operational standards. If women meet the same standards required for active service - good for them, good for those they serve, and good for those they serve with.
While that is a laudable sentiment, and one that I can get behind, don't be surprised if you end up with approximately no women in your battalions.
We'll have to wait and see if the current trend continues - I'm wary of extrapolating my experience (it's almost two decades and a half since I turned 40 and left service, and infantry is a completely different cultural mentality) to women everywhere. Average physique and cultural psychology vary. I previously mentioned particular elite units in which women serve in roles the same as men - it's not a comprehensive list. The women I have met and observed in those roles are just as dedicated to their service as the men - so that proposal was made in reference to wider deployment of women in shooting roles, especially in the USA where abortion is a very contentious subject and in some US states it's illegal. Pregnancy happens - so what happens if women do make the cut in elite US units, become pregnant and wish to seek an abortion - will the US military support them? General infantry roles are different as the training costs are much lower. How will the US military deal with the economics of the return on investment for those women currently close to completing the final stages of Ranger training? If they do decide that abortion services is something they provide will they provide the same services to US service women in other units? What will the political ramifications be?
As I previously noted we don't have a problem with using the same titles for soldiers of both genders - that's different in the US.
I'm not proposing compulsory abortion, just considering that a small number of women doing what a lot of men have done - joining up so that they can scam their way out of active service just to reap the benefits. Abortion on demand - and a policy what options are available if a soldier becomes pregnant.
I mentioned this is likely redundant in the case of elite units, having made the grade most soldiers of any gender tend to dedicate themselves (corp de esprit).
If abortion is a service the military won't provide then they have to decide what to do when a female soldier becomes pregnant. Note also that many of the units I mentioned are in countries where military service is compulsory (that's not the case in Australia).
If a male soldier knocks up a woman it has no effect on his service and it's unreasonable to automatically decide that if a female soldier becomes pregnant it's the equivalent of negligence. As it stands male soldiers do get special consideration when their partner has a child - but that's a much shorter break from service than women require if pregnant. Given the cost of training it'd be impractical not to require that a female soldier contract to not have a child during their contracted period of service. The US and Australia tend to bend the rules with smaller elite units i.e. it's technically illegal but one unit which I was familiar with was composed solely of soldiers who were either left-handed or ambidextrous and had a degree. It also had women in shooting roles. Women were told they were not allowed to have children during their contract period (none complained that I heard of. That degree of autonomy is not possible in larger units - so the military will have to create rules which require legislative support. In most countries abortion is not an issue - I seriously doubt the USA will allow the military to give serving women the right to seek abortions - it'd
"That Socrates was a bit over-rated, don't you think?"
I drank what?
[smile] Did you know he had a choice? Do you know what the other option was?
Users of linux take note - those daemons may be the death of you.
The Snapchat CEO has a good point. Why would I look at the tiny picture on a phone when I can look at a big one on my desktop?
He's probably wrong, though. People are both dumber than a box of rocks and richer than they deserve to be. This is why fools and their money are soon parted. They'll pay for the watch, they'll pay for the apps, and they'll be no better off for it. It just takes a little time, that's all.
agreed
Sigh. A Watt is a unit of power, not energy. Every second our bodies consume 100J of energy, which means on average we're burning about 100 watts (J/s). We consume around 8Mj per day, or 2000 Kcalories, or the equivalent of 40 of my laptop's batteries (56Wh) or 634 of my phone's batteries (3.5Wh).
Seriously, the average human sheds the equivalent heat of a 100W incandescent light bulb. (~350,000 Jph)
There, fixed that myself. (distracted by the more interesting Cicada/Cycura/Ashley Madison story)
Thanks.
Krebs is overloaded by train-wreck picnickers
Noel Biderman CEO of How Low Can We Go, trading as Avid Media.
Some of his demonstrably patent bullshit about their security.
"We have always had the confidentiality of our customers' information foremost in our minds, and have had stringent security measures in place".
Um, encryption - have you heard of it? And PCI - yeah, right, a bus protocol.
The "security" fail company - they would have done better employing CyCura® the "binary ex-situ bioremediation system".
I'm guessing they got confused and deployed this Cycura instead. Which'd explain why alarms didn't go off until after the successful attack. When their teeth started grinding.
Candidate for sociopath of the year award, Joel Eriksson, CTO, Cycura, we will continue to be a leader in the services we provide. "I have worked with leading companies around the world to secure their businesses. I have no doubt, based on the work I and my company are doing, Avid Life Media will continue to be a strong, secure business,".
Continue? Fail. To continue you need to start somewhere.
Secure? Fail.
Makes me wonder if he faked his widely promoted cracking of the Cicada.
This is the most interesting bit
Anyone else see similarities and strangely missing information?
His story.
He certainly he fucked up big time "protecting" his client, and he shouldn't have (because he does seem to have the ability to know how to secure a system).
Curiouser and curiouser. But not so curious I want to follow that rabbit down a hole.
" which is conveniently enough to power a modestly used smart phone". Actually 2000 calories per day is about 100W. That's a pretty damned big smartphone.
New smart phones are often more power efficient. The article is talking about a "used" one, the modest kind.
Seriously, humans tend to shed far more than 100W of heat energy per day (~350,000 Jph), so - that's a "bunch" (psyntifik term) of those old Motorola bricks (nothing modest about those used phones, though they were consider smart in their heyday).
Boeing is a military contractor. When considering providing a service to the military or one of their contractors the first step is to ask "How much?". "Can we deliver?" comes later.
There are exceptional companies, but Hacking Team is not one of them - a personal opinion based on reading much of the leaked data (without questioning it's authenticity).
"You want the moon? Didn't you see page 27 of our latest brochure [sound of keyboard, then printer] I'll send you another copy in a minute".
Addendum - a re-read of the referenced article says nothing about Boeing, though it may be the parent company. The actual leaked documents say nothing about attacking the networks of ordinary people.
Boeing is a military contractor. When considering providing a service to the military or one of their contractors the first step is to ask "How much?".
"Can we deliver?" comes later.
There are exceptional companies, but Hacking Team is not one of them - a personal opinion based on reading much of the leaked data (without questioning it's authenticity).
"You want the moon? Didn't you see page 27 of our latest brochure [sound of keyboard, then printer] I'll send you another copy in a minute".
"As you've noted - most men won't qualify for the U.S. Marines. But that's a false standard and it presupposes that because someone can, they would wish to (I note that qualifying as a Marine doesn't mean you automagically qualify as a Ranger, no disrespect to Marines)."
I think you have it backward.
It's your view, and you're welcome to it. If that's regimental pride I salute it. If, as is more likely, it's a groupie thing, or an undisciplined desire to give an opinion, you're just an idiot that argues without good reason. In the latter case try chewing gum if you need jaw exercise.
Just because you qualify as a Ranger, doesn't mean you can qualify with the Marines.
I never said it did, or that the analogy wasn't reversible. They have different purposes - only idiots that qualified for neither debate about which is better. Both Rangers and Marines (which encompasses a range of special units) do have demonstrated the capability to meet general infantry standards (does context elude you, or did your lips get sore?). Both points are what you failed to grasp. Probably because you have a habit of not bothering to pay attention.
Nit picking is nothing to be proud of when razors and medicated treatments are available.
There are many anecdotal stories of an army company or battalion calling for relief, and waiting for a division to come in. A squad of marines shows up, announcing, "We are your relief, Sir!"
True. Heart swelling even. But not relevant.
Actually, given your username, are you maybe trying to bias the conversation because you are afraid of being exorcised?
[smile] If so I'm not aware of it (possessed?).
I forgot the password for a much older account setup with a long-since defunct email provider. The username was quickly chosen from the slashdot survey of that day. Not assigned by Lucifer (he gave me a special name which I can't tell you or he'll snatch back my gold guitar)
Some economists propose that the economy can be cheerled. They may be right in the very short term (if buying houses with loans you can't pay is a measure) - but in the long term I "believe" that's mind over matter.
The US probably has their own small and quiet equivalent (or has had).
The US has a whole slew of these spec ops groups.
Context. I wasn't rating regiments - as a general rule they all tend to be the best at what they do. Just referring to those that include women. SpecOps everywhere tend to include temporary units with compositions and tasks outside of the norm.
Small correction. COM1 aren't sole operators. Strictly speaking.
There are SpecOp units with women. Russia's 5th Spetsnaz, France's 11th Parachute Brigade, 13th Parachute Dragoon Reg., Israel's Sayeret Matkal. SpecOp Reconn units like Britains SRR, South Koreas 707th, and that's a far from complete list of units with much higher physical and psychological selection criteria than general infantry (and my military experience is 15 years out of date, more elite units have allowed women since then). what you will generally find is that they didn't go through the same selection and training process as the primary members of the force.
I think if you examine the presence of women in most special forces type units.
I suspect that if you bother to research the regiments I mentioned, rather than over-invest the "most" strawman, you may be surprised.
I'd suggest you don't trot that belief out in front of a female SRR unless you'd like to experience a condensed version of P Company selection testing. Or not - it could prove an education.
You sound like an armchair general. There's a difference between direct experience and sophist "knowledge". No amount of reading or watching videos will bridge that gap. I trained and competed with some of those regiments - as have many regiments from the USA. Mutual respect is more common than not.
Lest you get distracted from your original claim - my point is that if women can meet the standards of elite forces, they can meet the standards of general infantry.
They can, and they do.
Women did well as snipers, pilots, anti-aircraft, and many other duties for the Soviets. They were used as infantry at times, and they were removed from that role as soon as the Soviets could manage as I recall.
Your recollections are correct - though it leaves out tank crews (a brutally hard job). There were some instances of women serving on the front lines - and many instances of them being executed for it. Notable exceptions would be (WW1) the Perm Battalion and the 1st Russian Women's Battalion of Death. The actual reasons they were deployed in both WWs in active roles was because necessity overcame the military culture of men only (despite political ideals). I suspect they'd have been deployed in the infantry more often if not for the ready supply of zeks.
Despite military cultural bias (I blame the nepotism that's standard amongst the REMF in the military everywhere) the Russian command recognised that women were superior snipers. But the Russian experience is unique so I don't know if that applies to all women.
The reason they were removed from active service after both WWs was partially due to the changes in military command, and mostly due practical reasons - a need to repopulate.
The Soviet war effort, not to mention the US and UK war effort, would have been greatly weakened without the participation of women.
Agreed.
That still doesn't mean that general purpose infantry is a good place to use them.
On that point we disagree. From my point of view - if I was 40 years younger and re-enlisted I'd prefer to serve along side soldiers selected on the basis of meeting practical standards not cultural biases.
and there are very few women that really have an interest in it.
A weak argument. I'm opposed to the draft - for either gender. And that's been a defining difference between the USA and Australia (, England, and New Zealand) for a long time. Possibly because we have a smaller pool of candidates and less resources to supply them.
I don't believe in equality - it's a myth. Equal opportunity is different. In no way am I suggesting that equal number of women, can, or should be in active duty - only that the criteria should be meeting the operational standards.
If women meet the same standards required for active service - good for them, good for those they serve, and good for those they serve with.