The problem with your idea is that while routine health issues are easy to see and measure, sexual health issues (psychological or physical) are much harder to quantify. Furthermore, a person's sexual needs and indicators can vary greatly over a short period of time, let alone several years. Top that off with the fact that different people will have different needs, and requiring them to participate for "group health" could in fact mean you're essentially raping someone for the "good of the group". What kind of repurcussions will that generate?
I'm not disagreeing with your analysis of key issue of participants understanding the basic physical need for most people to have sex. It's far too complex, however, to just say "everyone needs to participate" and think that's going to solve the issue. How do you deal with fetishes, for example, or people's varying levels of interests in kink? Different people like drastically different things, and being couped up in a metal can for years on end is very likely going to change what those things are, or at the very least, cause them to become more extreme. Just because a person gets regular sex doesn't mean they're getting the right sex for them. Hence your practical arrangements statement, but not even just the arrangements, the understanding needs to be there too. And we're far from really understanding human sexuality on a level competent enough to believe we'll solve this issue the first time out.
Sure, there are plenty of micro-managers in the military, there's no way to avoid that. I think you'll see though, that even the micro managers will not abuse this rule, unless they have a lot of their command being stupid about things. In general it's easier to allow than to deny, and most commanders realise this. Denying means they have to actively police things, which brings more time and effort. It also brings a higher visibility to (and higher rate of) discipline issues, which looks bad on the commander's record too.
Anyone who wants to be promoted as an officer in the military understands that if you have a bad command experience, especially if the troops below you complain, then you won't ever see flag level (general for you non-miliatry folks). Likely you won't ever see anything above company level. Any commander who wants to be effective won't make a blanket disapproval of electronic communications because it's bad for morale, it's bad for work load, and it's bad for their own career.
Other than physical deformities, you've also got to consider immunity. Babies are born with their mother's immunities for the most part, but if you're kept in a metal tube for the first part of your life, you have no way of developing an immune system. Your body simply doesn't learn how to fight. Anything you encounter that isn't sterile, would essentially kill you if you don't develop an immune system in the "normal" way.
Just out of curiousity, how do you get "decent estimates for a healthy baby/crew/mission success" for pregnancy in space, without something simulating space (which is very unlikely to occur for a full pregnancy and raising of a newborn), or actual real world experience?
I think most likely scenario for pregnancy in space will be an accident. As for diapers and food, mothers tend to produce all a baby needs for the first 8 months or so, food-wise, and diapers are fairly easy if you don't mind figuring out a way to clean things, which they presumably would have done for long-haul space travel anyway.
As for sleep, that would be the same as any small family, people adjust.
I'm not really disagreeing with you, since I think voluntary sterility (surgical) should be strongly considered for the obvious reasons you've mentioned as well as others. Plus, that would presumably fix the obvious issues associated with sex, though not the relationship issues.
I forgot to mention that the whole thing about applying to contractors isn't really much of a new thing either. Contractors have always had to abide by the rules set in place by the command they support. The rules are generally a little less restrictive for certain things, but freedom of speech has never been one of those things, in my experience. (35 years of being with a military family, active duty military, or government contractor support)
As with the grunts on the ground, this just explicitly states what is and is not acceptable, but it's not a new rule.
Because hookers always want to have sex, and guys have never fought over hookers before. There's no reason to think they would in space, couped up for years at a time. No, no reason at all.
It's definitely sad, but the UCMJ is already there to prevent this. The rule is just an extension of an existing code that makes this an offense (release of information) and punishable. Commanders have always had the authority to limit a soldier's speech... this just makes the rules of what that applies to a little bit more clear to the grunt on the ground. The rule was always there, though.
And I still maintain it will be used no differently in the future than it has in the past; to add charges against trouble makers and loud mouths.
If you think the US military has time to review all of a soldier's private emails, you're seriously misinformed. The military is struggling to recruit and attrition is at an all-time high. The only time this will be used is to nail someone to the cross who screwed up in some other way.
This gives the command the authority to enforce certain necessary restrictions. It's highly unlikely that any commander will feel his/her troops have the time or inclination to enforce this rule to the full extent, and even more unlikely that a commander would bother. This will be reserved for trouble makers or people who can't keep their mouths shut (which was already against the UCMJ) nothing more.
This rule won't effectively change anything. It's just another way for the military to hammer people who have a bad attitude. On the rare occasion someone actually does deserve to get railroaded, it will have served its purpose, but it won't change anything in the long run. It will limit people from posting random shots of Sadaam Hussein hanging and shit like that, but for the most part it will be business as usual.
The UCMJ has a huge number of laws used to keep "discipline and order" within the military ranks that would be considered a bit extreme for "normal" society. (Adultery is often cited as a way to punish someone who can't be caught for other problem issues as is "conduct unbecoming".) This is just one more.
Anyone trained in espionage, or counter espionage knows about gait detection. That definitely limits the numbers who did, but it's also a pretty common thing in espionage books, so it's not very difficult. And considering the number of people who've told me, "I knew it was you by the way you walk" it's not like it was that far out of the realm of common sense.
And anyone can fake a limp. Especially one that changes every few blocks so they can't easily be "spotted" by their gait. It's another fruitless effort for "security" that will do nothing except take away your rights.
Have you ever read any Edgar Allan Poe? I'm betting if you were educated in the USA, you have, or were at least supposed to have read some of his work. He's easily as twisted, though less graphicly so, and he's considered one of the premiere American writers.
I've read conflicting things that say this was a creative writing assignment and an essay. The two are not synonymous and this small excerpt proves absolutely nothing about the kid's mental stability. It's not even necessarily indicative of a lack of any stability. Plenty of people write about gore all the time. Have you ever seen any movies like Halloween, Hellraiser, Friday the 13th?
Effectively this kid did nothing more than have bad timing with what he wrote. The teacher went way overboard in his/her reaction and should be reprimanded for such behavior. An appropriate response would have been to call the kid and his parents in for a counselling session with the teacher and explain why that type of writing is inappropriate and find out if there is a reason behind the writing. Arrest is completely unwaranted and just shows how ridiculous we have become as a society. Fear is never a good reason for any action unless it's specifically self defense.
Yeah, I'd say maybe 100000 based on what I saw but I think that would be high and certainly not 300000. And that article implies there was, in fact, media coverage of the protest, like I said. It's also in the date range I was thinking of but not what the AC mentioned in response to my post.
Not to nit pick, but this isn't about a politician, it was just brought up by an example of a politician. The discussion at hand is a layman's definition of the internet. That doesn't make it necessarily English-centric. It is English-centric by virtue of this forum being English-centric.
Oh, and the USA isn't the only English-speaking country in the world, either. I would wager large portions of Australia don't have electricity but do have people. Granted, not many people, but they are there.
Just out of curiousity, which society do you live in where the media doesn't have a power influence on the general public's opinion?
I'd like to know because I'd sure as hell move there. Mainstream media in the US sucks, but it's still better than most of the places I've been. Granted, I've only visited a half a dozen countries and only lived in 3 but, I'd say we at least have options to choose from here in the US. Lots of places can't say that.
"It's also arrogance to believe that you can tell other people the right way to live, and it's beyond arrogance to think you can convince them by insulting them."
See George W. Bush and the current administration for extreme examples of proof.
Any person appointed to the Vice Presidency at this point wouldn't be considered by anyone as the heir apparent, because it's too late in the game. Whoever runs for the Presidency is going to have to run on their own merit, from both parties.
Yes, the Dems may have inadvertently given someone a stronger start by ousting Cheney (which I doubt will really happen) but the person still won't be a shoe-in for the Republican nomination.
I'd love to hear which protest you were involved in that supposedly had 300k people walking 2 miles from the Washington Monument to the Whitehouse, which is about a half a mile away. (See google map here, sorry you'll have to zoom in for yourself: http://www.google.com/maps?q=Washington,+DC,+USA&s a=X&oi=map&ct=image )
I recall an anti-war protest recently that had about 70k protestors followed the next day by a pro-war "protest" that had maybe half as many people... but nothing the size you described. Both were covered by the media in both print and via television, though coverage of both was cursory at best. Care to offer any sites for your data?
"Yes you can back up all your stuff, but you can't play it anywhere else. This drive isn't about how much data you can store... it's about how much media you can store and use. There's a difference.
Slashdot Mirror
Sexual activity doesn't necessarily have to include someone else. I don't think you can discount the /. perspective as much as you are.
The problem with your idea is that while routine health issues are easy to see and measure, sexual health issues (psychological or physical) are much harder to quantify. Furthermore, a person's sexual needs and indicators can vary greatly over a short period of time, let alone several years. Top that off with the fact that different people will have different needs, and requiring them to participate for "group health" could in fact mean you're essentially raping someone for the "good of the group". What kind of repurcussions will that generate?
I'm not disagreeing with your analysis of key issue of participants understanding the basic physical need for most people to have sex. It's far too complex, however, to just say "everyone needs to participate" and think that's going to solve the issue. How do you deal with fetishes, for example, or people's varying levels of interests in kink? Different people like drastically different things, and being couped up in a metal can for years on end is very likely going to change what those things are, or at the very least, cause them to become more extreme. Just because a person gets regular sex doesn't mean they're getting the right sex for them. Hence your practical arrangements statement, but not even just the arrangements, the understanding needs to be there too. And we're far from really understanding human sexuality on a level competent enough to believe we'll solve this issue the first time out.
Sure, there are plenty of micro-managers in the military, there's no way to avoid that. I think you'll see though, that even the micro managers will not abuse this rule, unless they have a lot of their command being stupid about things. In general it's easier to allow than to deny, and most commanders realise this. Denying means they have to actively police things, which brings more time and effort. It also brings a higher visibility to (and higher rate of) discipline issues, which looks bad on the commander's record too.
Anyone who wants to be promoted as an officer in the military understands that if you have a bad command experience, especially if the troops below you complain, then you won't ever see flag level (general for you non-miliatry folks). Likely you won't ever see anything above company level. Any commander who wants to be effective won't make a blanket disapproval of electronic communications because it's bad for morale, it's bad for work load, and it's bad for their own career.
Other than physical deformities, you've also got to consider immunity. Babies are born with their mother's immunities for the most part, but if you're kept in a metal tube for the first part of your life, you have no way of developing an immune system. Your body simply doesn't learn how to fight. Anything you encounter that isn't sterile, would essentially kill you if you don't develop an immune system in the "normal" way.
Just out of curiousity, how do you get "decent estimates for a healthy baby/crew/mission success" for pregnancy in space, without something simulating space (which is very unlikely to occur for a full pregnancy and raising of a newborn), or actual real world experience?
I think most likely scenario for pregnancy in space will be an accident. As for diapers and food, mothers tend to produce all a baby needs for the first 8 months or so, food-wise, and diapers are fairly easy if you don't mind figuring out a way to clean things, which they presumably would have done for long-haul space travel anyway.
As for sleep, that would be the same as any small family, people adjust.
I'm not really disagreeing with you, since I think voluntary sterility (surgical) should be strongly considered for the obvious reasons you've mentioned as well as others. Plus, that would presumably fix the obvious issues associated with sex, though not the relationship issues.
I forgot to mention that the whole thing about applying to contractors isn't really much of a new thing either. Contractors have always had to abide by the rules set in place by the command they support. The rules are generally a little less restrictive for certain things, but freedom of speech has never been one of those things, in my experience. (35 years of being with a military family, active duty military, or government contractor support)
As with the grunts on the ground, this just explicitly states what is and is not acceptable, but it's not a new rule.
bkr
Because hookers always want to have sex, and guys have never fought over hookers before. There's no reason to think they would in space, couped up for years at a time. No, no reason at all.
It's definitely sad, but the UCMJ is already there to prevent this. The rule is just an extension of an existing code that makes this an offense (release of information) and punishable. Commanders have always had the authority to limit a soldier's speech... this just makes the rules of what that applies to a little bit more clear to the grunt on the ground. The rule was always there, though.
And I still maintain it will be used no differently in the future than it has in the past; to add charges against trouble makers and loud mouths.
If you think the US military has time to review all of a soldier's private emails, you're seriously misinformed. The military is struggling to recruit and attrition is at an all-time high. The only time this will be used is to nail someone to the cross who screwed up in some other way.
This gives the command the authority to enforce certain necessary restrictions. It's highly unlikely that any commander will feel his/her troops have the time or inclination to enforce this rule to the full extent, and even more unlikely that a commander would bother. This will be reserved for trouble makers or people who can't keep their mouths shut (which was already against the UCMJ) nothing more.
This rule won't effectively change anything. It's just another way for the military to hammer people who have a bad attitude. On the rare occasion someone actually does deserve to get railroaded, it will have served its purpose, but it won't change anything in the long run. It will limit people from posting random shots of Sadaam Hussein hanging and shit like that, but for the most part it will be business as usual.
The UCMJ has a huge number of laws used to keep "discipline and order" within the military ranks that would be considered a bit extreme for "normal" society. (Adultery is often cited as a way to punish someone who can't be caught for other problem issues as is "conduct unbecoming".) This is just one more.
Anyone trained in espionage, or counter espionage knows about gait detection. That definitely limits the numbers who did, but it's also a pretty common thing in espionage books, so it's not very difficult. And considering the number of people who've told me, "I knew it was you by the way you walk" it's not like it was that far out of the realm of common sense.
ventriloquism.
It'll be the new thing. All those kids that got their asses kicked in grade school will now be heros.
And anyone can fake a limp. Especially one that changes every few blocks so they can't easily be "spotted" by their gait. It's another fruitless effort for "security" that will do nothing except take away your rights.
Have you ever read any Edgar Allan Poe? I'm betting if you were educated in the USA, you have, or were at least supposed to have read some of his work. He's easily as twisted, though less graphicly so, and he's considered one of the premiere American writers.
I've read conflicting things that say this was a creative writing assignment and an essay. The two are not synonymous and this small excerpt proves absolutely nothing about the kid's mental stability. It's not even necessarily indicative of a lack of any stability. Plenty of people write about gore all the time. Have you ever seen any movies like Halloween, Hellraiser, Friday the 13th?
Effectively this kid did nothing more than have bad timing with what he wrote. The teacher went way overboard in his/her reaction and should be reprimanded for such behavior. An appropriate response would have been to call the kid and his parents in for a counselling session with the teacher and explain why that type of writing is inappropriate and find out if there is a reason behind the writing. Arrest is completely unwaranted and just shows how ridiculous we have become as a society. Fear is never a good reason for any action unless it's specifically self defense.
Volume, and power. Not spinning disks and driving motors will enable a much longer battery-life, I would presume.
Yeah, I'd say maybe 100000 based on what I saw but I think that would be high and certainly not 300000. And that article implies there was, in fact, media coverage of the protest, like I said. It's also in the date range I was thinking of but not what the AC mentioned in response to my post.
Not to nit pick, but this isn't about a politician, it was just brought up by an example of a politician. The discussion at hand is a layman's definition of the internet. That doesn't make it necessarily English-centric. It is English-centric by virtue of this forum being English-centric.
Oh, and the USA isn't the only English-speaking country in the world, either. I would wager large portions of Australia don't have electricity but do have people. Granted, not many people, but they are there.
Dude, that's funny. Somebody mod him up, thanks.
Just out of curiousity, which society do you live in where the media doesn't have a power influence on the general public's opinion?
I'd like to know because I'd sure as hell move there. Mainstream media in the US sucks, but it's still better than most of the places I've been. Granted, I've only visited a half a dozen countries and only lived in 3 but, I'd say we at least have options to choose from here in the US. Lots of places can't say that.
Holy crap! France is the rest of the world? And here I thought I visited China last month, boy what was I thinking?
"It's also arrogance to believe that you can tell other people the right way to live, and it's beyond arrogance to think you can convince them by insulting them."
See George W. Bush and the current administration for extreme examples of proof.
Any person appointed to the Vice Presidency at this point wouldn't be considered by anyone as the heir apparent, because it's too late in the game. Whoever runs for the Presidency is going to have to run on their own merit, from both parties.
Yes, the Dems may have inadvertently given someone a stronger start by ousting Cheney (which I doubt will really happen) but the person still won't be a shoe-in for the Republican nomination.
I'd love to hear which protest you were involved in that supposedly had 300k people walking 2 miles from the Washington Monument to the Whitehouse, which is about a half a mile away. (See google map here, sorry you'll have to zoom in for yourself: http://www.google.com/maps?q=Washington,+DC,+USA&s a=X&oi=map&ct=image )
I recall an anti-war protest recently that had about 70k protestors followed the next day by a pro-war "protest" that had maybe half as many people... but nothing the size you described. Both were covered by the media in both print and via television, though coverage of both was cursory at best. Care to offer any sites for your data?
"How I yearn for term limits for EVERY elected politician!"
Thank you. I've been saying this for about 15 years now. It will be difficult to convince congress of such things though.
Damnit. My tag was wrong...
That should say:
"Yes you can back up all your stuff, but you can't play it anywhere else. This drive isn't about how much data you can store... it's about how much media you can store and use. There's a difference.