This isn't insightful. Question all you want. Just because the rule "seems" stupid, doesn't mean it is invalid. People whine and moan about the no cell phone rule during takeoff, because it inconveniences them. That is it. The fact is that there is a very slim possibility that a cell phone could interfere with takeoff procedures. That could open a slim possibility of an accident during takeoff. An accident occurs that could have been prevented if everyone had there cell phone off. Why not comply? Just because the possibility of accident is remote? You know that if such an accident would occur, all the families would sue over it, possibly forcing the company out of business. Are all these consequences worth the ten to fifteen minutes of availability you get by having your cell phone on? It is selfish.
You know, that is what I don't understand about the new security. I believe that this is probably an optimistic estimate, but don't you think at least half the passengers aboard a hijacked plane are going to hysterically convince themselves that the plane is headed towards a building? That conviction would lead to total non-cooperation, maybe even an uprising. After all, better to die saving lives than die as part of the larger weapon.
Or maybe I'm overestimating the character of the average person.
What is sad is that the rest of the article is pretty good. I'm a little torn about the remote control dildos, but Hello Kitty sequined onto laptops is beyond the pale.
1. "PROVIDED that all the soldiers have the right, before every battle to decide." In the U.S. military, for suicide threats and the sudden discovery of religion, you may get out. There are consequences of course, but it can be done. Yes, you can quit.
2. "I am not belittling their sacrifice, it's a huge one - I just think it's a stupid one too, and certainly not one I will support them for" I cannot force you to support them. All I can ask is that you consider what would happen if Botswana or Zimbabwe were to invade. You protest the task a military is put to, which I can understand, but those tasks do not negate the need for them.
The article is about the U.S. military! You were making blanket statements! How was I to know about how the South African military was run in the eighties? It sounds beyond anything I will ever experience or hope to grasp. My sorrow for your friends.
Yet I must state that the purpose of a military is to win a war. It is the diplomats' job to prevent wars. Not believe in human rights? To accomplish any goal, there must be a unity of purpose among the participants. The size of the goal and number of people assigned dictates the amount of latitude each individual player receives. If I am working by myself on a project, I need not to confer with anyone and may do whatever I please to accomplish the task. If you and I were collaborating, we would talk and divide the work to prevent redundancy. If ten people were working together, a project leader would emerge to divide the work and ensure that all are successful. If fifty-plus were needed, there would be several leaders and an administrator.* United and seamless large works does not just appear, they must be organized. In the military, the project is to protect the people from foreign threat and the projects can have lives depending on successful execution. Variation from received orders can kill. "Get down!" "Why?" *head explodes* So we give up our rights to ensure that our people keep theirs.
The Iraq war started because the U.S. government said that Iraq posed a threat. Enough people still believe that there is a reason for us to be there. If there wasn't, we'd be in an impeachment process, have massive protests in the streets of major cities, and a completely new Congress. We don't have any of those things.
Misc.: If a man is trying to kill you, don't you have a right to kill him first? Freedom and government corruption? Aren't they mutually exclusive?
I'm sorry but people who claim that military discipline took away their ability to think are weak. I'm not saying that certain slimy elements in the military don't value mindlessness, but anyone who can't maintain a sense of self for a maximum of three months didn't have it to begin with. Saying that the military made them kill people is just a way for them to shift the blame, because they can't handle what they've done. Getting out was always an option. A simple trip to the chaplain or a threat of suicide would have done the job. If they were having problems with what they were doing, they could have left. They joined an organization that has only one purpose, killing the enemy. Why'd they join, if not to kill? (Although, I must admit that the military is full of people convinced that they'd never go to war. Idiots.)
While the idea is anathema to you, the military works on a fundamental sort of trust. A trust that believes, "These people need to die, because they will hurt others." If you want to rail against someone, go for this government which has abused that trust so callously. Protest a government who has taken the idealism of at least three generations and drowned it in the sand and mud and blistering heat.
I'll add my voice to those who have already concluded you are an idiot. Have you ever looked at the economic incentives of joining up? Have you ever talked to recruiter? Have you grown up in a conservative household or are from a long line of military personnel? You may have never been in a position where joining up appeared to be a good idea, that doesn't mean that joining up is from lack of thinking. Be grateful for the opportunities you have been given. Joining up is about the scariest thing you can do, especially with a war going on. Yet people still volunteer, so that you won't be drafted. Wouldn't that be fun?
Well, of course the government is going to take your property. The taxation part of the idea is to keep the patent from being worth more than it is.
The point of the patent is to make money for the owner. The only reasonable reason for an inventor to bid ONE HUNDRED BILLION TRILLION ZOMG BBQ DOLLARS is if someone is willing to pay (ONE HUNDRED BILLION TRILLION ZOMG BBQ DOLLARS - 1). If the patent is garbage, the inventor could bid $0.01 and win.
As a good little indoctrinated American, I agree with your "Damn the Man!" sentiment, but I am curious about your reasoning. Why does the amount of effect from people-produced CO2 matter? Wikipedia claims that the Earth's atmosphere is about five quadrillion metric tons on average. The amount of energy required to heat that kind of mass is probably a number that I wouldn't have room for here. If man is adding even a 0.00000000000000000000000000001% of the energy involved, it would be a fairly large amount and something we should act on, right?
With that in mind, let me plug a great place to get holy books The Internet Sacred Text Archive. It's a great place to go to for some of the more esoteric stuff, like the Egyptian "Book of the Dead" and the Bible in Latin and Greek. There is some Lovecraft on there too. It comes in real handy when you are arguing Bible verses and the like.
Yes, I know, this isn't strictly related to the topic, but it proves the parent's point. There are books from many religions far outside of the norm there, but no Scientology.
I'm sorry, but you are wrong. Our government is the very opposite of "concentrated power." You actually said it yourself, that there are too many layers to get through when you are trying to get something done. Add in the fact that a majority of people don't have a scrap of decency anymore and you are surprised that nothing of value gets done? A bloated and corrupt bureaucracy is our problem. Bureaucracy lives to make itself larger, with more underlings, because underlings is a measure of power. All those people and every person convinced that they deserve the bribe they are taking or that their petty grudge is worth hurting the project.
Look at our police. Exact same job, different jurisdiction, but they can't cooperate. Some have to outshine others, they have to have the credit. These people deal with the lives and deaths of thousands every day and they can't simply do a good job. Ditto for the intelligence agencies. If people realized that their little wrong hurt everyone, we'd have a better country. Of course, that'll never happen, so the second option is to trim the government down. You'd need a committee though!
Yeah! World peace through nuclear pacification!! That'll teach those tree huggers! (Yes, that is someone's sig. I hope they don't mind me borrowing it.)
A careful-thinking person would never say "decide to", because that communicates the idea that the cancer cells are thinking.
That is a bit pedantic. The reason for the movement of the cells is unknown. "Decide to" is only a placeholder for the actual mechanism, which they are trying to discover. Anthropomorphism is a useful way to express that lack of knowledge. Only someone completely unfamiliar with the concept of cancer would leap to "Oh noes, teh cancer thinks!!"
The summary itself says that the zebra fish has strong parallels to our own immune system, perhaps the catfish is too different from us to be used.
Actual, why not send just one? It would cut down on life support needs. The only thing I see a manned mission really needing is someone to troubleshoot the computers when the on-Earth controllers can't fix it and maybe also doing the actual flying. It would be like sending a robot that doesn't need a remote.
If there are good reasons to send more than one person, there is no law that says they have to share a pod. Two lifesupport pods would have a nice redundancy too. (I just saw the movie "Sunshine." Horrible, horrible sci-fi movie. All their problems would have been solved it someone had thought to pack a spare... well, anything. No nerd in any discpline would have allowed them to leave the planet like that.)
If you have HIV, that doesn't mean you have to stop having sex. It means you have to start using condoms (which you should have been doing anyway!!). The article is saying that so long as you take your meds, you won't give it to a partner. For example, a HIV positive women slips on broken glass and now there is bloody glass everywhere. Her husband helps her up and gets cut too. It is very unlikely that he'll get HIV.
Aren't most astronauts from the military anyway? It doesn't seem to help. I don't get this article at all. I would think that you would want less socialization. That is where the problems come from, right? IMHO, people with personality disorders would be the obvious choice. Aren't there forms of high level autism that cause you to dislike social interaction? I think a person capable of existing alone for long periods of time would also be excellent at deep space missions, such as Mars.
You're right. What kind of argument is an impossible-to-test assertion?? Are you saying that they need not just have been celibate with each other, but that they need to be virgins? How fascinatingly cruel and nonsensical. A wet dream is a form of sex. Are you saying people should get married before puberty? If you claim that dreams don't count (something I disagree with), surely deliberate masturbation would. That seems a bit vindictive for a loving God. What kind of gift comes with strings attached?
I guess what I was trying to say is that the good feeling exists regardless if it is man and wife. If God really desired heterosexual monogamy, won't sex only feel good with your opposite-sexed mate-for-life? Why does gay sex feel good at all? It is about the farthest away from reproduction sex can get. Your point of view makes little sense to me because IMHO sexual intercourse is entirely to versatile to have been conceived for just one purpose.
Slashdot Mirror
This isn't insightful. Question all you want. Just because the rule "seems" stupid, doesn't mean it is invalid. People whine and moan about the no cell phone rule during takeoff, because it inconveniences them. That is it. The fact is that there is a very slim possibility that a cell phone could interfere with takeoff procedures. That could open a slim possibility of an accident during takeoff. An accident occurs that could have been prevented if everyone had there cell phone off. Why not comply? Just because the possibility of accident is remote? You know that if such an accident would occur, all the families would sue over it, possibly forcing the company out of business. Are all these consequences worth the ten to fifteen minutes of availability you get by having your cell phone on? It is selfish.
Or maybe I'm overestimating the character of the average person.
What is sad is that the rest of the article is pretty good. I'm a little torn about the remote control dildos, but Hello Kitty sequined onto laptops is beyond the pale.
1. "PROVIDED that all the soldiers have the right, before every battle to decide." In the U.S. military, for suicide threats and the sudden discovery of religion, you may get out. There are consequences of course, but it can be done. Yes, you can quit.
2. "I am not belittling their sacrifice, it's a huge one - I just think it's a stupid one too, and certainly not one I will support them for" I cannot force you to support them. All I can ask is that you consider what would happen if Botswana or Zimbabwe were to invade. You protest the task a military is put to, which I can understand, but those tasks do not negate the need for them.
Yet I must state that the purpose of a military is to win a war. It is the diplomats' job to prevent wars. Not believe in human rights? To accomplish any goal, there must be a unity of purpose among the participants. The size of the goal and number of people assigned dictates the amount of latitude each individual player receives. If I am working by myself on a project, I need not to confer with anyone and may do whatever I please to accomplish the task. If you and I were collaborating, we would talk and divide the work to prevent redundancy. If ten people were working together, a project leader would emerge to divide the work and ensure that all are successful. If fifty-plus were needed, there would be several leaders and an administrator.* United and seamless large works does not just appear, they must be organized. In the military, the project is to protect the people from foreign threat and the projects can have lives depending on successful execution. Variation from received orders can kill. "Get down!" "Why?" *head explodes* So we give up our rights to ensure that our people keep theirs.
The Iraq war started because the U.S. government said that Iraq posed a threat. Enough people still believe that there is a reason for us to be there. If there wasn't, we'd be in an impeachment process, have massive protests in the streets of major cities, and a completely new Congress. We don't have any of those things.
Misc.: If a man is trying to kill you, don't you have a right to kill him first? Freedom and government corruption? Aren't they mutually exclusive?
*No, these are not precise measurements.
While the idea is anathema to you, the military works on a fundamental sort of trust. A trust that believes, "These people need to die, because they will hurt others." If you want to rail against someone, go for this government which has abused that trust so callously. Protest a government who has taken the idealism of at least three generations and drowned it in the sand and mud and blistering heat.
I'll add my voice to those who have already concluded you are an idiot. Have you ever looked at the economic incentives of joining up? Have you ever talked to recruiter? Have you grown up in a conservative household or are from a long line of military personnel? You may have never been in a position where joining up appeared to be a good idea, that doesn't mean that joining up is from lack of thinking. Be grateful for the opportunities you have been given. Joining up is about the scariest thing you can do, especially with a war going on. Yet people still volunteer, so that you won't be drafted. Wouldn't that be fun?
The point of the patent is to make money for the owner. The only reasonable reason for an inventor to bid ONE HUNDRED BILLION TRILLION ZOMG BBQ DOLLARS is if someone is willing to pay (ONE HUNDRED BILLION TRILLION ZOMG BBQ DOLLARS - 1). If the patent is garbage, the inventor could bid $0.01 and win.
Hey! Great argument!! Very convincing!! Where did I put my noose? Jerk.
As a good little indoctrinated American, I agree with your "Damn the Man!" sentiment, but I am curious about your reasoning. Why does the amount of effect from people-produced CO2 matter? Wikipedia claims that the Earth's atmosphere is about five quadrillion metric tons on average. The amount of energy required to heat that kind of mass is probably a number that I wouldn't have room for here. If man is adding even a 0.00000000000000000000000000001% of the energy involved, it would be a fairly large amount and something we should act on, right?
Actually, their murder rate is a quarter of the U.S.'s rate.
The filter does everything, including search returns.
Yes, I know, this isn't strictly related to the topic, but it proves the parent's point. There are books from many religions far outside of the norm there, but no Scientology.
Look at our police. Exact same job, different jurisdiction, but they can't cooperate. Some have to outshine others, they have to have the credit. These people deal with the lives and deaths of thousands every day and they can't simply do a good job. Ditto for the intelligence agencies. If people realized that their little wrong hurt everyone, we'd have a better country. Of course, that'll never happen, so the second option is to trim the government down. You'd need a committee though!
Yeah! World peace through nuclear pacification!! That'll teach those tree huggers! (Yes, that is someone's sig. I hope they don't mind me borrowing it.)
That is a bit pedantic. The reason for the movement of the cells is unknown. "Decide to" is only a placeholder for the actual mechanism, which they are trying to discover. Anthropomorphism is a useful way to express that lack of knowledge. Only someone completely unfamiliar with the concept of cancer would leap to "Oh noes, teh cancer thinks!!"
The summary itself says that the zebra fish has strong parallels to our own immune system, perhaps the catfish is too different from us to be used.
Or maybe you got charged for a placebo...
If there are good reasons to send more than one person, there is no law that says they have to share a pod. Two lifesupport pods would have a nice redundancy too. (I just saw the movie "Sunshine." Horrible, horrible sci-fi movie. All their problems would have been solved it someone had thought to pack a spare... well, anything. No nerd in any discpline would have allowed them to leave the planet like that.)
If you have HIV, that doesn't mean you have to stop having sex. It means you have to start using condoms (which you should have been doing anyway!!). The article is saying that so long as you take your meds, you won't give it to a partner. For example, a HIV positive women slips on broken glass and now there is bloody glass everywhere. Her husband helps her up and gets cut too. It is very unlikely that he'll get HIV.
Aren't most astronauts from the military anyway? It doesn't seem to help. I don't get this article at all. I would think that you would want less socialization. That is where the problems come from, right? IMHO, people with personality disorders would be the obvious choice. Aren't there forms of high level autism that cause you to dislike social interaction? I think a person capable of existing alone for long periods of time would also be excellent at deep space missions, such as Mars.
You're right. What kind of argument is an impossible-to-test assertion?? Are you saying that they need not just have been celibate with each other, but that they need to be virgins? How fascinatingly cruel and nonsensical. A wet dream is a form of sex. Are you saying people should get married before puberty? If you claim that dreams don't count (something I disagree with), surely deliberate masturbation would. That seems a bit vindictive for a loving God. What kind of gift comes with strings attached?
I've known a few as well and I'm sorry to say that I haven't had the same experience. Here's to the uniqueness of the human experience.
won't = wouldn't
I guess what I was trying to say is that the good feeling exists regardless if it is man and wife. If God really desired heterosexual monogamy, won't sex only feel good with your opposite-sexed mate-for-life? Why does gay sex feel good at all? It is about the farthest away from reproduction sex can get. Your point of view makes little sense to me because IMHO sexual intercourse is entirely to versatile to have been conceived for just one purpose.
You obviously don't know many officers...