And you managed to come across as condescending at the same time.
The network doesn't run itself for free. It requires maintenance and repairs. That is what your monthly service fees pay for -- the gov't subsidy, at least in theory (I don't know how well the telecoms are managed), is used to pay simply for the installation of new lines. If you don't want to pay a monthly service fee, then you're going to have to support all of the company's employees and other business expenses with tax money instead.
As a side note, Obama's "infrastructure" plans as you describe them in the Chinese comparison are actually straight out of FDR's "new deal" legislation that was enacted in 1933. Does your knowledge of American history only go back to the beginning of WW2, or what?
You must think that the network runs on fairy dust.
Who is going to pay for the customer service operator who you call when you have a problem with your account or want to sign up for a new one? Who is going to pay for the web developer to maintain the company website? Who is going to pay for the technician to repair the telephone lines when they get knocked out in a storm? Who is going to pay for the janitor who cleans up the company office? Who is going to pay for the human resource managers that are required to select and supervise all of these employees?
A network is not a "build it and forget about it" project. It requires maintenance, and that's the useful thing that the company provides -- maintenance and oversight.
So, you can either have the government pay the salaries and wages of all the telephone company's workers, as well as the costs of all the company's equipment and supplies -- or you can have the users of the service pay monthly fees like they do in the current model. Those are your choices. Just don't pretend like you can maintain network infrastructure for free.
Microsoft sucks and they do a lot of really under-handed, unethical shit but just because someone looks at Microsoft's behavior and doesn't ALWAYS conclude that they are evil, terrible and completely wrong in every instance does NOT make them a "fanboi."
I could just as easily say something like "geeez, FOSS fanbois will go to extremes to vilify anything and everything that Microsoft does," but I won't, because that would be extremely derogatory and probably an over-simplification of your opinions and viewpoints as a person. Basically, it would make me a huge self-righteous prick, kinda like you.
Maybe some of the groups like Axxo and Klaxxon and Skidrow are cover identities used by the people who run the indexing sites and make the ad revenue. If that was the case, they wouldn't have to cut anyone a "big check" to drive content on their site because they're doing it themselves.
This is more like if I come into your hardware store and say "I need to drive this nail into this board and I have a hammer, do I need anything else?" and you tell me that I need to buy a screwdriver and 10 lbs. of bark chips as well.
Apparently some people have been calling AOL and asking if they still need a subscription after getting a new internet connection, and the operators are lying to them and saying they do. That sounds pretty sleazy to me.
The primary goal is not to represent the subject of the article with a title that is 100% accurate. The primary goal is to craft a title that will make you click on the link.
It's a game. We're not talking about food or education or something. Luxury goods are exactly the kinds of goods that ought to be distributed via free markets. The "financially underprivileged" will probably be better off without addicting video games anyway...
The pat-downs aren't really that invasive. My girlfriend was selected for one this holiday season and it was conducted in the open right at the security checkpoint, by a female officer wearing plastic gloves, with no removal of clothing or groping under clothing. I was kind of irked when she was selected at first but the whole thing was over in less than 5 minutes and it really wasn't a big issue at all.
I read about the pat-downs a little bit before flying and it is TSA regulation that the pat-downs be conducted by same-sex officers. So I don't think that most of the TSA guys will be having a lot of "unwarranted fun" with their "pat-down sessions."
I've worked in the tech department of a large American university for the past 3 years (I'm also a student there). We've always had a policy similar to the one outlined here. Of course, almost no one pays attention to it, but that means you have to be discreet. I suppose it is kind of like 1984... trying to pass secret notes back and forth or meeting in secret places to avoid drawing the attention of the managers.
The managers really just have everyone's best interests in mind though. It wouldn't really be fair if, say, a supervisor was dating an employee and giving the employee shining reviews when they were actually slacking on the job and letting the rest of the team down, right? Policies like these allow teams to be restructured in order to prevent conflicts of interest between love and work (which is not only good for the company but potentially good for the relationship).
However it sounds like the "under 18" part is a requirement of being credited as a "missing child," which plausibly would explain the large numbers of those reported missing, especially in comparison to how many amber alert has recovered.
It wouldn't continue to be a major avenue of cost savings if everyone acknowledged it openly and women's wages eventually rose to the level of men's. Maybe women were widely employed by savings-minded managers in the past, because they were paid less. I can't say, I haven't done any extensive research on the topic.
It is unfortunate that women are more likely to leave work in order to raise children simply because they are the ones who are socially expected to raise children. If they were paid less than their husbands due to this trend, it would only help to strengthen the trend even more, leading to a circular cycle that (for better or for worse) would continue to support a traditional family structure and a gender division of labor.
You got me. I meant to say "South Carolina" in 1993, but I fucked it up. Congratulations, you are the grammar Hitler of the day. Please report to City Hall immediately to receive your medal and schedule your parade.
I was speaking historically, but it matters not. Perhaps it is the fact that even though women are not 25% less productive, some people believe that they are 25% less productive without making objective examinations, and that alone would be all that is required for those people to decide to hire them at 25% less pay.
I believe that there is plenty of historical documentation of the fact that women were historically paid less than men for the same jobs, but I have better things to do than look up such data for your own edification. In fact, you're lucky I even wasted this much time responding.
First of all, you're right. Not all sex is about love and emotional empathy. Sometimes people have sex for extremely selfish reasons. However, I would think that more often than not, love and emotional empathy are often related to "make-up sex", the subject of the OP's post.
My "assessment" of what "every crying girl needs" doesn't undo any positive thing about statements whatsoever. It's an attempt at humor in order to lighten the tone of the conversation. No, I wouldn't advocate taking advantage of anyone for any reason. If someone I cared about was sad and would be cheered up by a good, consensual hot dicking from the lover of their choice, I would fully support such a turn of events.
Yes, I know that there is a "world of difference" between BDSM fantasies and actual rape. I know that no one actually wants to be raped and my comments were not intended trivialize this. The phrase "might be raping her" is intended to be humorous and the humor is directly derived from how it trivializes such a horrible act and how implausible it is that anyone could be unsure of whether or not they were committing rape. As for the phrase "into that kind of thing," I obviously meant BDSM roleplaying and specifically the act of crying during intercourse. Crying during intercourse is not particularly common and if the act is consensual (IE not rape), it is almost certainly kinky. Again, that is all I meant to convey in my obviously poor attempt at humor.
Obviously sex can be damaging. Rape is one of the most common causes of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, also known as PTSD or "shell shock" if you are being extremely informal. Despite the fact that rape causes PTSD, it is not normally associated with the disorder.
I'm sorry if you felt that I was trivializing rape, it was completely unintentional.
Don't worry about whether or not I need help, I don't, I've been in a perfectly healthy relationship for about a year now and I roleplay both the "top" and "bottom" positions in BDSM interchangeably with my partner. We use a safeword. So, I am extremely aware of the fact that fantasies of rape and actual rape are very different, you're preaching to the choir here. However I appreciate that you made note of the fact for the benefit of everyone else reading the thread.
Have you considered how much such thorough testing would cost?
I'm not a manager of such large-scale projects, and I have no idea what Apple's budget is like, so maybe I don't know what I'm talking about, but I think it would be a good idea not to assume incompetence when a limited budget for QA might be the explanation.
Not to mention that I am sure that various executives for different companies at various points in time have had the idea that letting the consumer do the thorough, extreme-case scenario product testing is more cost-effective than conducting such testing prior to product launch. Whether their motivation was cost-savings, an early release on the market, or they were forced into such a situation by limitations on the company's financial resources, you can't deny that such an option is certainly cheaper in the short-run, even though you do run the risk of completely sabotaging your company's brand reputation for quality.
If the tears have a chemical message that is aversive to us, we will perhaps take action to remove the unpleasant stimulus, IE comfort the crying person so they stop producing tears. Also don't neglect that the chemical message contained by the tears is only part of what's going on psychologically when you're fighting with your significant other; the empathetic emotional pain you feel when you see them upset is likely a much stronger driving force.
In short, every crying girl needs a good hot dicking. That is, unless she keeps crying during the dicking, in which case you might be raping her and you should probably stop. Unless, you know, you're both kinky and happen to be into that kind of thing.
Maybe the chemical message in the tears that reduces arousal is part of some defense mechanism against rape?
Throughout most of human history, the man has been the gatekeeper to sexual activity, not the woman. In fact, it was only until very recently that a man could be legally prosecuted for raping his wife.
In the United States, South Dakota was the first state to criminalize "spousal rape." This did not happen until 1975. The last state to criminalize "spousal rape" was 1993.
In even earlier (bust still recent) history, say prior to the 1900's, women were not allowed to vote or own property in a marriage, and they were usually not able to live on their own due to the fact that few people would hire them for any job, and without anti-discrimination laws in place employers were free to systematically deny women employment, or even to pay them a lower wage just because they were female.
In the Middle Ages in Europe, and still today in many cultures around the world, marriages are arranged by the parents and children, especially daughters, may have little say in when they get married or to whom. Combine that with a society in which a woman can't have a political voice, can't refuse to have sex with her husband, can't divorce him, and may be legally beaten by her husband, and you'll find that historically, women have had VERY little say in when a sexual encounter happens, or even with whom it happens with.
Things have began to change recently, which is good, but 1316311 makes an excellent point. It would be a shame if you missed the point, which is why I took the time to compose this message and provide at least one reference. "Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it," blah blah blah, and all that rubbish.
No, they're not. You're either an idiot, or you're just old and enough old people still think of online dating as "taboo" enough that they think they have to pay money for it to be socially acceptable.
If your primary requirement for a dating website is that it be a website you have to pay to use, then obviously your primary requirement for a partner is that they have extra money to spend on stupid bullshit like pay-to-date websites. Congratulations, you're a moron who dates morons. Now go make an OkCupid profile like the rest of the kids.
Your analysis is too simplistic, just like anyone who would blame corporations for all the world's problems.
Why are the poor stupid and lazy? Why are the people who work for corporations good at something? Could it have anything to do with differences in access to education, nutrition, and a safe, positive environment?
What can we do to improve access to those things in order to prevent more people from becoming stupid and lazy? Could we improve spending on welfare and social services, or take steps to curb the overpopulation trend? If we did that, would it also lower the crime rate in addition to reducing scarcity?
How much does it really cost to feed the poor? You're worried about the expense, but have you done a full cost/benefit analysis? We spend a majority of our federal budget on our military and the Iraq war was financed with hundreds of billions of dollars, would you be opposed to taking a few billion dollars that we are currently spending to kill people on other continents and using it to feed the poor instead? Do you think that would be a better use of our resources?
If you haven't asked yourself questions like these and you're not willing to, then your analysis of social problems will always be stupid and lazy, and you will continue to be part of the problem.
It doesn't have to be using radio waves or even any kind of wireless communication at all. What if the gun measures the distance to the target before launching the grenade and then configures it through a direct interface? I read in other comments that the distance is calculated when the shot is fired using a laser.
Just because hunting and being outside is more effective at developing military patrol skills than video games are, it doesn't necessarily follow that video games are not effective. They could simply be less effective. Plus, the example quoted in the summary was fighter jet pilots. That sort of task is highly visual in a very different way and I would imagine that at times, modern HUDs resemble video games. Not to mention that, as I have heard, there are several flight simulation games that actually require you to know how to operate all of the equipment in the cockpit for the plane you are flying. I'd like to see a study that specifically controlled for experience at THOSE types of games, not just "Halo" or something stupid. I don't know of any FPS, even amongst the more realistic ones than Halo, that require you to know how to actually operate an M-16, AK-47, Colt.45, or whatever else they put in the hands of the player.
Being in the Air Force and piloting an F-16 is a very different task than being in the Army and patrolling the latrines.
I realize that the Army doesn't just patrol the latrines but it rhymes so I couldn't help myself;-)
Also don't forget that the skills mentioned in the summary aren't just useful in the military. Enhanced visual attention could be useful to someone who performed robotic open-heart surgery, or a designer who uses AutoCAD to engineer low-cost hydroponic farm equipment. The world doesn't ALWAYS have to be about war, death and destruction, you know;-)
Everyone indoctrinates their children; you sound like that if you had children (which you apparently don't) you would indoctrinate them to believe strongly in personal liberty, freedom of speech and individual thinking. Many people indoctrinate their children into getting an education, finding a job, and learning how to budget money. The only way you can raise a child without indoctrinating them with your own attitudes and beliefs is to simply abandon them and not raise them at all.
It's also perfectly reasonable to keep kids of a younger age from watching certain kinds of media. While I kind of agree with what you're saying, and I don't think that most people allow their children to grow up and become adults nearly as fast as they should, there is absolutely no reason for an 8-year-old boy to watch the movie Hostel and then play the video game Manhunt. Both of those "art" pieces are gratuitously violent, perhaps traumatically so, and offer nothing to enrich the mind. It is also true that violent media does at least something to model the behavior of those who are exposed to it, for better or for worse, and while I don't think that aggressive behavior can be caused solely by violent media there is certainly a relationship between the two. Denying this outright is not helpful to the collective debate and furthermore, it makes us seem ignorant as a group when we are attempting to argue for the right of adults to create and admire violent artworks and video games.
Outright denying the possibility of someone's illicit involvement in the tragedy isn't remaining rooted in reality, it's sticking your head in the sand and telling yourself that everything is O.K.
Slashdot Mirror
And you managed to come across as condescending at the same time.
The network doesn't run itself for free. It requires maintenance and repairs. That is what your monthly service fees pay for -- the gov't subsidy, at least in theory (I don't know how well the telecoms are managed), is used to pay simply for the installation of new lines. If you don't want to pay a monthly service fee, then you're going to have to support all of the company's employees and other business expenses with tax money instead.
As a side note, Obama's "infrastructure" plans as you describe them in the Chinese comparison are actually straight out of FDR's "new deal" legislation that was enacted in 1933. Does your knowledge of American history only go back to the beginning of WW2, or what?
You must think that the network runs on fairy dust.
Who is going to pay for the customer service operator who you call when you have a problem with your account or want to sign up for a new one? Who is going to pay for the web developer to maintain the company website? Who is going to pay for the technician to repair the telephone lines when they get knocked out in a storm? Who is going to pay for the janitor who cleans up the company office? Who is going to pay for the human resource managers that are required to select and supervise all of these employees?
A network is not a "build it and forget about it" project. It requires maintenance, and that's the useful thing that the company provides -- maintenance and oversight.
So, you can either have the government pay the salaries and wages of all the telephone company's workers, as well as the costs of all the company's equipment and supplies -- or you can have the users of the service pay monthly fees like they do in the current model. Those are your choices. Just don't pretend like you can maintain network infrastructure for free.
Microsoft sucks and they do a lot of really under-handed, unethical shit but just because someone looks at Microsoft's behavior and doesn't ALWAYS conclude that they are evil, terrible and completely wrong in every instance does NOT make them a "fanboi."
I could just as easily say something like "geeez, FOSS fanbois will go to extremes to vilify anything and everything that Microsoft does," but I won't, because that would be extremely derogatory and probably an over-simplification of your opinions and viewpoints as a person. Basically, it would make me a huge self-righteous prick, kinda like you.
Maybe some of the groups like Axxo and Klaxxon and Skidrow are cover identities used by the people who run the indexing sites and make the ad revenue. If that was the case, they wouldn't have to cut anyone a "big check" to drive content on their site because they're doing it themselves.
Man, who shit in your cereal?
This is more like if I come into your hardware store and say "I need to drive this nail into this board and I have a hammer, do I need anything else?" and you tell me that I need to buy a screwdriver and 10 lbs. of bark chips as well.
Apparently some people have been calling AOL and asking if they still need a subscription after getting a new internet connection, and the operators are lying to them and saying they do. That sounds pretty sleazy to me.
The primary goal is not to represent the subject of the article with a title that is 100% accurate. The primary goal is to craft a title that will make you click on the link.
It's a game. We're not talking about food or education or something. Luxury goods are exactly the kinds of goods that ought to be distributed via free markets. The "financially underprivileged" will probably be better off without addicting video games anyway ...
The pat-downs aren't really that invasive. My girlfriend was selected for one this holiday season and it was conducted in the open right at the security checkpoint, by a female officer wearing plastic gloves, with no removal of clothing or groping under clothing. I was kind of irked when she was selected at first but the whole thing was over in less than 5 minutes and it really wasn't a big issue at all.
I read about the pat-downs a little bit before flying and it is TSA regulation that the pat-downs be conducted by same-sex officers. So I don't think that most of the TSA guys will be having a lot of "unwarranted fun" with their "pat-down sessions."
I've worked in the tech department of a large American university for the past 3 years (I'm also a student there). We've always had a policy similar to the one outlined here. Of course, almost no one pays attention to it, but that means you have to be discreet. I suppose it is kind of like 1984 ... trying to pass secret notes back and forth or meeting in secret places to avoid drawing the attention of the managers.
The managers really just have everyone's best interests in mind though. It wouldn't really be fair if, say, a supervisor was dating an employee and giving the employee shining reviews when they were actually slacking on the job and letting the rest of the team down, right? Policies like these allow teams to be restructured in order to prevent conflicts of interest between love and work (which is not only good for the company but potentially good for the relationship).
However it sounds like the "under 18" part is a requirement of being credited as a "missing child," which plausibly would explain the large numbers of those reported missing, especially in comparison to how many amber alert has recovered.
It wouldn't continue to be a major avenue of cost savings if everyone acknowledged it openly and women's wages eventually rose to the level of men's. Maybe women were widely employed by savings-minded managers in the past, because they were paid less. I can't say, I haven't done any extensive research on the topic.
It is unfortunate that women are more likely to leave work in order to raise children simply because they are the ones who are socially expected to raise children. If they were paid less than their husbands due to this trend, it would only help to strengthen the trend even more, leading to a circular cycle that (for better or for worse) would continue to support a traditional family structure and a gender division of labor.
You got me. I meant to say "South Carolina" in 1993, but I fucked it up. Congratulations, you are the grammar Hitler of the day. Please report to City Hall immediately to receive your medal and schedule your parade.
I was speaking historically, but it matters not. Perhaps it is the fact that even though women are not 25% less productive, some people believe that they are 25% less productive without making objective examinations, and that alone would be all that is required for those people to decide to hire them at 25% less pay.
I believe that there is plenty of historical documentation of the fact that women were historically paid less than men for the same jobs, but I have better things to do than look up such data for your own edification. In fact, you're lucky I even wasted this much time responding.
First of all, you're right. Not all sex is about love and emotional empathy. Sometimes people have sex for extremely selfish reasons. However, I would think that more often than not, love and emotional empathy are often related to "make-up sex", the subject of the OP's post.
My "assessment" of what "every crying girl needs" doesn't undo any positive thing about statements whatsoever. It's an attempt at humor in order to lighten the tone of the conversation. No, I wouldn't advocate taking advantage of anyone for any reason. If someone I cared about was sad and would be cheered up by a good, consensual hot dicking from the lover of their choice, I would fully support such a turn of events.
Yes, I know that there is a "world of difference" between BDSM fantasies and actual rape. I know that no one actually wants to be raped and my comments were not intended trivialize this. The phrase "might be raping her" is intended to be humorous and the humor is directly derived from how it trivializes such a horrible act and how implausible it is that anyone could be unsure of whether or not they were committing rape. As for the phrase "into that kind of thing," I obviously meant BDSM roleplaying and specifically the act of crying during intercourse. Crying during intercourse is not particularly common and if the act is consensual (IE not rape), it is almost certainly kinky. Again, that is all I meant to convey in my obviously poor attempt at humor.
Obviously sex can be damaging. Rape is one of the most common causes of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, also known as PTSD or "shell shock" if you are being extremely informal. Despite the fact that rape causes PTSD, it is not normally associated with the disorder.
I'm sorry if you felt that I was trivializing rape, it was completely unintentional.
Don't worry about whether or not I need help, I don't, I've been in a perfectly healthy relationship for about a year now and I roleplay both the "top" and "bottom" positions in BDSM interchangeably with my partner. We use a safeword. So, I am extremely aware of the fact that fantasies of rape and actual rape are very different, you're preaching to the choir here. However I appreciate that you made note of the fact for the benefit of everyone else reading the thread.
Have you considered how much such thorough testing would cost?
I'm not a manager of such large-scale projects, and I have no idea what Apple's budget is like, so maybe I don't know what I'm talking about, but I think it would be a good idea not to assume incompetence when a limited budget for QA might be the explanation.
Not to mention that I am sure that various executives for different companies at various points in time have had the idea that letting the consumer do the thorough, extreme-case scenario product testing is more cost-effective than conducting such testing prior to product launch. Whether their motivation was cost-savings, an early release on the market, or they were forced into such a situation by limitations on the company's financial resources, you can't deny that such an option is certainly cheaper in the short-run, even though you do run the risk of completely sabotaging your company's brand reputation for quality.
If the tears have a chemical message that is aversive to us, we will perhaps take action to remove the unpleasant stimulus, IE comfort the crying person so they stop producing tears. Also don't neglect that the chemical message contained by the tears is only part of what's going on psychologically when you're fighting with your significant other; the empathetic emotional pain you feel when you see them upset is likely a much stronger driving force.
In short, every crying girl needs a good hot dicking. That is, unless she keeps crying during the dicking, in which case you might be raping her and you should probably stop. Unless, you know, you're both kinky and happen to be into that kind of thing.
Maybe the chemical message in the tears that reduces arousal is part of some defense mechanism against rape?
Throughout most of human history, the man has been the gatekeeper to sexual activity, not the woman. In fact, it was only until very recently that a man could be legally prosecuted for raping his wife.
In the United States, South Dakota was the first state to criminalize "spousal rape." This did not happen until 1975. The last state to criminalize "spousal rape" was 1993.
In even earlier (bust still recent) history, say prior to the 1900's, women were not allowed to vote or own property in a marriage, and they were usually not able to live on their own due to the fact that few people would hire them for any job, and without anti-discrimination laws in place employers were free to systematically deny women employment, or even to pay them a lower wage just because they were female.
In the Middle Ages in Europe, and still today in many cultures around the world, marriages are arranged by the parents and children, especially daughters, may have little say in when they get married or to whom. Combine that with a society in which a woman can't have a political voice, can't refuse to have sex with her husband, can't divorce him, and may be legally beaten by her husband, and you'll find that historically, women have had VERY little say in when a sexual encounter happens, or even with whom it happens with.
Things have began to change recently, which is good, but 1316311 makes an excellent point. It would be a shame if you missed the point, which is why I took the time to compose this message and provide at least one reference. "Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it," blah blah blah, and all that rubbish.
No, they're not. You're either an idiot, or you're just old and enough old people still think of online dating as "taboo" enough that they think they have to pay money for it to be socially acceptable.
If your primary requirement for a dating website is that it be a website you have to pay to use, then obviously your primary requirement for a partner is that they have extra money to spend on stupid bullshit like pay-to-date websites. Congratulations, you're a moron who dates morons. Now go make an OkCupid profile like the rest of the kids.
Your analysis is too simplistic, just like anyone who would blame corporations for all the world's problems.
Why are the poor stupid and lazy? Why are the people who work for corporations good at something? Could it have anything to do with differences in access to education, nutrition, and a safe, positive environment?
What can we do to improve access to those things in order to prevent more people from becoming stupid and lazy? Could we improve spending on welfare and social services, or take steps to curb the overpopulation trend? If we did that, would it also lower the crime rate in addition to reducing scarcity?
How much does it really cost to feed the poor? You're worried about the expense, but have you done a full cost/benefit analysis? We spend a majority of our federal budget on our military and the Iraq war was financed with hundreds of billions of dollars, would you be opposed to taking a few billion dollars that we are currently spending to kill people on other continents and using it to feed the poor instead? Do you think that would be a better use of our resources?
If you haven't asked yourself questions like these and you're not willing to, then your analysis of social problems will always be stupid and lazy, and you will continue to be part of the problem.
That is by far the most insightful statement regarding the Wikileaks fiasco that I have read so far.
It doesn't have to be using radio waves or even any kind of wireless communication at all. What if the gun measures the distance to the target before launching the grenade and then configures it through a direct interface? I read in other comments that the distance is calculated when the shot is fired using a laser.
Just because hunting and being outside is more effective at developing military patrol skills than video games are, it doesn't necessarily follow that video games are not effective. They could simply be less effective. Plus, the example quoted in the summary was fighter jet pilots. That sort of task is highly visual in a very different way and I would imagine that at times, modern HUDs resemble video games. Not to mention that, as I have heard, there are several flight simulation games that actually require you to know how to operate all of the equipment in the cockpit for the plane you are flying. I'd like to see a study that specifically controlled for experience at THOSE types of games, not just "Halo" or something stupid. I don't know of any FPS, even amongst the more realistic ones than Halo, that require you to know how to actually operate an M-16, AK-47, Colt .45, or whatever else they put in the hands of the player.
Being in the Air Force and piloting an F-16 is a very different task than being in the Army and patrolling the latrines.
I realize that the Army doesn't just patrol the latrines but it rhymes so I couldn't help myself ;-)
Also don't forget that the skills mentioned in the summary aren't just useful in the military. Enhanced visual attention could be useful to someone who performed robotic open-heart surgery, or a designer who uses AutoCAD to engineer low-cost hydroponic farm equipment. The world doesn't ALWAYS have to be about war, death and destruction, you know ;-)
Everyone indoctrinates their children; you sound like that if you had children (which you apparently don't) you would indoctrinate them to believe strongly in personal liberty, freedom of speech and individual thinking. Many people indoctrinate their children into getting an education, finding a job, and learning how to budget money. The only way you can raise a child without indoctrinating them with your own attitudes and beliefs is to simply abandon them and not raise them at all.
It's also perfectly reasonable to keep kids of a younger age from watching certain kinds of media. While I kind of agree with what you're saying, and I don't think that most people allow their children to grow up and become adults nearly as fast as they should, there is absolutely no reason for an 8-year-old boy to watch the movie Hostel and then play the video game Manhunt. Both of those "art" pieces are gratuitously violent, perhaps traumatically so, and offer nothing to enrich the mind. It is also true that violent media does at least something to model the behavior of those who are exposed to it, for better or for worse, and while I don't think that aggressive behavior can be caused solely by violent media there is certainly a relationship between the two. Denying this outright is not helpful to the collective debate and furthermore, it makes us seem ignorant as a group when we are attempting to argue for the right of adults to create and admire violent artworks and video games.
Outright denying the possibility of someone's illicit involvement in the tragedy isn't remaining rooted in reality, it's sticking your head in the sand and telling yourself that everything is O.K.