Laura

Same! I put it on my phone now and play it all the time.

Major case of dejavu right now. I knew I had read those posts before, and then I saw the post date.

What difference does it make if you take 150,000 men and 150,000 women rather than just 300,000 men?Then what's the use of drafting them? If men are physically more fit for physical activities, what role are women going to play? Let's say, for the sake of argument, that there are 150,000 Physically Fit men suitable for the army. The army needs 300,000 soldiers. However, there are also 100,000 woman who are in just as good shape as the men are. Should the army take 150,000 fat men, or 100,000 fit women and 50,000 fat men along with the physically fit men? The answer should be quite obvious, really. That's not the way the Armed Forces works in the United States. Soldiers usually undergo a rigorous training camp for eight weeks before deployment.

What difference does it make if you take 150,000 men and 150,000 women rather than just 300,000 men?Then what's the use of drafting them? If men are physically more fit for physical activities, what role are women going to play? You referred to the drafting of women soldiers as "purposely ignoring problems in the Armed Forces". What was that meant to suggest if not that women are/would exacerbate a problem in the armed forces?I believe you took it the wrong way then. It's similar to why black men were not able to join the Air Force in the same manner as other ethnicities, even though equality was passed. This country is far from its sexist ways and the last thing the military wants to do is deal with protests and chaos amidst a drafting requirement. Male spouses have long been subject to the draft and nobody here is suggesting that a husband and wife with children both be drafted. What's more your "anthropological argument" wasn't about couples with children -- you were using common perceptions of men and women as an excuse to exclude all women from forced military service, regardless of whether or not they had dependants. That argument remains a non sequitur unless your intention is to claim that every woman would be required in the country to take care of her or someone elses children and that men would not be able to contribute to such childcare, in which case the argument ceases to be a non sequitur and becomes just plain old stupid. In summary, drafting women would not: [*:300armvd] negatively impact child care [*:300armvd] cause a supply shortage (by your own admission, it seems) [*:300armvd] make it more difficult for companies to manage their workforce [*:300armvd] pose a "problem" for the armed forces Beyond repeatedly highlighting your inability to grasp that drafting different people does not mean drafting more people you have not made even a cursory attempt to explain why any of those things would occur. So, do you actually have any valid arguments against the drafting of women, or are you going to continue clutching at straws and making increasingly incoherent and inconsistent responses? Are you familiar with waivers? Medical, executive, financial, and the works? My role, when volunteering at a hospital was nothing more than reviewing waivers. Drafting both sexes increases these ten fold. Simply put, the Army didn't care if you had a child and were any only father/mother. No, it didn't come to their attention until after the waiver was admitted and sent to them. At which point, each waiver went through three people, the physician or caretaker in any degree, the Commander of the Hospital or Head of Clinics in any such degree, and the Superintendent of Hospitals or Superintendent in any degree. And please, don't question or insult my intelligence on something as minuscule as a hypothetical proposition. I respect your argument and if you disagree with mine, then say so, don't insult myself or the opinion alongside it. I have nothing more to add to your responses if you're going to take hostile approaches.

Of course not! I wear pink all the time and would not consider myself gay.

It's hard on bussinesses to constantly end and fire employees when they get drafted every month. It means you have to train new employees to do the job they want. Supplies limit soldiers, soldiers don't limit supplies. Sorry, but that argument is patently absurd. There is no logistical reason whatsoever why a draft involving both men and women need result in supply shortages. By drafting both sexes you vastly increase the number of available soldiers, which means you can also narrow the criteria in other areas. You could, for example, narrow the age range in which people are liable to be called up. In that example the population that could be relied upon by employers would simply change from "women" to "people over X years of age". The rest of your post is answered elsewhere - female soldiers are not a liability. That wasn't the question asked, nor any variable you or I introduced in the argument until now. Adding soldiers means taking away people from their previous employment. This isn't biased to if you're a Tier 1 or a specialist. In any case, I wasn't referring to a lack of supplies, rather, a larger requirement for them. I'm unsure what you mean of "liability." Even without my supplies argument, you introduce new variables for the drafts, the most essential being the family obligations. If you draft both spouses, or even one, who is to look after the children? This brings back my anthropological argument, which you declined as sexism.

Emotional stability. Oh, and tickle fights. Mmm.

It's hard on bussinesses to constantly end and fire employees when they get drafted every month. It means you have to train new employees to do the job they want. Supplies limit soldiers, soldiers don't limit supplies. That's not the main point. Armed Forces aren't going to be caught up in the middle of semantics or prejudices. This concept of purposely ignoring problems in the Armed Forces, at least in the United States, is common and seemingly effective for short periods of time, which about all the time the discrepancies last.

Anthropologically, men are seen as the hunters and belligerents while women are seen as taking care of the family. We simply cannot make both genders, as some said, sign the draft. The military would be overwhelmed with waivers. If did ever have another war such as WWII, it would be far better for the country itself to make surplus items than have too many soldiers at war without supplies. Societies will always be sexist, if only because of that, women should or will not be forced to sign the draft.

What's wrong with it? It looks great to me. :)

All medicine is poison, it just depends on what you kill first. People fail to realize that, which is becoming a trend in our society. People think, no matter what the medication, that it is perfectly OK to take, even if you don't require it for intended purposes. Have any of really felt the side effects of something as common as diphenhydramine, other than drowsiness? I know I haven't, until I thought about it. We don't look at the negative effects of commonly administered medications mainly because we put a lot of faith in medication and physicians.

It's not mine. I'm not interested in helping it sell, either. I like Twistypuzzles, I just wanted to see people's reactions. They're quite humorous and dis-jointed att he moment ^_^ The act of posting it promotes it, but I wasn't referring to you. No worries. ;)

From other sheep...I mean people. What society deems acceptable or unacceptable is ultimatly dictated by herd behaviour. When you do something, illegal or immoral, who corrects you ? Society, these so-called ethics are nothing but a loose and rickety lattice of political correctness and bureaucracy. I fully agree with that and that's seemingly the best analogy I've seen reflecting morals. While we certainly can, and do, get morals from religious articles, it's much stronger as a whole from society and the people within that society.

Is his name John Titor, by chance?

Excellent marketing on his part. Not enough to get me to buy it, though.

They have. Ooo, sorry Lion :P

Upper class I'd say. We don't live like it, though. But my father practically runs all the military hospitals and clinics east of the Mississippi. And my mother is an ER nurse. We have pretty high standards of living, but I would not consider us "rich."

That's not what he's saying at all. While you're correct, rants do more for a company than compliments, there was no reason to call him a kiss [wagon]; that wasn't what his post was about. I don't really visit these boards anymore, but you're certainly correct, compfreak. Every rant I usually see takes one user's opinion and perspective and stretches it so to make it appear as a bad update. That's seemingly the problem I see, that others take their own opinion as law, while that update in question wasn't meant for their status or affected them in any severe negative way. Such as when fletch-X came about shortly after a young man appeared on the news complaining that he had carpal tunnel. I'm assuming we all know how the media works and know it wasn't the boy who took the blame. This negative publicity hurts the company far more than a few people troubled over losing 20k/hour. But I assure you, most updates have a reason; Jagex isn't implementing things we don't want on purpose. While we can debate over the fletch-X, it certainly had good intentions and Jagex isn't purposely trying to cut your exp rates.

Nor is it physical.

I always hated this question because I never know if the question asks where I was born, lived the longest, or am presently located.

Then why am i able to control the fan on my 4600 card? Anyways... That card shouldn't be at those temps at all. Sure, airflow can matter, but not to the extent it goes to 90 on a 3400 card! I'm gonna say this sentence until people get it. Thanks Joe. I guess it's not really an issue anymore though, as I'm not using this computer. I filed a small courts claim against Dell for amounts not to exceed $3,000. Should I get an OK I will have to fly back to the states, but if they won't refund my money, they sure as hell won't keep it.

absolute zero, zero kelvin or approximately -273 celcius, at that point everything stops moving at a molecular level. But it is possible to get colder then that, yes? Nope, that's impossible and so it reaching absolute zero. Atoms and other sub-atomic units stop moving at that time. Theoretically, should we ever reach absolute zero, the object would not be affected by gravity or any other forces either. How would forces suddenly stop working? It's not that they stop working, it's just that the two, 0K and gravity can't exist at the same time. Neither can any other forces or energies, such as heat. For, if they were to exist, a material object or external force would cause some event or friction producing energy greater than that of zero. Therefor we can say, theoretically that any object that does reach 0K cannot be affected by forces such as that of gravity, heat, etc.

I remember that; it was a great topic. And, as one said in that thread, I couldn't support anything because testing was and is illegal. I just don't understand why the government should be taken with a grain of salt (though, that's given) and everyone else should be taken as law.

absolute zero, zero kelvin or approximately -273 celcius, at that point everything stops moving at a molecular level. But it is possible to get colder then that, yes? Nope, that's impossible and so it reaching absolute zero. Atoms and other sub-atomic units stop moving at that time. Theoretically, should we ever reach absolute zero, the object would not be affected by gravity or any other forces either.

Hm. I guess they disabled it then, as this is the newest release. Ah well, I shouldn't be using this computer for long.