Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Shoelayceberry the [Unlaced]

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 667
1
General Discussion / Re: Great news!
« on: September 21, 2016, 01:05:58 PM »
well, if he meant that the soldiers aren't being taken care of, then we could agree on that at least, but that's an issue of how the funds are used, not an underfunding.

2
General Discussion / Re: Verizon. My Nemesis.
« on: September 20, 2016, 09:27:18 AM »
there are only udp armadillos and texas has high packet loss

3
General Discussion / Re: [games] inside.
« on: September 20, 2016, 09:26:11 AM »
how is titling formed

4
General Discussion / Re: Incorporating?
« on: September 19, 2016, 09:04:08 PM »
Also, if you go LLC, be aware that certain cities will require a license to operate. San Diego is one of them, not that that affects you.

5
General Discussion / Re: Incorporating?
« on: September 19, 2016, 08:27:15 PM »
If you need protection from liability it is a good idea.  Like others said there is some up front cost, but for a simple incorporation it's relatively inexpensive.  There are a number of types of business structures that you may want to investigate.  I had to read this book during my MBA and was very helpful spelling out each type and the pros and cons.  You can get the older edition for ~$25.https://www.amazon.com/Entrepreneur%E2%80%99s-Guide-Business-Law/dp/0324204930/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1474326581&sr=8-2&keywords=the+entrepreneur%27s+guide+to+business+law

thx for the book

6
General Discussion / Re: Incorporating?
« on: September 19, 2016, 05:00:50 PM »
If you are going to work for yourself, it's a good idea. I helps protect you from liability.

It will cost you upfront though. Legal fees (can be cheaper using like a legal zoom) plus setting up a business account at a bank.

7
General Discussion / Re: Color me surprised
« on: September 19, 2016, 04:54:32 PM »
Just admit I'm always right and I'll adopt a brand new Hello Kitty mindset when logging into TzT going forward.

Yeah, whoever you were arguing with before you started posting that here probably owes you one. Us? Not so much. Not a single person here (I don't think?) supported lowering standards for the precise article you posted.

Now, as for the second one you just posted above, I am also totally against that - meaning I would be for what Ssalam suggested, as far as getting your maternity leave in and paid for, but having it not count against your time. It's bad to incentivize that kind of stuff.

8
Spamalot / Re: Go 4 it
« on: September 19, 2016, 04:29:58 PM »
oh thanks God. I was going to bite  the bullet, but NBC pulled the vid. For once, thank you antipiracy.

9
General Discussion / Re: Riot's 10 year anniversary
« on: September 17, 2016, 05:37:46 PM »
I'm waiting for an EQ themed version of Pokeman Go, with full PVP.  Picture gangs of nerds congregating in neighborhood parks, waiting for dragons to spawn.  A PVP death would mean they have to go home and return before they can rejoin the fight. If you're low level, you'd have to avoid certain streets with high level spawns.

jp == next steve jobs

10
General Discussion / Re: Color me surprised
« on: September 17, 2016, 05:36:03 PM »
It's a bit long, but I found it an easy read.  Keep in mind, it's anecdotal, but she raises good points.  Also, since this was written, there have been several changes to the Armed Forces with regards to gender.

https://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/blog/2012/07/05/get-over-it-we-are-not-all-created-equal#

Quote
As a company grade 1302 combat engineer officer with 5 years of active service and two combat deployments, one to Iraq and the other to Afghanistan, I was able to participate in and lead numerous combat operations. In Iraq as the II MEF Director, Lioness Program, I served as a subject matter expert for II MEF, assisting regimental and battalion commanders on ways to integrate female Marines into combat operations. I primarily focused on expanding the mission of the Lioness Program from searching females to engaging local nationals and information gathering, broadening the ways females were being used in a wide variety of combat operations from census patrols to raids. In Afghanistan I deployed as a 1302 and led a combat engineer platoon in direct support of Regimental Combat Team 8, specifically operating out of the Upper Sangin Valley. My platoon operated for months at a time, constructing patrol bases (PBs) in support of 3d Battalion, 5th Marines; 1st Battalion, 5th Marines; 2d Reconnaissance Battalion; and 3d Battalion, 4th Marines. This combat experience, in particular, compelled me to raise concern over the direction and overall reasoning behind opening the 03XX field.

Who is driving this agenda? I am not personally hearing female Marines, enlisted or officer, pounding on the doors of Congress claiming that their inability to serve in the infantry violates their right to equality. Shockingly, this isn’t even a congressional agenda. This issue is being pushed by several groups, one of which is a small committee of civilians appointed by the Secretary of Defense called the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Service (DACOWITS). Their mission is to advise the Department of Defense (DoD) on recommendations, as well as matters of policy, pertaining to the well-being of women in the Armed Services from recruiting to employment. Members are selected based on their prior military experience or experience with women’s workforce issues. I certainly applaud and appreciate DACOWITS’ mission; however, as it pertains to the issue of women in the infantry, it’s very surprising to see that none of the committee members are on active duty or have any recent combat or relevant operational experience relating to the issue they are attempting to change. I say this because, at the end of the day, it’s the active duty servicemember who will ultimately deal with the results of their initiatives, not those on the outside looking in. As of now, the Marine Corps hasn’t been directed to integrate, but perhaps the Corps is anticipating the inevitable—DoD pressuring the Corps to comply with DACOWITS’ agenda as the Army has already “rogered up” to full integration. Regardless of what the Army decides to do, it’s critical to emphasize that we are not the Army; our operational speed and tempo, along with our overall mission as the Nation’s amphibious force-in-readiness, are fundamentally different than that of our sister Service. By no means is this distinction intended as disrespectful to our incredible Army. My main point is simply to state that the Marine Corps and the Army are different; even if the Army ultimately does fully integrate all military occupational fields, that doesn’t mean the Corps should follow suit.

I understand that there are female servicemembers who have proven themselves to be physically, mentally, and morally capable of leading and executing combat-type operations; as a result, some of these Marines may feel qualified for the chance of taking on the role of 0302. In the end, my main concern is not whether women are capable of conducting combat operations, as we have already proven that we can hold our own in some very difficult combat situations; instead, my main concern is a question of longevity. Can women endure the physical and physiological rigors of sustained combat operations, and are we willing to accept the attrition and medical issues that go along with integration?
As a young lieutenant, I fit the mold of a female who would have had a shot at completing IOC, and I am sure there was a time in my life where I would have volunteered to be an infantryman. I was a star ice hockey player at Bowdoin College, a small elite college in Maine, with a major in government and law. At 5 feet 3 inches I was squatting 200 pounds and benching 145 pounds when I graduated in 2007. I completed Officer Candidates School (OCS) ranked 4 of 52 candidates, graduated 48 of 261 from TBS, and finished second at MOS school. I also repeatedly scored far above average in all female-based physical fitness tests (for example, earning a 292 out of 300 on the Marine physical fitness test). Five years later, I am physically not the woman I once was and my views have greatly changed on the possibility of women having successful long careers while serving in the infantry. I can say from firsthand experience in Iraq and Afghanistan, and not just emotion, that we haven’t even begun to analyze and comprehend the gender-specific medical issues and overall physical toll continuous combat operations will have on females.

I was a motivated, resilient second lieutenant when I deployed to Iraq for 10 months, traveling across the Marine area of operations (AO) and participating in numerous combat operations. Yet, due to the excessive amount of time I spent in full combat load, I was diagnosed with a severe case of restless leg syndrome. My spine had compressed on nerves in my lower back causing neuropathy which compounded the symptoms of restless leg syndrome. While this injury has certainly not been enjoyable, Iraq was a pleasant experience compared to the experiences I endured during my deployment to Afghanistan. At the beginning of my tour in Helmand Province, I was physically capable of conducting combat operations for weeks at a time, remaining in my gear for days if necessary and averaging 16-hour days of engineering operations in the heart of Sangin, one of the most kinetic and challenging AOs in the country. There were numerous occasions where I was sent to a grid coordinate and told to build a PB from the ground up, serving not only as the mission commander but also the base commander until the occupants (infantry units) arrived 5 days later. In most of these situations, I had a sergeant as my assistant commander, and the remainder of my platoon consisted of young, motivated NCOs. I was the senior Marine making the final decisions on construction concerns, along with 24-hour base defense and leading 30 Marines at any given time. The physical strain of enduring combat operations and the stress of being responsible for the lives and well-being of such a young group in an extremely kinetic environment were compounded by lack of sleep, which ultimately took a physical toll on my body that I couldn’t have foreseen.


By the fifth month into the deployment, I had muscle atrophy in my thighs that was causing me to constantly trip and my legs to buckle with the slightest grade change. My agility during firefights and mobility on and off vehicles and perimeter walls was seriously hindering my response time and overall capability. It was evident that stress and muscular deterioration was affecting everyone regardless of gender; however, the rate of my deterioration was noticeably faster than that of male Marines and further compounded by gender-specific medical conditions. At the end of the 7-month deployment, and the construction of 18 PBs later, I had lost 17 pounds and was diagnosed with polycystic ovarian syndrome (which personally resulted in infertility, but is not a genetic trend in my family), which was brought on by the chemical and physical changes endured during deployment. Regardless of my deteriorating physical stature, I was extremely successful during both of my combat tours, serving beside my infantry brethren and gaining the respect of every unit I supported. Regardless, I can say with 100 percent assurance that despite my accomplishments, there is no way I could endure the physical demands of the infantrymen whom I worked beside as their combat load and constant deployment cycle would leave me facing medical separation long before the option of retirement. I understand that everyone is affected differently; however, I am confident that should the Marine Corps attempt to fully integrate women into the infantry, we as an institution are going to experience a colossal increase in crippling and career-ending medical conditions for females.

There is a drastic shortage of historical data on female attrition or medical ailments of women who have executed sustained combat operations. This said, we need only to review the statistics from our entry-level schools to realize that there is a significant difference in the physical longevity between male and female Marines. At OCS the attrition rate for female candidates in 2011 was historically low at 40 percent, while the male candidates attrite at a much lower rate of 16 percent. Of candidates who were dropped from training because they were injured or not physically qualified, females were breaking at a much higher rate than males, 14 percent versus 4 percent. The same trends were seen at TBS in 2011; the attrition rate for females was 13 percent versus 5 percent for males, and 5 percent of females were found not physically qualified compared with 1 percent of males. Further, both of these training venues have physical fitness standards that are easier for females; at IOC there is one standard regardless of gender. The attrition rate for males attending IOC in 2011 was 17 percent. Should female Marines ultimately attend IOC, we can expect significantly higher attrition rates and long-term injuries for women.

There have been many working groups and formal discussions recently addressing what changes would be necessary to the current IOC period of instruction in order to accommodate both genders without producing an underdeveloped or incapable infantry officer. Not once was the word “lower” used, but let’s be honest, “modifying” a standard so that less physically or mentally capable individuals (male or female) can complete a task is called “lowering the standard”! The bottom line is that the enemy doesn’t discriminate, rounds will not slow down, and combat loads don’t get any lighter, regardless of gender or capability. Even more so, the burden of command does not diminish for a male or female; a leader must gain the respect and trust of his/her Marines in combat. Not being able to physically execute to the standards already established at IOC, which have been battle tested and proven, will produce a slower operational speed and tempo resulting in increased time of exposure to enemy forces and a higher risk of combat injury or death.

For this reason alone, I would ask everyone to step back and ask themselves, does this integration solely benefit the individual or the Marine Corps as a whole, as every leader’s focus should be on the needs of the institution and the Nation, not the individual?
Which leads one to really wonder, what is the benefit of this potential change? The Marine Corps is not in a shortage of willing and capable young male second lieutenants who would gladly take on the role of infantry officers. In fact we have men fighting to be assigned to the coveted position of 0302. In 2011, 30 percent of graduating TBS lieutenants listed infantry in their top three requested MOSs. Of those 30 percent, only 47 percent were given the MOS. On the other hand, perhaps this integration is an effort to remove the glass ceiling that some observers feel exists for women when it comes to promotions to general officer ranks. Opening combat arms MOSs, particularly the infantry, such observers argue, allows women to gain the necessary exposure of leading Marines in combat, which will then arguably increase the chances for female Marines serving in strategic leadership assignments. As stated above, I have full faith that female Marines can successfully serve in just about every MOS aside from the infantry. Even if a female can meet the short-term physical, mental, and moral leadership requirements of an infantry officer, by the time that she is eligible to serve in a strategic leadership position, at the 20-year mark or beyond, there is a miniscule probability that she’ll be physically capable of serving at all. Again, it becomes a question of longevity.

Despite my personal opinion regarding the incorporation of females into the infantry community, I am not blind to the fact that females play a key role in countering the gender and cultural barriers we are facing at war, and we do have a place in combat operations. As such, a potential change that I do recommend considering strongly for female Marine officers is to designate a new secondary MOS (0305) for a Marine serving as female engagement team (FET) officer in charge (OIC). 0305s would be employed in the same way we employ drill instructors, as we do not need an enduring FET entity but an existing capability able to stand up based on operational requirements. Legitimizing a program that is already operational in the Corps would greatly benefit both the units utilizing FETs and the women who serve as FET OICs. Unfortunately, FET OICs today are not properly screened and trained for this mission. I propose that those being considered for FET OIC be prescreened and trained through a modified IOC with an appropriately adjusted physical expectation. FET OICs need to better understand the infantry culture and mindset and work with their 0302 brethren to incorporate FET assistance during specific phases of operations to properly prepare them to serve as the subject matter experts to a regimental- or battalion-level infantry commander. Through joint OIC training, both 0302s and FET OICs can start to learn how to integrate capabilities and accomplish their mission individually and collectively. This, in my mind, is a much more viable, cost-effective solution, with high reward for the Marine Corps and the Nation, and it will also directly improve the capabilities of FET OICs.

Finally, what are the Marine Corps standards, particularly physical fitness standards, based on—performance and capability or equality? We abide by numerous discriminators, such as height and weight standards. As multiple Marine Corps Gazette articles have highlighted, Marines who can run first-class physical fitness tests and who have superior MOS proficiency are separated from the Service if they do not meet the Marine Corps’ height and weight standards. Further, tall Marines are restricted from flying specific platforms, and color blind Marines are faced with similar restrictions. We recognize differences in mental capabilities of Marines when we administer the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery and use the results to eliminate/open specific fields. These standards are designed to ensure safety, quality, and the opportunity to be placed in a field in which one can sustain and succeed.

Which once again leads me, as a ground combat-experienced female Marine Corps officer, to ask, what are we trying to accomplish by attempting to fully integrate women into the infantry? For those who dictate policy, changing the current restrictions associated with women in the infantry may not seem significant to the way the Marine Corps operates. I vehemently disagree; this potential change will rock the foundation of our Corps for the worse and will weaken what has been since 1775 the world’s most lethal fighting force. In the end, for DACOWITS and any other individual or organization looking to increase opportunities for female Marines, I applaud your efforts and say thank you. However, for the long-term health of our female Marines, the Marine Corps, and U.S. national security, steer clear of the Marine infantry community when calling for more opportunities for females. Let’s embrace our differences to further hone in on the Corps’ success instead of dismantling who we are to achieve a political agenda. Regardless of the outcome, we will be “Semper Fidelis” and remain focused on our mission to protect and defend the United States of America.

thx. reading as i get time.

11
General Discussion / Re: Color me surprised
« on: September 16, 2016, 04:55:30 PM »
It depends on how important upper body strength is to various military professions.

People were/are against women in the police force based on the fact that they can contrive hypotheticals in which upper body strength is important.  But how frequent do those scenarios actually occur, and how much are they unable to be mitigated by the various instruments available to officers (pepper spray, tasers, etc).  If a potential recruit, male or female, is superior at every other cognitive and interpersonal aspect of the job, should they be denied entrance because they fail to meet some strength standard that is rarely relevant to the job?

In today's military, I don't know the answer.  I imagine there are fields where it is reasonable to lower physical entry standards - both in the name of equality and in the name of getting superior overall recruits - but I also imagine there are fields where lowering those standards will routinely get people killed.  I wouldn't, personally, condemn or encourage the practice of "lowering standards in the military" wholesale.  I'd want to look at different areas independently.

I read an article by one of the first combat engineers in the Marine Corps.  The problem, she said, was not that she couldn't do it.  She did a good job for a while.  She just couldn't handle the sustained toll it took on her body.  Her body started producing so much testosterone it ruined her ability to have children.  Iirc, she said women either need to avoid that field, or at least know how devastating it will be on their bodies or be allowed shorter deployments.  Either way, they wouldn't be able to maintain the standards by the men over longer periods of time.  It was an interesting read.

Wow, really? I definitely read that if you still had it handy?

12
General Discussion / Re: Color me surprised
« on: September 16, 2016, 01:11:06 PM »
Kanmukberry understood the point. I HOPE the rest of you just feigned ignorance. Just a hope.

The continual movement towards introducing women into all aspects of the military is purely political and costs much in terms of logistical costs, retraining, and ultimately, reduced standards all for the sake of appeasing a sense of equality where one does not exist. There is no real benefit to the function of military ground forces for the inclusion of women, just additional challenges to deal with when they should be focused on defeating the enemy.

But hey, TzT is becoming old and out of touch so I won't expect much of the way of realizations here. Perhaps Generation Z will be more open to seeing more clearly the negative consequences for attempting to ignore the natural world in favor forcing social fantasies.

Everyone understood the main point. The problem they have is, the system worked. You were just getting all riled up on a "fact" that hasn't happened (maybe yet). I don't think that even the most left of us here - could be wrong though - would have a problem with keeping Special Forces requirements where they are. There's a big difference between some grunt and a highly trained warrior. I'm betting almost, if not all, women in the military would not want the requirements to be dropped either. Because of that, everyone was just attacked your outrage at a situation that hasn't happened and your vague "slippery slope" argument. 

13
Spamalot / Re: Quoted by Business Insider
« on: September 16, 2016, 12:57:12 PM »
classic

14
Spamalot / Re: Utumno fix my name
« on: September 15, 2016, 05:24:37 PM »
no, it's your rampant dog hatred

15
General Discussion / Re: Riot's 10 year anniversary
« on: September 15, 2016, 09:47:54 AM »
well, I don't "know" know him. No he has no fucking clue who I am.

No, not out of a line up.

We're "Internet" friends. Well...not really. We played on the same server and posted on the same message board 10 years ago.

He might recognize my message board name. No, I wouldn't bet any money on that.

========================================

So yeah. But congrats anyway!

"When we played EverQuest I EXP killed the shit out of that dude Tryndamere while he was fighting a giant snake"

#CommonlandsProblems

16
General Discussion / Re: Riot's 10 year anniversary
« on: September 14, 2016, 10:50:28 PM »
 :2funny:

only on TzT would someone like Trynd be treated to suck (in)justice.

17
General Discussion / Re: Riot's 10 year anniversary
« on: September 14, 2016, 06:13:37 PM »
Also, how fucking weird is it when some shit you post on a gaming message board makes gaming fucking news? mind trip man.

18
General Discussion / Re: Riot's 10 year anniversary
« on: September 14, 2016, 06:12:38 PM »
well, I don't "know" know him. No he has no fucking clue who I am.

No, not out of a line up.

We're "Internet" friends. Well...not really. We played on the same server and posted on the same message board 10 years ago.

He might recognize my message board name. No, I wouldn't bet any money on that.

========================================

So yeah. But congrats anyway!

19
Spamalot / Re: Raspberry Pi Zero
« on: September 14, 2016, 06:04:11 PM »
nice

20
absolutely. One more game.

21
Testing Forum / Re: Testing new sig
« on: September 13, 2016, 05:35:58 PM »
I see exactly what you have it set to.

22
wow. that's really good. mocap is the easy part.

23
General Discussion / Re: Old white man stock gambling thread
« on: September 10, 2016, 08:05:52 PM »
you can plant your tulips right here

24
General Discussion / Re: Great news!
« on: September 09, 2016, 09:45:37 PM »
Just not by the same people that did the email server investigation.


You mean the FBI? I'm pretty sure they went after her balls out.

25
if there's no gameplay mechanics where you need to hit a ledge instead of jump onto the platform, then no.

26
Testing Forum / Re: Testing new sig
« on: September 08, 2016, 04:04:41 PM »
me neither, but just in case, I check every couple of days. this thread is no just Utumno and I talking.

27
Testing Forum / Re: Testing new sig
« on: September 08, 2016, 01:41:47 PM »
you don't realize that is generic as fuck

What are you trying to use as a sig? Do you have a link? Is it simply text?

Without better info you gets no help.

28
Spamalot / Re: One post a day
« on: September 08, 2016, 12:09:33 PM »
^ nice

29
Testing Forum / Re: Testing new sig
« on: September 08, 2016, 11:30:43 AM »
Also, JESUSCHRISTWTFBBQ~ tell me exactly what you're trying to do and I'll do it for you...FUCK.

30
Testing Forum / Re: Testing new sig
« on: September 08, 2016, 11:29:36 AM »
it's difficult without removing the retainers.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 667