What do you mean, "[physical fitness] does not engage your brain"?

I can understand the logic behind this decision, but I don't think it is the best way to achieve what they want to accomplish. Cyber warfare is the next big up-and-coming thing. It is officially considered one of the "theaters of operation" for warfare now and it seems like every week we hear about some new virus, exploit, or hackers from China breaking into US businesses' networks. Because of this, it makes strategic sense to recruit "cyber warriors" if you will. What doesn't make sense is how it is necessary to loosen the already lax (IMHO) physical standards. I don't consider myself to be a paragon of physical athleticism, but I got a 295/300 on my last PT test. My MOS also requires that I spend almost all of my time sitting at a desk. Despite that, I still keep myself in good shape. Why? Because it's healthy. Because it's good for my body and for my brain. Because there is a certain pride associated with knowing that even though I am a "desk jockey" I can still run, ruck and keep up with the rest of the operational Army. And because if all I did was meet the minimum standard for height/weight and PT, I would quite honestly just be outright fat. Instead of lowering barriers to entry and decreasing the quality of our armed forces, incentivise people. Offer them enlistment bonuses or give them monthly MOS-specific pay for special skills. It will cost more, maybe. But what really has the higher cost: lazy soldiers or better-paid soldiers?

I think your comment illustrates how people like you can "learn from Anonymous."

I remember a /. comment from a week or two back that mentioned a colleague/peer who was told he had to submit reports on the number of new lines of code produced every week. Through editing and refining the software, he ended up with a net loss of 20,000 lines of code (and submitted -20,000 in his report). Ultimately, he ended up submitting weekly reports that didn't really "mean" anything-- but was never questioned because his work was good and profitable. Just this week my supervisor was gone on vacation. Our department ran more smoothly than it has for months because my peers and I took care of all our necessary duties and paperwork without having to deal with the stress of a boss fretting about reports getting submitted and said boss being fired for insufficient job performance. However, while the principle holds true, I think there are guidelines required for it to be the most practical principle by which to run a company/department. For example, employees need to have firm directional guidance for their work-- just no heavy-handed iron-fistedness.

I didn't realize I was not signed in when I posted this. Oh well. Additionally, would The Hunger Games be considered Sci-fi? I wouldn't necessarily rate them (especially the latter two) as timeless or anything like that but the end was certainly bittersweet and also somewhat sad and depressing.

Is anyone else reminded of Asimov's novel, Nemesis? Here's to the discovered closeness of this red dwarf upsetting the gravitational stability of our solar system!

My girlfriend was in a bad mood the other day and as a result she started ranting about how much she hates Valentine's Day-- because it's something that's just become commercialized and a huge deal when it really shouldn't be. The best part of this is that I know women well enough to know that despite her protestations, she'd love it if I did something for her on Valentine's Day. Now if only I could decide on what to do...

I do watch House. I think it's rather interesting that you're using a TV show (which is, by it's very nature, not necessarily indicative of reality) to make judgments about reality.

Furthermore, the cat in House did not lick specific areas of dying patients' bodies. It sat on/next them, and only because of the heated blanket. Whether the licking was because the area was saltier or because the cat knew, I don't know. But if you're going to crush someone's romantic ideals in a manner similar to the way House would, at least back it up with proof and an explanation like he does.

I do end up using it for about .001% of my web browsing (when I'm running Windows instead of Linux, and when I'm running IE instead of Firefox) and I just feel more comfortable using the most up-to-date software whenever possible. Besides, IE6 sucks and IE7 is nothing special anyway-- what's the big deal with just upgrading your backup browser?

And space is no excuse. IE8 takes up marginally more space than IE6/7 and with the cheap cost-per-gigabyte there's no reason to worry about running out of room for all your pron!

But what's with all of the RIAA action all of a sudden? What's got a bee in their bonnet now as opposed to, say, five years ago?

"this doesn't seem like such a bad limitation"

Maybe not, but it means I'm never, ever going to buy a netbook with Windows 7 on it. Or recommend anyone else do so either.