This is terrible,

The whole point of life is to live and die like everyone else and accept the fact your not special and your going to die then go out and do as much as you can in your lifetime.

sonofsmeagle

Regardless if this ever comes to fruition, I don't see anything wrong with extending one's life, especially in regards to living healthily and youthfully for a longer period of time. Life as they say is short, and yet still supposedly the longest thing you'll ever experience. Many people find it hard to do enough in their lifetime, and often have to struggle for years before they are in a place to make any kind of positive difference (even on a micro scale). Obviously there would have to be regulation (there would be too much economic and population growth concerns to deal with if enough people were, say, completely immortal). But even if it just entails living in one's biological prime a little bit longer, that seems well worth it.

I was reminded vaguely of The Poseidon Adventure from the pictures.

[QUOTE="PSN-SCRODE"]

Yahoo/finance I believe is better. Not a fan of google finance

Jandurin

Google Finance for me, if only because it's what I'm more used to. Though I do use both, along with many others.

Really? I wasn't aware that Sony was in the crapper. I need to get my head on straight.

BATTOSAI76

They've had a loss the last 3 fiscal years. They are not insolvent or anything though. At least not yet.

Although they are at the end of the day linked, there is really not as much correlation between financial markets and the micro/macro economies as you might think.

As for good, free websites that provide a macro picture of the financial markets and economy, try google.com/finance and finance.yahoo.com

Like I said before about such IP debates, even if such initiatives are passed, I just don't see how there is any political will and enough sophistication for the federal government to enforce them. They have enough trouble with existing initiatives, and IP "piracy" is just too entrenched.

I found this interview to be an interesting read on the matter.

Q: This type of behaviour is not unheard of in warzones. Why do you think soldiers carry out these types of actions? A: If you think about the role of soldiering, you've got young men - behaving and thinking like adolescents - sent off to kill. The training they get is necessarily about dehumanising, because you can't kill someone, or pull a trigger with the intent of killing someone, unless you to some degree dehumanise that person that you're going to kill. There are studies that show that many soldiers, even though they are trained to kill, pull the trigger but do not aim directly at the person. This shows that they're not quite indoctrinated or completely without self-direction in some of these actions. So when you think about the training of soldiering which includes dehumanisation, you can't just switch on and off from that sort of training. Peeing together is a bit of a bonding thing for men, traditionally. It's almost like they're finishing off the ritual. They've usually also got a lot of adrenaline rushing through their system after these things. There are many instances of war in which people have behaved in abominable ways and dehumanised themselves as much as anything. They get caught up in the adrenalin and the group mentality, because when you're in a group individual responsibility decreases - there's a collective conscience that seems to somehow be lessened. If you were to ask each of those men individually have them separate from their group, they would probably be as appalled by their own behaviour as the general public, but in a group people get caught up. Q: How common is this type of behaviour in war zones? A: It's common in any society that's broken down. I think where you don't have the constraints of conscience, morality and the infrastructure to deal with behaviour that is non-acceptable to the group, you will find this sort of behaviour. Q: In which other parts of society can you see this type of behaviour? A: I think you see it in a whole range of areas, from pack rape and football violence to politicians - anywhere where individuals act out of accordance with their usual moral judgement and do things they would not normally have done. Q: Would you say it's typical male behaviour? A: I don't want to say it's typically male, it's more of a typical adolescent behaviour I think, there are many females who behave badly in groups. But in these types of situations there is a lot of adrenalin rushing around and if you top that off with testosterone , violence is often testosterone driven, and war is a male domain. Q: What can be done to prevent these things from occurring? Good leadership is key. A lot of my work is on growth out of adversity and out of complex adversity. One of the issues I'm particularly interested in is "betrayal trauma" and there are two main areas where you see betrayal trauma; you see it in young children who have been sexually abused or abused in other ways by caretakers, and you see it in young soldiers who are caught up having to act out behaviours that their own conscience may have trouble with, and in which the leadership had let them down. And they go off feeling blamed and ashamed when in actual fact they may have been forced into situations by poor leadership. Good and moral leadership in the military is absolutely imperative to the good behaviour of young soldiers . The commanding officer should be held responsible for the actions of these men. I don't want it to sound like I'm being sympathetic to these men, bad behaviour needs to be dealt with, but it's a bigger question than just these young men. You take a young man, pump him up with adrenalin and testosterone and give him a gun and put him in a society which has no boundaries or structure, no law and order, he's likely to behave in ways that he's going to feel ashamed about. And the society from which he came is inevitably going to feel ashamed about it too. Dr Lynne McCormack has worked as a clinical, health and educational psychologist specialising in complex trauma for over 20 years. Her areas of expertise include war and its effect on the individual.

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1618607/Analysis:-Psychology-of-'urinating'-Marines/

chrisrooR

This is another part that I was trying to convey, but I was having trouble doing so. Thank you for posting this comprehensive and intriguing analysis.

[QUOTE="jetpower3"]

[QUOTE="Asim90"]

When all is said and done, these soldiers can piss on these bodies if they wish. But they can't do so while taking the moral high ground and claiming to be there for righteous reasons. This act does nothing but shame the person who does it. What is the point of urinating on a dead body? All this does is show a lack of decency in the US armed forces.

Asim90

Then I suppose the question is: does the work of individuals spoil that of an entire (very large) organization? Would it not be expected to see at least some of this sort of behavior observed in a population of over 100,000 soldiers in highly dangerous (and to a certain degree, tragic) circumstances and yet still not be symptoms of systematic or sanctioned behavior?

That's a fair point, however why should this be expected? This isn't the only case, these acts happen quite frequently and many go unreported. Shouldn't US soliders, especially marines have a fair and logical mind. Surely they should be able to weigh up the simple positives and negatives and possible reprecussions here. With your argument, this simply falls down to a lack of poor selection and management.

Unfortunately, the U.S. DoD is no stranger to those two concepts. I think it's also an issue of the fact that the U.S. military (and pretty much any other) have always operated in this fashion, but this is the first time that they are being exposed for it. I also do not think it's not necessarily inherent for any military to be accountable in a democratic fashion or understand importance of PR (and the way viral videos like this affect that). That said, I think there's a difference between incompetence and complicity and these organizational problems lean more to the former.

When all is said and done, these soldiers can piss on these bodies if they wish. But they can't do so while taking the moral high ground and claiming to be there for righteous reasons. This act does nothing but shame the person who does it. What is the point of urinating on a dead body? All this does is show a lack of decency in the US armed forces.

Asim90

Then I suppose the question is: does the work of individuals spoil that of an entire (very large) organization? Would it not be expected to see at least some of this sort of behavior observed in a population of over 100,000 soldiers in highly dangerous (and to a certain degree, tragic) circumstances and yet still not be symptoms of systematic or sanctioned behavior?

The way I see it is that there are two kinds of people: People that would see this disturbing and utterly wrong, and people that would see it "justified" because terroristz. Between these two kinds of people, there are oceans and worlds to separate them.GazaAli

I would bring it to a more general level: to what extent are people justified in "doing bad things to bad people" (or not) within the framework of existing laws, conventions, and guidelines? There are still many who believe in street justice, and in more ways than one. It doesn't matter what organization, what creed, or what side of any conflict. Like they say, Your Mileage May Vary.