US Army likely to ban smartwatches
-
Slavery was abolished over 100 years ago in the US, except for two things, joining the military and farming. My father always said farming, especially a dairy farm, is basically legal slavery. And when you join the military, you are not a person, but property of the government to be used as they see fit.
-
I would assume they can be worn off base, but we will have to see
-
@IRJ said:
I would assume they can be worn off base, but we will have to see
My guess is no, but if so, then the article is pretty silly.
-
@handsofqwerty said:
Slavery was abolished over 100 years ago in the US, except for two things, joining the military and farming. My father always said farming, especially a dairy farm, is basically legal slavery. And when you join the military, you are not a person, but property of the government to be used as they see fit.
The important thing about the military is that it is voluntary, unlike traditional slavery.
-
OK i couldn't read the article.. the page loaded an add that auto played a video and had sound. Screw you website, I'm done!
-
@Dashrender This is why I keep my computer sounds on mute. That, and for me to hear it, I'd have to turn it up loud enough everybody on my floor could hear it.
-
@dafyre said:
@Dashrender This is why I keep my computer sounds on mute. That, and for me to hear it, I'd have to turn it up loud enough everybody on my floor could hear it.
Not really the point! it's one thing to have a static ad, I can totally handle that, but auto play ads - they have to stop!
-
@Dashrender True. If it had been one of those Popup ads that played sound, I would have close it out. But as it were, i didn't hear anything, lol.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@handsofqwerty said:
Slavery was abolished over 100 years ago in the US, except for two things, joining the military and farming. My father always said farming, especially a dairy farm, is basically legal slavery. And when you join the military, you are not a person, but property of the government to be used as they see fit.
The important thing about the military is that it is voluntary, unlike traditional slavery.
Yeah, I know. More like indentured servitude than slavery.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@IRJ said:
I would assume they can be worn off base, but we will have to see
My guess is no, but if so, then the article is pretty silly.
I am not sure why they wouldn't be allowed off base. There is no control of your smartphone off base. In reality a smart watch can do nothing a smart phone can't do.
-
@IRJ said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@IRJ said:
I would assume they can be worn off base, but we will have to see
My guess is no, but if so, then the article is pretty silly.
I am not sure why they wouldn't be allowed off base. There is no control of your smartphone off base. In reality a smart watch can do nothing a smart phone can't do.
Why would there be an article then? Seems pretty silly.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Why would there be an article then? Seems pretty silly.
I think what you call off base would matter. You live in a house on base (or barracks if single), so even at home you couldn't ware it.
-
I'm betting the wearing of the watch is limited to while on duty specifically. For example, the not walking while talking on a cell phone would only apply while either on base (military installation) or in uniform regardless of location.
But if you are off-base walk and talk all you want.
The same would probably go for the watch. -
@thecreativeone91 said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Why would there be an article then? Seems pretty silly.
I think what you call off base would matter. You live in a house on base (or barracks if single), so even at home you couldn't ware it.
That is awfully annoying. But the price you pay for living on base, I assume. Isn't that housing free?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
That is awfully annoying. But the price you pay for living on base, I assume. Isn't that housing free?
Kinda. they get housing allowance to pay for it.
-
and any hand-held unit must never (ever) encumber a soldier from giving a snappy salute to a superior officer.
Good thing the military knows that saluting, and not protecting civilians, is what matters in these decisions.
-
Whens the last time the US was able to win a war without using a nuclear weapon?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Whens the last time the US was able to win a war without using a nuclear weapon?
While we all agree Vietnam was not a win, you don't consider either dessert storm a win?
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Whens the last time the US was able to win a war without using a nuclear weapon?
While we all agree Vietnam was not a win, you don't consider either dessert storm a win?
War in the Middle East is un- winnable.
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Whens the last time the US was able to win a war without using a nuclear weapon?
While we all agree Vietnam was not a win, you don't consider either dessert storm a win?
I don't consider Desert Storm a win since we accomplished effectively nothing and we are still there (yes, technically with a short break.) And since the other side famously considered it a win for them at best it was a draw, but in reality, it was a minor loss.
Now not only have we lost in Iraq for a second time (highlighting how badly we lost the first time) but now even the little bit that was left is falling apart.
Vietnam was a dramatic loss. Korea was a draw, sort of, but overall on the negative side of a loss. If you consider WW1 to be a separate conflict from WW2 (which is a stretch) then WW1 we managed to win with the assistance of a ton of other countries. That we chose the winning side of a distant conflict where we had the luxury of joining only the side that we felt would win and only after observing the conflict for a while is pretty weak as wins go.
