This isn't about UEFI, I've had no issues with it. Primarily because I don't use Windows on it. Microsoft is up to it's old tricks here. Then again, try to run OSX on a Dell. I just wish all these guys would get their heads out of there asses.
Heh, they both look fine to me. I really couldn't see the difference... I'm a sucker for good design, but it seems my font style is in the incompetent zone.
Well, anywhere from unwarranted sexual touching (ass slaps), to coming up from behind and cozying up to a woman at her cubicle. These were all after the women had made it clear that this was inappropriate, though this shouldn't be required. Language was often beyond condescending, and often abusive and dismissive. One individual was particularly bad, he would get really upset if his advances (which could only have been learned from bad porno, they were so clueless and inappropriate), he would travel straight to verbal abuse and threats. The language was simply degrading.
This same individual, was in the elevator when my friend who worked at another company, but same building. He got into the elevator with his wife, and the individual said something along the lines of "I bet you'd like it if I bent you over now. Let everyone here have a turn" to his wife. My buddy showed far more restraint than I would have.
I've worked in healthy and unhealthy work environments, the healthy ones have ample diversity, and the unhealthy ones were heavily male dominant. When I worked for Dell, it was so heavily skewed that several of the female workers felt unsafe, and I would walk them to their cars. Little boys who would otherwise sit in the corner at the bar and completely avoid actual interaction with women get very brave when they have 30 of their friends backing them. It was disgusting. You do what you can, but senior leadership is ultimately responsible for the tone and the hiring/firing. I on several occasions brought complaints from what I had seen, I know the women had as well, and not a single person was ever fired for this.
Zero percent of this conversation should be about the article, and should entirely be on the validity of the claim against the unhealthy work environment.
I certainly don't want unchecked liberty for others, or myself. I want intelligent, compassionate, and humane liberty, meaning that you can do whatever you want as long as you're not hurting someone else.
Say I take the grocery example from above. And I have unbridled liberty, and I now don't allow any black people to shop there because in the original texts of Mormon, the lord cursed Cains seed, and the black skin curse was to identify the cursed. Now if there are 30 grocery stores in town, who cares. But say I'm in a small town, and there are only two, and we're both Pre-1978 Mormon believers. Now black people in the town can only eat at the Chick fil a. Well, Chick fil a decides to also have this policy, and now there is no place for the black populace to eat. The only option to the black people is to open their own store, except no one will sell them the food, and no one will sell them the land, and no one will sell them... anything. I effectively own the black populous because I can get them to work for food. Oh, and it's not racism, it's religion.
I don't care what ideology you have, it must not suppress human rights.
I know, I was trying to add to it by bringing up the sub prime mortgage debacle, but apparently that isn't a funny topic, or I lost something in the delivery.
This is ridiculous, you want to force my company to host your hate speech? Bullshit, you're now removing my rights, to enable your own. It's the internet, build your own platform and say whatever you want.
I'm not even going to go into why the correlation between influence and retraction rate exists, that should be blatantly obvious to any with a background in any of the sciences. Also, we want retractions, it means science works.
Well, there is the MPAA, which seems to do what you're talking about, except rather than coming up with an all encompassing solution, they sue you. Because nothing says customer service like a lawsuit.
But that's kinda my point, we don't know that, anymore than we know an all meat diet is okay for us. Most of the "science" around nutrition would only be acceptable in theoretical physics and paleontology. We're starting to see nutrition studied a little better, but it's the past half decade where we seeing actual science around nutrition, and we'll need at least a couple hundred years before we can say with certainty what is best for human longevity. Until then, we're guessing.
We think cholesterol is bad in excess, and conventional wisdom dictates, that since eggs are high in cholesterol, that eggs should be avoided. Except, the body doesn't metabolize much if any dietary cholesterol, and instead it's the cholesterol that you synthesize that's dangerous. There are some interesting observations with high fat dairy, which actually reduces cholesterol instead of increasing it. Again, conventional wisdom is demonstrating itself to not be correct. Calories in, calories out sounds good on paper, eat less, and you will lose weight. But this also is proven incorrect over and over. I have seen this in studies, and witnessed it first hand with a girl I was living with who was trying to lose weight. She would eat a fifth of the calories that I would eat, and would gain weight, where I would chow down on meat, fats, and green beans and lose weight. What does appear to be apparent is it's easier to maintain a healthy weight if you never gain weight in the first place; essentially your body attempts to return to it's heaviest when calories are available. Many new studies show that the war on salt is based in bad science, and it may not have as much of an impact as we thought. So is a little haiku the answer? I don't know what the right answer is, but I know it isn't that simple.
Drinking alcohol has many health benefits. Even a beer a day, something that 'common sense' would lead you to think was unhealthy, demonstrates to be good for your overall health. And eating processed foods while smoking and drinking would likely be more detrimental than eating well, while smoking and drinking. The hard part is determining what eating well is.
The beauty of the example I provided is it would be almost almost impossible to prove. Shooting a guy in the head, as opposed to arresting him raises more questions, and investigations. Your solution is a product of an unskilled mind. Though the competency of government is weak, the competency of the TLA's is anything but.
Here is how it can go down, the cops are chasing Bill, because Bill is able to demonstrate that fracking is causing cancer, and all the politicians knew about it and were bribed. PRISIM intercepts bill talking to his dealer, and knows that he will have a small amount of weed on his person for sciatica because his state doesn't have medical marijuana. Send the cops an "anonymous" tip, and are instructed to make an example of this guy, and throw the book at him. Any hard documents are now confiscated as part of the arrest, and the state simply declares the documents to have been tampered with, but include sensitive data, so the public will never see it.