From a public health perspective: who cares? T2 Diabetes rates are still going up, yet we've known that for a long time. We need to keep telling obese people with T2 diabetes to lose it, obviously diabetes isn't the only problem associated with obesity, and that drives up costs for the public at large, but telling the public to diet isn't working.

You individually, great, pat yourself on the back, but you're not most people. We know empirically that most overweight people will stay overweight, and diabetes on top of that is going to cost the public a lot of money through health insurance. A preventative measure that is not "lose weight" is a very good thing.

You're just presenting a false dichotomy: solar with brownouts or coal being profitable. That's utter nonsense.

But research funds are still low. There's been a big push to spend money on what the summary is talking about for about a decade. I'm wondering if the government spending money on moving stuff from the lab to the doctors office has simply convinced private industry they don't need to spend their own money to do that. I mean, people frustrated with "death valley" aside, I don't think we were previously ignoring valuable, profitable science go to waste anyway.

Lets not fall into a trap of thinking it's a black and white issue. Inappropriate comments can definitely be a real issue. Take sex out of it a minute and look at non-sexual assault and battery.

If your boss cracks your skull with a crowbar, that's obviously serious battery that is going to create a hostile work environment, and he should be jailed. If he jokingly punches you on the arm, that's not battery, that's not creating a hostile work environment.

If your boss rolls his eyes when you give him bad news and says "I should just kill you" with a sigh, that's probably not a "real issue." If he looks you dead in the eyes and says he's going to stab you in the back one day, and you believe him, that's obviously a real issue, that would definitely create a hostile work environment.

Why would words become trivial if instead of saying "stab" he says "fuck"?

Something something anecdotal evidence.

What does the "The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey" have to do with harassment on scientific fieldwork? Is this just a general "male victims get ignored" or is this actually relevant to the discussion here?

Fine, but the summary specifically states "The study reveals that the primary targets were young women who were harassed, assaulted, and even raped by men who were usually senior to them in rank."

The article goes further " Women were 3.5 times more likely to report sexual harassment than men and significantly more likely to have experienced sexual assault."

Again, these are specific to scientific field work. If you have data which suggests that on scientific field work, men are harassed much more often, then that's totally relevant. If not, then that's a different discussion.

One should keep in mind that both genders can be sexually harassed or assaulted, but that shouldn't be confused with "both genders are EQUALLY harassed or assaulted" because that's just not true. Moreover, the articles point out that a lot of that was male supervisors on their female students. Given that most professors are male, male students being harassed on these trips may be a different situation entirely, probably requiring different approaches. If male students are primarily being harassed by female students, then dealing with the harassers is much simpler: you tell them they'll be fired if they harass people. Tenured professors, that doesn't work for.

I really don't see what your objection here is. GP was only explaining why telling people not to sexually harass was justified without warning people not to commit murder. Do we seriously need to affirm in every single post on this subject that yes, men can be victims too?

One wonders why google cared about cleaning up youtube comments in the first place. It may have had the level of discourse one would find in a crackhouse, but unlike a crackhouse, people aren't going to stumble out onto nearby sites like gmail and stab someone in the face for a quarter.

I'd be surprised if the vast majority of people on facebook, who google was attempting to court, cared what Eric called it. I'm guessing Zuckerberg has called his users more insulting terms, and no one really cared. Even if he did, so what? Facebook and google are the same products.

I mean, google + didn't become the next facebook simply because it didn't become the next facebook to enough people. Lets not complicate it, people simply didn't switch. It wasn't some bullshit about real names, or youtube integration, or features facebook didn't have. Facebook just kept critical mass.

Better not tell him about the coca-cola cocaine name connection, he might jump off a bridge.

I find a few things odd with your post.

First, you state that Thor is a male god as if that's the most important thing. You're okay with norse mythology being co-opted such that he's running around with spandex-clad cheerleaders, but only so long as he has a cock and balls? That's just weird to me.

Second, your logic seems to be that Marvel sucks at making new characters, and this is a new character so it's going to suck. Instead of making this new character, they should... focus on getting better at making new characters? Tell me, how are they supposed to do that? Why would they start off with trying to make new MALE characters that don't suck? I'm not a writer, is that actually a technique of "If you suck at some aspect of writing, just focus on one gender?"

Third, you're suggesting this is "just a publicity" stunt... as opposed to what? This being an organic, natural, "true" progression of the marvel universe? Seems to me that marvel has been milking the franchise for all it's worth for decades. They bring back characters from the dead not because that makes any sense at all, they do it because the fans like it. Everything in comics, or entertainment for that matter, is a publicity stunt.

Along those same lines my second grader's report on the civil war was just fucking garbage. I mean, it barely mentioned the manifold reasons behind the civil war. It focused on slavery and BARELY hinted at federalism at all, or the cultural divide. It was only one page long too!

In seriousness, the point of a metaphor in politics is to dumb something down to a point where people who are ignorant on the issue can be motivated to act in a certain way. "Ignorant" here including myself, I don't really understand QoS (without looking it up on wiki that is). To expect a public discussion to be accurate on anything remotely technical is asking for dissapointment. Or is an attempt to confuse voters into apathy.

Sure, but what does that have to do with law enforcement? They're not the "car enthusiast revenge squad."

Are you suggesting the police pursuit DIDN'T cause him to drive over 100 mph? Because I think the police chase still motivated him to drive that fast. Even if they pulled off at the end, that still doesn't explain why they had to do it in the first place. There was no threat of violence here except for the reckless driving that predictably occurs during a high-speed chase.

I'm imagining the guy who designed the Ford Pinto reading this and getting very excited. "When I point that out, they're SURE to give me my job back! So long dry cat food for dinner, hellooo purina select!"