This is a federal indictment of criminal charges, not a civil case that can be settled out of court for a cash payment. Everyone involved could get up to 20 years in a federal prison, if convicted.

If I go on vacation and turn on my out-of-office replies, I don't actually check my e-mail while I am on vacation, and my co-workers are aware of this. My supervisor has my cell phone number, she can call me if there is truly an emergency.

I work as an administrator in a higher education setting, so your mileage may vary ...

Wait, if the intention of this is to show why war is so violent and problematic, why would we actively contribute to it?

That really is too perfect.

If that wasn't published in the paper, how do you know that is true? I've taken a look at the paper and I don't see anything in it about race.

Your reactions to comments are wildly hostile. "Dense," "attention whore," "superficial drones" ... what's that all about? Why are you so angry?

You can't lump "feminists" together as a group and pretend like everyone who identifies as a feminist has exactly the same views on everything.

You're being completely sensationalist about this. Nobody is running around and demanding equal representation in dangerous, low-paying jobs because nobody in their right mind would ever encourage anyone to actively seek out a dangerous, low-paying job. Would you ever encourage your child, male OR female, to seek out a career as a coal miner? No, you wouldn't, because that would be stupid. Do you not understand that? Or are you just being willfully dense so you can stick to your completely misguided point? Furthermore, do you even KNOW any coal miners? Do you know ANYONE in your community who has ever even CONSIDERED the idea of being a coal miner? Because unless you live in a rural area, I highly doubt that you do.

Besides all of that, "feminists" do generally advocate for the idea that men and women should be regarded as equally capable of performing most tasks in most jobs with the proper training, so "feminists" would generally be supportive of a woman who wanted to pursue a job as a coal miner, or a construction worker, or a crab fisher, or any other number of traditionally "male" jobs. Do you actually think that "coal miners" would take kindly to a woman who wanted to do that kind of work? Would a woman even be considered for the job? Or would she be immediately rejected because of systematic sexism within that particular profession or working environment? It isn't some kind of privilege for women that they are generally considered too weak, frail or delicate to perform those kinds of jobs. It's benevolent sexism at best.

So, if your intimate partner doesn't like it when your breath smells bad, that makes them a "superficial drone?"

If your co-workers don't like it if you smell like body odor because you haven't showered in days, that makes them "superficial drones?"

Wait, so, maintaining basic hygiene so that you can be presentable to other people makes you an "attention whore?"

"War on men" ... right. As if we, as men, have to face harassment and discrimination that is even comparable to the daily bullshit that most women have to deal with.

This is what I'm talking about, in case you don't know: http://www.robot-hugs.com/harassment/

Why on earth would you ever encourage ANYONE to line up for work in a coal mine?

Calling someone a "redneck" sounds more like classism than racism to me. Which is still bad, but don't conflate the two.

If you want to get really particular, it isn't actually possible to be "racist against white people" if you subscribe to the definition of racism as power + prejudice. In other words, you can't be "racist against white people" in the United States because "racism" requires the application of power at a wide-spread, institutional level. There are no institutions within the United States which are systematically biased against white people. You can be "prejudiced" against white people, but you can't be "racist" towards them. Calling it racism actually minimizes the severity of the systematic, institution discrimination that people of color have to struggle against within this country.

If high testosterone was simply "no longer vital," then low testosterone levels wouldn't be selected for by the process of evolution. If an organism's trait has neither a positive or negative effect on the organism's survival, the trait will generally persist. The fact that testosterone levels dropped at all indicates that a lower testosterone level provided an advantage over a higher one.

I would, however, want to know more about the effects of environmental conditions on testosterone levels. Would a change in diet, for example, trigger a change in testosterone level?

"clear up bad breath" = "sell yourself to your personal audiences"

A computerized system can respond to a sudden stop much more quickly than a human driver. As human drivers, most of the distance we need to keep between our vehicle and the next is due to our delayed reaction time, and not the time it takes to actually stop the vehicle once the brakes are applied.