Legally?

Quite.
THIS, as in this particular case, it is primarily obvious mobbing performed on her by the WIFE of one of the founders of GitHub.

Sure, there are other issues, like the other employee who came out of nowhere professing his love and then started to bully her passive aggressively for "rejecting him".
Though she was already in "a committed relationship" with another employee of GitHub.

But this is primarily mobbing, plain and simple. Done by the proverbial "bosses wife".
FFS - founder who's wife had issues with Horvath demanded her boyfriend to resign cause it was ",bad judgement' to date coworkers".

I.e. She was pressured by "the wife", while her boyfriend was pressured by "the husband".
That's NOT SEXISM. They clearly took precautions so it would not be seen as sexism.
Founder and his wife were MOBBING their employees.

One, that is a fallacy.
By that logic any growth that company or technology may achieve is anomalous instead of say... a part of the plan to expand or even natural growth and development.

Two, Facebook never was "a community" any more than "the Internet" ever was one.
It was always a service ON WHICH communities were created and where they grew. And where they keep being created today.

Again... The author is babbling nonsense, pushed onward by confirmation bias.

Also, whoever wrote that does not realize that Facebook is not a site or social space but a service.

So that argument could just as well be used against a telephone, postal service, roads... with equal relevance and correctness.

You are misinterpreting what you probably heard somewhere.

http://www.straightdope.com/co...

The fact that the placebo effect is increasing the more they keep prescribing them is most likely due to overprescription of antidepressants to misdiagnosed patients.
When you treat everything with an antidepressant of course it will eventually show the same (or even lesser) effect as placebo - CAUSE YOU'RE NOT TREATING THOSE ACTUALLY DEPRESSED.

Same thing would happen if they started putting people's arms and legs in casts for every single bruise.
It would show that in most cases, immobilization via plaster cast is no better than placebo as a treatment for healing injured arms and legs.

The fact that they are achieving similar results with psychotherapy alone indicates that those are not people with chemical or hormonal issues.
They are probably just "sad" and not clinically depressed at all. OR... looking for a "high".
They go to a psych, fill out a questionnaire and answer "yes" when asked if they are depressed.
Or answer a question. Same thing.

Same method is used to determine if those pills worked - they fill out a questionnaire and answer "yes".
If they used that method for diagnosing cancer, everyone who ever went to a doctor would be diagnosed with cancer.
And there'd be some AMAZING results regarding all the things that completely cure cancer. From foot-rubs to lava lamps.

No. Here is what it says.

"Harold G. Koenig, director of the Center for Spirituality, Theology, and Health at Duke University and a professor of psychiatry"... author of "The Healing Power of Faith", "Faith and Mental Health"... "Listening to sermons and reading religious works like the Bible may also invoke a cognitive benefit, Koenig said."

I.e. Faith guy says maybe faith good for brain.

Also, that Discovery article is crap.
That "One recent study, published in December of 2013 in JAMA Psychiatry" - no it wasn't.
And which study does this sentence refer to? The supposed December 2013 JAMA one (actually published in February 2014) or the 2011 one?

Cause, it either says that Koenig is a co-author of the JAMA study (which he isn't, but which is no made clear anywhere in the article which doesn't even name the study it discusses) and he disagrees with the data from the 2011 study...
OR, he is a co-author of 2011 study (which he was) which says that certain religious people have a shrinking hippocampus.
With which he disagrees as well, pointing out "no one has replicated that work yet".

Koenig is essentially saying "Fuck my study which shows how religion may actually be bad for your brain. Don't look at it. Nothing to see there. Not replicated. Bad study. Bad!"

Also, everything Koenig and that other guy who had nothing to do with the study (he apparently has not even read it) but they asked him to comment on it anyway, Dr. Majid Fotuhi, said about the social effect... pure bullshit.
From the actual study:

Going to church does not matter. How much you THINK that religion or spirituality matter to you matters.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...

They are actively fulfilling a Biblical prophecy ONLY by determining genealogical lineage AND then baptizing the dead.
Simply baptizing them just makes them Mormon. In the minds of the LDS followers.

Only the genealogically backed baptism, fulfills the prophecy of The Second ComingTM.
Kinda like those Texans and Israelis who are breeding red heifers in order to bring about the end of the world.

That's right! Both these groups are jerking off to the idea of Armageddon!
And yet nobody is rounding them up into prisons and concentration camps under suspicion of conspiracy to kill everyone on the planet!
I know! Insane!

So... Are you saying that they are NOT Mormons or are you questioning their faith and calling them bad Mormons?
Being that BYU stands for Brigham Young University which is owned and operated by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

And being that it is first and foremost a religious institution.

You are completely missing the point.

I can go and buy gold and diamonds and bear skins TODAY - but they are useless to me as a currency in my local shop that won't accept them.
Why? Because the risque and taxes attached are too high for THEM. THE SELLERS OF ITEMS.

They would either have to get rid of my gold, diamonds, bear skins or BTC right away OR face possible consequences of huge losses when that "pretty much completely hidden today" volatility kicks in.
Same goes for online retailers. Only those willing to gamble on heavy losses (and possible tax issues) would use something so volatile.

And if I'm gonna use an intermediary like Bitpay - what's the point of BTC? Why not simply use Paypal? Or, you know, cash and credit cards?
An established, secure, widely accepted way of paying (and being paid) for various things.

You pay all your bills in BTC? Food, water, electricity, clothing, transport, medical bills...
Try talking your local cashier into accepting some perfectly usable Yen.
And that's an actual currency. Used by MILLIONS of people every second for centuries. AND you can actually hold it in your hand.

As for your regulation talk...
You're doing some ignoratio elenchi there.
Paypal is a service using real world currencies. Any regulation present or not would regulate Paypal.

BTC regulation would regulate BTC. Not exchanges. Bitcoin itself needs regulation.
Just like the dollar is regulated.

I'd say that too if I hadn't seen people who teach math completely misinterpreting the data, from an example they chose themselves as a teaching example. And more.
Nobody bats an eye - those making the mistakes apparently don't know or don't care they are teaching the students wrong, and students are there only to get a passing grade, mumbling to themselves "I'm never gonna need this anyway".

And then you have all those med and bio graduates who really don't understand statistics, and then all those people with various masters and doctorates (Hello appeal to authority!) in fields completely unrelated to statistics (but who should and DO use it in order to get various studies done) who REALLY don't understand statistics...

But screw that.
Remember this discussion couple of months ago?
Feel free to browse through all those comments explaining and arguing hows and whys, (particularly those +5 Insightfuls) before you click here.

Read it again.
The entire article is a "I'm smarter than these sheep ho-ho-ho. Look at how knowledgeated I am." love letter from the writer to himself.

I'd have to use at least three different colored highlighters and the Wikipedia's list of fallacies to comb through that article.
He might as well be arguing that all those kids and talking animals on boxes of cereals and candy ARE ONLY PRETENDING TO BE ECSTATIC about those products - ergo, they are as evil as creationists.

But this is my favorite part.

What is? What are you not telling us?! WHAT DID SHE READ!!!? What is it that the magical scientist won't tell us!!? WHAAAAAT!!!?

You don't go arguing about something being "OMG not scientific" and then build that argument on the fine art of appeal to authority and... well, bullshit.
Presenting someone calling something "Bullshit" as an argument is a whole list of fallacies of its own.

Instead, one should say "Product A claims this, this and this. That is false, because this, this and this study either proves it to be false or shows no proof of it being true or having any other provable effect."
And then give us links to those studies cause if there is one thing we know for sure - JOURNALISTS DON'T UNDERSTAND MATH AND STATISTICS.

That's why they went to study stuff that does not require math AND/OR statistics.