Oh ... didn't see the joke. I see it now. Good one :)

Settlements get recorded by the court as judgments. They pull that, he can go to the sheriff and take his pound of flesh in seized cable boxes from their local office.

Glad he won at least. Harassment can cut across both genders. Too often people forget that.

How much of an imbalance there is depends a lot on the labor market and the individual. The employer often doesn't know what imbalance, if any, exists, which helps the employee.

If I have a marketable degree, I can probably find another job soon. That reduces the imbalance of power.
If I have 2 years of savings, I don't have to find another job that soon. That reduces the imbalance of power.
If I have a good family safety net (i.e., spouse works), I don't have to find another job that soon. That reduces the imbalance of power.
If I'm working for minimum wage in a market where the salary would be below minimum wage without government intervention (so there is necessarily unemployment due to Economics 101), have a preexisting health condition pre-ACA and either health insurance through my job only or no health insurance at all, have no savings, no family, and live in an apartment where I need my very next paycheck for the rent, then there is quite an imbalance of power.

There are various ways and individual can help himself move from that bottom category to one of the other ones. There are various ways society can help people in the bottom category (but minimum wage IS NOT one of them). It's good to think about these things, because, yeah, some employment relationships can be pretty unfair. Unions aren't necessarily the answer, though. I personally think trying to reduce poverty more directly is a better tactic (basic income, etc.).

"Half-blind" was intended to mean, "poor, uncorrectable vision in both eyes". Not being an eye doctor, I have no opinion on whether being blind in one eye but having perfect or perfectly correctable vision in the other eye would be an issue. It seems like it would because the second eye is what gives you depth perception, but maybe not, and, in any case, denying someone the right to drive, especially in the United States, is a very serious infringement on liberty by the state, so I'd probably agree with you that someone with one working eye should be allowed to drive if he is still able to demonstrate competence behind the wheel.

I wasn't necessarily saying I agree or disagree with lax regulations for driving. Since you brought up the topic, my main issue with driving in the US is lax penalties for intentionally doing unsafe things while driving. This includes driving while intoxicated (with alcohol or drugs), speeding, going so slow in the left lane as to cause a hazard because people try to pass you on the right, street racing, talking on the phone while driving, doing lipstick while driving, doing X while driving, etc. These violations, on a second offense at least, should result in at least a temporary license suspension. People can't control whether they're blind in one eye. People can control whether they talk on the phone.

But, back to the topic, all I was saying is that, as a society, we're likely to vote ourselves less safety and more freedom regarding the privilege of piloting airplanes if flying cars become a reality. Because that's what we've done with normal cars.

Not sure, but I think Google does hire its chefs directly. I thought I saw a job posting for one once on Google's careers website, but I could be wrong.

That's under current law. Given that the populace have voted that it's okay to fail the driving test 59 times as long as you pass the 60th, and you can be half-blind and senile and still drive, current law may very well be revised.

Of course we're dealing with FEDERAL bureaucrats, who are less accountable to the public than STATE ones, but democracy still works in the long run. Right now only rich weirdos fly their own planes, so we're okay f*ing them in the ass with safety regulations. If everyone, or a lot of people, realized they could potentially own and operate a flying car but for "red tape", we as a society will get the balance between safety and accessibility we choose.

Your post is an amalgamation of unfalsifiable nonsense. Humans aren't dogs; we didn't typically immediately eat everything we killed. They took it back to the cave/shelter/whatever and (once we had fire) cooked it and shared it with the non-hunters. Yeah the tribal leader(s) probably got to eat more or better parts of the animal, but, unlike with dogs, robbing him of this by eating it first would probably result in some long-term consequences. And for a large part of our history -- maybe most of it -- we weren't even primarily hunters at all. Look at the modern diet of chimpanzees. Your speculation also does not account for eating less salad -- why not simply eat more of everything? And as far as eating quicker, that's not even in the summary (and probably not the article either, but I don't care enough to check). You seem to have just pulled that out of an orifice not used for eating.

My speculation is It's probably more a case of mirroring. People mirror those around them (and you can speculate on why exactly this is the case as well if you want), and mirroring a fat person means -- at least in someone's mind -- eating less healthy and more calorie-dense food. But that's just unfalsifiable speculation on my part. All we know for sure is that people do it. And that's thanks to this study.

Also? Not going to a university because you don't like one study by one professor in one department is just too stupid for further comment.

Uh, no it's not, dude. Netscape was the original browser to use the Mozilla rendering engine, now called Gecko, and Firefox uses Gecko, but that doesn't make Firefox Netscape. There are other non-Netscape browsers based on Gecko, like SeaMonkey and K-Meleon. Calling Firefox Netscape is about as accurate as calling Chrome, Safari, or Opera Konqueror.

If you want a Netscape-like browser, by the way, you should look into SeaMonkey. I keep toying with the idea of switching to it but never get around to it because I've got over 100 tabs open.

Re Netscape:

What the hell? Dude, Netscape's been dead for 6 years. The browser is completely unmaintained and everything past 7.2 was a crappy respin of Firefox anyway. All that's left of the brand is a crappy web portal: http://netscape.aol.com/

I liked it, too. I used Netscape 7.2 long past its sell-by date. But why would you possibly be using Netscape in 2014?

My only experience with Gentoo was on SPARC. "Shit randomly breaking" described that setup perfectly.

Slackware has "rolling releases" just like Gentoo, by the way. You just update against Slackware-current. Technically that's the beta tree but it's completely usable. And we do still have udev, just no systemd :)

Come over to Slackware; the water's great! We got rid of that GNOME shit ages ago.

Drug addicted prostitute was probably on Medicaid to begin with. At least now she can get free birth control.

I don't understand. You think he's responsible for the stock market increases? If so, wouldn't that indicate competence of some sort?

I remember reading a few years ago during the "great recession" that someone was going all-in shorting the market thinking there was going to be another 1929. I wonder how that worked out for him. Guess it wasn't you, but if you think he's so bad ... why DID you go long?

Would this be OS X, where porting it so it could run on high-end Mac Pros might make a modicum of sense, or iOS, where you'd have to be on multiple psychedelic substances to believe that would be a good use of resources?