It would just mean it's more nuanced than we originally thought. If our very simple concepts turn out to be only mostly correct, it wouldn't be the first time.
This is just plain irresponsible behaviour by PillPack, nothing to do with hacking.
No, this is just plain irresponsible behavior by those who share infomation to PillPack and others.
Recently, I noticed that when I picked up a prescription for a (for me new) medication that's mostly used for one purpose, I suddenly got dozens of spam e-mails wanting to "help" me with a particular diagnosis I don't have. And that's the few that went through the double layer spam filter. It was way too pervasive to be a coincidence.
It's clear that the US prescription system leaks like a sieve, and that even spammers have access to people's prescription history.
Can we go back to paper prescriptions that don't enter a database, please?
The thing is, as cropped the picture isn't pornographic and it's no more objectifying than any posed picture. Unless your beliefs demand that a woman wear a burka, there is nothing to be offended by in the actual image. There is nothing there that is at all inappropriate for any age.
You are essentially arguing that a reminder of the idea of a pornographic image is offensive. Where does it stop? Is her yearbook picture offensive (after all, it's the same person and nearly as "revealing")? If she herself now "unclean" and intrinsically offensive? Should we lock her away?
You're making the assumption that increasing the number of women means bringing in less qualified women
Generally, it would. There just may not be enough qualified women out there.
Really, you just need to convince some of the highly qualified women who otherwise wouldn't go into STEM that STEM is a good place to be.
That's an entirely different problem involving different people. I can't imagine scientific paper graders to have much say in that, regardless. By the time the problem gets up to their level, it's far too late. The only thing they could do in their capacity is lower standards, the worst solution available.
I am entirely supportive of equality of opportunity. Just not equality of result.
There certainly was an AT&T error there. When he called about the 1st month, the rep couldn't figure out what was going on even though he should have easily seen it was all to one number and that the number was AOL. Further, he promised to send a tech out to investigate and failed to do so. That failure accounts for half of the bill.
Meanwhile, warning your customer if they're running up an unusually large and potentially unpayable bill is just part of good business.
And yeah, in this day and age, $0.36/minute for long distance is rapacious.
Need much more convincing data before I'd be comfortable to join into these happy speculations
You're damn right this country was great back when we had strong union jobs and a family could live comfortably on a single income. There were strong regulations and the top tax bracket was near 90%. Things weren't great for everyone but at least we weren't fucked like we are now.
I'd like to see where you're getting your numbers.
So tell me, how do tax cuts for the rich translate into lower deficits? Repubs have been promising that for decades and it has never worked. It's fools math the repubs like to sell to folks who don't know any better. The government requires money to run. If you're not getting the money from taxes, it needs to come from someplace else. You either need to borrow it to pick up the slack (deficit) or do cuts (which affects most people rather badly). So where does the extra money come from?
The mortgage debacle was caused by corporate greed and lack of regulation. The banks would give a loan to anyone who could fog a mirror because they could make a quick profit iby reselling those shit loans and leave someone else holding the bag. Furthermore, Bush had advance warning of 9/11 and did nothing.
Except that it is a long running pattern across corporate America. Company keeps demanding the money, threatens collections. Problem drags on for weeks. Local consumer reporter makes a call, indicates interest in airing the story and BAM! no more bill. You think that's a coincidence?
Pretty much any responsible business that bills periodically will warn a customer when they are significantly deviating from the normal charges. They already keep that information so they can itemize your bill.