Like I said already, I don't really give a fuck about Quinn one way or the other. Do I think she did something slimey, yes. Was it a breach of any kind of professional ethics on her part, not really. Does she deserve online harrassment, no. I can see your agenda in that 1/3 of my post was about Quinn and that was basically saying I didn't care about what she did, yet you go on and on about me attacking her. You sir, are full of shit and part of the reason why Social Justice Warrior is a pejorative.
Grayson definitely did something unethical. As a writer and ostensibly a journalist for a major online gaming site he is responsible for at least trying to maintain a modicum of objectivity and disclose any conflicts of interest he may have when writing an article. Hell many of the bloggers I follow, who are clearly just expressing their opinions make disclaimers when they offer their opinion on games that have been given to them for promotional purposes. With Grayson it goes beyond that, he was apparently actually involved in the production of the game. And he may or may not have been romantically involved with Quinn by the time he wrote the article, hint you don't have to be porking to be involved or heavily prejudiced.
What Grayson did goes far beyond just mentioning the game. In an article about the 50 best indie twine games, or something like that. He use the name of the game twice, used the name in the title of the article, and specifically called it out as the standout game of the 50. Only a few other games were even mentioned in the body of the article, the rest being relegated to an ordered list with no actual feedback. I don't know how closely you follow non-AAA gaming but that is precisely the kind of advertising that works best for that market. In fact it is probably more effective than writing an article clearly dedicated to reviewing and promoting a game.
Honestly with your seeming fascination with cocks it sounds like you have penis envy.
Seriously though everyone has different priorities and for some that means having a car with visual asthetics that appeals to them. If you are honest with yourself you can look and see what you spend money on in order to match your own tastes. It's even possible that the asthetic you aspire to is having a larger chunk of disposable income because you don't pay extra for otherr asthetics that cost more than the vanilla default options. I find it annoying when other's choices interfere with my own, like the neighbor with the always too loud car stereo blaring. But if it doesn't affect you, like someone putting body kits, rims, and or expensive paint jobs on a $200 car then what's the point in complaining about it? Get over your own penis envy, and embrace your mishapen and or undersized cock, someone else is bound to appreciate it, focus on finding that person and stop worrying about everyone else's.
The idea of running the vroom vroom sounds through the car stereo to sound more manly is... well, fucking hilarious.
FTFY and I say that as a guy that owned a '69 Catalina some years ago and loved the sound of it. I am fully capable of liking loud cars and silent cars. But a quiet car trying to sound loud, especially by using the stereo to enhance engine noise is a huge joke.
As a comparative test of gigantic auto makers I suppose you could be right. But honestly most of their vehicles look very ugly to my eyes, and that's including the chubby mustangs. The one exception that I can think of form Ford would be the GT40. Now Tesla makes a good looking car, the S is close to what I imagined cars of the future would look like as a kid. However Tesla still has plenty of time to tank that reputation as they've only got a couple models so far.
That ratio is in regards to enforcement of the tax code, or in other words auditing. So far as actually just collecting tax dollars and issuing refunds the IRS costs something like half a cent per dollar processed into the treasury.
So for every dollar the IRS spends looking for tax cheats, they will collect between 5 to 7 dollars that would otherwise go uncollected. It's not like a tax cheat is going to spontaneously reform and mail in all their back taxes.
Whether or not we pay too much tax is a completely seperate discussion. If anything the IRS should be funded for enforcing the tax code until they reach the point that the ratio is even. I'd love to see all the money wasted on the drug war pumped into the IRS's audit fund, people getting high has far less impact on my life than slimy tax cheats defrauding those of us that pay our taxes.
I remember hearing at some point that if you itemize your deductions your audit risk goes up by a multiple of ten. The base rate for an audit is 1% or so depending on year.
Filling a Schedule C form is apparently a good way to incite an audit also. That is typically what you would file if you run a small business out of your home like an LLC or S corp.
Really though the risk of an audit to me is kind of silly. While the tax code is pretty insane figuring out your taxes isn't that bad. Once you've done your taxes a few times you should have a good idea of what records to keep through out the year. If you are running a business that goes doubly so, keep and file every receipt. Maybe once every quarter digitize your paper records from that period and keep a backup in a safe place.
I've seen a ratio of 1:6 quoted a number of times before as being the dollars spent on audits to tax dollars collected as a result of the audits. Arguably that ratio would have to scale such that at some point it is no longer profitable to perform audits. But currently the IRS budget has been cut repeatedly and as a result it is safe to guess that we are letting more people get away with cheating on their taxes, or making silly mistakes.
My Mother in Law is one of those that made a silly/stupid mistake. She got a divorce after 30 years of marriage, about ten years ago. She cashed out her half of the 401k and used it to start a small school for students with learning disabilities. That is a good and noble endeavor I would say, but she failed to pay any taxes on the 401k money. The IRS took a couple years to figure it out and by that point the money was almost entirely sunk into the business. They worked out a payment plan that didn't cripple her business and even though she faced some lean times it was from her own mistake and now she's free and clear of that debt and has a useful income from the school for her retirement.
Like I've said elsewhere the fact the game is free is irrelevant. There are far more motivations than short term profit. In this case name recognition is probably the biggest pay off. The reason it bothers me is that a writer posing as a journalist clearly sold out his ethics, and was then vociferously defended by his "journalist" peers who should have known better.
The really damning thing for grayson is that he should very clearly have known better. RPS had already had a bit of a bruhah over promoting a game without posting a disclaimer every other sentence saying that some of the staff was directly involved in the game. That instance didn't really bother me because in the original article they did actually acknowledge that they were involved with the game, they just didn't make it obvious enough for some peoples taste. To remedy that any further mention of that game got a big disclaimer. Grayson contributed to Quin's game and was actually included in the credits, which should have prompted him to include some kind of disclaimer any time he wrote about it.
I don't particularly care about Quin, though all of this has helped inform me to avoid her. I think the reason she continues to garner so much attention though is that she seems to revel in it and stir it up at every opportunity. It's not that she's all that different from normal drama queens/kings she just managed to jump into the spotlight and hold it rather effectively.
The price of the game is irrelevant. There are many motiviations besides just short term economic gain. And it has clearly worked in this case as probably millions of people now know her name and what she does, and likely view her in a positive light. Name recognition is a huge deal, just look at the money that major brands pour into advertising and sponsoring stadiums so they can rename it.
The Russians made a half pound air fuel grenade, you could probably fit several of those on each drone and then fly them into relatively enclosed spaces like subway entrances and roadway tunnels, or use them against densely packed areas. Hell they'd probably make for a great assasination tool, fly one in through each window and doorway, it'd incinerate most structures very fast. Although if the doors or windows were hardened at all using Russian Heat/air full RPG rounds would probably be best.
I had a friend that had similarly crappy incident. He was driving out of our neighborhood when his car broke down about two blocks form our house in the pouring rain just after dark. He was in a hurry to get where he was going so he just parked the car on the curb infront of some house, and then ran back to our house to take his second vehicle. An hour and a half when he went back to check on it and see if it'd start it was gone. He called the police to report it stolen and was told that it had been reported to the police as abandoned within 10 minutes of his breakdown and then towed 7 minutes later.
Apparently our city laws state that if you have a breakdown you are supposed to stay with the vehicle until you have it towed away. What we figured happened is that the house be parked in front of was a cop's or something and they reported it, and the police instead of investigating just sent a towtruck. He ended up paying a couple hundred bucks to get it back from the wrecker, even though it had been in their lot for just a couple hours. And that was after calling every tow company in town twice because the police didn't have a record for which company they had called, and the first time we called all the wreckers they denied having towed it.
Another friend told me he thought it might have been an actual attempt to legally steal the car, as he had a classic car in long term parking stolen that way. The wreckers will tow a car, then park it in their lot, after a long enough time they can claim it as abandoned and seek a salvage title.
You can go goggle jury nullification for yourself for positive examples. But the one that comes to mind for me is cases involving the Fugitive Slave Act prior to the start of the US Civil War. Northern juries frequently would refuse to convict or acquit people found helping slaves escape from the south and continue to evade recapture.
From what I understand there are now areas of the US where trying small time drug crimes has become much more difficult because they can't even empanel a jury of people who don't object to the drug prohibition laws involved. I know when I was considered for a jury one of the questions from the prosecuting attorney was whether anyone was opposed to certain state laws. If enough of us had voiced our objections then they would have had to bring in more pools, but it is conceivable that there wouldn't be enough people to empanel a jury who didn't object to the laws involved in the case, at which point they declare a mistrial and try again some day, give up on it, or procede anyways and get a hung jury or aquital.
Politicians won't embrace that path until the populace at large is already going that way. To do otherwise would be political suicide. As it stands now most state candidates have to declare some sort of religous belief, and so long as it isn't satanic or athieism then your odds of election aren't hurt. And on the national scale you'd best pick some kind of mainstream chrisitan religion. The only exception I can think of in recent US history would be Rommney, and he didn't win.
There were plenty of cases where the property seized wasn't even owned or in the possession of the accused, if anyone was even accused uf a crime. The easiest example I can remember was an older couple having their house seized because an adult son who stayed with them sometimes was busted with enough drugs that they suspected him of a dealing. Drugs weren't found in the home, and there was no evidence of him dealing drugs at all, other than the quantity which he possessed. The police claimed he was dealing out of his parents home and so seized the home, leaving the parents homeless. Eventually they got their home back but only after signing a contract saying they would not ever allow that son to enter the house or property.
There was never any question raised at all that the parents possibly knew that their son was involved with drugs, or that he could possibly be dealing drugs. The seizure was purely a money grab. Using the same reasoning police departments could seize entire apartment complexes and hotels.
Your explanation leaves something to be desired, it never points out what the crime was, who the victim was and how the perpetrator escaped punishment.
Jury nullification happened when a white person was brought to trial for a crime against a black person, that the jury of white people then refused to find the accused guilty, or actaully acquitted them.
I'm sure there have been other more positive instances of Jury Nullification, but the racially charged and obviously unjust misuse is what gets trotted out as to why it shouldn't be allowed. If I am not mistaken a judge can rule a mistrial when very obvious jury nullification happens in a case, but historically the judges were just as prejudiced as the juries they oversaw.
Jurors, at least in the USA, are able to ask questions during a trial. They can't ask them directly while court is in session but they are allowed and sometimes encouraged to relay questions in written form to the judge.
The case I sat as a juror for we didn't end up needing to ask any questions because the judge asked them all when the lawyers on both sides appeared to be incapable of doing so.
Not to mention that even if you did manage to relocate to another country and obtain citizenship there the government of the USA will expect you to continue paying US federal taxes on your income for years.
I am by no means an authority but my impression was that the computer in the car that manages the battery pack would control the charging schedule. Maybe it'll actually be an option that you can configure depending on your needs.
That said I wonder if for some people it's just not an issue or significantly less of an issue anyways? I have several friends that I can never get to play First Person games with me because they get motion sickness almost immediately. They can play them on consoles for some reason but on a computer they start getting the urge to vommit and headaches. While I've never played a game that induced any kind of motion sickness symptoms at all. Would I be fine with bad VR implementations, that would make them hurl right off the bat? Or are the issues with VR drastic enough that even those of us that aren't very susceptible to motion sickness would be affected? Maybe we need some kind of standardized testing method to determine a persons motion sickness tolerance, and then use that as a baseline for testing VR equipment so that buyers can easily determine what level of quality they need to avoid headaches and vommit.
Well the cars would likely be charging during the evening and through out the night, when peak power demand has slacked off. So it's possible the infrastructure might need a little beefing up, it's also possible it'd be just fine. Another possibilities is the cars could be programmed to hold off charging until later in the evening when demand really slacks off, and in some locality power gets cheaper. Also given that the car will most of the time only need to recover 40 miles or less of charge it won't need to charge all night and so it could wait to charge in the last few wee hours of the morning.
It probably has a lot to do with the demographic makeup of the homeless changing in the last decade, especially with the housing and mortgage collapse. I don't think the homeless has ever been one homogenous group, but it is more diverse now than it was 10 years ago. And I would suspect that there is now a large portion of the homeless that don't have mental issues and want to get back into a home of some kind.
The location also makes a difference. SLC is a bad place to try and live outside full time during the winter. SLC has also for years now had a lot of homeless young people, kids and young adults that are LGBT. The Mormon culture isn't the most hospitable for LGBT's and so they've had a systemic problem for awhile dealing with runaways and people that have effectively been disowned by their families living on the streets.
1b. I think another issue is that if people acknowledge that self help and personal effort is a smaller part of the pie success wise, then they have to admit that much of what they have is a result of luck, rather than their own efforts. Few people like to admit that they are where they are, and have what they have, primarily because of luck, rather than because of their hard work.
As evidence of that witness all the rage about the "you didn't build that all on your own" that Elizabeth Warren stirred up some time ago.
That probably cuts both ways. When you are a major city in a part of the country that has very mild weather year round, and you get a reputation for helping the homeless then you will likely attract more homeless. If other major cities, even in crappier climates did a better job, then SF would probably get less homeless immigration. SF also has very high property values and is surrounded by other areas with outrageous property values, so it wouldn't surprise me if they actually generated a significant amount of homeless people.
Yes and no... My wife uses her smart phone for grocery shopping because she has an app that keeps a list of the stuff she commonly buys. Throughout the week as she thinks of something she needs she adds it to the list if it wasn't on there already or simply selects it from the list of previous items. Before she goes to the store she might review the list for the next trip, and look at the list of previous items to see if anything sticks out as something she needs again and add it. Then when she's at the store she has the list and just marks the items off as she goes.
That implementation is better than just writing on a scrap of paper because it's something she is updating constantly. You could do that with the paper but then you need to keep track of one more physical item through out the week. Additionally since it keeps a historical record she can see what she bought previously, which helps to determine if it's time to buy more, and reduces the data entry requirements as it can just be added to the current list instead of typing it in again.
It's a clever app and I should probably use it myself. But I honestly hate carrying a cell phone so I just scribble down whatever she tells me to get before I leave.
Slashdot Mirror
Like I said already, I don't really give a fuck about Quinn one way or the other. Do I think she did something slimey, yes. Was it a breach of any kind of professional ethics on her part, not really. Does she deserve online harrassment, no. I can see your agenda in that 1/3 of my post was about Quinn and that was basically saying I didn't care about what she did, yet you go on and on about me attacking her. You sir, are full of shit and part of the reason why Social Justice Warrior is a pejorative.
Grayson definitely did something unethical. As a writer and ostensibly a journalist for a major online gaming site he is responsible for at least trying to maintain a modicum of objectivity and disclose any conflicts of interest he may have when writing an article. Hell many of the bloggers I follow, who are clearly just expressing their opinions make disclaimers when they offer their opinion on games that have been given to them for promotional purposes. With Grayson it goes beyond that, he was apparently actually involved in the production of the game. And he may or may not have been romantically involved with Quinn by the time he wrote the article, hint you don't have to be porking to be involved or heavily prejudiced.
What Grayson did goes far beyond just mentioning the game. In an article about the 50 best indie twine games, or something like that. He use the name of the game twice, used the name in the title of the article, and specifically called it out as the standout game of the 50. Only a few other games were even mentioned in the body of the article, the rest being relegated to an ordered list with no actual feedback. I don't know how closely you follow non-AAA gaming but that is precisely the kind of advertising that works best for that market. In fact it is probably more effective than writing an article clearly dedicated to reviewing and promoting a game.
I love me some space cowboy, but I wish he had just made more Firefly instead of turning Star Trek into a space cowboy movie.
Honestly with your seeming fascination with cocks it sounds like you have penis envy.
Seriously though everyone has different priorities and for some that means having a car with visual asthetics that appeals to them. If you are honest with yourself you can look and see what you spend money on in order to match your own tastes. It's even possible that the asthetic you aspire to is having a larger chunk of disposable income because you don't pay extra for otherr asthetics that cost more than the vanilla default options. I find it annoying when other's choices interfere with my own, like the neighbor with the always too loud car stereo blaring. But if it doesn't affect you, like someone putting body kits, rims, and or expensive paint jobs on a $200 car then what's the point in complaining about it? Get over your own penis envy, and embrace your mishapen and or undersized cock, someone else is bound to appreciate it, focus on finding that person and stop worrying about everyone else's.
The idea of running the vroom vroom sounds through the car stereo to sound more manly is ... well, fucking hilarious.
FTFY and I say that as a guy that owned a '69 Catalina some years ago and loved the sound of it. I am fully capable of liking loud cars and silent cars. But a quiet car trying to sound loud, especially by using the stereo to enhance engine noise is a huge joke.
As a comparative test of gigantic auto makers I suppose you could be right. But honestly most of their vehicles look very ugly to my eyes, and that's including the chubby mustangs. The one exception that I can think of form Ford would be the GT40. Now Tesla makes a good looking car, the S is close to what I imagined cars of the future would look like as a kid. However Tesla still has plenty of time to tank that reputation as they've only got a couple models so far.
That ratio is in regards to enforcement of the tax code, or in other words auditing. So far as actually just collecting tax dollars and issuing refunds the IRS costs something like half a cent per dollar processed into the treasury.
So for every dollar the IRS spends looking for tax cheats, they will collect between 5 to 7 dollars that would otherwise go uncollected. It's not like a tax cheat is going to spontaneously reform and mail in all their back taxes.
Whether or not we pay too much tax is a completely seperate discussion. If anything the IRS should be funded for enforcing the tax code until they reach the point that the ratio is even. I'd love to see all the money wasted on the drug war pumped into the IRS's audit fund, people getting high has far less impact on my life than slimy tax cheats defrauding those of us that pay our taxes.
I remember hearing at some point that if you itemize your deductions your audit risk goes up by a multiple of ten. The base rate for an audit is 1% or so depending on year.
Filling a Schedule C form is apparently a good way to incite an audit also. That is typically what you would file if you run a small business out of your home like an LLC or S corp.
Really though the risk of an audit to me is kind of silly. While the tax code is pretty insane figuring out your taxes isn't that bad. Once you've done your taxes a few times you should have a good idea of what records to keep through out the year. If you are running a business that goes doubly so, keep and file every receipt. Maybe once every quarter digitize your paper records from that period and keep a backup in a safe place.
Anecdote is anecdote.
I've seen a ratio of 1:6 quoted a number of times before as being the dollars spent on audits to tax dollars collected as a result of the audits. Arguably that ratio would have to scale such that at some point it is no longer profitable to perform audits. But currently the IRS budget has been cut repeatedly and as a result it is safe to guess that we are letting more people get away with cheating on their taxes, or making silly mistakes.
My Mother in Law is one of those that made a silly/stupid mistake. She got a divorce after 30 years of marriage, about ten years ago. She cashed out her half of the 401k and used it to start a small school for students with learning disabilities. That is a good and noble endeavor I would say, but she failed to pay any taxes on the 401k money. The IRS took a couple years to figure it out and by that point the money was almost entirely sunk into the business. They worked out a payment plan that didn't cripple her business and even though she faced some lean times it was from her own mistake and now she's free and clear of that debt and has a useful income from the school for her retirement.
Like I've said elsewhere the fact the game is free is irrelevant. There are far more motivations than short term profit. In this case name recognition is probably the biggest pay off. The reason it bothers me is that a writer posing as a journalist clearly sold out his ethics, and was then vociferously defended by his "journalist" peers who should have known better.
The really damning thing for grayson is that he should very clearly have known better. RPS had already had a bit of a bruhah over promoting a game without posting a disclaimer every other sentence saying that some of the staff was directly involved in the game. That instance didn't really bother me because in the original article they did actually acknowledge that they were involved with the game, they just didn't make it obvious enough for some peoples taste. To remedy that any further mention of that game got a big disclaimer. Grayson contributed to Quin's game and was actually included in the credits, which should have prompted him to include some kind of disclaimer any time he wrote about it.
I don't particularly care about Quin, though all of this has helped inform me to avoid her. I think the reason she continues to garner so much attention though is that she seems to revel in it and stir it up at every opportunity. It's not that she's all that different from normal drama queens/kings she just managed to jump into the spotlight and hold it rather effectively.
The price of the game is irrelevant. There are many motiviations besides just short term economic gain. And it has clearly worked in this case as probably millions of people now know her name and what she does, and likely view her in a positive light. Name recognition is a huge deal, just look at the money that major brands pour into advertising and sponsoring stadiums so they can rename it.
The Russians made a half pound air fuel grenade, you could probably fit several of those on each drone and then fly them into relatively enclosed spaces like subway entrances and roadway tunnels, or use them against densely packed areas. Hell they'd probably make for a great assasination tool, fly one in through each window and doorway, it'd incinerate most structures very fast. Although if the doors or windows were hardened at all using Russian Heat/air full RPG rounds would probably be best.
I had a friend that had similarly crappy incident. He was driving out of our neighborhood when his car broke down about two blocks form our house in the pouring rain just after dark. He was in a hurry to get where he was going so he just parked the car on the curb infront of some house, and then ran back to our house to take his second vehicle. An hour and a half when he went back to check on it and see if it'd start it was gone. He called the police to report it stolen and was told that it had been reported to the police as abandoned within 10 minutes of his breakdown and then towed 7 minutes later.
Apparently our city laws state that if you have a breakdown you are supposed to stay with the vehicle until you have it towed away. What we figured happened is that the house be parked in front of was a cop's or something and they reported it, and the police instead of investigating just sent a towtruck. He ended up paying a couple hundred bucks to get it back from the wrecker, even though it had been in their lot for just a couple hours. And that was after calling every tow company in town twice because the police didn't have a record for which company they had called, and the first time we called all the wreckers they denied having towed it.
Another friend told me he thought it might have been an actual attempt to legally steal the car, as he had a classic car in long term parking stolen that way. The wreckers will tow a car, then park it in their lot, after a long enough time they can claim it as abandoned and seek a salvage title.
You can go goggle jury nullification for yourself for positive examples. But the one that comes to mind for me is cases involving the Fugitive Slave Act prior to the start of the US Civil War. Northern juries frequently would refuse to convict or acquit people found helping slaves escape from the south and continue to evade recapture.
From what I understand there are now areas of the US where trying small time drug crimes has become much more difficult because they can't even empanel a jury of people who don't object to the drug prohibition laws involved. I know when I was considered for a jury one of the questions from the prosecuting attorney was whether anyone was opposed to certain state laws. If enough of us had voiced our objections then they would have had to bring in more pools, but it is conceivable that there wouldn't be enough people to empanel a jury who didn't object to the laws involved in the case, at which point they declare a mistrial and try again some day, give up on it, or procede anyways and get a hung jury or aquital.
Politicians won't embrace that path until the populace at large is already going that way. To do otherwise would be political suicide. As it stands now most state candidates have to declare some sort of religous belief, and so long as it isn't satanic or athieism then your odds of election aren't hurt. And on the national scale you'd best pick some kind of mainstream chrisitan religion. The only exception I can think of in recent US history would be Rommney, and he didn't win.
There were plenty of cases where the property seized wasn't even owned or in the possession of the accused, if anyone was even accused uf a crime. The easiest example I can remember was an older couple having their house seized because an adult son who stayed with them sometimes was busted with enough drugs that they suspected him of a dealing. Drugs weren't found in the home, and there was no evidence of him dealing drugs at all, other than the quantity which he possessed. The police claimed he was dealing out of his parents home and so seized the home, leaving the parents homeless. Eventually they got their home back but only after signing a contract saying they would not ever allow that son to enter the house or property.
There was never any question raised at all that the parents possibly knew that their son was involved with drugs, or that he could possibly be dealing drugs. The seizure was purely a money grab. Using the same reasoning police departments could seize entire apartment complexes and hotels.
Your explanation leaves something to be desired, it never points out what the crime was, who the victim was and how the perpetrator escaped punishment.
Jury nullification happened when a white person was brought to trial for a crime against a black person, that the jury of white people then refused to find the accused guilty, or actaully acquitted them.
I'm sure there have been other more positive instances of Jury Nullification, but the racially charged and obviously unjust misuse is what gets trotted out as to why it shouldn't be allowed. If I am not mistaken a judge can rule a mistrial when very obvious jury nullification happens in a case, but historically the judges were just as prejudiced as the juries they oversaw.
Jurors, at least in the USA, are able to ask questions during a trial. They can't ask them directly while court is in session but they are allowed and sometimes encouraged to relay questions in written form to the judge.
The case I sat as a juror for we didn't end up needing to ask any questions because the judge asked them all when the lawyers on both sides appeared to be incapable of doing so.
Not to mention that even if you did manage to relocate to another country and obtain citizenship there the government of the USA will expect you to continue paying US federal taxes on your income for years.
I am by no means an authority but my impression was that the computer in the car that manages the battery pack would control the charging schedule. Maybe it'll actually be an option that you can configure depending on your needs.
I'd attribute it to a slashvertisement.
That said I wonder if for some people it's just not an issue or significantly less of an issue anyways? I have several friends that I can never get to play First Person games with me because they get motion sickness almost immediately. They can play them on consoles for some reason but on a computer they start getting the urge to vommit and headaches. While I've never played a game that induced any kind of motion sickness symptoms at all. Would I be fine with bad VR implementations, that would make them hurl right off the bat? Or are the issues with VR drastic enough that even those of us that aren't very susceptible to motion sickness would be affected? Maybe we need some kind of standardized testing method to determine a persons motion sickness tolerance, and then use that as a baseline for testing VR equipment so that buyers can easily determine what level of quality they need to avoid headaches and vommit.
Well the cars would likely be charging during the evening and through out the night, when peak power demand has slacked off. So it's possible the infrastructure might need a little beefing up, it's also possible it'd be just fine. Another possibilities is the cars could be programmed to hold off charging until later in the evening when demand really slacks off, and in some locality power gets cheaper. Also given that the car will most of the time only need to recover 40 miles or less of charge it won't need to charge all night and so it could wait to charge in the last few wee hours of the morning.
It probably has a lot to do with the demographic makeup of the homeless changing in the last decade, especially with the housing and mortgage collapse. I don't think the homeless has ever been one homogenous group, but it is more diverse now than it was 10 years ago. And I would suspect that there is now a large portion of the homeless that don't have mental issues and want to get back into a home of some kind.
The location also makes a difference. SLC is a bad place to try and live outside full time during the winter. SLC has also for years now had a lot of homeless young people, kids and young adults that are LGBT. The Mormon culture isn't the most hospitable for LGBT's and so they've had a systemic problem for awhile dealing with runaways and people that have effectively been disowned by their families living on the streets.
1b. I think another issue is that if people acknowledge that self help and personal effort is a smaller part of the pie success wise, then they have to admit that much of what they have is a result of luck, rather than their own efforts. Few people like to admit that they are where they are, and have what they have, primarily because of luck, rather than because of their hard work.
As evidence of that witness all the rage about the "you didn't build that all on your own" that Elizabeth Warren stirred up some time ago.
That probably cuts both ways. When you are a major city in a part of the country that has very mild weather year round, and you get a reputation for helping the homeless then you will likely attract more homeless. If other major cities, even in crappier climates did a better job, then SF would probably get less homeless immigration. SF also has very high property values and is surrounded by other areas with outrageous property values, so it wouldn't surprise me if they actually generated a significant amount of homeless people.
Yes and no... My wife uses her smart phone for grocery shopping because she has an app that keeps a list of the stuff she commonly buys. Throughout the week as she thinks of something she needs she adds it to the list if it wasn't on there already or simply selects it from the list of previous items. Before she goes to the store she might review the list for the next trip, and look at the list of previous items to see if anything sticks out as something she needs again and add it. Then when she's at the store she has the list and just marks the items off as she goes.
That implementation is better than just writing on a scrap of paper because it's something she is updating constantly. You could do that with the paper but then you need to keep track of one more physical item through out the week. Additionally since it keeps a historical record she can see what she bought previously, which helps to determine if it's time to buy more, and reduces the data entry requirements as it can just be added to the current list instead of typing it in again.
It's a clever app and I should probably use it myself. But I honestly hate carrying a cell phone so I just scribble down whatever she tells me to get before I leave.