Uncheck everything except copyright, and search for "Doe" as in John Doe. You will find hundreds to thousands of people listed in lawsuits filed every week.
There have been more than 300,000 people sued in the past couple years for copyright violations. Sure, you will likely win in a court battle. But it will probably cost you at least $10,000.
I actually don't want to pay >$10k to provide my neighbors with wifi.
But it is worth keeping in mind that starvation is why North Korea started rattling its sabres in the first place. A starving populace needed an enemy to blame, so the leadership started blaming foreigners for everything going wrong. They started down the nuclear path specifically to get attention from the US and other countries and basically using extortion to get food aid from their "enemies".
Do we want a completely desperate nuclear power? Will the people turn against the leadership, or will they vent their rage against foreigners leading to millions of deaths?
He has some unusual ideas about the future. He is also one of the most successful inventors of the past century, and like it not is often ranked alongside Edison and Tesla in terms of prolific ideas and inventions. One of the other highly successful inventors of the past century is Kamen, and he just invented a machine which automatically pukes for people. So... maybe your bar is set a little high.
If it can sort through a variety of data types and interpret language enough to come up with a helpful response, does it matter if such a system isn't "self aware"? I have doubts about some of my coworkers being able to pass a turing test. Watson is nearly at a level to replace two or three of them, and that is a somewhat frightening prospect for structural unemployment.
I know this is a bit late, but hopefully you'll see it. I tallied it up, and directly know 6 people that have been shot, either friends or coworkers, 3 of which survived. Not friends of friends, or sisters friends cousin's aunt, but 6 people I've talked to dozens/hundreds of times, and this includes a coworker who was killed in Aurora. Spree killing may be rare in your world, lucky you.
I was almost killed by lightning, when it struck a tree I was near. I was almost killed by a gun, when somebody shot at me. I don't know a single other person who has ever been seriously threatened by lightning, aside from golfers who refuse to go indoors during thunderstorms. There were 28 lightning deaths last year, mostly fishing and boating, people who were outdoors during storms. There were 89 killed by spree killers, mostly attending class, shopping and watching movies. There were ~11,000 other murders by firearm last year. 11,089 > 28.
Not all gun violence is spree killing. I'd for damn sure rather take my chances with lightning.
Search for "car bomb" and expand outside of the US
But we are talking about gun violence in the US, so lets talk about car attacks inside the US. I looked at several of the links you suggested, and could only find injuries for all of 2012. If you want to include car bombs, lets do so. How many car bombs were inside the US last year? How many car bombs in the history of the US were made to kill randomly? There is Oklahoma city, and the Unabomber, and both of those were politically motivated terrorists. The aircraft attack killed 1 guy in 2010. Since that aircraft attack there have been roughly 33,000 murders by firearm. Do you seriously wonder why people want to restrict guns rather than Cesnas? 9/11 was a one-time event, but we did enact numerous policies intended to prevent it from happening again.
The point of the car example is not that there is endemic population raring to engage in mass vehicular homicide. It's that nobody demands oddball restrictions on cars despite repeated instances of mass or attempted mass murder using cars, yet many demand the absolute elimination of mass killings by guns by any means. Balance utility and frequency for cars, but not for guns -- opposition by the gun owners is merely heartless support for a "blood sactifice."
Cars have many uses. Guns are used only for killing. All other uses of the gun such as target shooting, are done with the explicit purpose of gaining skill & accuracy and being more effective at killing a person or animal. That is why targets are frequently look like people, to make it easier to shoot a person. When a car kills somebody, it has to be balanced against the utility and value provided. When a gun kills somebody, it is functioning as intended.
Since you asked what I would support: Personally I think all semi-auto guns should be banned, though i recognize that is considered an extreme viewpoint inside the US, and a normal viewpoint everywhere else in the world. Shotguns and revolvers are sufficient for self-defense, bolt action rifles for hunting. Failing that, restrictions on ammo purchases & limits to amount of bullets that can be stored at home, closing the gun show loophole and not allowing any transactions between private individuals, licensing the possession of all firearms and making the owners prove their mental competence on a regular interval, and prove the safety of the weapons with a gun safe inspection, along with the inadequate but "doing something" options of adding magazine size restrictions.
Each additional "something" has a cost.
Quite right. And that cost should be paid for those who want to carry guns with their wallets, not by the rest of society in blood.
Want to know how else to accomplish this without a gun? If the entrance lacks stairs -- a car.
I keep hearing pro-gun people talk about how cars are just as dangerous. Yet cars are even easier to acquire than guns, and more prevalent. Therefore it stands to reason there should be multiple examples of people using cars to kill groups of people. And yet... there aren't. I can only find one example from several years ago of a person intentionally hitting a crowd of people. All other examples are little old ladies who can't find the brakes. In all cases there were multple injuries and almost no fatalities. There were 13 mass shootings last year, killing 89. How many people were intentionally killed by car attacks last year? Why weren't there more attacks by car?
It appears that you're trolling for the "if even one life is lost..." position
No, I don't think there is any way to prevent all gun violence. I do think we can do better than the status quo. I do think we should do something instead of throwing our hands up in the air, declaring the problem impossible to solve, and tossing our children away in a blood sacrifice.
The Virginia Tech shooter only had 10-round magazines and he did plenty of damage before killing himself.
So you are saying that 10 round magazines can do plenty of damage.
So no, these rules would have zero effect on killers but would serve to disarm lawful gun owners.
I thought you just said that 10 round magazines are super lethal. You are saying that restricting rounds wouldn't hamper killers in any way, but it would hamper lawful gun owners to the point that they are disarmed? How about this- I'll take a gun, with only 3 bullets, and you take a small knife. Since I'm disarmed, you should have no problem beating me in a fight, correct??
Wake me when you pass an Amendment repealing the 2nd, or stop living in a fantasy world where guns are going to be taken away from Americans wholesale and come up with a reasonable response.
Will do, so long as you wake me up when gun owners stop living in a fantasy world where they become either Rambo and have to fight an army of thugs, or Red Dawn and have to fight off the US military.
So if we can restrict school shootings to only a dozen victims at a time, that is an acceptable loss?
The point is, the "good guy with a gun" did not prevent the shooting, nor could he stop the shooting when it was taking place, despite seeing and engaging the shooter. No matter what the NRA wants people to believe, the evidence in this case is pretty straightforward that armed guards aren't effective at stopping a mass shooting.
"when food is scarce" was a rare occurrence that they hardly ever cared to prepare for.
If that was true, then why was agriculture even invented? And how did agriculture based communities overtake hunter-gatherers in population, if there was no scarcity of food? Wild grass grains have tiny seeds. It took thousands of generations of painstaking care of the plants, and selection of the best for re-planting to evolve wild grains into their modern equivalents. Do you think people would spend that much energy if food was plentiful?
There are indeed dozens of ways to get video online. So in order to find out which service your video of choice uses, you simply need to search each provider, setup an account with each one, know which film and tv distributors use which service, then make sure you are within the correct window of time (lots of tv shows implement a 30 day waiting period before allowing their content onto online services, movies can vary even more), make sure your device or OS is compatible with their system, determine if they are selling it at a price you are willing to pay, then figure out who and how you need to pay, and then you can watch your show.
Or you can go to one site that probably has what you are looking for.
There is more to a relationship than sex. You might ask yourself, what is the point of working in a company? Why doesn't everyone just start their own business and work alone? Why do people form cities and towns? People working together in groups are stronger and accomplish more than an equal number of people working alone.
Even if you don't plan on having kids, having a partner has a lot of value. Whether it is two incomes, or one income and one stay at home partner, couples have a higher standard of living than single people, more free time, and are measurably happier. Having somebody to take care of you during a major illness is only one of the reasons why married people also lead longer lives. Ask yourself this- since having sex with a lot of different women is high on your priority list, isn't it easier to accomplish that with a wingman? What if you had a wife at home that brought friends over for you to enjoy? Goals are easier to accomplish if somebody else is working on them too.
Where on earth did they spend that huge advertising budget? They could've bought a superbowl ad, hundreds of regular tv spots, thousands of radio spots, tens of thousands of online impressions. But nobody here has even heard about it, including current UC students.
Why pay so much when you can audit most courses for $10 - $200 at almost any university? Ivy League schools like Princeton charge a paltry $150.
It is a tough sell getting someone to spend $1400 to audit a boring online course at a state school.
Women are allowed to enjoy both drinking and sex. Do you think guys should be allowed to give consent if they have had a few beers? Some men & women like to drink because its gives them the courage to pursue romance and act a little more crazy than usual. Thats the exact reason why some people drink.
proceed to carefully explain to me that what they do when they're drunk as fuck is their business and their responsibility--up to and including fucking the hell out of everyone when they're too far gone to remember their own name
I'm not sure if you have something against women or against alcohol, but theres a huge area between stone cold sober, and turning into some kind of coma-slut.
People just don't see this as wrong. I don't know why.
You are saying there is no difference between someone drunkenly saying yes, drunkenly saying no, and being unconscious and passed out? So if my wife gets drunk and has sex with some guy she meets in a bar, I should forgive her because it was really rape all along?
Foote and Goetz are only criticising one of five different data sets used in the Freakonomics theory, so presumably the other 4 points aren't debunked. And Foote and Goetz are arguing that the crime rate went up:
"After making these two corrections, Foote and Goetz interpreted their results as evidence that violent crime actually increases with more abortions"
So in trying to explain WHY violent crime rate went down so drastically, they instead argue that the crime rate went up- if you calculate it by using a different measurement system.
Showing that abortion has any kind of upside makes a lot of people very uncomfortable. There seems at least the possibility that their interpretation is biased by political views.
In my state, the police can charge you for being at a strip club if the stripper touches your shoulder (or any part of you) while being topless. It is rare but can and does happen when the cops want to shake a place down if they haven't been paying their bribes to vice.
Ditto for consensual relations with any type of paid sex worker, such as prostitutes, etc. The cops leave the storefronts (massage parlors and whatnot) alone if they have paid their monthly dues, and arrest the employees & customers if not.
These "sex crimes" result with you being on the sex offender registry for life, having to register everywhere you live, knocking on neighbors doors, and apparently not being able to play video games. Maybe having guys paying for sex isn't something you want in your community, but it isn't the same thing as being a rapist or pedophile.
Paying $100 for dinner with a girl, and having sex = ok.
Skipping dinner, giving the girl $100, having sex = Cant play videogames for your entire life. What?
I'm rebuilding my Exchange mail store yet again, right at this moment. It happens every 6 months or so, no matter how many precautions I take to prevent it in the future. It certainly seems a relevant criticism to me.
Or maybe he will be force to lower his franchising fees, since clearly the parent corporation is making a ton of money.
They have options:
A) Everything stays the same, go out of business (so the CEO claims)
B) Cut back employee hours to save money, and stay in business
C) Cut back franchise fees to a billionaire who has a private golf course and moat, and stay in business
D) Raise prices by the 11 cents per pizza and pass along the cost to the customer
They've chosen options B and D. Raising the prices by 50 cents to cover health care costs, while simultaneously cutting worker hours so they don't have to give them health care either way, and hiring more "part-timers". Essentially the plan is to screw over both the customers and the employees, rather than cutting his own obscenely large paycheck.
People on here don't understand basic economics
I think people on here don't like assholes.
There are lots of cogent reasoned responses to those opinions, they are called Biology textbooks, and Physics textbooks, along with other great scientific works like "On the Origin of Species".
Is knowledge of Darwin and Evolution more important than NDAA authorization to kill Americans without trial?
Rejecting evolution is willful ignorance of reality, and chosing to live in a world dictated by random beliefs rather than direct observation. Before you can even hope to have a nuanced discussion of the pros and cons of a particular law, and what course of action would best benefit the republic, it helps tremendously to have a grasp of reality and an understanding of the world we live in. How can you have an intelligent discussion on education with somebody who would be unable to pass a 5th grade biology class?
if someone says something stupid, we get rid of them as an elected official
Now thats a newsletter I'd subscribe to...
VirtualBox is the easiest free option to get started.
It can run inside a host OS, so you don't need a bare metal install, and don't need a web interface to use it.
It has easy to install and operate clients in Windows and Linux (can't speak for Mac).
It can build VM's easily. (VMWare free options cannot create VM's)
If you are willing to spend a little money, the VMWare Workstation is more powerful and offers similar features to those above, but better resource management in general.
And therein the problem: What rational person would go through the political process, where they are attacked relentlessly for months, with political teams spending millions of dollars to damage their reputation, digging up every skeleton in their closet, casting them as some type of dangerous idiot, and trying to turn a person's community against them?
That kind of job description has a hard time getting rational applicants who aren't motivated by goals of personal power.
Slashdot Mirror
The law may be on your side, but you almost certainly WILL get sued.
Go to: www.rfcexpress.com
Uncheck everything except copyright, and search for "Doe" as in John Doe. You will find hundreds to thousands of people listed in lawsuits filed every week. There have been more than 300,000 people sued in the past couple years for copyright violations. Sure, you will likely win in a court battle. But it will probably cost you at least $10,000.
I actually don't want to pay >$10k to provide my neighbors with wifi.
there is no incentive other than personal pleasure for him to do it
Personal pleasure can also encompass the joys of harvesting passwords, accounts, personal information & private pictures...
But it is worth keeping in mind that starvation is why North Korea started rattling its sabres in the first place. A starving populace needed an enemy to blame, so the leadership started blaming foreigners for everything going wrong. They started down the nuclear path specifically to get attention from the US and other countries and basically using extortion to get food aid from their "enemies".
Do we want a completely desperate nuclear power? Will the people turn against the leadership, or will they vent their rage against foreigners leading to millions of deaths?
He has some unusual ideas about the future. He is also one of the most successful inventors of the past century, and like it not is often ranked alongside Edison and Tesla in terms of prolific ideas and inventions. One of the other highly successful inventors of the past century is Kamen, and he just invented a machine which automatically pukes for people. So... maybe your bar is set a little high.
If it can sort through a variety of data types and interpret language enough to come up with a helpful response, does it matter if such a system isn't "self aware"? I have doubts about some of my coworkers being able to pass a turing test. Watson is nearly at a level to replace two or three of them, and that is a somewhat frightening prospect for structural unemployment.
I know this is a bit late, but hopefully you'll see it. I tallied it up, and directly know 6 people that have been shot, either friends or coworkers, 3 of which survived. Not friends of friends, or sisters friends cousin's aunt, but 6 people I've talked to dozens/hundreds of times, and this includes a coworker who was killed in Aurora. Spree killing may be rare in your world, lucky you.
I was almost killed by lightning, when it struck a tree I was near. I was almost killed by a gun, when somebody shot at me. I don't know a single other person who has ever been seriously threatened by lightning, aside from golfers who refuse to go indoors during thunderstorms. There were 28 lightning deaths last year, mostly fishing and boating, people who were outdoors during storms. There were 89 killed by spree killers, mostly attending class, shopping and watching movies. There were ~11,000 other murders by firearm last year. 11,089 > 28. Not all gun violence is spree killing. I'd for damn sure rather take my chances with lightning.
Search for "car bomb" and expand outside of the US
But we are talking about gun violence in the US, so lets talk about car attacks inside the US. I looked at several of the links you suggested, and could only find injuries for all of 2012. If you want to include car bombs, lets do so. How many car bombs were inside the US last year? How many car bombs in the history of the US were made to kill randomly? There is Oklahoma city, and the Unabomber, and both of those were politically motivated terrorists. The aircraft attack killed 1 guy in 2010. Since that aircraft attack there have been roughly 33,000 murders by firearm. Do you seriously wonder why people want to restrict guns rather than Cesnas? 9/11 was a one-time event, but we did enact numerous policies intended to prevent it from happening again.
The point of the car example is not that there is endemic population raring to engage in mass vehicular homicide. It's that nobody demands oddball restrictions on cars despite repeated instances of mass or attempted mass murder using cars, yet many demand the absolute elimination of mass killings by guns by any means. Balance utility and frequency for cars, but not for guns -- opposition by the gun owners is merely heartless support for a "blood sactifice."
Cars have many uses. Guns are used only for killing. All other uses of the gun such as target shooting, are done with the explicit purpose of gaining skill & accuracy and being more effective at killing a person or animal. That is why targets are frequently look like people, to make it easier to shoot a person. When a car kills somebody, it has to be balanced against the utility and value provided. When a gun kills somebody, it is functioning as intended.
Since you asked what I would support: Personally I think all semi-auto guns should be banned, though i recognize that is considered an extreme viewpoint inside the US, and a normal viewpoint everywhere else in the world. Shotguns and revolvers are sufficient for self-defense, bolt action rifles for hunting. Failing that, restrictions on ammo purchases & limits to amount of bullets that can be stored at home, closing the gun show loophole and not allowing any transactions between private individuals, licensing the possession of all firearms and making the owners prove their mental competence on a regular interval, and prove the safety of the weapons with a gun safe inspection, along with the inadequate but "doing something" options of adding magazine size restrictions.
Each additional "something" has a cost.
Quite right. And that cost should be paid for those who want to carry guns with their wallets, not by the rest of society in blood.
Want to know how else to accomplish this without a gun? If the entrance lacks stairs -- a car.
I keep hearing pro-gun people talk about how cars are just as dangerous. Yet cars are even easier to acquire than guns, and more prevalent. Therefore it stands to reason there should be multiple examples of people using cars to kill groups of people. And yet... there aren't. I can only find one example from several years ago of a person intentionally hitting a crowd of people. All other examples are little old ladies who can't find the brakes. In all cases there were multple injuries and almost no fatalities. There were 13 mass shootings last year, killing 89. How many people were intentionally killed by car attacks last year? Why weren't there more attacks by car?
It appears that you're trolling for the "if even one life is lost..." position
No, I don't think there is any way to prevent all gun violence. I do think we can do better than the status quo. I do think we should do something instead of throwing our hands up in the air, declaring the problem impossible to solve, and tossing our children away in a blood sacrifice.
The Virginia Tech shooter only had 10-round magazines and he did plenty of damage before killing himself.
So you are saying that 10 round magazines can do plenty of damage.
So no, these rules would have zero effect on killers but would serve to disarm lawful gun owners.
I thought you just said that 10 round magazines are super lethal. You are saying that restricting rounds wouldn't hamper killers in any way, but it would hamper lawful gun owners to the point that they are disarmed? How about this- I'll take a gun, with only 3 bullets, and you take a small knife. Since I'm disarmed, you should have no problem beating me in a fight, correct??
Wake me when you pass an Amendment repealing the 2nd, or stop living in a fantasy world where guns are going to be taken away from Americans wholesale and come up with a reasonable response.
Will do, so long as you wake me up when gun owners stop living in a fantasy world where they become either Rambo and have to fight an army of thugs, or Red Dawn and have to fight off the US military.
So if we can restrict school shootings to only a dozen victims at a time, that is an acceptable loss?
The point is, the "good guy with a gun" did not prevent the shooting, nor could he stop the shooting when it was taking place, despite seeing and engaging the shooter. No matter what the NRA wants people to believe, the evidence in this case is pretty straightforward that armed guards aren't effective at stopping a mass shooting.
You want him to name services that let you post pictures to the internet? Really?
And you think he is the one who is trolling...
"when food is scarce" was a rare occurrence that they hardly ever cared to prepare for.
If that was true, then why was agriculture even invented? And how did agriculture based communities overtake hunter-gatherers in population, if there was no scarcity of food? Wild grass grains have tiny seeds. It took thousands of generations of painstaking care of the plants, and selection of the best for re-planting to evolve wild grains into their modern equivalents. Do you think people would spend that much energy if food was plentiful?
There are indeed dozens of ways to get video online. So in order to find out which service your video of choice uses, you simply need to search each provider, setup an account with each one, know which film and tv distributors use which service, then make sure you are within the correct window of time (lots of tv shows implement a 30 day waiting period before allowing their content onto online services, movies can vary even more), make sure your device or OS is compatible with their system, determine if they are selling it at a price you are willing to pay, then figure out who and how you need to pay, and then you can watch your show.
Or you can go to one site that probably has what you are looking for.
There is more to a relationship than sex. You might ask yourself, what is the point of working in a company? Why doesn't everyone just start their own business and work alone? Why do people form cities and towns? People working together in groups are stronger and accomplish more than an equal number of people working alone.
Even if you don't plan on having kids, having a partner has a lot of value. Whether it is two incomes, or one income and one stay at home partner, couples have a higher standard of living than single people, more free time, and are measurably happier. Having somebody to take care of you during a major illness is only one of the reasons why married people also lead longer lives. Ask yourself this- since having sex with a lot of different women is high on your priority list, isn't it easier to accomplish that with a wingman? What if you had a wife at home that brought friends over for you to enjoy? Goals are easier to accomplish if somebody else is working on them too.
Where on earth did they spend that huge advertising budget? They could've bought a superbowl ad, hundreds of regular tv spots, thousands of radio spots, tens of thousands of online impressions. But nobody here has even heard about it, including current UC students.
Why pay so much when you can audit most courses for $10 - $200 at almost any university? Ivy League schools like Princeton charge a paltry $150. It is a tough sell getting someone to spend $1400 to audit a boring online course at a state school.
Women are allowed to enjoy both drinking and sex. Do you think guys should be allowed to give consent if they have had a few beers? Some men & women like to drink because its gives them the courage to pursue romance and act a little more crazy than usual. Thats the exact reason why some people drink.
proceed to carefully explain to me that what they do when they're drunk as fuck is their business and their responsibility--up to and including fucking the hell out of everyone when they're too far gone to remember their own name
I'm not sure if you have something against women or against alcohol, but theres a huge area between stone cold sober, and turning into some kind of coma-slut.
People just don't see this as wrong. I don't know why.
You are saying there is no difference between someone drunkenly saying yes, drunkenly saying no, and being unconscious and passed out? So if my wife gets drunk and has sex with some guy she meets in a bar, I should forgive her because it was really rape all along?
Foote and Goetz are only criticising one of five different data sets used in the Freakonomics theory, so presumably the other 4 points aren't debunked. And Foote and Goetz are arguing that the crime rate went up:
"After making these two corrections, Foote and Goetz interpreted their results as evidence that violent crime actually increases with more abortions"
So in trying to explain WHY violent crime rate went down so drastically, they instead argue that the crime rate went up- if you calculate it by using a different measurement system.
Showing that abortion has any kind of upside makes a lot of people very uncomfortable. There seems at least the possibility that their interpretation is biased by political views.
Heres one then:
In my state, the police can charge you for being at a strip club if the stripper touches your shoulder (or any part of you) while being topless. It is rare but can and does happen when the cops want to shake a place down if they haven't been paying their bribes to vice.
Ditto for consensual relations with any type of paid sex worker, such as prostitutes, etc. The cops leave the storefronts (massage parlors and whatnot) alone if they have paid their monthly dues, and arrest the employees & customers if not.
These "sex crimes" result with you being on the sex offender registry for life, having to register everywhere you live, knocking on neighbors doors, and apparently not being able to play video games. Maybe having guys paying for sex isn't something you want in your community, but it isn't the same thing as being a rapist or pedophile.
Paying $100 for dinner with a girl, and having sex = ok.
Skipping dinner, giving the girl $100, having sex = Cant play videogames for your entire life. What?
I'm rebuilding my Exchange mail store yet again, right at this moment. It happens every 6 months or so, no matter how many precautions I take to prevent it in the future. It certainly seems a relevant criticism to me.
Or maybe he will be force to lower his franchising fees, since clearly the parent corporation is making a ton of money.
They have options:
A) Everything stays the same, go out of business (so the CEO claims)
B) Cut back employee hours to save money, and stay in business
C) Cut back franchise fees to a billionaire who has a private golf course and moat, and stay in business
D) Raise prices by the 11 cents per pizza and pass along the cost to the customer
They've chosen options B and D. Raising the prices by 50 cents to cover health care costs, while simultaneously cutting worker hours so they don't have to give them health care either way, and hiring more "part-timers". Essentially the plan is to screw over both the customers and the employees, rather than cutting his own obscenely large paycheck.
People on here don't understand basic economics
I think people on here don't like assholes.
There are lots of cogent reasoned responses to those opinions, they are called Biology textbooks, and Physics textbooks, along with other great scientific works like "On the Origin of Species".
Is knowledge of Darwin and Evolution more important than NDAA authorization to kill Americans without trial?
Rejecting evolution is willful ignorance of reality, and chosing to live in a world dictated by random beliefs rather than direct observation. Before you can even hope to have a nuanced discussion of the pros and cons of a particular law, and what course of action would best benefit the republic, it helps tremendously to have a grasp of reality and an understanding of the world we live in. How can you have an intelligent discussion on education with somebody who would be unable to pass a 5th grade biology class?
if someone says something stupid, we get rid of them as an elected official
Now thats a newsletter I'd subscribe to...
VirtualBox is the easiest free option to get started.
It can run inside a host OS, so you don't need a bare metal install, and don't need a web interface to use it.
It has easy to install and operate clients in Windows and Linux (can't speak for Mac).
It can build VM's easily. (VMWare free options cannot create VM's)
If you are willing to spend a little money, the VMWare Workstation is more powerful and offers similar features to those above, but better resource management in general.
And therein the problem: What rational person would go through the political process, where they are attacked relentlessly for months, with political teams spending millions of dollars to damage their reputation, digging up every skeleton in their closet, casting them as some type of dangerous idiot, and trying to turn a person's community against them?
That kind of job description has a hard time getting rational applicants who aren't motivated by goals of personal power.