When I read your comment I heard it internally in the voice of ZeFrank nd couldn't stop giggling.

Headshots are a bad idea for legal reasons as well as practical.

1. It's a much smaller target.
2. Armor piercing rounds, or rounds that are more likely to penetrate aren't that hard to come by.
3. In the event you deliberately shoot someone in the head the lawyers will want to know why you risked your life on a much harder shot. If you were so skilled that a headshot would be as likely to succede as a body shot, then why did you not aim for an arm or leg to disable instead of kill. Even if you avoid criminal charges you can be sure you'll spend all your money defending a wrongful death civil suit.

If you really think you are that good then you should be able to place a couple chest shots with a third in the head zippering up, and claim that the headshot was just muzzle rise.

It isn't always about making a ton of money in the short term. Many people do things that boggle the mind purely out of egotism. Although in this case it can lead to wealth as well. If you had polled gamers here on /. a day before this all started you might have seen a 1% result showing that they knew who Quinn was or had even heard of her before. And you might have gotten as high as 10% for Grayson seeing as how he is a writer for RPS, I doubt it'd be that high, but I'm being generous with my guess.

If you did a poll now I'd bet the results for Quinn would be over 50% at the very least, if not closer to 80%. Grayson would probably only poll around 40% as his name isn't brought up as frequently in all the vitrol. People in the business of selling things know that name recognition is a huge part of increasing sales. You can bet dollars to donuts that whatever either one of them touches from now on will get a lot more attention. Honestly it's a genius move on Quinn's part, even if only a small fraction of people who hear about the whole mess look favorably on her that represents a huge increase in people who know who she is and have a positive view of her.

It wouldn't stop the spread in a binary fashion but it would reduce the amount of spreading. Usually when you start getting the full blown symptoms for whatever disease you become much more contagious.

On top of that if they had good healthcare options they would likely end up diagnosed much faster. Which would lead to the outbreak being recognized faster. I wouldn't be surprised if an employer like Disney doing those two things could reduce the spread of disease and illness through their parks by a factor of ten or better. And this outbreak may just provide them with the commercial interest in finally doing that.

Not completely true. When a chip draws less power to perform the same functions you can the push the clock, because consuming less power means less waste heat. As you raise the clock you get more speed. There is of course a balance to be struck, but ragardless figuring out how to accomplish the same work with less power will allow you to push the performance before hitting the limit of your heat disipation capabilities.

I've been using a 550 Ti for the last three years and it's been great. It could be better I suppose but I'm not some elite gamer that needs 60 FPS no matter what, or photo realistic video quality.

That said I just worked a weekend and holiday so had a little extra cash coming this paycheck so I ordered my EVGA 960 lastnight. While the performance may not be spectacularly better than the previous generation it will be a big upgrade for me, and with it's lower power requirements it'll fit nicely in my computer without disrupting anything. Since it is newer it'll also be supported for longer and I can use some of the newer stuff like nVidia's free screen recording software. In a couple years I expect I'll want to upgrade the rest of my computer and I should be able to reuse this 960, and I'll be able to put the 550 back in and hand the old PC to the kids.

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.

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.