Like New York, where cost of living magically levelled out and rents stopped skyrocketting by themselves....oh wait.

You shouldn't be measuring the traffic to SF. You should be measuring the traffic to the SF penninsula, which is places like Mountain View. Keep in mind that Silicon Valley is the SOUTH bay. Any commute to/from Sac would be impossible.

Sac also gets all the pollution from the Bay Area due to the wind patterns, so the more successful the Bay Area gets (or at least the more cars people drive), the shittier the air gets in Sac. It's depressing, but hilarious.

Why are you picking a random town? That doesn't seem to be close to good weather, other tech companies, or start up capital. I'm sure there's a good school or two nearby, but there's clearly a higher concentration of tech focused school in northern California than near Nashville.

If you're choosing a location simply based off of cost of living, you might as well start wishing for a pony. Every major metro region in the country has a tech area, or even a booming technology sector, but that's very different from being a "startup hub."

Source?

Even if we disregard the fact that you're pulling numbers out of your ass, you're off by nearly 30% in your calculations based on your made up numbers!

You can't just use minimum wage like that because it isn't directly tied to inflation, or to the more appropriate Consumer Price Index. http://www.usinflationcalculat...

And that doesn't isn't even that tied to the durability of the car, which would include repair and upkeep costs as well as life expectancy!

And besides all that, your math is horribly inaccurate!
$15,080/$4,160 * 2500 = $9062.5 for a minimum wage job according to your math.

It's coming in Goat Simulator 2.0

I think stuff like that has to be solved by things like physics engines. The difficulty of making a deep game that allows all interactions of the real world is that you need either a programmer to think of all these possibilities, or an engine sophisticated enough to deal with them. Since the first one gets impractical very quickly, you usually rely on the engine instead.

I would also like to point out that most games, even in real life, are pretty simple, as far as natural language descriptions go. Sports tend to boil down to "make ball fly in direction x using tool y" or "run/walk/climb faster than your opponent." Solutions to real life challenges tend to be very hard to input into a computer.

Wow. So much fear-mongering.

That's silly. If you have cops willing to lie, they could just pull you over for speeding, driving erratically, or not wearing your seatbelt. This is about the 4th Amendment, not about corrupt cops.

Again, a complete a non-issue. The driver isn't getting denied any sort of a fair trail. The defense wanted to throw out that fact that they were carrying 30 lbs of weed on a (admittedly very important) technicality. His right to a trial is in no way threatened.

The Justices were split 5-4 because it's a difficult question to ask, but not for any of the nonsense you brought up.

I don't know which side of the fence I am on this, but I believe that misrepresenting facts is harmful to the debate.

We know a lot more than that about the "anonymous" tip. The prosecution didn't bring in the 911 operator or the caller (who provided her name) and just treated the call as anonymous for the trial. TFA also points out that there are heavy legal penalties for abusing 911 as well as technological measures in place to locate false callers.

I'd argue that the police can reasonable dismiss that it might be an upset ex, and if it turns out it was just an angry ex, just getting pulled over once is not that big of a deal. I'd also argue that the title on /. is incorrect. The Supreme court only ruled that it's OK to perform a traffic stop based on anonymous 911 tips.

That's is because the drivers didn't stop driving and pull over when the weather got bad. While that delays your trip, the maneuver is perfectly safe and takes just a few seconds (or minutes if you need to find a motel).

Now try deciding that you underestimated the weather and you want to land your plane. It's much harder and takes much longer and you can't just land anywhere you please. Your safety margin is greatly decreased. Anyone who doesn't respect that fact that driving is not like flying hasn't been in a situation where you don't have the option to bail at a moment's notice.

What do you have on XP that doesn't run on Linux these days?

Poorly maintained XP machines are actively causing other people lots and lots of pain as zombie botnets, the same way bad cars are dangers to other people as well. And it's quickly getting to the point where a well maintained XP machine on the internet is not much better than a poorly maintained one. No one else is forcing people to switch to a mordern OS, so the stuff MS is doing is pretty necessary. They even offer rebates for turning in an old XP machine.

Then you should read up on it and be surprised?

Don't worry. Mobile browsers and tablets solved this for us. We used to charge you extra so that you site would work on 600x400 pixel screens. Now it's for 400x600 pixel screens instead. In a few years, we'll have you convinced that your site needs to work with 20x600 px columns (thanks to wraparound displays from Samsung and Apple: http://www.patentlyapple.com/p...), and on wearable t-shirts.