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.

I am frankly amazed that any hetero woman, or gay man for that matter, wouldn't be a fanatic of The Arrow. I swear it has more scenes showing off the main character without a shirt on than action scenes.

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.