Point 1 is solved by basing it on their gross yearly income, not their net taxable income. If they hide that, then they are quite blatantly guilty of tax fraud, which carries other penalties.
Point 2 is a non-problem
Point 3 isn't a problem in general because the most frequent infringers are typically wealthy people who feel they can afford to pay the fines if they get caught.
Else, why hire some ex-con when there's 100s battling to get that job?
What about the possibility that the employer just didn't happen to like any of the others that he interviewed? You might get hundreds of applicants, but will probably interview only a dozen or so... what if the one with a criminal record happened to still leave the best overall impression?
They will probably pass a law saying you cannot discriminate against prior convictions or something unless you can demonstrate some need for security that requires it.
How about the fact that knowledge of it might make the employer uncomfortable? Or is the law allowed to dictate which people we are and are not allowed to dislike? At best, all they can do is say that the employer is not allowed to ask about such convictions.
Since such discrimination is illegalCitation? There's plenty of places that won't disciminate for such reasons, even very good and profitable careers... but I can't see how it could ever be actually illegal to discriminate against somebody because of something they have done in the past.
These questions will never be answered, I don't think, because the politics that drive wind power are the same as those that drive anthro climate change - "We're right, shut up if you disagree?"
Actually, most of those questions have already been answered.... the answers are simply always conveniently ignored by people who seem to want nothing more than to believe that there should be something to argue about here.
The effect on the surrounding environment of taking all of that energy out of the wind is actually negligible, except right on the surface. Consider that our atmosphere is many miles thick, and virtuallly all of what contributes to our weather is at a much higher altitude than what windfarms actually reach. There may appear to be some local disruption in the wake of a large winddfarm, but this disruption is only near the surface of the planet, and the overall weather patterns remain unaffected to any sort of remotely alarming degree. You will experience much more pronounced effects from living in or near a city that has many tall buildings.
So do skyscrapers and many other man-made objects.
Per installation instance, windfarms are actually very ecologically benign compared to other things that modern civilization seems to think is perfectly acceptable.
It's not realistic to keep it going for a year
As the battery in my current watch, which does everything I really need a watch to do and several things that I don't, but are nice to have, lasts about 5 years, I don't think asking for one full year is out of line. Either battery tech needs to improve, or they need to improve the technology's power consumption.
The point of wearable computing, IMO, is to be something that you can completely forget about... technology that invisibly blends into your existing lifestyle, assisting you when you call upon it, but if you have to take it off and charge it every single night, then that means you have to think about it every day too... which kind of defeats the point.
I would usually wear my watch in bed... and sometimes even wear it in the shower if I haven't remembered to take it off before. Water resistant to some ridiculous depth that would probably only be a concern of mine if I were into scuba diving, I can even go swimming with it on, and it will not be harmed in any way.
The tech just has too far to go, too many hurdles to overcome, for me to even be mildly interested.
They vowed that African-Americans will "never" be allowed to join the campus chapter, and they stayed true to that vow by getting the chapter closed down.
Not that for a second I condone such attittudes, just saying that from a purely literalist standpoint, they certainly weren't lying.
Honestly, if it weren't *THAT* much higher than any of the other feature requests, I might even buy that as plausible.... but when it has more votes than the next six most popularly voted for issues combined??? With that kind of gap, it is almost certain that they are getting more direct requests for that feature than they are for any other feature as well.
I mean it's POSSIBLE that the feature requests forum is entirely orthogonal to any unbiased random sampling of unity users, but there's no particular reason to suppose that were true. Given that their entire comment itself which said that they cared about democracy actually only tied it in with the notion of keeping costs down to increase the number of people that could utilize it, I am inclined to think that the folks at Unity Technologies just don't actually know what the word "democracy" means.
Some would argue that they have the added benefit of not requiring you to actually be in any way sociable with those around you.
You and several others have been pointing this out to me... so it appears that some things have changed. I will have to check it out in more detail later.
Looks like trying to do any team development, even for a very tiny team of two or three people might still not be possible, however.... it looks like the personal edition might still be a headache for sharing of assets even between just two people.
I've noticed several design suggestions in your code.
