Yes to the first, no to the second unless you've already lined one up. They'll just find another wienie for the camp fire.

As I mentioned elsewhere, viewing security footage would be more relevant as it removes the knowledge that it's a virtual environ - and there's already an extensive collection of it.
Why would new insights come later as they already can and do interview professional burglars now who explain *actual* techniques?

at a pace that non-systematic, anecdotal experience

Running someone through a vr simulation is no faster as the recording needs to be analyzed and is *still* anecdotal vs watching them actually perform a crime without their knowing they are being watched. Just because it's machine recorded doesn't alter that. In fact, studying home and business security camera footage would be of greater value.

Psychologists were amongst the law enforcement people interviewing burglars previously, making it just as valid as this, making this a rehash. That the burglars behaved exactly as they did in the vr simulations is no surprise as in both cases they were asked to explain/do what they did to burglarize. Like I said, nothing new was learned or even done other than inserting a machine in lieu of the notepad. That in itself is not only not a novel idea, it's been done many times before.

The discovery here is that simulation may offer mechanisms that enable previously impossible areas of study, not the lessons about how burglars search homes.

"May" is not a discovery, it's a supposition and again, not itself a new one. Had the experiment done something unique and new (other than just inserting a machine) you might have a point. But frankly, it still cannot mean anything outside of how a person behaves in a simulation, as the person taking part cannot by definition act as if it were a real environment and so alters their response to a new situation from what would happen in real life. For example, if the situation were lethal there would be no terror at the prospect of actually dying or having to kill. All suppositions to the contrary are delusional.

Burglars have been telling us this for decades. Nothing new has been learned simply by using a video game scenario. In this the psychologists are half a century behind law enforcement. But it probably makes for a good grant write up.

It's of serious doubt that you would make a business decision in your own home to discontinue you own backup services without informing yourself.

To mirror others, fuck self-appointed authoritarian self.

It will be priced specifically for a certain percentage to afford.

Please, we're on the verge of home gene manipulation now, much like 3D printing. Once the technique is known, it will be readily available for all.

Problem with that argument is the site's code is shipped pristine to your browser which is on your machine. Once inside your domain, you are free to make footnotes, comment out, etc. Then the browser interprets what *you've* done. No infringement involved.

You can do exactly the same thing with a book or movie you have acquired legally. You just can't redistribute, which the browser does not.

Taken to it's logical conclusion, their view would prohibit you from using ctrl-scroll to enlarge the text for viewing, as that isn't the font size they specified.

I agree with a lot of what you said, but these two are pretty lame:

Who do you think puts the work in?

Did no one teach you about volunteerism? Sharing? Community? Donation? Betterment of humanity?

The context is business. None of your counter examples were.

Do you get paid for doing YOUR job?

Out of university, 2 1/2 years of unpaid internships. Nuff said.

You either considered those internships worthwhile for that foot in the door (making them a transaction not altruistic) or you were an idiot to work for free for 2.5 years. Pray tell, which?

That initiated is physical as well as mental. Please link to those studies instead of a promotional site. When the woman can hit her boyfriend/husband and he calls the police and *HE* is arrested for domestic violence even when witness support the events, all the stats are suspect.
Don't be a useful tool.

"Personal experience" comments from AC's are worthless.

There are female construction workers as well. Also male nurses. You're pedantically promoting the false assumption that it must be one hundred percent to be a masculine or feminine career which makes your discourse suspect.

Stamped steel, not silver.

Indeed, emphasis in reporting. To break it down:

Extremely good - 24%
On balance good - 28%
Neutral - 17%
On balance bad - 13%
Extremely bad - 18%

So, over half good, less than a third bad. Sure sounds different.

Nice assertions. Now provide some links to real stats.