In reality, this would be a political mine field with more schenanigans being played to tilt the field to the big states.
That's why you use the same equation to figure out the magic number for everybody, and you base it off census and commerce data (which, admittedly, is assumed to be accurate). You could still game the numbers, but it would be hard.
Or you let the senate pick the formula and the house gather the stats...
Have you ever actually heard someone say, "No, boss, I don't want that raise; because even though I'd take home more money, I'd be paying more in taxes."
Nope, but I have heard people say "I'm not going to take that second job/work on the side, because, after taxes, the additional pay isn't worth my time."
and has no discernable effect on "incentive to work harder".
Actually, with a sufficiently sized population, even a small disincentive is easily measureable in the GDP. Just because it has no noticable effect on you personally, or no strong effect on many individuals doesn't mean it's not a big deal.
Besides the fact that 'painless' isn't what taxation should be about. It's amazing how people practice selective ethics.
Teaching is a hard enough job when you do it well. If you are a failure, you know it every day and you spend your nights sleepless, trying to think of some way to do better.
That's only true if you care. It's hard for people who truly believe in what they do for a living to see that there are people out there that really don't care at all beyond the paycheck, but there are people out there who know they do a crappy job at teaching, and go home and sleep just fine. It gets worse than that too. There are teachers out there who take pleasure in making sure certain students do poorly. Those teachers are protected by the unions just as much as the good teachers, and they make the same amount of money too.
There are so many requirements and qualifications you have to meet that even with my diploma from fucking MIT I can't teach science without paying hundreds of dollars to take qualifying exams.
Do you think that teaching is special in that way? Do you think you're the only profession that needs to do that? There are plenty of low paying jobs out there with recuring licensing and testing requirements. It's about time we started requiring that of our teachers. It's probably been required of the bus drivers and cafeteria staff at your school for decades, and I assure you that those people make much less money than you.
The thing that is unfortunate is that somebody without your educational background can pay the test fee, and, with a reasonable deductive ability, pass the tests. Then, they would be treated the same as you, who clearly put in more effort and will probably do a better job.
Sounds like you're applying "The Mythical Man-Month" outside of coding. Let's say we follow your idea. Let's get rid of four adequate upper elementary teachers. Here in California, we've got class sizes around 30 at that age. Replace those four teachers with one of your highly paid "good" teachers, at twice the salary (starting salaries are $39K... so $78K which is more livable in Silicon Valley but not wealthy by any means) but four times the number of kids.
You're applying a *lot* of incorrect assumptions to what I said. When I say it will cost less, I don't mean that the savings will come from less teachers, or that the savings will be salary savings. The savings will be in long term economic growth, reduced prison populations, lower special education costs, lower legal fees for school districts, etc... Salaries will be *more* expensive. Also, there is no need to replace adequate teachers. There are plenty of poor teachers we could get rid of first.
The qualifications for substitute teachers in many areas are pretty easy, around here all you need is a college degree and a three hour high school difficulty exam. Why don't you get your sub permit and see just how hard teaching is before you talk like you know something about it?
I'm not sure where "around here" is for you. When I graduated from high-school, what was required to become a sub at the very same school was signing up on the list in the office after you picked up your diploma. That's part of the difficulty in having debates about education. The facts are just plain different from locality to locality, so an argument you make may be perfectly valid in one state or town and off the wall elsewhere.
As an example of how different things are from one place to another, my sister just got a degree in education, and she is trying to get a job in one of the towns near where she grew up. There is a waiting list to become an elementary school teacher in those towns... Probably because salaries start at $77k, and nobody has ever heard of anybody losing their job for anything short of sexual abuse. Tha salaries are high, but there are plenty of bad teachers there... Admitedly, they are the minority, but they are there to stay.
Well, technically that's a progressive tax, but it's not a progressive tax as defines by our political environment.
Your proposal *is* a conservative viewpoint. It's what Dole and Gingrich wanted. (Real conservatives, not that crap we've got now).
I would alter your proposal to say that the 'base' deductable income should vary based on geography. It's more expensive to live some places than others, and just about everywhere needs to be affordable to some percentage of people in the lowest income ranges.
Gee, if you sum up the entire issue in two sentences like that, it makes it sound so simple... It's not like there's anything else involved in the success or failure of education... It's just the money.
(Yes, this is sarcastic for those of you who can't tell)
You certainly have a high opinion of teachers... The thing is, that stuff you describe, paying for supplies, continuing their education beyond the bare minimum required to pass whatever test they may or may not have to take depending on the state, working for more than 40 hours per week (Doesn't everybody do this? Isn't full time 56 hours now unless you have a union contract signed before 1996?), prep... Your wife sounds like a good teacher. It's too bad for her that our socuety has decided that senority is more important than hard work and tallent.
Let's talk about the dark side of teaching. In most places you don't need your degree to be in education or the field you plan to teach in order to be a teacher. You can get the job without the education, and you don't get rewarded for having it because everybody is paid the same (thanks, teacher's union!), so it's an uneducated position. In most places you, as a teacher, are not held accountable for the success of your students. You're not required to do your job well, and since nobody knows you suck, there's no consequence for failure. That makes teaching an *unskilled* position (I am not saying all teachers are unskilled, so hold off those flames... I'm saying you can become a teacher with no skill whatsoever). Why should it pay like a skilled position without the reqs?
Hats off to good teachers. We need more of them. We don't need to pay bad teachers better though, and until we start weeding out the bad ones, and as long as they all insist on being paid the same amount, this is what happens.
Imagine how much less our education system would cost us if we only had *good* teachers, and we paid them *very well*. Yes, I said *less*.
I don't think anyone is trying to say that teachers should make more than half of all wage earners (even though that's not what a median is).
I said something dumb about the median before and got schooled rudely, so now I get to have my revenge. You absolutely *do* make more than half of all wage earners if you make more than the median.
I was only wrong because multiple people can make the same amount. You're wrong because, well, I'm not sure, but maybe *you* don't know what the mean is.
Two jobs paying equivilant will not double your take home income. Taxes go up as you earn more, on federal and state, and often local level.
You mean that progressive taxation is a dis-incentive to work harder? You mean maybe all those fiscal conservatives who call for a flat tax aren't crazy after all?
My wife makes less than that, has 5 more years of higher education than is required for a teaching job, and has to work in either the Boston area or Southern California (where the cost of living is signifigantly higher than in Nevada) to have a job in her field at all. I have a very hard time feeling sorry for somebody that makes a perfectly respectable (adjusted) $44k a year in an area of the country with a fairly low cost of living. The thing about the median income is that one less than half of everybody has to make less than or equal to it by definition.
I'll keep trying to get people to conform to my beliefs... They're called arithmetic and statistics, and my news letter is a high-school math book.
Mod Parent Down... oops, it's... Wait, no oops...
on
Two Jobs and Retire Early?
·
· Score: -1, Flamebait
If my main job was only from September to May I'd get a second job too. It's not called being underpaid, it's called not being lazy.
If a school district anywhere pays a teacher enough to live comfortably for an entire year, yet gives them a quarter of the year off work, the tax payers should raise hell.
I was under the impression neither Sony nor Microsoft was profiting from games right now. Who beat them?
Rather than answer your question directly, I'm going to take a step towards being an eccentric old man and give you a bit of trivia instead.
There is an age old almanac writer and cartographer's dilema. You see, when it comes to listing the amount of coastline any particular country has, the resolution at which you sample can make enormous differences in the outcome. If your unit of measurement is in miles, any feature smaller than a mile gets lopped off, while if your measurement is in feet, every little jetty, peer, and fjord adds vast sums to your total. This leads to different sources at different points in history having given a different answers than each other, and endless debate over who's country actually contains more coastline.
Clearly, there are rational resolutions to sample at, as well as resolutions that will produce (for the most part) any outcome you would like to satisfy provide answer you would like to arrive at.
Excuse me? The DS alone is outselling the 360, and it's on the verge of passing the original Xbox in all time sales. That's just *one* of Nintendo's three consoles on the market right now. In the PS2/Xbox/Gamecube realm they came in third in the US, but pick another stat, any other stat, and they're either #2, or #1. Total console sales? #2, but damned close to #1. Profit (even if you leave out the handhelds)? #2. Not only is Microsoft number three, but they are a distant number three. We're talking astronomical distance.
Was this article written to start flame wars or something?
200 users, you're talking 3 drops per user (computer, phone, and spare). $4 for the plate, $0.50 for the box, $2.50 per jack, 150ft of Cat5e per drop on average at $40/1000 ft. You also need 600 patch panel ports ($2/port), 400 patch cables ($1 each), a decent rack ($1000). Then you've got conduit to run, 9600 punchdowns (if they all work the first time), floor boxes for conference rooms, testing... You're talking at least $10,000 in materials, and almost 200 man-hours labor... Longer if you're the guy on both ends of the tester. It would take a *lot* longer than a few days by yourself, and you'd be seriously questioning why you offered to do it for less at the end.
All you people complaining about interference with microwave ovens need to get microwaves that don't suck. Leakage from a good microwave should be approximately nil.
The article you linked to says they needed one access point per 10 VoIP calls. I'm not sure how you think that 15 computers sharing an access point will be a good idea. Wiring a completely stripped office space is not that expensive. For 200 users you are probably talking in the $30-40,000 range. In exchange for putting in wires, you're going to get overall throughput that will make any wireless configuration you can come up with seem archaic in comparison. To top it off, if you go all wireless you're going to have an administrative nightmare dealing with the interference that exists now, much less the interference that will come when somebody finds the next killer app that uses the unregulated spectrum that you decided to bet your job on.
Nope, for workstations in the double digits, with no walls yet in your way, you'd be silly to try wireless for anything but phones. If you do decide to bet the farm on wireless, make sure it's in licensed spectrum that you have all to yourself.
Virtualizing devices is something that is easy to do in a device driver.
Tasks that require knowledge of what data means without cooperation from the software generating the IO are difficult or impossible to do in a device driver depending on the task. It would be hard, where hard is a relative term in the context of software raid being easy, to accelerate hibernation in a block device driver. It would be impossible to do it well.
Yes, I write storage device drivers for a living, and have personally implemented software RAID and various types of virtualization and multi-pathing in device drivers.
Hibernation works by swapping out every possible page, then the remaining memory contents is written to the hard drive. You don't need your RAM to be 256MB or smaller to see the performance boost, you only need the system pages to be that small, because you can be fully awake from hibernation without swapping those pages back in. That takes us to the other thing you said: most modern operating systems *do* fit in 256MB. At least, their text segments and essential data segments do. 256MB is actually *mammoth* in that context. In most cases, you should be able to contain the kernel and essential libraries in 256MB of flash, and still have room left over to write your system pages to during hibernation.
What I want to know is what's the point in integrating the flash into the hard drive rather than just having it as an independent device that can be used how the software sees fit?
That requires software modification. As we know, most users are running either the current incarnation or the previous incarnation of Microsoft Windows. A change to Windows that would use such a device would be two versions out, which means three PC lifecycles before said seperate flash device has any signifigant market share.
In other words, they made it this way so they could sell them now.
In a choice between a 30" SD tube and any sized HD projection TV, I'd buy the tube. Cost is not a factor. I will never own a self contained projection TV that uses any currently commercially available technology. No projection TV currently exists that doesn't suck to some degree, and the price differential has never been great enough to justify me settling for the limitations. Clearly many people disagree with me, or are better motivated by the cost difference, and that's their business.
What I don't understand (ok, I understand - they want to sell you HDTVs, of course) is why you can't get larger (say 30"-45") SD widescreen projection TVs anymore?
Your reason is incorrect. The real reason is that the most expensive single component in a projection TV, by far, is the bulb. The answer is different when you're talking CRT projection (but nobody seems to anymore)... In that case the reason is that it's only trivially more expensive to make HD CRTs than it is to make SD CRTs.
I'm on my second too. I needed one for the bedroom.
The first one (from release day) still works perfectly with well over 2500 hours of play time on it.
Out of the few dozen people I know with PS2s, only three have had to replace their first one... The funny thing is, all three of those people broke their second ones, and two broke the third one...
PS2s are no more fragile than CD players, Xboxes, DVD players, etc... Some of it is luck, some is that some versions of the hardware have known flaws, and some is that people are careless slobs. The fact of the matter is, though, that eventually things with moving parts wear out.
If it's all but a couple, I won't be losing too much sleep wondering about it. They've got a long way to go before they're as bad as the competition. Besides, the point is to keep developers interested in developing for the old platform, not to make gamers who already own a PS2 happy. Backwards compatability is all about continuing to make a profit on the older technology for as long as possible...
Slashdot Mirror
In reality, this would be a political mine field with more schenanigans being played to tilt the field to the big states.
That's why you use the same equation to figure out the magic number for everybody, and you base it off census and commerce data (which, admittedly, is assumed to be accurate). You could still game the numbers, but it would be hard.
Or you let the senate pick the formula and the house gather the stats...
Have you ever actually heard someone say, "No, boss, I don't want that raise; because even though I'd take home more money, I'd be paying more in taxes."
Nope, but I have heard people say "I'm not going to take that second job/work on the side, because, after taxes, the additional pay isn't worth my time."
and has no discernable effect on "incentive to work harder".
Actually, with a sufficiently sized population, even a small disincentive is easily measureable in the GDP. Just because it has no noticable effect on you personally, or no strong effect on many individuals doesn't mean it's not a big deal.
Besides the fact that 'painless' isn't what taxation should be about. It's amazing how people practice selective ethics.
Teaching is a hard enough job when you do it well. If you are a failure, you know it every day and you spend your nights sleepless, trying to think of some way to do better.
That's only true if you care. It's hard for people who truly believe in what they do for a living to see that there are people out there that really don't care at all beyond the paycheck, but there are people out there who know they do a crappy job at teaching, and go home and sleep just fine. It gets worse than that too. There are teachers out there who take pleasure in making sure certain students do poorly. Those teachers are protected by the unions just as much as the good teachers, and they make the same amount of money too.
There are so many requirements and qualifications you have to meet that even with my diploma from fucking MIT I can't teach science without paying hundreds of dollars to take qualifying exams.
Do you think that teaching is special in that way? Do you think you're the only profession that needs to do that? There are plenty of low paying jobs out there with recuring licensing and testing requirements. It's about time we started requiring that of our teachers. It's probably been required of the bus drivers and cafeteria staff at your school for decades, and I assure you that those people make much less money than you.
The thing that is unfortunate is that somebody without your educational background can pay the test fee, and, with a reasonable deductive ability, pass the tests. Then, they would be treated the same as you, who clearly put in more effort and will probably do a better job.
Sounds like you're applying "The Mythical Man-Month" outside of coding. Let's say we follow your idea. Let's get rid of four adequate upper elementary teachers. Here in California, we've got class sizes around 30 at that age. Replace those four teachers with one of your highly paid "good" teachers, at twice the salary (starting salaries are $39K... so $78K which is more livable in Silicon Valley but not wealthy by any means) but four times the number of kids.
You're applying a *lot* of incorrect assumptions to what I said. When I say it will cost less, I don't mean that the savings will come from less teachers, or that the savings will be salary savings. The savings will be in long term economic growth, reduced prison populations, lower special education costs, lower legal fees for school districts, etc... Salaries will be *more* expensive. Also, there is no need to replace adequate teachers. There are plenty of poor teachers we could get rid of first.
The qualifications for substitute teachers in many areas are pretty easy, around here all you need is a college degree and a three hour high school difficulty exam. Why don't you get your sub permit and see just how hard teaching is before you talk like you know something about it?
I'm not sure where "around here" is for you. When I graduated from high-school, what was required to become a sub at the very same school was signing up on the list in the office after you picked up your diploma. That's part of the difficulty in having debates about education. The facts are just plain different from locality to locality, so an argument you make may be perfectly valid in one state or town and off the wall elsewhere.
As an example of how different things are from one place to another, my sister just got a degree in education, and she is trying to get a job in one of the towns near where she grew up. There is a waiting list to become an elementary school teacher in those towns... Probably because salaries start at $77k, and nobody has ever heard of anybody losing their job for anything short of sexual abuse. Tha salaries are high, but there are plenty of bad teachers there... Admitedly, they are the minority, but they are there to stay.
Well, technically that's a progressive tax, but it's not a progressive tax as defines by our political environment.
Your proposal *is* a conservative viewpoint. It's what Dole and Gingrich wanted. (Real conservatives, not that crap we've got now).
I would alter your proposal to say that the 'base' deductable income should vary based on geography. It's more expensive to live some places than others, and just about everywhere needs to be affordable to some percentage of people in the lowest income ranges.
Gee, if you sum up the entire issue in two sentences like that, it makes it sound so simple... It's not like there's anything else involved in the success or failure of education... It's just the money.
(Yes, this is sarcastic for those of you who can't tell)
You certainly have a high opinion of teachers... The thing is, that stuff you describe, paying for supplies, continuing their education beyond the bare minimum required to pass whatever test they may or may not have to take depending on the state, working for more than 40 hours per week (Doesn't everybody do this? Isn't full time 56 hours now unless you have a union contract signed before 1996?), prep... Your wife sounds like a good teacher. It's too bad for her that our socuety has decided that senority is more important than hard work and tallent.
Let's talk about the dark side of teaching. In most places you don't need your degree to be in education or the field you plan to teach in order to be a teacher. You can get the job without the education, and you don't get rewarded for having it because everybody is paid the same (thanks, teacher's union!), so it's an uneducated position. In most places you, as a teacher, are not held accountable for the success of your students. You're not required to do your job well, and since nobody knows you suck, there's no consequence for failure. That makes teaching an *unskilled* position (I am not saying all teachers are unskilled, so hold off those flames... I'm saying you can become a teacher with no skill whatsoever). Why should it pay like a skilled position without the reqs?
Hats off to good teachers. We need more of them. We don't need to pay bad teachers better though, and until we start weeding out the bad ones, and as long as they all insist on being paid the same amount, this is what happens.
Imagine how much less our education system would cost us if we only had *good* teachers, and we paid them *very well*. Yes, I said *less*.
I don't think anyone is trying to say that teachers should make more than half of all wage earners (even though that's not what a median is).
I said something dumb about the median before and got schooled rudely, so now I get to have my revenge. You absolutely *do* make more than half of all wage earners if you make more than the median.
Incidentally, you've got it wrong too.
I was only wrong because multiple people can make the same amount. You're wrong because, well, I'm not sure, but maybe *you* don't know what the mean is.
Yeah, yeah. I realized I put my foot in my mouth right after I hit submit.
But I still stand by my point that $44,000 isn't underpaid.
Yeah, from my comment it's clear that I think that.
I also didn't read the article, which says otherwise.
Two jobs paying equivilant will not double your take home income. Taxes go up as you earn more, on federal and state, and often local level.
You mean that progressive taxation is a dis-incentive to work harder? You mean maybe all those fiscal conservatives who call for a flat tax aren't crazy after all?
My wife makes less than that, has 5 more years of higher education than is required for a teaching job, and has to work in either the Boston area or Southern California (where the cost of living is signifigantly higher than in Nevada) to have a job in her field at all. I have a very hard time feeling sorry for somebody that makes a perfectly respectable (adjusted) $44k a year in an area of the country with a fairly low cost of living. The thing about the median income is that one less than half of everybody has to make less than or equal to it by definition.
I'll keep trying to get people to conform to my beliefs... They're called arithmetic and statistics, and my news letter is a high-school math book.
If my main job was only from September to May I'd get a second job too. It's not called being underpaid, it's called not being lazy.
If a school district anywhere pays a teacher enough to live comfortably for an entire year, yet gives them a quarter of the year off work, the tax payers should raise hell.
I was under the impression neither Sony nor Microsoft was profiting from games right now. Who beat them?
Rather than answer your question directly, I'm going to take a step towards being an eccentric old man and give you a bit of trivia instead.
There is an age old almanac writer and cartographer's dilema. You see, when it comes to listing the amount of coastline any particular country has, the resolution at which you sample can make enormous differences in the outcome. If your unit of measurement is in miles, any feature smaller than a mile gets lopped off, while if your measurement is in feet, every little jetty, peer, and fjord adds vast sums to your total. This leads to different sources at different points in history having given a different answers than each other, and endless debate over who's country actually contains more coastline.
Clearly, there are rational resolutions to sample at, as well as resolutions that will produce (for the most part) any outcome you would like to satisfy provide answer you would like to arrive at.
Excuse me? The DS alone is outselling the 360, and it's on the verge of passing the original Xbox in all time sales. That's just *one* of Nintendo's three consoles on the market right now. In the PS2/Xbox/Gamecube realm they came in third in the US, but pick another stat, any other stat, and they're either #2, or #1. Total console sales? #2, but damned close to #1. Profit (even if you leave out the handhelds)? #2. Not only is Microsoft number three, but they are a distant number three. We're talking astronomical distance.
Was this article written to start flame wars or something?
Three jacks per user (phone, computer and spare) 600*$70 == $42,000
You're at the high end of my price estimate. $70 per jack in bulk is robbery.
200 users, you're talking 3 drops per user (computer, phone, and spare). $4 for the plate, $0.50 for the box, $2.50 per jack, 150ft of Cat5e per drop on average at $40/1000 ft. You also need 600 patch panel ports ($2/port), 400 patch cables ($1 each), a decent rack ($1000). Then you've got conduit to run, 9600 punchdowns (if they all work the first time), floor boxes for conference rooms, testing... You're talking at least $10,000 in materials, and almost 200 man-hours labor... Longer if you're the guy on both ends of the tester. It would take a *lot* longer than a few days by yourself, and you'd be seriously questioning why you offered to do it for less at the end.
All you people complaining about interference with microwave ovens need to get microwaves that don't suck. Leakage from a good microwave should be approximately nil.
The article you linked to says they needed one access point per 10 VoIP calls. I'm not sure how you think that 15 computers sharing an access point will be a good idea. Wiring a completely stripped office space is not that expensive. For 200 users you are probably talking in the $30-40,000 range. In exchange for putting in wires, you're going to get overall throughput that will make any wireless configuration you can come up with seem archaic in comparison. To top it off, if you go all wireless you're going to have an administrative nightmare dealing with the interference that exists now, much less the interference that will come when somebody finds the next killer app that uses the unregulated spectrum that you decided to bet your job on.
Nope, for workstations in the double digits, with no walls yet in your way, you'd be silly to try wireless for anything but phones. If you do decide to bet the farm on wireless, make sure it's in licensed spectrum that you have all to yourself.
Virtualizing devices is something that is easy to do in a device driver.
Tasks that require knowledge of what data means without cooperation from the software generating the IO are difficult or impossible to do in a device driver depending on the task. It would be hard, where hard is a relative term in the context of software raid being easy, to accelerate hibernation in a block device driver. It would be impossible to do it well.
Yes, I write storage device drivers for a living, and have personally implemented software RAID and various types of virtualization and multi-pathing in device drivers.
Care to mention where it says that? The only thing I saw in there about being Vista only is the support of 4k block sizes.
Hibernation works by swapping out every possible page, then the remaining memory contents is written to the hard drive. You don't need your RAM to be 256MB or smaller to see the performance boost, you only need the system pages to be that small, because you can be fully awake from hibernation without swapping those pages back in. That takes us to the other thing you said: most modern operating systems *do* fit in 256MB. At least, their text segments and essential data segments do. 256MB is actually *mammoth* in that context. In most cases, you should be able to contain the kernel and essential libraries in 256MB of flash, and still have room left over to write your system pages to during hibernation.
What I want to know is what's the point in integrating the flash into the hard drive rather than just having it as an independent device that can be used how the software sees fit?
That requires software modification. As we know, most users are running either the current incarnation or the previous incarnation of Microsoft Windows. A change to Windows that would use such a device would be two versions out, which means three PC lifecycles before said seperate flash device has any signifigant market share.
In other words, they made it this way so they could sell them now.
In a choice between a 30" SD tube and any sized HD projection TV, I'd buy the tube. Cost is not a factor. I will never own a self contained projection TV that uses any currently commercially available technology. No projection TV currently exists that doesn't suck to some degree, and the price differential has never been great enough to justify me settling for the limitations. Clearly many people disagree with me, or are better motivated by the cost difference, and that's their business.
What I don't understand (ok, I understand - they want to sell you HDTVs, of course) is why you can't get larger (say 30"-45") SD widescreen projection TVs anymore?
Your reason is incorrect. The real reason is that the most expensive single component in a projection TV, by far, is the bulb. The answer is different when you're talking CRT projection (but nobody seems to anymore)... In that case the reason is that it's only trivially more expensive to make HD CRTs than it is to make SD CRTs.
I'm on my second too. I needed one for the bedroom.
The first one (from release day) still works perfectly with well over 2500 hours of play time on it.
Out of the few dozen people I know with PS2s, only three have had to replace their first one... The funny thing is, all three of those people broke their second ones, and two broke the third one...
PS2s are no more fragile than CD players, Xboxes, DVD players, etc... Some of it is luck, some is that some versions of the hardware have known flaws, and some is that people are careless slobs. The fact of the matter is, though, that eventually things with moving parts wear out.
If it's all but a couple, I won't be losing too much sleep wondering about it. They've got a long way to go before they're as bad as the competition. Besides, the point is to keep developers interested in developing for the old platform, not to make gamers who already own a PS2 happy. Backwards compatability is all about continuing to make a profit on the older technology for as long as possible...