Or you can leave an ISP header on the board and just use any programmer on the chip in-place. USBtinyISP is $5 now - cheaper than even a knockoff UNO, and no pulling dip chips. If you do go the chip-pulling route, treat yourself to a ZIF socket. Under a buck and no more bent pins.
#2 and #3 are, as you say, not affected by piracy at all.
#1 is definitely affected by piracy, but they have addressed this adequately by plugging holes in their own distribution channels - it is extremely hard to get a good quality rip of a movie in the first few months from the internet. Anyone sufficiently excited to see the movie will not be happy with a crappy cam version. By the time the Russian and higher quality TS versions come out, the real money has already been made (when the theaters are still paying 50% of revenue to the studios and playing to full houses).
So going after individual downloaders is probably not going to yield much - those people are just looking for some cheap entertainment... if your movie is out of contention they'll just move on to another free/cheap option.
I know transistor counts are way up, but Elbrus is VLIW, and I don't understand how the limitations of Itanium or the Transmeta chip won't still be a factor. It's not as if the Russians are the first to try VLIW.
I'm certainly not "most people", but count me as a data point. I have two cars. I do not want a car, but since I live in the suburbs - mostly for the schools, but there are other niceties as well - I am all but forced to have two of them. I lived in NYC for almost 5 years and did not have a car. The few times I needed one, I rented or used a zip car. No maintenance, monthly payments, parking, insurance, etc. It was very nice.
Americans, on average, only spend about 10% of their income on food. I'm impressed that you have become self-sufficient food-wise, but for most people this is a small fraction of their expense. Housing (25%) and healthcare (~20%, depending on how you count) are a larger concern. Your family can eat like an affluent person for $180/week, which is around $10k/year - according to a recent Gallup poll of US families.
Tax deductible, no less! You got me at the right time of year - thanks for the link. It's not quite the same thing as doing it in the first world, but it's an interesting experiment nonetheless.
You are right, there are expensive Chromebooks. I have no idea what the niche is for them or how many they sell. I can only speak to the dirt-cheap ones that clearly have a huge market.
If your needs are basic productivity software, email, and web, it's a great option. I have two (and not coincidentally I have two kids). You can program Arduino from them, Lego makes Mindstorms software for them, Khan Academy works - even niche stuff like Quirkbots and the USB microscope. When the kids get "virus notifications" from shady web advertisements I can laugh and tell them to ignore it. If it gets Fubar'd (which hasn't happened), give it the secret salute on boot and it wipes it back to factory, reloading all user settings next time you log in. The kids can pick up either Chromebook if one is in use and all their work and settings are just there. This is how home computers should have worked 10 years ago, and it isn't a mystery at all how these are selling so well - especially when you consider the almost-disposable price. For a geek, you will still need a proper laptop/desktop or five - but Chromebooks are fantastic at what they are designed to do.
I'd love to know how, in your mind, Linux was ever going to "win the desktop" while also maintaining the unix philosophy. When people speak of Linux ruling the desktop (or the pocket I guess), they certainly do not envision the masses editing text config files and piping bash commands. But if that's your thing, Chromebooks do have a developer mode with full access to the guts and many Android handsets/tablets are rooted without too much effort - anyone who cares will probably check to make sure of this before making the purchase. Hell, even the iPhone is based on mach/unix. Not a win for Linux, but same lineage.
We need a truly randomized study, where even a representative sample of millionaires are getting their check. There will be tremendous resistance to this, but I for one would be willing to throw some tax dollars at a rigorous study - say 1 million people or so with a decade of follow-up. That would give you a large enough sample to try different salary amounts, helping find out if there is a maximum point of return or a point of diminishing returns.
I am 100% behind trying this in randomized trials. I am extremely skeptical that it will work as proponents anticipate. I think the "cliffs" you describe and the problem in general of seeing real income decrease as working income increases are a separate issue that needs to be addressed in existing benefits programs, with or without a guaranteed income. As you say, it is extremely demotivating.
Fair enough, but read my post in context with the guy I was responding to. I don't think the idea of a check cut to every person in America fulfilling their basic needs is any bit more likely to pass than a 100% inheritance tax. This whole discussion is taking place in a fantasy land where such legislation is possible.
Perhaps. But that hasn't happened yet, quite the opposite in fact
Quite my point. We have tried writing checks for 50 years, and while it has eliminated a lot of "poverty" in the technical sense, it certainly has not improved the upward mobility of the poor. I'm very skeptical of the idea that what is needed are even larger checks. When that also fails, will the argument be that the checks weren't large enough? I'm not suggesting that we eliminate social programs, but I am suggesting that having all your basic needs met by the government appears to be an unwise strategy if your goal is to improve the prospects of the poor.
Most of the tools that you describe are enabled by the government. I'm not saying that you could get all of their assets, or that rich people would magically cease to have advantage for their children. I'm just saying that, if you wanted to, you could take a huge chunk of the "inheritance" problem away. This is a lot less radical than the kind of action Immerman seemed to be implying.
I don't know what you mean. I'm talking about a death tax. I don't think I would advocate a 100% tax, but it's not something that would end civilization as we know it - you are taking stuff from dead people.
I think this analysis neglects the improvements in technology:
Healthcare is much better than it was 40 years ago. Open heart surgery wasn't even a thing, cancer had no real treatment. Joints could not be replaced.
Cars are so much better than they were 40 years ago, I don't even need to elaborate.
TVs now fill an entire wall and hang like a picture. You can hop on a computer that you hold in your hand and have access to nearly all of the knowledge of humanity.
I think if someone wanted to live by 1976 standards, they could, and their wages would go a lot further.
Not to say that you aren't right about income inequality being a real problem. It most certainly is, and it will lead to political instability. I just wanted to point out that people have much higher expectations than they did 40 years ago.
Slashdot Mirror
Or you can leave an ISP header on the board and just use any programmer on the chip in-place. USBtinyISP is $5 now - cheaper than even a knockoff UNO, and no pulling dip chips. If you do go the chip-pulling route, treat yourself to a ZIF socket. Under a buck and no more bent pins.
Linux is normally used in combination with the GNU operating system
If by "normally" you mean "most commonly", then that would have to be Android.
Wait, it's back at $950, so the comment is back in date.
#2 and #3 are, as you say, not affected by piracy at all.
#1 is definitely affected by piracy, but they have addressed this adequately by plugging holes in their own distribution channels - it is extremely hard to get a good quality rip of a movie in the first few months from the internet. Anyone sufficiently excited to see the movie will not be happy with a crappy cam version. By the time the Russian and higher quality TS versions come out, the real money has already been made (when the theaters are still paying 50% of revenue to the studios and playing to full houses).
So going after individual downloaders is probably not going to yield much - those people are just looking for some cheap entertainment... if your movie is out of contention they'll just move on to another free/cheap option.
I know transistor counts are way up, but Elbrus is VLIW, and I don't understand how the limitations of Itanium or the Transmeta chip won't still be a factor. It's not as if the Russians are the first to try VLIW.
I'm certainly not "most people", but count me as a data point. I have two cars. I do not want a car, but since I live in the suburbs - mostly for the schools, but there are other niceties as well - I am all but forced to have two of them. I lived in NYC for almost 5 years and did not have a car. The few times I needed one, I rented or used a zip car. No maintenance, monthly payments, parking, insurance, etc. It was very nice.
Off topic. This is a story about NYC cabs, so your fart will be totally overwhelmed by the baseline smell of the cab.
That seems unlikely. The used a radiation-hardened IBM AP-101.
Americans, on average, only spend about 10% of their income on food. I'm impressed that you have become self-sufficient food-wise, but for most people this is a small fraction of their expense. Housing (25%) and healthcare (~20%, depending on how you count) are a larger concern. Your family can eat like an affluent person for $180/week, which is around $10k/year - according to a recent Gallup poll of US families.
I feel cold inside.
Probably because the Bush recession and his cronies in the oil industry made it so you could not afford heat.
I still fondly remember this site when every single discussion dissolved into how Bush was responsible.
Tax deductible, no less! You got me at the right time of year - thanks for the link. It's not quite the same thing as doing it in the first world, but it's an interesting experiment nonetheless.
Yes, just don't hit the space bar on boot :)
You are right, there are expensive Chromebooks. I have no idea what the niche is for them or how many they sell. I can only speak to the dirt-cheap ones that clearly have a huge market.
I just want to add that the ones with the nice screens also make excellent dumb terminals for remote desktop. That's typically how I work from home.
If your needs are basic productivity software, email, and web, it's a great option. I have two (and not coincidentally I have two kids). You can program Arduino from them, Lego makes Mindstorms software for them, Khan Academy works - even niche stuff like Quirkbots and the USB microscope. When the kids get "virus notifications" from shady web advertisements I can laugh and tell them to ignore it. If it gets Fubar'd (which hasn't happened), give it the secret salute on boot and it wipes it back to factory, reloading all user settings next time you log in. The kids can pick up either Chromebook if one is in use and all their work and settings are just there. This is how home computers should have worked 10 years ago, and it isn't a mystery at all how these are selling so well - especially when you consider the almost-disposable price. For a geek, you will still need a proper laptop/desktop or five - but Chromebooks are fantastic at what they are designed to do.
I'd love to know how, in your mind, Linux was ever going to "win the desktop" while also maintaining the unix philosophy. When people speak of Linux ruling the desktop (or the pocket I guess), they certainly do not envision the masses editing text config files and piping bash commands. But if that's your thing, Chromebooks do have a developer mode with full access to the guts and many Android handsets/tablets are rooted without too much effort - anyone who cares will probably check to make sure of this before making the purchase. Hell, even the iPhone is based on mach/unix. Not a win for Linux, but same lineage.
We need a truly randomized study, where even a representative sample of millionaires are getting their check. There will be tremendous resistance to this, but I for one would be willing to throw some tax dollars at a rigorous study - say 1 million people or so with a decade of follow-up. That would give you a large enough sample to try different salary amounts, helping find out if there is a maximum point of return or a point of diminishing returns.
I am 100% behind trying this in randomized trials. I am extremely skeptical that it will work as proponents anticipate. I think the "cliffs" you describe and the problem in general of seeing real income decrease as working income increases are a separate issue that needs to be addressed in existing benefits programs, with or without a guaranteed income. As you say, it is extremely demotivating.
You can't hurt a dead man.
Fair enough, but read my post in context with the guy I was responding to. I don't think the idea of a check cut to every person in America fulfilling their basic needs is any bit more likely to pass than a 100% inheritance tax. This whole discussion is taking place in a fantasy land where such legislation is possible.
Perhaps. But that hasn't happened yet, quite the opposite in fact
Quite my point. We have tried writing checks for 50 years, and while it has eliminated a lot of "poverty" in the technical sense, it certainly has not improved the upward mobility of the poor. I'm very skeptical of the idea that what is needed are even larger checks. When that also fails, will the argument be that the checks weren't large enough? I'm not suggesting that we eliminate social programs, but I am suggesting that having all your basic needs met by the government appears to be an unwise strategy if your goal is to improve the prospects of the poor.
Most of the tools that you describe are enabled by the government. I'm not saying that you could get all of their assets, or that rich people would magically cease to have advantage for their children. I'm just saying that, if you wanted to, you could take a huge chunk of the "inheritance" problem away. This is a lot less radical than the kind of action Immerman seemed to be implying.
I don't know what you mean. I'm talking about a death tax. I don't think I would advocate a 100% tax, but it's not something that would end civilization as we know it - you are taking stuff from dead people.
I think this analysis neglects the improvements in technology:
Healthcare is much better than it was 40 years ago. Open heart surgery wasn't even a thing, cancer had no real treatment. Joints could not be replaced.
Cars are so much better than they were 40 years ago, I don't even need to elaborate.
TVs now fill an entire wall and hang like a picture. You can hop on a computer that you hold in your hand and have access to nearly all of the knowledge of humanity.
I think if someone wanted to live by 1976 standards, they could, and their wages would go a lot further.
Not to say that you aren't right about income inequality being a real problem. It most certainly is, and it will lead to political instability. I just wanted to point out that people have much higher expectations than they did 40 years ago.