Consoles were best back in the day because they did one thing and did it well. Now, they don't. When the Atari 2600 came out, a PC to run the same games (if they were ported) would have been 10x the price. Now, I can buy a Windows machine with all the same apps and features as the Xbox One for the same price. So why lock myself in to the restricted console?
What does the console do that the PC doesn't?
The console went for the "everything to everyone" model, and lost. It's not consistent. PS3 added TV, PS4 took it away again. But Xbox 360 didn't do TV, and Xbox One does. So someone that wanted a HTPC from their console had to switch consoles between generations. Though, since neither is doing a good job of backward compatibility (Xbox One doing a better job with a growing "ported" list), console loyalty is down.
The 3DS/Vita are the only consoles left, and even they are very multi-function.
Having worked for Vodafone in more than one country, I think of Vodafone as a true-multinational. The HQ doesn't get involved in local matters (often, even when they should). But with the global economy, it's more a blur. Is your Toyota made in Mississippi more or less American than your GM from Mexico?
Most of your effect anyway is probably due to the fact that if black males haven't been convicted of anything by age 30, they're not likely to be convicted of anything because all criminal behavior drops off substantially from around age 30 on. They're not criminally inclined and they are unlikely to become more criminally inclined.
So why would that not apply to white people? The only reason I cherry-pick 30+ is that the statistics for younger are less reliable. Juvenile records are sealed, so someone who is a repeat offender may not be identified as such at 18. And the types of crimes at under 30 are more likely to go unreported (more petty crimes, like shoplifting), so the reporting of crimes for all is less reliable. Crimes at 30+ are more likely "large". Thus they are more likely prosecuted and better tracked, as far as collecting statistics.
Just looking at police stats for my city alone seems to reinforce the idea that blacks have a higher rate of criminality. Predominantly black precincts have higher rates of homicide and violent crime involving firearms than any other area of the city.
When they are more likely to have gone to prison as an under-25, and prison does more to train new criminals than rehabilitate (see the making of a murderer, where an innocent man spent time in prison, and came out a murderer, as one of many examples), the system trains criminals, and targets Blacks.
The statistics show that places like Holland send almost nobody to prison, and have falling crime.
In the US we wrongly assign causality to prison. Crime doesn't cause prison sentences, but prison sentences cause crime. Places that reduce prison sentences see corresponding drops in crime.
I'm calling you a bigot, you bigot. The "underlying problem" is that some Black bigots are bigoted against Blacks because the anti-Black message has been repeated for hundreds of years, and you believe it. Blacks are no more likely to commit crime than whites, when they haven't been wrongly persecuted by the racist system. Fix the system, and the crime statistics will show that Blacks offend less.
Segregation was great. Move all the Blacks into lead-poisoned neighborhoods no white person would live in. Then, 20 years later, when the brain damage from persistent low-level lead has caused brain damage, point to race for the cause of all the problems that were caused by segregation.
It was only a few years ago when my "old neighborhood" had a Black person arrested for loitering. At a bus stop. And nobody really cared, until her white employers made an issue of it. When shit like that is common, you can't tell me that there's no systemic racism, and it's all cultural.
I don't feel guilt. I didn't do anything to get the situation where it is. That you refuse to open your eyes doesn't change reality. You are making the problem worse.
I'm pushing the narrative of the truth. That you don't like it is your narrative. The numbers are the public number published by LEO in the US. You can start with the FBI. Run the numbers yourself. You have said you wouldn't believe me anyway.
I've given the truth. That you refuse to look for it yourself is your failing, not mine. You haven't proven who you are, so how can I prove anything to you? You refuse to identify yourself.
Statistically, Black people are less likely to offend than white people, but more likely to be punished than white people, and punishing a person causes crime.
I know you don't like my summary of the statistics, so go look them up youself. You won't beleive me, even if I quote them. Source: FBI. What's your source?
I tell the truth that the racist bigots don't want to hear. Why don't you look up the numbers and prove me wrong? Oh right, because you don't want the truth. You want to believe your comfortable lie.
It's pretty clear by this point that you're just pulling this all out of your ass. Nobody gives a shit about "un-convicted" first time offenders, as a sole statistic. You're over-inflating the worth of that weird stat.
Everyone agrees that recidivism is linked to future re-offending. "unconvicted" just means corrected for recidivism, and isn't pulled out of my ass, but an easily trackable and valid statistic.
You are objecting that the statistics are so clear and trackable, but don't show the narative you want.
Institutional racism is clear and present, and easily proven (statistically).
So when you adjust for the fact that blacks commit more violent crimes by tossing out most of those crimes from consideration, then "whites offend more often than Blacks".
Nope. That's not what it means. It means that, statistically, Black people are less likely to offend than white people, but more likely to be punished than white people, and punishing a person causes crime.
Nope. Race correlates better than income. Race (corrected for recidivism) correlates with prison time better than any other measure (such as income, education, and all the other standard connections).
Yes. "Liberal" now means "someone I don't like" and libertarian means "piles of large government for military and corporate welfare, and no government when it comes to protecting the poor" (or "toll sidewalks and gun safety classes with live-fire exercises in kindergarten").
How's that work for Hillary? Millions of people think she's broken hundreds of laws, and she's not in jail. Breaking the law and jail are not as tightly correlated as you assert.
Unconvicted Black adults are less likely to offend than unconvicted white males. I'm not stating absolutes, but the ratio, where whites are more violent and more criminal than Blacks. That's the reality.
The whole notion of using "un-convicted" is so awful I'm going to ignore whatever else you say, just had to point out it's nonsense and means nothing while you claim it means everything.
So, then "corrected for recidivism, whites offend more often than Blacks". Is that better?
The same stat seems to be true for younger ages, but the studies and statistics are less clear because there are more confounds in collecting data. For all ages, an unconvicted Black person is no more likely to offend than an unconvicted white person of the same age. It's only when the ages increase where the trend of Blacks offending less becomes statistically significant.
A Black man at 30 years old with no criminal convictions offends at a rate below that of a white man of 30 years of age with no criminal convictions. That's a well documented fact. I'm not trying to counter any "widely available statistics". I'm stating the simplest fact. Correcting for a single factor (recidivism) puts white offending at a rate higher than Blacks. You don't have to correct for SES or anything else. Now, even though Black offending is less than whites, Black convictions are much higher than whites. That's the proof of institutional racism.
If we are going to put rulers on the money, we are no better than those we fought to get away from, where the money is propaganda for the ruling class. We might as well have the Queen on our money. There were objections when presidents were used on the bills because it was too England-like to have the government head represented. We should have no presidents on the money. Ben Franklin is a good start. I want to see Edison and Tesla on bills, the fanboys for each would be interesting.
When a white man with no criminal record is more likely to commit crime, but a black man with no criminal record is more likely to be wrongfully convicted, then no, we aren't square. The level of offending is equal between races (corrected for prior convictions), but the incarceration level among equal offenders is vastly disproportionate. When that's all equal, something biased and measurable, we'll be closer. But we have become addicted to convicting minorities to strip them of the right to vote, so those in power will never change the voting base, it might get them voted out.
(Plus, we're replacing a Democrat with a Republican, so there's that.)
Between then and now, the parties have switched with the Republicans going from the liberal party to the conservative party, so putting any weight in a party label doesn't make much sense.
Google core apps are updated via Play, but I'd not heard of OS updates through Play, and Google apparently hasn't either. I can find no way to view this feature or verify it. So as far as I can tell, it doesn't exist.
"You are the one asserting that advertising and exposure decreases revenue." That's nowhere close to what I said. What I said is the overall impact of piracy will be to remove more paying customers than it adds.
Yeah, fact free opinions presented as fact. " It's likely that piracy converts more customers into non-customers than it turns non-customers into customers."
No, it's not likely. There have been many stories about things that went "viral" and saw the income increase greatly after being heavily pirated.
Slashdot Mirror
Consoles were best back in the day because they did one thing and did it well. Now, they don't. When the Atari 2600 came out, a PC to run the same games (if they were ported) would have been 10x the price. Now, I can buy a Windows machine with all the same apps and features as the Xbox One for the same price. So why lock myself in to the restricted console?
What does the console do that the PC doesn't?
The console went for the "everything to everyone" model, and lost. It's not consistent. PS3 added TV, PS4 took it away again. But Xbox 360 didn't do TV, and Xbox One does. So someone that wanted a HTPC from their console had to switch consoles between generations. Though, since neither is doing a good job of backward compatibility (Xbox One doing a better job with a growing "ported" list), console loyalty is down.
The 3DS/Vita are the only consoles left, and even they are very multi-function.
Having worked for Vodafone in more than one country, I think of Vodafone as a true-multinational. The HQ doesn't get involved in local matters (often, even when they should). But with the global economy, it's more a blur. Is your Toyota made in Mississippi more or less American than your GM from Mexico?
Most of your effect anyway is probably due to the fact that if black males haven't been convicted of anything by age 30, they're not likely to be convicted of anything because all criminal behavior drops off substantially from around age 30 on. They're not criminally inclined and they are unlikely to become more criminally inclined.
So why would that not apply to white people? The only reason I cherry-pick 30+ is that the statistics for younger are less reliable. Juvenile records are sealed, so someone who is a repeat offender may not be identified as such at 18. And the types of crimes at under 30 are more likely to go unreported (more petty crimes, like shoplifting), so the reporting of crimes for all is less reliable. Crimes at 30+ are more likely "large". Thus they are more likely prosecuted and better tracked, as far as collecting statistics.
Just looking at police stats for my city alone seems to reinforce the idea that blacks have a higher rate of criminality. Predominantly black precincts have higher rates of homicide and violent crime involving firearms than any other area of the city.
When they are more likely to have gone to prison as an under-25, and prison does more to train new criminals than rehabilitate (see the making of a murderer, where an innocent man spent time in prison, and came out a murderer, as one of many examples), the system trains criminals, and targets Blacks.
The statistics show that places like Holland send almost nobody to prison, and have falling crime.
In the US we wrongly assign causality to prison. Crime doesn't cause prison sentences, but prison sentences cause crime. Places that reduce prison sentences see corresponding drops in crime.
I'm calling you a bigot, you bigot. The "underlying problem" is that some Black bigots are bigoted against Blacks because the anti-Black message has been repeated for hundreds of years, and you believe it. Blacks are no more likely to commit crime than whites, when they haven't been wrongly persecuted by the racist system. Fix the system, and the crime statistics will show that Blacks offend less.
Segregation was great. Move all the Blacks into lead-poisoned neighborhoods no white person would live in. Then, 20 years later, when the brain damage from persistent low-level lead has caused brain damage, point to race for the cause of all the problems that were caused by segregation.
It was only a few years ago when my "old neighborhood" had a Black person arrested for loitering. At a bus stop. And nobody really cared, until her white employers made an issue of it. When shit like that is common, you can't tell me that there's no systemic racism, and it's all cultural.
I don't feel guilt. I didn't do anything to get the situation where it is. That you refuse to open your eyes doesn't change reality. You are making the problem worse.
Yes, which is why low levels of human hormones can trigger sex-change in fish.
And that's the big question, isn't it?
Given that is accumulates in humans, and discharges into water, which bio accumulate it, one would presume it's prone to bio accumulation.
I'm pushing the narrative of the truth. That you don't like it is your narrative. The numbers are the public number published by LEO in the US. You can start with the FBI. Run the numbers yourself. You have said you wouldn't believe me anyway.
Statistically, Black people are less likely to offend than white people, but more likely to be punished than white people, and punishing a person causes crime.
I know you don't like my summary of the statistics, so go look them up youself. You won't beleive me, even if I quote them. Source: FBI. What's your source?
I tell the truth that the racist bigots don't want to hear. Why don't you look up the numbers and prove me wrong? Oh right, because you don't want the truth. You want to believe your comfortable lie.
It's pretty clear by this point that you're just pulling this all out of your ass. Nobody gives a shit about "un-convicted" first time offenders, as a sole statistic. You're over-inflating the worth of that weird stat.
Everyone agrees that recidivism is linked to future re-offending. "unconvicted" just means corrected for recidivism, and isn't pulled out of my ass, but an easily trackable and valid statistic.
You are objecting that the statistics are so clear and trackable, but don't show the narative you want.
Institutional racism is clear and present, and easily proven (statistically).
So when you adjust for the fact that blacks commit more violent crimes by tossing out most of those crimes from consideration, then "whites offend more often than Blacks".
Nope. That's not what it means. It means that, statistically, Black people are less likely to offend than white people, but more likely to be punished than white people, and punishing a person causes crime.
Nope. Race correlates better than income. Race (corrected for recidivism) correlates with prison time better than any other measure (such as income, education, and all the other standard connections).
Yes. "Liberal" now means "someone I don't like" and libertarian means "piles of large government for military and corporate welfare, and no government when it comes to protecting the poor" (or "toll sidewalks and gun safety classes with live-fire exercises in kindergarten").
I never said anyone was progressive. And didn't say that democrats are liberal. So your correction isn't.
How's that work for Hillary? Millions of people think she's broken hundreds of laws, and she's not in jail. Breaking the law and jail are not as tightly correlated as you assert.
The whole notion of using "un-convicted" is so awful I'm going to ignore whatever else you say, just had to point out it's nonsense and means nothing while you claim it means everything.
So, then "corrected for recidivism, whites offend more often than Blacks". Is that better?
Why are you using rates in some places and raw numbers in other places?
I didn't. They are all rates. You are trying too hard to object.
There are actual sociological issues in mainstream black culture that lead to them committing more crime.
Nope. The facts say no. The facts say that when everyone (including the Blacks) believe that, then reality will reflect it, even when not true.
The same stat seems to be true for younger ages, but the studies and statistics are less clear because there are more confounds in collecting data. For all ages, an unconvicted Black person is no more likely to offend than an unconvicted white person of the same age. It's only when the ages increase where the trend of Blacks offending less becomes statistically significant.
A Black man at 30 years old with no criminal convictions offends at a rate below that of a white man of 30 years of age with no criminal convictions. That's a well documented fact. I'm not trying to counter any "widely available statistics". I'm stating the simplest fact. Correcting for a single factor (recidivism) puts white offending at a rate higher than Blacks. You don't have to correct for SES or anything else. Now, even though Black offending is less than whites, Black convictions are much higher than whites. That's the proof of institutional racism.
He was even unliked at the time, the only president to be impeached until Clinton got to share the honor with him.
If we are going to put rulers on the money, we are no better than those we fought to get away from, where the money is propaganda for the ruling class. We might as well have the Queen on our money. There were objections when presidents were used on the bills because it was too England-like to have the government head represented. We should have no presidents on the money. Ben Franklin is a good start. I want to see Edison and Tesla on bills, the fanboys for each would be interesting.
When a white man with no criminal record is more likely to commit crime, but a black man with no criminal record is more likely to be wrongfully convicted, then no, we aren't square. The level of offending is equal between races (corrected for prior convictions), but the incarceration level among equal offenders is vastly disproportionate. When that's all equal, something biased and measurable, we'll be closer. But we have become addicted to convicting minorities to strip them of the right to vote, so those in power will never change the voting base, it might get them voted out.
(Plus, we're replacing a Democrat with a Republican, so there's that.)
Between then and now, the parties have switched with the Republicans going from the liberal party to the conservative party, so putting any weight in a party label doesn't make much sense.
One of the rules of money is that the person on the money must be dead (or fictional). So Obama is excluded, so long as he's alive.
Google core apps are updated via Play, but I'd not heard of OS updates through Play, and Google apparently hasn't either. I can find no way to view this feature or verify it. So as far as I can tell, it doesn't exist.
"You are the one asserting that advertising and exposure decreases revenue." That's nowhere close to what I said. What I said is the overall impact of piracy will be to remove more paying customers than it adds.
Yeah, fact free opinions presented as fact. " It's likely that piracy converts more customers into non-customers than it turns non-customers into customers."
No, it's not likely. There have been many stories about things that went "viral" and saw the income increase greatly after being heavily pirated.