Both are x86 hardware. Effectively, they're custom-built PCs running a custom OS. Port the old OS and write graphics and audio drivers for the new hardware on the new OS and you're good to go.
Indeed, had they stated this at release time I'd have bought one at release time. Instead, I made plans to eventually purchase a PS4 and pre-ordered several collectors edition games (a few of which I've already gotten) for my eventual PS4, so now I'm committed to that purchase. The plan is to put the PS4 downstairs and let my wife move the PS3 to her office; were I getting an XBox One, she could have moved both current consoles to her office. So now, since Microsoft had to be dicks about this, we all lose; they lose sales, I lost the ability to play all of my games on one system, and my wife loses one of the consoles that could have ended up in her office.
Sorry for the late reply, Slashdot stopped notifying me about this thread.
I spent just as long looking for examples of Android malware as I did looking for examples of iOS malware. I admitted, early on, that neither was exhaustive. If you want exhaustive, I'll give it to you, but you won't like the results. Shoot me an email so I can get the entirety of my research and findings to you in a month or two when I'm done. Meanwhile, realize that you're the one with the blind spot; if you don't like my research, do your own and prove mine wrong, don't just point fingers and say "your methodology is flawed", sure it's flawed, I admitted as much at the start, but you still fail to disprove my findings.
As for your insinuation that I feel I can do no wrong... Really? Review my post history, I admit I'm wrong on here whenever someone actually shows me that I am, which happens, roughly, 5 or 6 times a year. If that number seems a bit low it's because I generally don't open my mouth unless I'm fairly certain I know what the hell I'm talking about. You should try it sometime.
Yes, when we were setting up base camps on their soil while attacking/invading them during WWII. A base camp and a permanent base are two completely different things and any permanent bases we have on their soil today were built with their permission and blessing.
I don't want to do any of those things. I merely stated, if you want to solve one problem, don't introduce legislation for a different one (IE minimum wage to fix lack of phones for the unemployed)
Lack of phones for the unemployed is not the problem I want to solve. The need for the government wellfare programs we both agree ned to be heavily cut back is.
And you are right, people do the math and then collect food stamps instead of working.
And you change that by changing the math. If all they can find is part-time minimum wage work, you make that livable (note that I didn't say comfortable, that was your addition to the discussion). How do you make part-time minimumwage work livable? Increase the minimum wage. Then, we'll be in a position to require a job and one or more dependent children in order to qualify for any wellfare programs; tie that qualification to the job so that losing the job means losing the wellfare benefits. The only exception to both the "must have a job" and "must have dependent children" restrictions would be a disability that legitimately prevents one from working; not just one that makes finding work difficult, but one that bars you from working at all. I can't think of any, off the top of my head, that don't also typically include living in a hospital or care facility, so that should cut down on the "something for nohing" problem.
Minimum wage isn't a government program, it's a law put in place because businesses have shown repeatedly, throughout the history of civilization, that they will have slaves where they're not forced to have employees. Minimum wage has also failed to keep up with inflation for at least the past 50 years, so a massive increase is due in order to correct that.
It used to be trivial to find $15/hr full-time work in a factory and support a family of 3 on a single income, but we've sent all of that work overseas and replaced it with $7.25/hr 16hr/wk shitjobs a single person can't even afford to support themselves on. Do you not agree that this needs to be corrected? We'll, we're not going to convince companies to re-open their factories on American soil (and even if they did, the unions are gone so they'd get away with only offering $7.25/hr 16hr/wk work and nothing would be solved), which leaves increasing the minimum wage as the sole solution if you want to cut back on government wellfare without increasing the prison popularion, which costs considerably more than the wellfare programs you want to cut in the first place.
Otherwise, it seems we're in agreement regarding wellfare programs. Cut the hell out of them.
So, you don't want to give people a comfortable standard of living in exchange for them doing nothing, yet you propose giving them housing, food, transportation, and a cell phone, all of which would provide some level of comfort, for free... for doing... nothing? An increased minimum wage isn't going to give people something for nothing, as your proposed solutions actually would; it will, however, encourage more people to actually work. There are a lot of people out there who look at their $7.25/hr work prospects, actually do the math, and determine that they can get more in food stamps and cash assistance from the state to sit on their ass and do nothing than they can get if they take that part-time job, so that's exactly what they do. Not paying people who actually show interest in getting off their asses and contributing to society a livable wage only encourages them to sit on their asses and leech. Additionally, I find it amusing that you propose giving them cell phones when, in reality, a landline would be cheaper and make them more likely to stay at home during their off time, rather than going out and spending money irresponsibly, so they can be by the phone when their boss calls to offer them an extra shift because someone called off.
To put it another way, you contradict everything you propose as better solutions than increasing minimum wage in your first paragraph with the statement you make in your second. I think I'll just leave the voices in your head to argue among themselves; please to provide a transcript, though, it's certainly entertaining.
Any place I ever worked that had part-time positions (I only ever held one part-time position, it was a second job as a favor for a friend who had more fiberglass work than he could handle on-schedule; beyond that, a second part-time job is a near impossibility as they all only seem to hire if you have open availability, which you can't have if you already have a job), they were 16-24hr/wk and the scheduling was usually closer to 16hr. I held a number of menial service-level and retail jobs before striking my first decent contract, so I have a sizable sample. Not a single past employer of mine routinely gave part-timers more than 16 hours per week. Not one. That, combined with the fact that most positions available outside of the professional world are part time, is my basis for using a 16 hour work week to calculate a livable wage. Sure, you can live on 7.25/hr if you're getting full-time work, that's $15080/yr; I supported my ex making barely $1000/yr over that for nearly a decade, but even if we halve that, nobody is surviving for a year on $7540, I don't care how skilled they are at budgeting. Hell, that's below the poverty level for a single person but, then, even a full-time minimum wage worker qualifies for food stamps. It's not a livable wage if we have to subsidize it.
In most of the country, $12/hr should be livable for a single person at anything over 16 hours, comfortable for those who excel at their part-time work and are granted more hours, and even more comfortable for anyone working full-time. Bay area and NYC excepted, of course.
So you're positing that putting a higher load on her phone and a lower load on mine would result in her phone outlasting mine? See, I understand the scientific method just fine, but I also have some basic common sense, which seems to be lost on you.
The people voted for a president who campaigned for health insurance and passed a bill forcing people to buy health insurance.
If you can afford it. Otherwise, everyone who can afford it is subsidizing it for everyone who can't.
Additionally, you can live off of minimum wage. It just means having a budget, roommates and not going out and running up a crazy bar tab, or eating out all the time.
Minimum wage, part time 16hr/wk. That's all some people can get (and a second job is out of the question because they want open availability, which the first job prevents them from having). That's $6032/yr gross, $5143/yr net assuming standard deduction. Show me a budget that allows a single person to survive on $429/mo (I rounded it up to make it easier on you). Be sure to include city and state, so I can know *where* a person can survive on that budget.
Sure, they can find a room somewhere for $150/mo, ride the bus to and from work (4x 4 hour shifts is 8 trips per week, 34 or 36 trips per month depending on how the days fall so we'll average that to 35) at $2.50 per trip that's $87.50 per month. They need clothes, one outfit per day for two weeks to minimize laundry costs, plus an outfit to wear for laundry, so 15 outfits, replaced every 6 months as clothes do wear out, so an average of 1.25 outfits per month at a cost of $20 per pair of pants and $15 per shirt if we're going cheap, which comes to $43.75 per month. We're already up to $281.25 and we still have to do laundry and eat. Ever been to a laundromat? 2 weeks worth of clothes costs $10 to wash, 26 loads per year, that's 2.16 load per month, $21.60 per month for laundry brings us up to $302.85, leaving $126.15 for food. That miiiiiiiiiiight be doable in some cities, but not in most. And we never actually got that 16/hr per week job because guess what? We can't afford a phone for them to call us on. And if we did somehow manage to land a job anyway, we've lost it within the first month because we can't afford a phone for them to call us on to tell us they need us to come in. Or we've wasted bus far (2 trips) because they couldn't call us to tell us they actually didn't need us that day; on top of now not getting paid for the day.
Yes, a budget and roommates solve everyone's problems.
My phone: all radios on. Her phone: all radios on. Aside from that, I discuss usage patterns elsewhere in the thread; mine certainly sees more use than hers. Unfortunately, since there is no possible way for me to run an SMTP server or an HTTP server with PHP support on an iPhone, swapping phones with her to test the impact of usage patterns is not a viable option; but the SMTP and HTTP servers I run on my phone for on-the-go development and testing are certainly battery hogs, I can't imagine the iPhone would fare any better running those.
I never said it does, but The Population voted for a President who did and enough of Congress agreed. There's also a greater public good served by controlling the spread of disease and keeping the populace able to work and contribute to society for as long as possible. That feeds into the minimum wage discussion, as well, which I'll get to. Personally, I make well over minimum wage and my insurance cost less (and for better coverage) before Obamacare, but I recognize the value of both.
A livable minimum wage means people can afford to take time off of work when they're sick, which means Joe, the guy making your burger (or serving your lobster, this isn't just limited to fast food) has the option of taking the day off instead of spreading his illness to your food and, thus, to you. A socialized health care system means Joe can also see a doctor when he takes the day off due to that illness, get treated, and get back to work sooner. That makes Joe a more productive member of society while ensuring that Joe isn't spreading his illness and making others less productive. Joe's livable wage and government-backed free health care aren't just a benefit to Joe, they're a benefit to all of the people he would otherwise have made sick, and anyone those people would have, in turn made sick, and so on, and so forth. In other words, to society as a whole, even those of us who don't live on minimum wage and free health care.
Slashdot Mirror
Sometimes the law is wrong. Obeying a law that is wrong... is wrong.
They eat them live?
I'll take that moderation, as the comment was stupidly incorrect. I'll also take the interesting discussion it seems to have sparked.
I'm not sure how this is a troll, but okay, whatever. Not like I don't have karma to burn. :)
Likely. I also forgot there was a surplus of PPC chips (making them really cheap) around the time the 360 came out.
Huh... not sure why I thought it was, thanks for the correction.
Both are x86 hardware. Effectively, they're custom-built PCs running a custom OS. Port the old OS and write graphics and audio drivers for the new hardware on the new OS and you're good to go.
Indeed, had they stated this at release time I'd have bought one at release time. Instead, I made plans to eventually purchase a PS4 and pre-ordered several collectors edition games (a few of which I've already gotten) for my eventual PS4, so now I'm committed to that purchase. The plan is to put the PS4 downstairs and let my wife move the PS3 to her office; were I getting an XBox One, she could have moved both current consoles to her office. So now, since Microsoft had to be dicks about this, we all lose; they lose sales, I lost the ability to play all of my games on one system, and my wife loses one of the consoles that could have ended up in her office.
Sorry for the late reply, Slashdot stopped notifying me about this thread.
I spent just as long looking for examples of Android malware as I did looking for examples of iOS malware. I admitted, early on, that neither was exhaustive. If you want exhaustive, I'll give it to you, but you won't like the results. Shoot me an email so I can get the entirety of my research and findings to you in a month or two when I'm done. Meanwhile, realize that you're the one with the blind spot; if you don't like my research, do your own and prove mine wrong, don't just point fingers and say "your methodology is flawed", sure it's flawed, I admitted as much at the start, but you still fail to disprove my findings.
As for your insinuation that I feel I can do no wrong... Really? Review my post history, I admit I'm wrong on here whenever someone actually shows me that I am, which happens, roughly, 5 or 6 times a year. If that number seems a bit low it's because I generally don't open my mouth unless I'm fairly certain I know what the hell I'm talking about. You should try it sometime.
Yes, when we were setting up base camps on their soil while attacking/invading them during WWII. A base camp and a permanent base are two completely different things and any permanent bases we have on their soil today were built with their permission and blessing.
This is what happens when marketing leads engineering: too much sizzle.
Right after you get done fucking yourself.
I don't want to do any of those things. I merely stated, if you want to solve one problem, don't introduce legislation for a different one (IE minimum wage to fix lack of phones for the unemployed)
Lack of phones for the unemployed is not the problem I want to solve. The need for the government wellfare programs we both agree ned to be heavily cut back is.
And you are right, people do the math and then collect food stamps instead of working.
And you change that by changing the math. If all they can find is part-time minimum wage work, you make that livable (note that I didn't say comfortable, that was your addition to the discussion). How do you make part-time minimumwage work livable? Increase the minimum wage. Then, we'll be in a position to require a job and one or more dependent children in order to qualify for any wellfare programs; tie that qualification to the job so that losing the job means losing the wellfare benefits. The only exception to both the "must have a job" and "must have dependent children" restrictions would be a disability that legitimately prevents one from working; not just one that makes finding work difficult, but one that bars you from working at all. I can't think of any, off the top of my head, that don't also typically include living in a hospital or care facility, so that should cut down on the "something for nohing" problem.
Minimum wage isn't a government program, it's a law put in place because businesses have shown repeatedly, throughout the history of civilization, that they will have slaves where they're not forced to have employees. Minimum wage has also failed to keep up with inflation for at least the past 50 years, so a massive increase is due in order to correct that.
It used to be trivial to find $15/hr full-time work in a factory and support a family of 3 on a single income, but we've sent all of that work overseas and replaced it with $7.25/hr 16hr/wk shitjobs a single person can't even afford to support themselves on. Do you not agree that this needs to be corrected? We'll, we're not going to convince companies to re-open their factories on American soil (and even if they did, the unions are gone so they'd get away with only offering $7.25/hr 16hr/wk work and nothing would be solved), which leaves increasing the minimum wage as the sole solution if you want to cut back on government wellfare without increasing the prison popularion, which costs considerably more than the wellfare programs you want to cut in the first place.
Otherwise, it seems we're in agreement regarding wellfare programs. Cut the hell out of them.
Huh, then i've never actually heard anyone use it correctly. Thank you for the correction and go fuck yourself.
First of all, cucklod is a verb, the noun form is cuck. Second, I'm through being civil with you, go fuck yourself.
So, you don't want to give people a comfortable standard of living in exchange for them doing nothing, yet you propose giving them housing, food, transportation, and a cell phone, all of which would provide some level of comfort, for free... for doing... nothing? An increased minimum wage isn't going to give people something for nothing, as your proposed solutions actually would; it will, however, encourage more people to actually work. There are a lot of people out there who look at their $7.25/hr work prospects, actually do the math, and determine that they can get more in food stamps and cash assistance from the state to sit on their ass and do nothing than they can get if they take that part-time job, so that's exactly what they do. Not paying people who actually show interest in getting off their asses and contributing to society a livable wage only encourages them to sit on their asses and leech. Additionally, I find it amusing that you propose giving them cell phones when, in reality, a landline would be cheaper and make them more likely to stay at home during their off time, rather than going out and spending money irresponsibly, so they can be by the phone when their boss calls to offer them an extra shift because someone called off.
To put it another way, you contradict everything you propose as better solutions than increasing minimum wage in your first paragraph with the statement you make in your second. I think I'll just leave the voices in your head to argue among themselves; please to provide a transcript, though, it's certainly entertaining.
Any place I ever worked that had part-time positions (I only ever held one part-time position, it was a second job as a favor for a friend who had more fiberglass work than he could handle on-schedule; beyond that, a second part-time job is a near impossibility as they all only seem to hire if you have open availability, which you can't have if you already have a job), they were 16-24hr/wk and the scheduling was usually closer to 16hr. I held a number of menial service-level and retail jobs before striking my first decent contract, so I have a sizable sample. Not a single past employer of mine routinely gave part-timers more than 16 hours per week. Not one. That, combined with the fact that most positions available outside of the professional world are part time, is my basis for using a 16 hour work week to calculate a livable wage. Sure, you can live on 7.25/hr if you're getting full-time work, that's $15080/yr; I supported my ex making barely $1000/yr over that for nearly a decade, but even if we halve that, nobody is surviving for a year on $7540, I don't care how skilled they are at budgeting. Hell, that's below the poverty level for a single person but, then, even a full-time minimum wage worker qualifies for food stamps. It's not a livable wage if we have to subsidize it.
In most of the country, $12/hr should be livable for a single person at anything over 16 hours, comfortable for those who excel at their part-time work and are granted more hours, and even more comfortable for anyone working full-time. Bay area and NYC excepted, of course.
So you're positing that putting a higher load on her phone and a lower load on mine would result in her phone outlasting mine? See, I understand the scientific method just fine, but I also have some basic common sense, which seems to be lost on you.
And yet my phone, under higher usage than hers, lasts longer. If it were the other way around I'd see your point.
Hey it's all some people can get. Not everyone is as employable as you and I.
The people voted for a president who campaigned for health insurance and passed a bill forcing people to buy health insurance.
If you can afford it. Otherwise, everyone who can afford it is subsidizing it for everyone who can't.
Additionally, you can live off of minimum wage. It just means having a budget, roommates and not going out and running up a crazy bar tab, or eating out all the time.
Minimum wage, part time 16hr/wk. That's all some people can get (and a second job is out of the question because they want open availability, which the first job prevents them from having). That's $6032/yr gross, $5143/yr net assuming standard deduction. Show me a budget that allows a single person to survive on $429/mo (I rounded it up to make it easier on you). Be sure to include city and state, so I can know *where* a person can survive on that budget.
Sure, they can find a room somewhere for $150/mo, ride the bus to and from work (4x 4 hour shifts is 8 trips per week, 34 or 36 trips per month depending on how the days fall so we'll average that to 35) at $2.50 per trip that's $87.50 per month. They need clothes, one outfit per day for two weeks to minimize laundry costs, plus an outfit to wear for laundry, so 15 outfits, replaced every 6 months as clothes do wear out, so an average of 1.25 outfits per month at a cost of $20 per pair of pants and $15 per shirt if we're going cheap, which comes to $43.75 per month. We're already up to $281.25 and we still have to do laundry and eat. Ever been to a laundromat? 2 weeks worth of clothes costs $10 to wash, 26 loads per year, that's 2.16 load per month, $21.60 per month for laundry brings us up to $302.85, leaving $126.15 for food. That miiiiiiiiiiight be doable in some cities, but not in most. And we never actually got that 16/hr per week job because guess what? We can't afford a phone for them to call us on. And if we did somehow manage to land a job anyway, we've lost it within the first month because we can't afford a phone for them to call us on to tell us they need us to come in. Or we've wasted bus far (2 trips) because they couldn't call us to tell us they actually didn't need us that day; on top of now not getting paid for the day.
Yes, a budget and roommates solve everyone's problems.
My phone: all radios on. Her phone: all radios on. Aside from that, I discuss usage patterns elsewhere in the thread; mine certainly sees more use than hers. Unfortunately, since there is no possible way for me to run an SMTP server or an HTTP server with PHP support on an iPhone, swapping phones with her to test the impact of usage patterns is not a viable option; but the SMTP and HTTP servers I run on my phone for on-the-go development and testing are certainly battery hogs, I can't imagine the iPhone would fare any better running those.
I never said it does, but The Population voted for a President who did and enough of Congress agreed. There's also a greater public good served by controlling the spread of disease and keeping the populace able to work and contribute to society for as long as possible. That feeds into the minimum wage discussion, as well, which I'll get to. Personally, I make well over minimum wage and my insurance cost less (and for better coverage) before Obamacare, but I recognize the value of both.
A livable minimum wage means people can afford to take time off of work when they're sick, which means Joe, the guy making your burger (or serving your lobster, this isn't just limited to fast food) has the option of taking the day off instead of spreading his illness to your food and, thus, to you. A socialized health care system means Joe can also see a doctor when he takes the day off due to that illness, get treated, and get back to work sooner. That makes Joe a more productive member of society while ensuring that Joe isn't spreading his illness and making others less productive. Joe's livable wage and government-backed free health care aren't just a benefit to Joe, they're a benefit to all of the people he would otherwise have made sick, and anyone those people would have, in turn made sick, and so on, and so forth. In other words, to society as a whole, even those of us who don't live on minimum wage and free health care.
Can't plan for everything. Glad you're okay though; otherwise, there would be no counterexample to prove my point.
Also, damn, this is why I don't post from my phone (I've turned off autocorrect or it might have been worse).