My "job" is to analyze the structural integrity of various components in an aircraft. In reality, in a given week, I will probably do the following:
-set up shortcuts for really old workers on their desktops so they can more easily get to the files they need -document a drawing that's missing that is needed for the project, and what is missing -write a tutorial for a new software package we're using, or explain to someone else how to use it -set up the printers for someone's machine, and explain what each goes to. -sort out what's different between two documents and briefly summarize it -chase down a person in IT responsible for fixing some problem that has arisen with some software -gripe to some tech support guy about why the software we bought doesn't do what they say it will -and more I probably can't think of.
So, yeah, just thought I'd share my side. Like with you, none of that bothers me. If it got the point where my job is to vacuum all the offices, yeah, then it would start to bother me. But I don't consider doing any of those tasks to be "working harder"; it's just "working different".
You want to know what kind of job there is where you ONLY do your narrow, specific job function? A union shop. And while in theory, that's supposed to make your job better, in reality, you'll get written up for moving your computer or desks around, and you're employer will quickly tank as they spill money from having to hire a new person for every little task.
Wait, seriously though, what would stop you from doing that? What would stop you from accusing Microsoft of stealing the code from some part of Linux for some feature, without adhering to the GPL? Wouldn't they at some point have to reveal the code they do use? And then wouldn't it somehow get out? Why can't these tactics be used against proprietary vendors?
Let me tell you a story. A man works for a company for 30 years on the promise that once he hits 65, he can draw a generous pension, and he becomes elegible for those benefits when he turns 60, but not until. But then, he gets fired before he can access *any* of those benefits. Age 59. Fucking corporation regarded his ENTIRE retirement income as "just another expense". If he swipes an iPod from a user or store and fences it, should the police really go after him, while they ignore the coporation that fucked him over?
Btw, nice job with the scare quotes around "ill". I guess you don't think mental illness is real. Crank.
Punks? It's interesting that someone trying to feed his family through non-violent theft of an extravagant luxury (insured to the hilt through a homeowner's/renter's policy btw) is a "punk". Maybe if you knew what it was like to not be able to feed your baby and listen to him cry, you might be a little more cautious about throwing around the "punk" label. What's next, attack charities for telemarketing "harassment"? Oh, wait.
The ACLU has never interfered in the private religious activities conducted by a business. It's only when government gets involved that the ACLU cries foul. For example if it's a government project, or that business gets special subsidies from the government, or that government is providing the business with free police, fire protection, and road service.
FINALLY, some sensible analysis of this. I mean, guys, let's face it. The Xbox line sucks. It's just "hey, what those other guys do, but like, with better graphics... and stuff". Plus, why buy Microsoft when you don't have to?
There's no xenophobic conspiracy to keep American products out. The Japanese buy based on value. *new concept*
Um, dude... he was expecting to retire on just $300,000. ALL of his investments were in one stock. Not one mutual fund; one stock. I'm suprised someone that stupid made it into his late 50's. I mean, how did he shave in the morning without cutting a major throat artery? How did he drive to work without rear-ending people constantly? How did he tie his shoes?
Anyone who puts his life savings into ONE stock, expecting it to be a steady income fund, is already living on borrowed time. Find a better sympathetic figure.
Nothing to add, I just wanted to thank you for saying "a low price" instead of "a low price point". Most people here seem to like using extra words to appear smart, and I appreciate your maturity. (Yes, I know price point can mean something specific -- a place where the demand slope changes sharply -- but when people use the term in ordinary discussions of pricing, the distinction is unnecessary.)
First of all, asshole, I was just following the lead of the story in using the $600 comparison. If you did $500, the Wii would still come out way, way ahead.
Doesn't that just blow your mind? How could someone get a PS3 and anything else?
No, it doesn't blow my mind. However, I'm going to tell you something that will blow *your* simpleton mind.
I own a PS2. I love my PS2. I love the game selection, and I play DDR on it all the time. I love it so much I got my mom hooked, and I bought her a PS2 plus Eyetoy:Kinetic, and she *loves* it. She plays it all the time. And she's 59. She thanks me all the time for introducing her to it. So, I harbor zero animosity toward the Playstation line, or, really, to Sony. It is *because* of me that they made another sale to an unlikely demographic.
I make $54,000 a year, over twice the household median for my area. No wife, no kids. I have a net worth of $22,000, and before you snicker, that's *after* subtracting all debts (including mortgage), and *without* adding home equity. Long story short, I got cash to spare and then some.
So, I can afford a PS3, and I love my PS2. Yet... I'm not going to get a PS3. Doesn't that just blow your mind? How can that be? SIMPLE FUCKING OPPORTUNITY COST CALCULATION. For the price of a PS3 I could be getting truly innovative, immersive Wii games, rather than slightly prettier cookie-cutter remakes of existing series which will almost certainly scrape the bottom of the Uncanny Valley.
Sorry, but an honest comparison of the opportunity costs involved in buying something priced $X, and finding the conclusion shocking, is a legitimate gripe. When you spend $600, you shouldn't think in terms of "hm, do I got $600 to spare?". You should think, "what are the other things I could be doing with this money." Would you buy a $600 loaf of bread on the grounds you have $600 to spare? No, you'd recognize that you could get *better things* or more bread for the same prices. This is a very fair complaint about a console.
Hey man, I'm really sorry you couldn't offload your self-imposed misery onto some other sucker before the crash. Next time, don't demand venture capital returns and expect AAA-bond risk.
Looking back at the context, he was talking about ability to do logic very precisely, so when he said Russians are like a..., I was expecting him to say "Turing machine", so he may have switched out "Turing" with "Tourettes" (some people pronounce them similarly) and then just added what normally come's after "tourette's". If you don't know what a Turing machine is already, google or wikipedia.
Um, okay, I trust you and all, but I can't really see what the government's response is, so I can't judge your evaluation. The link in the summary with anchor text implying it was to the government's response actually also leads to mrbrown's site, which I can't read on account of it being registered as smut. Oops. Anyone got a link to the horse's mouth?
You missed my point -- you're not *obligated* to contribute your salary into your 401k (okay, okay, except in the trivial sense that your employer can give you stock in your 401k and count that as part of your "salary" -- but I'm talking about your actual monetary compensation). While the company can require that *assets in your 401k* only be in the company, they can't make you put all your investments *outside of that* in the company. Your 401k is not your only investment option! You're free to do a Roth or traditional IRA outside of that. In the extreme case, completely ignore any shackled "compensation" like that. Treat it as zero for purposes of comparing compensation packages.
I absolutely agree that it's unfortunate that one's employer should so constrain one's 401k. But this is an argument for changing the tax code so as to sever the ridiculous tie to one's employer. Why not just have a list of approved funds that anyone, irrespective of employer can put tax-free funds into? Unfortunately, people like you think employers are just bottomless vats of wealth, and stick them with the bill for all kinds of benefits, never realizing how this constrains employees' choice. Not just in retirement, but also in health care.
A lot of people lost their... life savings because of him.
Nobody was obligated to put their own money into Enron's 401k plan (and therefore into Enron stock). Anyone who invested more than 15% of their portfolio into it was probably warned several times of the risk in doing so. He may certainly have been responsible for them losing *their Enron stock's value*, but they had no excuse for making it such a big chunk of their investments. Ken Lay did not make them invest such a huge fraction in Enron.
She had a good idea in showing how many times you had already visited that page... which works until there is a way to fake that display.
You know, that reminds me of something I, I mean someone I know, did on the MMORPG Second Life. Basically, he wanted to spoof other players' statements, i.e., make it look like someone else was saying something of his choice. The text would appear on the screen in the format:
[character name]:[what they're saying]
All of that appears in white text.
In Second Life, you can also make objects, and have them talk. It will have the same format, except the object name instead of character name will appear. And, of course, as a "security" feature, they made all non-player-character objects' text appear green, so you could tell if it was a fake.
But then my friend got wise. He made an object named after someone else. Then he had the object say, "Hey guys, this is neat, you can make your text appear green." and then "I totally did't know you could have text appear green like this!" Then he started making the "compromising" statements, and people geniunely believed the character he was spoofing said it.
Long story short, having a "standard" format like you described isn't going to do much against phishing. Like you said, people can always "step outside the system" and make their fake site have things resembling your security features, and the people who tend to be fooled by phishing won't know it's something the phisher added.
Actually, comparing the 'net to roads would be a prime example of a poor analogy, as it fails to promote understanding of the issues. For example, imagine a) someone building his own private road from LA to NYC, and b) someone building his own private data connection from LA to NYC. Clearly, the latter would be easier and far less objectionable. He could conceivably put his lines right on top of someone else's (after getting their permission) and not have the data pass through others' lines. In contrast, to have a private road that didn't intersect with other private roads, you would have to somehow build an overpass over all intervening roads, or reserve some very scarce, highly demanded real estate just for him, inconveniencing the existing road users forever.
There's nothing inconsistent, of course, about supporting "road neutrality" and net neutrality, but the merit of the former doesn't help much to build a case for the latter.
Still can't do things like play DDR with a Wii-mote.
Sure you can. They could have a came where you holster the Wiimotes to your shins or feet. Since it detects the location of your feet, this could function as a dance pad. Plus, it would allow more detailed specification of a dance rather than "press/hold foot here". It could detect twirls, kicks, slides, and probably more. (Holster two more to your forearms, and have an even more elaborate dance system.)
Now, if you mean they haven't made such a game *yet*, okay, point made.
I was actually hoping someone would make a game like this and, depending on how easy it is to get an SDK (beyond paying the fee), I may write it myself if no one else does.
At the same time, I think requiring all statements to be sourced before placement kind of defeats the purpose (or at least main benefit) of Wikipedia: that it can give you the "word on the street" -- what you need to know -- about a topic. Unsourced statements which are original research are definitely a hazard, but if you had to wait until someone dug up a source for everything, Wikipedia would not have picked up the way it did. As long as most editors are well meaning, the inclusion of unsourced statemtns until it can be sourced or deleted is on balance good. Many of the statements I've read in articles have been unsourced (but later verified by other sources) and I've learned much more through their inclusion.
It's very reassuring to hear that. I remember hearing a scientist give a lecture on "memory metal" he was helping develop, which, if elevated above a certain temperature, would keep a shape, even if the temperature went back down. As an application of this, the *best* think he could think of was that you could stick these in frozen fish containers when shipping them to certify the fish had stayed frozen the whole trip. I was thinking a) if they can fake a report, they can switch out the metal, and b) we already have ultra-cheap memory thermometers that can do this.
Now, if it's actually the case that the application is a last minute kind of throwaway thing from the scientist, and not intended to be the justification for the research, that's much more reassuring. Scientists generally can't predict what their new technique will be used for -- and that's good because it's not their subject matter.
Stephen Landsburg, a libertarian economist, is one step ahead of you. A while back he proposed a method of doing this, and further, assessing how much should be paid. Basically, every time something is patented, the government opens it to bids -- people and companies bid on the patent. Then, the government flips a coin, and if it wins, it pays the patentholder the highest bid (which, keep in mind, a business made) and "liberates" the patent. If it loses, the winning bidder pays and gets the patent. Now, you can modify the formula for payment as you wish in order to get more or fewer patents liberated. The point is to have some way of knowing how valuable the patent is and thus what the compensation should be.
I have no idea why you got modded up for an explanation that totally dodged the issue. I understand that marketers are interested in what the best price is to sell the system at. However, when we talk about how much the next-gen console will cost, you convey no additional information or meaning by saying "The Wii will have a price point of $199" as opposed to "The Wii will have a price of $199."
The fact that you thought it necessary to tell me that pricing is a major factor in selling a console shows you totally missed the point of what I was asking. When you responded to my post, you must have honestly thought to yourself: "This guy must not understand that price affects a console's success." (Though you probably spelled it "effects", thinking that make your thought somehow more nuanced or something.)
I also understand that price, being a one-dimensional quantity, can be represented as a "point", and that the demand function (in the Wikipedia article you cited that also doesn't answer my question) can act weird. Neither has any bearing whatsoever on my question.
The question, again, is why do people feel it necessary to refer to the price at which a console will sell as a price point. In the context of every discussion of the issue, you could switch out "price" for "price point" and convey the identical information.
IN CASE ANYONE IS PLANNING TO MOD ME DOWN FOR FLAMING, trolling, or, my favorite, "overrated", please note that I have long make this person my friend because of his posts. This is why it's ever more perplexing that not only did he not answer my question, he also had to assume I'm an idiot on top of that.
Apparently, there are a lot of people who can't even make sense of the question, so ingrained has the addition of unnecessary marketing-speak to sound cool become.
Slashdot Mirror
My "job" is to analyze the structural integrity of various components in an aircraft. In reality, in a given week, I will probably do the following:
-set up shortcuts for really old workers on their desktops so they can more easily get to the files they need
-document a drawing that's missing that is needed for the project, and what is missing
-write a tutorial for a new software package we're using, or explain to someone else how to use it
-set up the printers for someone's machine, and explain what each goes to.
-sort out what's different between two documents and briefly summarize it
-chase down a person in IT responsible for fixing some problem that has arisen with some software
-gripe to some tech support guy about why the software we bought doesn't do what they say it will
-and more I probably can't think of.
So, yeah, just thought I'd share my side. Like with you, none of that bothers me. If it got the point where my job is to vacuum all the offices, yeah, then it would start to bother me. But I don't consider doing any of those tasks to be "working harder"; it's just "working different".
You want to know what kind of job there is where you ONLY do your narrow, specific job function? A union shop. And while in theory, that's supposed to make your job better, in reality, you'll get written up for moving your computer or desks around, and you're employer will quickly tank as they spill money from having to hire a new person for every little task.
Wait, seriously though, what would stop you from doing that? What would stop you from accusing Microsoft of stealing the code from some part of Linux for some feature, without adhering to the GPL? Wouldn't they at some point have to reveal the code they do use? And then wouldn't it somehow get out? Why can't these tactics be used against proprietary vendors?
Let me tell you a story. A man works for a company for 30 years on the promise that once he hits 65, he can draw a generous pension, and he becomes elegible for those benefits when he turns 60, but not until. But then, he gets fired before he can access *any* of those benefits. Age 59. Fucking corporation regarded his ENTIRE retirement income as "just another expense". If he swipes an iPod from a user or store and fences it, should the police really go after him, while they ignore the coporation that fucked him over?
Btw, nice job with the scare quotes around "ill". I guess you don't think mental illness is real. Crank.
Punks? It's interesting that someone trying to feed his family through non-violent theft of an extravagant luxury (insured to the hilt through a homeowner's/renter's policy btw) is a "punk". Maybe if you knew what it was like to not be able to feed your baby and listen to him cry, you might be a little more cautious about throwing around the "punk" label. What's next, attack charities for telemarketing "harassment"? Oh, wait.
The ACLU has never interfered in the private religious activities conducted by a business. It's only when government gets involved that the ACLU cries foul. For example if it's a government project, or that business gets special subsidies from the government, or that government is providing the business with free police, fire protection, and road service.
FINALLY, some sensible analysis of this. I mean, guys, let's face it. The Xbox line sucks. It's just "hey, what those other guys do, but like, with better graphics ... and stuff". Plus, why buy Microsoft when you don't have to?
There's no xenophobic conspiracy to keep American products out. The Japanese buy based on value. *new concept*
But if they are considered alive, I can only imagine what kind of twisted tax evasion or money laundering will occurs...
You don't need to launder money OR evade taxes. It's called "compound interest".
1) Work for a year.
2) Go into suspended animation for 100 years.
3) Retire.
4) ???
3, informative?
Um, dude... he was expecting to retire on just $300,000. ALL of his investments were in one stock. Not one mutual fund; one stock. I'm suprised someone that stupid made it into his late 50's. I mean, how did he shave in the morning without cutting a major throat artery? How did he drive to work without rear-ending people constantly? How did he tie his shoes?
Anyone who puts his life savings into ONE stock, expecting it to be a steady income fund, is already living on borrowed time. Find a better sympathetic figure.
Nothing to add, I just wanted to thank you for saying "a low price" instead of "a low price point". Most people here seem to like using extra words to appear smart, and I appreciate your maturity. (Yes, I know price point can mean something specific -- a place where the demand slope changes sharply -- but when people use the term in ordinary discussions of pricing, the distinction is unnecessary.)
First of all, asshole, I was just following the lead of the story in using the $600 comparison. If you did $500, the Wii would still come out way, way ahead.
... I'm not going to get a PS3. Doesn't that just blow your mind? How can that be? SIMPLE FUCKING OPPORTUNITY COST CALCULATION. For the price of a PS3 I could be getting truly innovative, immersive Wii games, rather than slightly prettier cookie-cutter remakes of existing series which will almost certainly scrape the bottom of the Uncanny Valley.
Doesn't that just blow your mind? How could someone get a PS3 and anything else?
No, it doesn't blow my mind. However, I'm going to tell you something that will blow *your* simpleton mind.
I own a PS2. I love my PS2. I love the game selection, and I play DDR on it all the time. I love it so much I got my mom hooked, and I bought her a PS2 plus Eyetoy:Kinetic, and she *loves* it. She plays it all the time. And she's 59. She thanks me all the time for introducing her to it. So, I harbor zero animosity toward the Playstation line, or, really, to Sony. It is *because* of me that they made another sale to an unlikely demographic.
I make $54,000 a year, over twice the household median for my area. No wife, no kids. I have a net worth of $22,000, and before you snicker, that's *after* subtracting all debts (including mortgage), and *without* adding home equity. Long story short, I got cash to spare and then some.
So, I can afford a PS3, and I love my PS2. Yet
Simply put, I know a raw deal when I see one.
Well, now you know.
Sorry, but an honest comparison of the opportunity costs involved in buying something priced $X, and finding the conclusion shocking, is a legitimate gripe. When you spend $600, you shouldn't think in terms of "hm, do I got $600 to spare?". You should think, "what are the other things I could be doing with this money." Would you buy a $600 loaf of bread on the grounds you have $600 to spare? No, you'd recognize that you could get *better things* or more bread for the same prices. This is a very fair complaint about a console.
Hey man, I'm really sorry you couldn't offload your self-imposed misery onto some other sucker before the crash. Next time, don't demand venture capital returns and expect AAA-bond risk.
Looking back at the context, he was talking about ability to do logic very precisely, so when he said Russians are like a ..., I was expecting him to say "Turing machine", so he may have switched out "Turing" with "Tourettes" (some people pronounce them similarly) and then just added what normally come's after "tourette's". If you don't know what a Turing machine is already, google or wikipedia.
That's just a guess, but I thought I'd share.
Um, okay, I trust you and all, but I can't really see what the government's response is, so I can't judge your evaluation. The link in the summary with anchor text implying it was to the government's response actually also leads to mrbrown's site, which I can't read on account of it being registered as smut. Oops. Anyone got a link to the horse's mouth?
You missed my point -- you're not *obligated* to contribute your salary into your 401k (okay, okay, except in the trivial sense that your employer can give you stock in your 401k and count that as part of your "salary" -- but I'm talking about your actual monetary compensation). While the company can require that *assets in your 401k* only be in the company, they can't make you put all your investments *outside of that* in the company. Your 401k is not your only investment option! You're free to do a Roth or traditional IRA outside of that. In the extreme case, completely ignore any shackled "compensation" like that. Treat it as zero for purposes of comparing compensation packages.
I absolutely agree that it's unfortunate that one's employer should so constrain one's 401k. But this is an argument for changing the tax code so as to sever the ridiculous tie to one's employer. Why not just have a list of approved funds that anyone, irrespective of employer can put tax-free funds into? Unfortunately, people like you think employers are just bottomless vats of wealth, and stick them with the bill for all kinds of benefits, never realizing how this constrains employees' choice. Not just in retirement, but also in health care.
A lot of people lost their ... life savings because of him.
Nobody was obligated to put their own money into Enron's 401k plan (and therefore into Enron stock). Anyone who invested more than 15% of their portfolio into it was probably warned several times of the risk in doing so. He may certainly have been responsible for them losing *their Enron stock's value*, but they had no excuse for making it such a big chunk of their investments. Ken Lay did not make them invest such a huge fraction in Enron.
Yeah, obviously we should require Sony to make PS2 games playable on an Xbox. Otherwise they'd be "forcing him to use product A only with product B".
She had a good idea in showing how many times you had already visited that page ... which works until there is a way to fake that display.
You know, that reminds me of something I, I mean someone I know, did on the MMORPG Second Life. Basically, he wanted to spoof other players' statements, i.e., make it look like someone else was saying something of his choice. The text would appear on the screen in the format:
[character name]:[what they're saying]
All of that appears in white text.
In Second Life, you can also make objects, and have them talk. It will have the same format, except the object name instead of character name will appear. And, of course, as a "security" feature, they made all non-player-character objects' text appear green, so you could tell if it was a fake.
But then my friend got wise. He made an object named after someone else. Then he had the object say, "Hey guys, this is neat, you can make your text appear green." and then "I totally did't know you could have text appear green like this!" Then he started making the "compromising" statements, and people geniunely believed the character he was spoofing said it.
Long story short, having a "standard" format like you described isn't going to do much against phishing. Like you said, people can always "step outside the system" and make their fake site have things resembling your security features, and the people who tend to be fooled by phishing won't know it's something the phisher added.
Actually, comparing the 'net to roads would be a prime example of a poor analogy, as it fails to promote understanding of the issues. For example, imagine a) someone building his own private road from LA to NYC, and b) someone building his own private data connection from LA to NYC. Clearly, the latter would be easier and far less objectionable. He could conceivably put his lines right on top of someone else's (after getting their permission) and not have the data pass through others' lines. In contrast, to have a private road that didn't intersect with other private roads, you would have to somehow build an overpass over all intervening roads, or reserve some very scarce, highly demanded real estate just for him, inconveniencing the existing road users forever.
There's nothing inconsistent, of course, about supporting "road neutrality" and net neutrality, but the merit of the former doesn't help much to build a case for the latter.
Still can't do things like play DDR with a Wii-mote.
Sure you can. They could have a came where you holster the Wiimotes to your shins or feet. Since it detects the location of your feet, this could function as a dance pad. Plus, it would allow more detailed specification of a dance rather than "press/hold foot here". It could detect twirls, kicks, slides, and probably more. (Holster two more to your forearms, and have an even more elaborate dance system.)
Now, if you mean they haven't made such a game *yet*, okay, point made.
I was actually hoping someone would make a game like this and, depending on how easy it is to get an SDK (beyond paying the fee), I may write it myself if no one else does.
At the same time, I think requiring all statements to be sourced before placement kind of defeats the purpose (or at least main benefit) of Wikipedia: that it can give you the "word on the street" -- what you need to know -- about a topic. Unsourced statements which are original research are definitely a hazard, but if you had to wait until someone dug up a source for everything, Wikipedia would not have picked up the way it did. As long as most editors are well meaning, the inclusion of unsourced statemtns until it can be sourced or deleted is on balance good. Many of the statements I've read in articles have been unsourced (but later verified by other sources) and I've learned much more through their inclusion.
It's very reassuring to hear that. I remember hearing a scientist give a lecture on "memory metal" he was helping develop, which, if elevated above a certain temperature, would keep a shape, even if the temperature went back down. As an application of this, the *best* think he could think of was that you could stick these in frozen fish containers when shipping them to certify the fish had stayed frozen the whole trip. I was thinking a) if they can fake a report, they can switch out the metal, and b) we already have ultra-cheap memory thermometers that can do this.
Now, if it's actually the case that the application is a last minute kind of throwaway thing from the scientist, and not intended to be the justification for the research, that's much more reassuring. Scientists generally can't predict what their new technique will be used for -- and that's good because it's not their subject matter.
Stephen Landsburg, a libertarian economist, is one step ahead of you. A while back he proposed a method of doing this, and further, assessing how much should be paid. Basically, every time something is patented, the government opens it to bids -- people and companies bid on the patent. Then, the government flips a coin, and if it wins, it pays the patentholder the highest bid (which, keep in mind, a business made) and "liberates" the patent. If it loses, the winning bidder pays and gets the patent. Now, you can modify the formula for payment as you wish in order to get more or fewer patents liberated. The point is to have some way of knowing how valuable the patent is and thus what the compensation should be.
I have no idea why you got modded up for an explanation that totally dodged the issue. I understand that marketers are interested in what the best price is to sell the system at. However, when we talk about how much the next-gen console will cost, you convey no additional information or meaning by saying "The Wii will have a price point of $199" as opposed to "The Wii will have a price of $199."
The fact that you thought it necessary to tell me that pricing is a major factor in selling a console shows you totally missed the point of what I was asking. When you responded to my post, you must have honestly thought to yourself: "This guy must not understand that price affects a console's success." (Though you probably spelled it "effects", thinking that make your thought somehow more nuanced or something.)
I also understand that price, being a one-dimensional quantity, can be represented as a "point", and that the demand function (in the Wikipedia article you cited that also doesn't answer my question) can act weird. Neither has any bearing whatsoever on my question.
The question, again, is why do people feel it necessary to refer to the price at which a console will sell as a price point. In the context of every discussion of the issue, you could switch out "price" for "price point" and convey the identical information.
IN CASE ANYONE IS PLANNING TO MOD ME DOWN FOR FLAMING, trolling, or, my favorite, "overrated", please note that I have long make this person my friend because of his posts. This is why it's ever more perplexing that not only did he not answer my question, he also had to assume I'm an idiot on top of that.
Apparently, there are a lot of people who can't even make sense of the question, so ingrained has the addition of unnecessary marketing-speak to sound cool become.