The difference is, if you plug a 2-button mouse in. Those 2 buttons and movement will still work. The only thing that doesn't is new button features. So carrying that over to the PS5, if there even is any new buttons, an older controller should work just as good (for all the buttons it has available), minus the built-in mic feature that is not present on the older controllers.

It's not even a "few" more shekels. I don't know what DS5 controller will cost yet, but the "Sony genuine" ones for PS3 and PS4 cost a mint! Currently the PS4 controllers are on Amazon for about $65 each and up. Some colors/styles are approaching $100. That is not an insignificant cost.

I've had to replace several PS3 controllers over the years, and those things cost more than they are worth too. Those are usually over $45 each for a USED one. Finding a new genuine one is like finding a needle in a haystack, as most new ones are 3rd party these days. I suspect Sony stopped making them or something. But this is for a console that is going on 15 years old. A pair of controllers cost more than the console at this point...

I would like to believe that, but you don't know how many website I go to, and there is a problem showing in Firefox, and the reply from the companies help staff, is ALWAYS "install chrome, and try it in chrome".

I am under the impression that FF follows the W3 standards, and that chrome may or may not. If they both do, then why do some companies (or schools) stuff work in chrome and not in FF. It still feels like the old days often, except Chrome is the IE now, that everyone builds too, even it doesn't work correctly in other browsers.

I'm under the assumption that these damn web devs these days are lazy and build to Chrome and don't even both testing their crap in other browsers anymore. I wish I were wrong... It's so bad, that I had to install a copy of Vivaldi just so I can try it in chomium if something doesn't work in FF.

UVerse was easily the worst TV service I had over the years. I only had it for about 2-3 years during a promo price. After that it wasn't worth it, and cutting the cord was becoming more feasible. I cut the cord complete about 3-4 years ago and haven't looked back.

As far as TV service goes, over a 20 year period, I've had Comcast, DishNet, DirecTV, and UVerse. I have to say that I like DirecTV the best overall. I left them because the price doubled on me over a 10 yr period that I couldn't justify the cost anymore and they wouldn't work with me on deals anymore.

OnDemand is better than watching real-time live TV. However, I'm not sure how other providers do on-demand, but before I cut normal TV out, I had UVerse, and their version of on-demand prevented you from skipping the commercials, (it might have prevented you from FF altogether). Which was just a sucky as "live tv" at that point. Are the providers still crippling their on-demand services like this?

I hear what you are saying, and I don't think most of the people not wearing a mask aren't doing it because of ignorance. That is a fallicy. So quite repeating the same statements as TV and news and everyone else around.

My argument (and many others) is that if YOU need MY mask to protect you, then you are wearing the WRONG mask. Go get your self a positive pressure helmet. Hell, you can get army surplus gas masks for about $15-$20 a piece that are air tight, and rated for Biological, Chemical, and Nuclear. You can get respirators from the local HomeDepot or Lowes that have changable cartriages that you can put the correct ones on for your application. I listed a bunch of other options in my previous comment that are COMPLETELY better and WILL protect the wearer from unmasked people. Why don't people that are worried go get one of these better protective options, instead of demanding that others wear a mask for them?

That is the principle I keep saying, and NO ONE tries to answer it. Because the only answer I can fathom is: they are lazy or cheap, and want to use a mask that is not protecting them, and so to make up for their lazy/cheapness, they have to demand others wear masks too.

When it comes to safety of your health, life, take action that will help yourself, and do not rely on others to do it for you. Do not expect others to do it for you. It's not my responsibility to pretend I'm scared of the boogyman and be compelled to do something so that you feel better about it (no matter how effective, or ineffective it is).

I don't understand why all the people demanding others wear masks, just don't get a better mask themselves (or sheild, or double-mask, or N95/96, or positive pressure bubble helmet, or plague mask, or complete head-to-toe hazmat/biohazard suit) and shut the hell up about what others are or aren't doing. If the answer to my alternative PPE options is, because they are expensive, and uncomfortable, or rediculous looking, or overkill, or not wanted... then bingo, you feel like everyone who doesn't want to wear the mask now too.

PROTECT YOURSELF, do not rely on other to do the most basic human instinct. Let others worry about themselves.

I never stated my opinion on what an internet hosting services should be forced to host, did I? You are assuming my position, when I didn't state one. I didn't say there was any difference there as you indicated. You are not only making an assumption to start an argument, but you are also putting words in my mouth that I didn't say.

As for the polygamy, where are you seeing that? I know of lots of references to people who were married to many wives, and concubines, King Solomon being one of the most well known figures that matches your description. I wasn't aware the Bible says that God prefers it that way though, can you show me where? I only know of where it says that if a temple/church leader should only marry one person. That to me would indicate, that that is the preferred state. If you want to go one further, I believe Paul says it's better to not get married at all. Also, In the beginning of the Bible, God didn't make several women for Adam, just one Eve.

There are examples of all kinds of things in there of what NOT to do, as well as what to do. By showing you the flaws in people, it doesn't gloss over that kind of stuff, because people aren't perfect. The problem is when people hold up the flawed people in the Bible, and point at their flaws, and say, "look, they mention it in the Bible, so the Bible supports that"! When it actually doesn't really.

I did say "most" main stream media. I specifically called out CNN, because they were the first ones to come to mind with multiple, big offenses. Going way back to editing the 911 call with Zimmerman being carefully edited with key parts cut out to make Zimmerman look worse than he might have otherwise.

I think multiple news channels more recently got caught talking about how bad Coronavirus is and that our ICU's are at critical capacity and people dying, and then air footage of ICU's in Italy (which was, as we all know, hit very hard with it at the beginning). I'm not even sure how many news sites ran with that footage, or if it even was CNN and not another outfit. I didn't mean to JUST pick on CNN by any means.

If you shouldn't be able to tell massive lies to lots of people so easily, then that would put most of the main stream media, like CNN out of business. That's all they do, is grab footage of one thing, and edit, dub, splice and mix-in footage from something else entirely to paint a whole new picture that they fabricate. They do this all the time, and have been caught over, and over.

Boy are you reading into it. So is that some passive aggressive way of calling me a racist because I showed you exactly where something was at in the Bible when you wanted to open your mouth and talk about what you didn't know about? I never even stated what my opinion was did I?

To rebut your statement, no it's not the same argument people legitimately use against serving Colored people. I know of no religious or Christian doctrine that would support that viewpoint. In fact, the first one that comes to mind to refute your statement is Matt 22:39-40, where Jesus said "...Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law..." So I would say that the Bible boldly states that all people are equal and should be treated how we ourselves want to be treated...

Anyone trying to say the Bible supports slavery (as it was in the US) or racist behavior is lying through their teeth and twisting scripture (or ignoring it altogether) for their own perverted reasons.

And as klim_kaddidlehopper put it nicely, that yes, scripturally speaking, practicing gay sexual behavior (not necessarily being gay), is the same as any other sin, including sex out of wedlock (falls under sexual immorality), blasphemy, murder, lying, theft, etc. Contrary to what people think, there is no actual order of sins from small to large supported in the Bible. Any sin is the same magnitude as any other on most accounts. And to keep people humble, it also says to "remove the plank from your own eye, before removing the speck from the neighbor's". Because naturally people like to minimize their own shortcomings and ill behavior, and magnify other peoples, it's human nature. Horrible human nature is spoken about at great lengths in the Bible too, it's one of the main themes.

Since you want to be a smartass, the issue wasn't about baking a cake, it was about being obligated and forced to affirm and knowingly support a gay wedding against their religious beliefs. One of the several verses you can't recall is: Matthew 19:4-5 "He answered, ‘Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one’. Yup, the bible teaches marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman. You probably don't recall that, because you've probaby not read much of it, but that is just a guess.

Now quit trying to make it sound like the religious exemption was over something as 'simple' as cake, and not the underlying principle.

Is it me, or does anyone else find it ironic, that the 9 o'clock gun is from the country that all but banned guns?

Was going to say the same thing. The missing option was, "don't have an account, don't tweet, but when I read the news, every other news story is about who said what to who on Twitter". When did this become popular, it's been at least a year now I think.

Usually these same "news" sites, put the link to the short 140c tweet, somewhere in the middle of a full page, 500 word summary of who said it, what was said, and to whom they said it and why I should be outraged. Then for some reason, said article will usually have a video to go along with the article, which is nothing more than the entire article's words written on the screen flashing by while tense background music plays. I don't know why the video version even exists on these things, I guess it's for those who haven't figured out how to scroll down and read the actual article, the video does it for you?

Your rights include locking yourself in your house for 6 months if that is what makes you feel safe. Your rights cannot inflict on others to do as they please either. See how it works.

You'd only have a point, if strangers were wondering into your house and invading your own personal bubble of safe-space with the virus. If you go outside, then you take the risk of coming into contact with and being exposed to lots of stuff. The virus is just one of the things.

If only the people that don't care are mingling together, then they may spread the virus and get sick. However, if the other set of people who are too afraid to do so, take their own personal responsibility and either protect themselves, either by PPE or self isolation, or what ever level of comfort they feel appropriate, then they shouldn't be effected by the other groups actions.

I never hear the reason behind the disconnect of, you staying in your house is going to get infected by me being out and about doing my own business? The only answer I can guess is that those that are afraid, are also afraid of being left behind while the world continues, and so they want EVERYONE to suffer with them, because of their fear. It doesn't make sense to me.