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.

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 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.