Just in case you missed it, Sharks Cove is real and is now available for preorder.
Not as cheap as a Raspberry Pi, but the hardware is in a different league. And even if it weren't, being x86 is a huge bonus (no alien toolchains to set up).
Loading user information from Channel 9
Something went wrong getting user information from Channel 9
Loading user information from MSDN
Something went wrong getting user information from MSDN
Loading Visual Studio Achievements
Something went wrong getting the Visual Studio Achievements
Professionally: not very often. I use it occasionally in some embedded project, but I have come to the conclusion that, in an embedded device, an OS - any OS - is as useful as a penguin in your pants and almost as comfortable.
As a hobby: grown tired of it. I'm tinkering with FreeBSD instead, even on the Raspberry Pi.
Dual boot? Main OS? Never happened, not likely to happen. I have a number of VMs I keep around for toolchains, as that's easier than trying to sort out versioning.
Distros: a bunch of more or less embedded and real time (no, not really) ones. Xubuntu when I can afford the footprint. Ubuntu in the VMs.
Oh, so your beef with SL all these years was that it's slow !
Silly me, I thought the problem was that it wasn't standardized, that it was patent encumbered, that it wasn't "web", and that it allowed to pollute the web with black boxes of native code. Oh, and that it was a monkey-wrench thrown into the progress of web standards.
I'm not even too sure about why it should be so much slower, but honestly I don't care too much: I simply love the idea of being able to use native code in the browser and I don't care who gets there first. All that matters is that we finally get the silver bullet that kills off the JS monster (hmm, I wonder why Brendan Eich is not a fan...). Good times... :)
This is one of the standard arguments that is always made for not increasing the minimum wage. Raising the minimum wage might push the lowest paid workers up to a wage equivalent to other higher up the ladder, but that just means that the rest of the business is predicated on underpaying it's employees. We shouldn't be making monetary policy that placates people who want to continue to work against the interests of the economy. As with the arguments against the ACA due to "costs": If your business depends on exploitation of employees to survive, you aren't good at your business. You are on the way out anyway, so why should we continue to provide life support through social programs that you probably argue against anyway.
No, that just means you have to raise progressively all the wages that are below the mean.
Put it this way: if you just bump up Bob's hourly wage from $10 to $15 and leave Alice's untouched at $15, you have just increased the number of minimum wage workers. In a few years, $15 will become the new $10 and you will then have the same situation as today, except with more people in the lowest percentile.
Back then, IBM's marketing was at its nadir; for a little while pretty much anything came with a complimentary OS/2 Warp CD; it was the physical equivalent of the Ask toolbar.
I don't doubt the author has his heart in the right place, but the idea is completely bonkers.
Among the various indicators of fairness, the simplest one is to observe the mean and the median income of the population: in a fair society those numbers must not be very far apart (this is necessary but obviously not sufficient).
Let's look at the 2010 report of the Census Bureau, and specifically at table A-2 at page 34. All numbers are conveniently expressed in inflation adjusted 2010 dollars. This is a rough summary:
Back in 1967, the mean income was $45,599 and the median was $40,770. That's pretty fair. The upper part of the curve contained:
100-150K: 4.6%, 150K-200K: 0.9%, >200K: 0.8%
Over the years (regardless of who was in charge), those numbers changed steadily to (in 2010) a mean income of $67,530 and a median of $49,445 and the upper part of the curve became:
100-150K: 12.1%, 150-200K: 4.5%, >200K: 3.9%
That's the real challenge: there's a significant portion of the population (some 20%) making more than twice the median income. It's not a bad thing that the country is getting richer, but when a part is getting richer faster than everybody else, then there's a problem.
Now, hoisting the minimum wage significantly would paradoxically obtain the opposite effect of what is needed: the mean would increase even further, but the median wouldn't move by one dollar. Of course, it would eliminate the poorest percentiles, and that's a good thing, but that wouldn't make much of a difference in the big picture and inflation would kill any good effect in a few years. Yes, because there's no escaping inflation... if Bob makes $10/h and his boss Alice makes $15/h, you cannot expect to raise Bob's wage to $15 by decree and leave Alice's untouched. Lest you want to see how she handles a pitchfork.
On a lighter note... if you think inequality is bad for us commoners, look at what happens upstairs...
so, 1% controls 20% of the wealth. Boo.
But then, the 400 richest Americans (there are 92 more billionaires not making that cut), control about 2% of the total wealth. So, in the context of the top 1%, 0.013% control 10%!
Quite the United States of Extremistan. :)