Your household is in the top 1.5% of income earners in the USA. Way, way, past "middle class". Given the very low cost of living in the US, you should be in a _very_ comfortable lifestyle, especially if you've been earning like that for more than a couple of years.
If you were both living off your wife's wage - still nearly twice the median - you'd probably just be on the upper end of "middle class".
Many soldiers are trained and equipped to kill and destroy, if necessary, but that is not their job. Their job is to be able protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
...By killing and destroying.
I don't have a problem with soldiers, but saying they can't be considered "professional killers" because they can also do other stuff, when it's the training to kill that distinguishes them from anyone else who could also do the other stuff, seems rather silly.
The point of soldiers is to kill the bad guys. That's their job. That there are a lot of supporting functions necessary to support the core purpose of killing does not change this.
Soldiers are basically like cops. They can be really nice people right up until the point you do something that sets off their training.
*Everything* is cheap in the US. Outside of a handful of very expensive areas (eg: New York), the cost of living in the US is around half of that in Australia. With that said, thanks to our as-yet-unpopped real estate and credit bubble, the cost of living in Australia - particularly property - is damn near the highest in the world.
If you really want to get depressed, compare car prices between the US and Australia, particularly for anything remotely interesting (VW, BMW, Mercedes).
And $347wk covers all his bills, so why should he look for a job?
Gee, I dunno. Maybe because there's more to a fulfilling life than just paying the bills ? Would *you* be happy with an income that did nothing more than just pay your bills ?
Even in America, with its incredibly low cost of living, $347/wk is very little. No-one with even the vaguest hint of capability will choose to live on an income like that for very long.
I would've argued that states that unnecessarily restrict immigration are not "functioning" states.
States have been restricting immigration essentially since the concept has existed. As to when it is and isn't "necessary" is an issue prone to much debate.
Personally I don't see anything "unnecessary" about restricting immigration of those who arrive with no warning, no documentation, no history and no means of support. In fact, that's pretty much a textbook example of exactly the kind of immigrant you *do* want to "restrict".
Immigration control is one of the fundamental reasons societies form governments. It's part of self defence.
Here in the USA I see a dozen illegals every single day, mowing the rich people's lawns, tending the rich people's children, painting the rich people's houses... and none of them are being "locked up".
Tell the police and see how long they last before being locked up. Do not mistake ignorance for permission. I will also point out that - having experienced a portion of the process myself - *legally* coming into the USA to work is a time-consuming process fraught with difficulty, surprise, and expense.
In Australia we lock up innocent[1] foreigners who come here illegally, so there is probably a lot to be learned from the behavior of guards and prisoners in that situation. Given the nature of their arrival the foreigners aren't necessarily already completely undamaged from a psychological point of view but i'm sure we can learn things from this situation... even if the thing we learn is that locking up innocent people isn't the best thing for their mental health.
I think you'll find that "locking up" people who enter the country illegally is a pretty consistent reaction by any functioning state.
At 100% tax rates the government has no revenue because no-one in their right mind will work to see everything they do stolen by the government. Hence revenues must peak somewhere between 0% and 100% tax rates.
The "miserable failure" comes from the inability of anyone to put numbers on there other than 0 and 100.
But I could argue that the concept of ownership is also just a social construct. In a lawless environment, I "own" everything that I can obtain with force. Without a functioning legal system the concept of ownership cannot be enforced.
The fundamental principle behind property is "might makes right". You own what you can prevent others taking from you.
The only difference between a lawful and lawless environment is that in the former you outsource the "might" part to designated groups of people (police, judges, etc).
However, this fundamental principle doesn't apply to "intellectual property" because it can't be taken, it can only be duplicated. No matter how much might you wield, you can't make someone forget something.
Do you have any references or speculations as to why that was the design goal of copyright and patents?
Because the only way to make something valuable is to make it scarce, and the only way to make something with an infinite supply scarce is to create a legal structure that restricts access to it.
eSATA seems to be doing pretty well for a DOA technology. It's on a huge number of external disks, external disk enclosures, motherboards, and cases. It's even on a lot of laptops these days. I love my eSATA hard disk dock. I don't know how I ever got along without one.
eSATA is a niche, like firewire. Everyone I know has at least one - sometimes several - USB drives (several of those drives also have eSATA interfaces, but they're never used). One person other than me connects their drive using eSATA.
eSATA will never break out of the niche it is currently in. A proliferation of ports is meaningless without peripherals plugged into them.
Not many houses can stand a SEAL attack, yet it is perfectly possible to connect a computer to the Internet with zero vulnerabilities (think OpenBSD).
Not many houses are built as a small, mostly buried concrete cube with no doors or windows, which is basically what the building equivalent of OpenBSD is.
As soon as you make that OpenBSD system usable by adding functionality, the attack vectors start to open up dramatically.
Slashdot Mirror
Your household is in the top 1.5% of income earners in the USA. Way, way, past "middle class". Given the very low cost of living in the US, you should be in a _very_ comfortable lifestyle, especially if you've been earning like that for more than a couple of years.
If you were both living off your wife's wage - still nearly twice the median - you'd probably just be on the upper end of "middle class".
Fundamentally, because it's easier to manage a bunch of machines doing one thing each, than one machine doing a bunch of things.
In most cases. with modern hardware, software RAID has superior performance to hardware RAID.
...By killing and destroying.
I don't have a problem with soldiers, but saying they can't be considered "professional killers" because they can also do other stuff, when it's the training to kill that distinguishes them from anyone else who could also do the other stuff, seems rather silly.
The point of soldiers is to kill the bad guys. That's their job. That there are a lot of supporting functions necessary to support the core purpose of killing does not change this.
Soldiers are basically like cops. They can be really nice people right up until the point you do something that sets off their training.
*Everything* is cheap in the US. Outside of a handful of very expensive areas (eg: New York), the cost of living in the US is around half of that in Australia. With that said, thanks to our as-yet-unpopped real estate and credit bubble, the cost of living in Australia - particularly property - is damn near the highest in the world.
If you really want to get depressed, compare car prices between the US and Australia, particularly for anything remotely interesting (VW, BMW, Mercedes).
Or doesn't earn enough to actually be able to save.
Gee, I dunno. Maybe because there's more to a fulfilling life than just paying the bills ? Would *you* be happy with an income that did nothing more than just pay your bills ?
Even in America, with its incredibly low cost of living, $347/wk is very little. No-one with even the vaguest hint of capability will choose to live on an income like that for very long.
False.
Which "rest of the world" are you talking about ? It certainly doesn't happen in Europe or Australia.
Well, Apple went with NeXT. That it happened to be running on Mach is a minor semantic detail.
Darwin != OSX.
Further, were it not for all the added bits that turn it into OS X%
Darwin isn't a microkernel, it's a hybrid.
States have been restricting immigration essentially since the concept has existed. As to when it is and isn't "necessary" is an issue prone to much debate.
Personally I don't see anything "unnecessary" about restricting immigration of those who arrive with no warning, no documentation, no history and no means of support. In fact, that's pretty much a textbook example of exactly the kind of immigrant you *do* want to "restrict".
Immigration control is one of the fundamental reasons societies form governments. It's part of self defence.
Tell the police and see how long they last before being locked up. Do not mistake ignorance for permission. I will also point out that - having experienced a portion of the process myself - *legally* coming into the USA to work is a time-consuming process fraught with difficulty, surprise, and expense.
I think you'll find that "locking up" people who enter the country illegally is a pretty consistent reaction by any functioning state.
Because outside of trivial environments it's not a significant expense, and because VMware is the best.
Proper storage - and particularly backup - of email can very quickly run into a practical limitation of extremely high costs.
If you can't operate your stereo or HVAC without looking at it, you shouldn't be driving.
The "miserable failure" comes from the inability of anyone to put numbers on there other than 0 and 100.
The fundamental principle behind property is "might makes right". You own what you can prevent others taking from you.
The only difference between a lawful and lawless environment is that in the former you outsource the "might" part to designated groups of people (police, judges, etc).
However, this fundamental principle doesn't apply to "intellectual property" because it can't be taken, it can only be duplicated. No matter how much might you wield, you can't make someone forget something.
Because the only way to make something valuable is to make it scarce, and the only way to make something with an infinite supply scarce is to create a legal structure that restricts access to it.
In many countries it's still child porn if you take a photo of your legally-married-and-over-the-age-of-consent-but-under-the-age-of-majority wife.
eSATA is a niche, like firewire. Everyone I know has at least one - sometimes several - USB drives (several of those drives also have eSATA interfaces, but they're never used). One person other than me connects their drive using eSATA.
eSATA will never break out of the niche it is currently in. A proliferation of ports is meaningless without peripherals plugged into them.
eSATA was effectively DOA due to its inability to provide power.
That it's essentially only capable of providing connectivity to block devices was merely another nail.
Not many houses are built as a small, mostly buried concrete cube with no doors or windows, which is basically what the building equivalent of OpenBSD is.
As soon as you make that OpenBSD system usable by adding functionality, the attack vectors start to open up dramatically.
If it takes you two hours to read, it's not "trivial". If it were "trivial" it would take five or ten minutes.