There's no need to re-invent anything.

We just need to prevent bored children from ripping apart what's already working perfectly well. They can even be free to create something that's a more primitive sort of throwback.

Sabotaging what already works really isn't necessary.

Some features are all about usability.

This is how Macs in 2014 trying to mock features of X window managers manage to screw things up relative to a 20 year old copy of twm.

They confuse eye candy (or even crippling) with usability.

My local PD publishes incident numbers and a vague description of what the incident was about. There is no identifiable information disclosed. If you want identifiable information, you have to go through the whole rigamarole of a "freedom of information" request.

They don't just "let it all hang out" or anything remotely close to that.

Age has nothing to do with being unable to deal with technology. Some people are just idiots or choose to be helpless. This cuts across all age groups. So you can have some ancient person pushing 100 that's better able to adapt to new tech than one of her children or even one of her grandchildren.

A lot of the people that can handle new things could always handle new things and will be able to handle new things when they're past 90.

Regulating in this case is stupid. There is no natural physical monopoly in search to make it comparable to a railroad. There isn't any vendor lock problem to make it comparable to Windows or IE.

Search is a commodity like orange juice concentrate. Anyone can do it and the cost to switch from one provider to another is ZERO.

The question of "why can't the OS monopoly get ahead in search" is an interesting one but not one that by default justifies the kind of breakup that should have happened to Microsoft but no one had the balls for.

"Crimes" usually have "elements" that you have to prove.

70G is less space than I have on my phone.

A 70G tape seems silly in an age of cheap 64G thumb drives.

> For $150 you can get a SSD with plenty of space for the vast majority of desktop roles,

Bullshit.

A $150 SSD will only be good enough for a machine you are using like a terminal. Anything beyond that and you will need more space.

I want more storage in my PHONE than that.

Exactly. RAID prevents a drive failure from being an immediate data loss.

Plus, RAID allows me to keep all of my bulk storage online while I am replacing a drive. That portion of my data hoard is not completely unavailable to me while I am copying data to the replacement drive.

Of course you want at least 2 copies of your data.

This is where the relative cheapness of HDD wins the day. You don't just need 1x of what you think you need but at least 2x.

Yes. Take that large number associated with SSD tech and DOUBLE it.

It's not disingenuous at all. It merely demonstrates the primary problem here, namely the price gap. Larger SSD drives are low capacity and expensive. They are priced outside the range of most consumers while also being inferior in terms of bulk storage. A larger SSD is less able to justify it's price premium than a larger HDD.

Even if SSD prices get less ridiculous, chances are that HDD prices/capacity will keep pace and continue to keep HDDs relevant.

So you would pay $1200 for a hard drive "without hesitation"?

REALLY?

I find it hard to buy a mere 1G SSD and it's not quite as expensive as the thing you seem eager to treat as chump change.

Most of the kinds of people that immigrate to the US illegally have a total 3rd world worldview and aren't scofflaws in the conventional sense. The idea that they have to comply with the rules of some central government while going out their daily lives is an alien concept to them. They see things completely differently. They don't even understand things like borders, or national citizenship, or something as basic as a marriage license.

A lot of people will take advantage of them because of this too (not just employers).

100K is only a high degree above the poverty line if you avoid popular high density urban areas.

Furthermore, ANY professional position SHOULD be "far above the poverty line" as such jobs require a high degree of costly preparation. They require more than a pulse. Their price should reflect that.

The price of labor should reflect the financial overhead of being eligible for the job in question.

This sort of "You should expect whatever crumbs your betters offer you" kind of attitude is sick and depraved and economically unsustainable.

I think a question like this should be more about the applicants ability to "do something" as opposed to just being overwhelmed by the situation. The answer need not be perfect, it just needs to work.

It's really just a low bar to see how helpless a person is.

Can you take care of business?

Alternatively, we could just stop actively encouraging the exporting of jobs.

What we have going on right now is the opposite of "protectionism". We could solve a lot of the problem by simply not doing anything. Doing nothing is not a form of "Protectionism".

You have lesser trained individuals using more interesting medical equipment.

What could possibly go wrong?