thaifighter

Osprey Daylite for daily use.

For travel, I use carry-on packs that would allow for, say, a 2-week trip to Europe or SE Asia.

1. Osprey Farpoint 40. All-around favorite. It does everything well, although having slightly less volume. I don't mind because it overpacks well and helps keep total weight in check. Give me a 45L pack and I tend to overpack it and push carry-on limits. Great straps, good suspension, good hip belt (but not quite as good as Tortuga and certainly not better than the MEI).

2. Tortuga Pack v2 (v3 out now, but think v2 was much better). Until the Farpoint, this was my clear favorite for me. Very comfortable. Not flashy or good-looking, but really effective. v3 is considerably heavier and looks very nice (maybe too nice). I don't want my pack to look like I bought it from a Prada store. I prefer the rugged utility look of Osprey. Best at having quick-access pockets.

3. PacSafe VentureSafe 45L. If you're going somewhere where there is no safe in your room or you worry about pack slashers, this is the pack. Its basically like carrying an emergency safe that will protect valuables while you're out of your room. Not as supportive as Osprey or Tortuga, though (weaker straps, no suspension, and weak hip belt). Really good pack in every way but a little lacking in comfort and quick-access pockets.

4. Minaal v1. I hate saying anything bad about this company because I love upstart companies like Minaal and Tortuga. The pack is better IMO than the Patagonia Headway for comfort and support, but its not very stiff. You have to pack it carefully. Put a tablet in the back when overpacked, and you'll worry the tablet is bending. I don't use mine anymore. Totally ineffective hip belt BTW.

5. I've tried Patagonia's Headway carry-on and the Tom Bihn Aeronaut. While they are nice packs, they don't distribute weight very well and can become uncomfortable pretty quickly. No suspension. Weak straps and hip belts. I wouldn't want to walk long distances with them. Bought both and returned them.

6. Haven't tried the GoRuck, but I understand they're quite heavy (good materials, well-built). I don't see better storage options than the Osprey. People love them, however. Or at least, they seem to love the company. I place a premium on added weight, so I probably won't ever buy one.

7. I have an MEI Voyageur, and its without a doubt the most cushioned pack I've used, but its so close to exceeding carry-on limits, you risk overpacking it and having it checked. And if you underpack it, the pack tends to sag and support diminishes. I don't use it anymore.

8. Timbuk2 Aviator. This pack is so close to excellence. Unfortunately, way too small for me (35L or something), but its a good stiff pack, good straps, good pockets, and extremely well-built. All makes for a very comfortable pack. If this pack was, say, 42L, it would be a very close competitor to #1 and #2.

I think he's right. Harper Lee was supremely significant and impactful. GRRM is just entertaining. If they wrote exactly the same, it would still read better coming from her.

Analogies aren't mean to be perfect comparisons. That's why they're analogies.

The analogy works well enough, since we're dealing with private property (home, network) concealed by points of entry (doors, windows, nodes). Types of responses and feelings of security, etc are outside the scope of the analogy.

If I leave my front door open, it's still illegal for you to come inside and take things.

Maybe for Ground Control, but that doesn't explain how they penetrated the Astros' LAN.

So yes, FBI.

pocket calculator

Did it factor in the effects on the body of ingesting all the added steroids, antibiotics, and hormones?

I agree completely. That's precisely what I would do.

Crap. I was looking at Coinbase. Has this happened to others?

I like the idea, but I'm not sure this can work. The first thing you should do is try to poke as many holes in this idea as possible, then close them and build the case as to why this would work. One problem I see is that it might hyperfocus demand toward a small number of base consumption items if a larger than anticipated number of recipients do decide to not work. This could inflate the price of these basic items and put the poorest in society back into the same boat of not having quite enough money to sustain themselves (having to pay the higher price for goods that they previously could afford etc). Then, we'd have to revisit raising the basic income level every 3-5 years instead of 8-12 years. Along with ridiculous debt ceiling fights, we'd also have basic income fights.

If it's set up to avoid these fights by being indexed to the rate of inflation, people will lose ground over the long haul, since wages tend to rise faster than inflation (and if we index it to wages, it creates a problem currently being discussed with respect to social security) and those pressures from wages might ultimately drive the price of goods out of reach for those who rely on their basic income.

You might also see irrational behavior on the part of some recipients, where they buy nonessential items (iphones, hdtvs, etc) and choose to go hungry or even homeless. Econ likes to assume rational behavior, but that's only so it can fit into a nice model. Fact is, plenty of people act irrationally, and while it's easy to ignore them in a model, it's hard to when they're sleeping along the street or in your stairwell.

And what would we do with them? Put them in jail? Force them to spend only on essential goods? If we force them to spend on essentials, aren't we just calling it welfare by a different name? The state can't let them just linger, because their loitering has costs of it's own, not limited to growing social unrest (this is partly why privatizing social security is such a horrible idea -- the market might fail and the state will still have to bail out people's private pensions or risk unrest, probably gaining nothing but added uncertainty in the long term).

Our system just might function optimally when its set up to let people choose to fail, as some surely will, and to make it just painful enough to encourage moving one's self out of poverty.

Playing devil's advocate here. A shift like this would seem to have very little margin for error.