Yeah, I know what your saying. I was raised within a national health care system (Canada), but am currently living in the US for several years while I've been attending school. It has been a very difficult concept to get my head around how they work their healthcare down in the US. It is also interesting how many of my classmates do not have insurance since they have hit that magic age and are not longer covered under their parents policy.

But as difficult a time I have trying to wrap my head around the US system, they have just a difficult time wrapping their head around that socialistic/communistic (because they are the same thing right? [rolling eyes/sarcasm]) national health care system. That's not to say that a NHS system isn't without its problems - every system will. Prevention is in the best interests of a NHS system (ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure), but in a private system, not as much - any investment by an insurance company into prevention will not likely help their bottom line since that person will likely not be with that same company 10 or 20 years down the road when they will see the benefits of that investment. Yet, if every private insurance did that, it wouldn't be long before they saw the benefit - but that's unlike to happen. The immediate bottom line is more important and why would they want to invest in their competitions future.

It just a very different mindset. Given that I've been exposed to the two, I would take the Canadian National Health Care system anytime. Sure I may pay a bit more in taxes for it, but I feel I do get a valuable return on those taxes spent. No worries if I happen to lose my employment and can't afford private insurance. No worries about needing to be hospitalized and requiring treatment going bankrupt over medical bills in the process. That lack of stress and worry is preventative in itself.

Or disclosed without his knowing about it? Suppose the press suddenly posted his medical condition without his knowledge? I wonder if he feel any different?

Perhaps I should have said, "I bet Larry would love to profit from that information through advertising for a drug company."

When your able to build your own hospital and staff it from the pocket change you have on your bedside table, I suppose there would be no reason to fear not being insured. And if you have that, you have no fear of being unemployed, or the stigma that may or may not goes along with any particular disease or illness. It wouldn't seem like a big deal when you can literally *buy* your way out of anything.

It's also a conflict of interest when Mr. Page is going to be making a profit from acquisition of that information. Got erectile dysfunction? I bet Larry would love to sell that information to a drug company. I don't want any more Viagra spam that I already get. Don't like a particular political candidate? I'm sure he would love to sell you some information on how that candidate had/has a STD or some other mental illness. The ways that information could be abused and Larry makes his buck off of it. No wonder he wants the masses to be less worried about our health privacy.

Mr. Larry, you made the *CHOICE* disclose your medical situation. I want that same choice - and I ain't giving it to you or Google to decide what does or doesn't get disclosed.

In my (old phart) opinion, change for the sake of change is what sucks.

Not the only old phart that has the same opinion. I'd go even further and say, "Implementing technology for the sake of technology is what sucks." All too often I've seen technology implemented for no good business reason, but because the technology was sparkley

Like you, I'm also fighting with the ribbon - the most unintuitive interface that I have seen. I won't even spout on the waste of screen real estate. It was nice having things always in the same location, regardless where you happen to be focused - if it wasn't relevant it would be greyed out. Even after fighting with the ribbon since 2007, I just can't seem to find a good reason for the change other change for the sake of technology. But I'm pretty sure I'll have some ribbon fanboy tout it's ease of use, blah, blah, blah.

Cheers fellow oLd pHarT!

I've found that very little is actually new. There have been tablet computers for some time. There have been wearable computers. There has been "social media" since the days of Fidonet. We had "SMS" fifteen years ago with bidirectional alphanumeric pagers and TAP.

YooHoo/2u2 from 1:340/17 - long since down, but Greetings!

I hear you and agree with you on all accounts. Unfortunately cubicals were designed to facilitate a collaborative work environment and used for that purpose, they are excellent (as you describe). The problem is, corporate views cubicals as a way to maximize the number of staff per available floor space. Unfortunately I don't have the citation, the original developer of the concept of the open-office was absolutely horrified how the original concept has been abused by management.

There is something to be said for working in a smaller company. Less bureaucracy, politics, and separation/silos between management and workers.

I completely agree with you that there is no one single best answer - it is all going to depend on what your operational definition of best answer is. Unfortunately, corporate tend to think that everything can be fit into a single school of thought or process and they forget that there are differences in their staff.

I personally highly value the face to face interaction, but I also appreciate the ability to close the office door and put out the do no disturb sign also. At home, family is going to come before work and that is not the best for the company either. When I mention divide, it's also the divide from the home distractions also. It works both ways.

I personally prefer having that "divide" between work and home. I dislike the idea of working at home - that's not what it is for. Yeah, can I? Sure, but I absolutely hate it. The travel time to/from the office I also appreciate. It gives me that time to decompress from work - I turn up the radio, sing like a madman that doesn't care that they are out of tune, and by the time I get home, any of the days of "work stress" is gone. I can enjoy the time with my wife, children, grandchild unimpeded.

When working remotely at home, the stresses of work become integrated as part of your home. The wife, the kids, extended family and friends pick up on that. You have a @#$%@ day at the remote home office and that @#$%@ day sits at dinner with you and your family - your mind and thoughts are at work, not with your family. There is something to be said to have that clear delineation between work and home.

Now if your traveling all over the place, as a part of your employment, the remote office makes sense. But I don't want my boss's or corporate lack of planning to constitute and emergency in my own home with the stress felt within my whole family system.

To me, it looks like a corporate grab to save money on the facilities. If already maximizing the number of people in a building by reducing the size of a cubical isn't doing enough for the bottom line, let's kick our workers out our space, and we can invade theirs. This works for corporate and sounds great to them. For me? Not so much. Am I getting compensated for the space that corporate is taking up in my home, my bandwidth, power, utilities, and the intrusion into my family's space? I'm sorry, saving 2 hours of travel time isn't enough to compensate for that. Many view travel time as time wasted - for me it is my stress decompression time, self-care, or me time.

I completely disagree with the win/win which is in short, a collaborative process (Our way). For some, yeah, it may be win/win. For me, it is coercion (Their way) - a win/lose; corporate wins, I lose.

How accommodation with the flexibility to work with both styles?

Granted, the above post is referring to SDHC, not SDXC which does tend to be more expensive, but that is typically due to the memory size. SDHC is limited to 32gb, while SDXC is good up to 2TB. A 64gb SDXC Class 10 run between $55 to $200 - ultimately I'm not sure why I would purchase the $200. There doesn't appear to be any sort of benefits to the specs.

Ultimately what your using it for is going to determine your needs. For the SDHC cards, the price is negligible for a class 10 card. For the higher capacities of the SDXC cards, the differences between Class 4 and class 10 are again negligible. The price tends to split when you are talking a UHS Class 1... That's where you get into the price divide, but again, it wouldn't be something that is going to break the bank.

Class 10 cards can be noticeably more expensive.

I''m afraid I would have to disagree. The difference between a class 6 and class 10 32gb is barely noticeable. Check out Tigerdirect... Sometimes even the class 6 or class 4 cards are even more expensive. If this was a few years ago, I would have agreed with you completely. But this is now, not then.

There is no public interest knowing if a woman has had an abortion. If my neighbor carries loaded guns around I want to know about it.

Yet, another example of how information can be misused & misinterpreted - you have equated that a gun owner carries a loaded gun around just because they happen to be on that list; That statement may or many not be true. All that list shows, as some-point in time, a firearm was potentially known to be at that location - it doesn't mean that it is still there, it doesn't mean that your neighbor is packing every time you see them cutting their lawn, and it doesn't mean that you are going to get shot by your neighbor b/c they are on that list.

This is yet an example of how data can be misused and I will even go as far as saying abused. You have equated that this list means that your neighbor carries a load gun(s) around. Wouldn't it be far more reliable and valid to talk to your neighbor if they have a firearm or not? And quite honestly, what are you going to do if they do happen to own a firearm? Stop living your life b/c your neighbor is possibly packing heat when they are mowing the lawn? Why do you want to know, what are you going to do with that information, and how does that information make you any more or less safer?

Take a moment to consider the opposite - by you not being on that list, doesn't that potentially open yourself up as a target for a crime or robbery? Criminals are likely going to say, "Lets target the house with no guns" (or perhaps a lower chance of a gun being present).

I'll byte... 3d0g was the DOS reentry point. You'd typically type this when you wanted to exit the monitor (which you would enter by CALL -151)...

So, how about this one.
CALL -151
FA62:4C 59 FF
3D0G

or

CALL -151
B942:18 60 BAAA:00 3D0G

That bring back any memories?

Although speculative, the best prediction of future behavior is the examination of past behavior. I wonder if this was a single incident, or what other past behavior (known or unknown) contributed to it. Either way, I'd be concerned with these kids future behavior.

Unfortunately kids at that age, tend to not make the connection between their choices and the consequences. Antidotally, I remember a kid at 16 y/o that was unable (or perhaps unwilling) to connect that his poor driving record (3 accident in less than 3 months of getting his DL) could even be remotely connected to his extremely heavy "recreational drug and alcohol" use. I wonder if these girls are able to make any connection to their consequences.

As for getting around restrictions? There are other ways than drugging your parents... it seems pretty extreme. What happened to hiding under the covers and accessing your comics/radio/MP3 Player/internet or even from behind closed doors (aka your room, or an area where your parents aren't?). Had it been my parents, and I pulled something like this - police and arrest would have been a certainty - no questions asked whatsoever. But then again, I come from a different generation, before the coddling and instant gratification society became the norm - and also before the pill-popping/pushing became in-vogue. I feel society has a larger influence than what is often considered.

As annoying as social media may be, it does provide sources of information... And people that use social media, appear so willing to disclose anything and everything regarding their personal life. So, why wouldn't DHS or health departments not want to use this type and source of information?