I have actually used it, although only on my corporate computer that has the required Microsoft office suite anyway. It really is pretty handy, my use is limited because of the way it stores data (all one big data blob). Evernote stores everything the same way, though, so that's not different. Now that OneNote is free for lots of platforms I'll probably start using it a lot more.

I tried Evernote a while back when looking for a note-taking app for my tablet, and didn't like it. I don't know if things have changed, but at the time the features I really wanted the note app for were only available for Evernote's Premium version. $5 every month, forever, was just too much commitment to ask of me (didn't they once require premium for the PC version?)

OneNote, IMHO, does a better job organizing things. You can have multiple notebooks, each with multiple sections, and each section can have multiple pages. Navigating through these is simple and intuitive. Storage options for each notebook can be configured separately, which is handy for sharing a notebook - you just store it on a network file share (I guess you could do it with a shared cloud storage, too, but I haven't tried).

If I want to use cloud storage, I can use a Microsoft account, which has 7 GB of storage for free.

If you're already using Evernote and like it, I can't think of any reason to switch.

It's also required for every other comparable note app, too. Evernote pricing may have changed, but when I first tried it most of the features I wanted required the "premium" edition - which requires $5 every month as long as you want access to your data. That's for 1GB of storage. That microsoft account will give you 7GB for free.

I came here to say this. A "data journalism" website sounds like nothing more than a new way to spin stories to some ideological bent while using "statistics" to seem more credible.

Exactly - this is the hidden progressive agenda in the entire "income equality" meme, to get rid of the middle class. Think of every effort supported in the past 40 years that was an attempt to get the very wealthy to pay more of their "fair share". In the end, what gets implemented always makes the middle class worse off, and doesn't really affect the very wealthy at all. The latest was the attempt to "go after" all those fat cats supposedly hiding their money in tax havens overseas. Google is still using the Bahamas to retain their fortunes, and so are many others. But the laws they passed have certainly screwed over the middle class workers. Again.

People need to stop buying into this rhetoric that politicians are going to help the middle class. The middle class is the biggest threat to their power.

I don't think that means what you think it does. Somehow the very rich have managed to convince people that libertarian ideas are what the rich want, but you only ever see the very wealthy like Gates, Greenspan, Buffet and others supporting progressive agendas.

People make this claim all the time, but true communism is really very nice, but breaks down when the communist society grows to more than about 100-150 members. Capitalism scales up much better, but of course people look at the fascistic, heavily interventionist system used in the US today and think it's an example of "failed capitalism". Of course it's not capitalism at all, but in fact has the same issues that Communist Russia did - people at the top controlling everything, and distribution of resources is based on friendships and political alliances instead of the economic system that is supposed to be doing the allocation.

No, it's not, not at all. It is actually very true. Happiness is derived from having meaningful activity to do, not from sitting around watching TV. Leisure time can only be appreciated as a reward for productive activity.

That said, the difference may be that the activities you enjoy may not necessarily need to be something that other people value, which is required in commerce. People can be artists, or tinkerers, gardeners or hackers. If they don't need to earn a living doing it, it won't matter that they are no good at it for many years, they won't be out on the street because they couldn't sell their paintings or their band couldn't get a record deal. If you're not desperate to bring home a paycheck, there is a lot of pleasurable work to do, but working toward some meaningful accomplishment really is required for dignity and/or happiness.

There are plenty of Americans that do - not surprised you haven't met them since you live on a different continent. You're only meeting Americans that can afford to travel. In fact, I have done the same myself, except it was one full-time job, 1 part-time job, and a full-time load at a university.

Americans have always been hard workers. The problem is that it is no longer getting them much benefit.

Insightful. For some, maybe informative too.

Oh, I agree with that (never been to Chinatown in SF, but Chinatown in DC is fun). But it's difficult to describe the difference between integrated cultures, like Chinatown, and isolated cultures, like we're starting to see. There are places here where I would probably enjoy shopping, but they make you feel unwelcome and there's no common language (I speak English, German, and some broken French but the clerks either don't understand any of them or pretend like they don't).

When I visit a foreign country, I at least make some attempt to follow the customs. If you're here in my country, you should at least make an effort to tolerate ours.

You'll still get denied coverage if the treatment hasn't been through years of trials and millions of dollars to obtain the "blessing" of the funded-by-pharmaceutical-companies-FDA. That's pretty much always been the case, but now under the ADA it will have to go through a cost-benefit analysis by a board of bureaucrats that may decide it's too expensive, like the NIH does now.

Plus, the ACA by-passes the HIPAA rules that protect your medical records in a number of ways, including supplying access to at least 16 federal bureaucracies by default, ostensibly to ensure you are "complying" with their mandates.

Not a problem for the drug companies, that's exactly what they want. It's certainly not a problem with HPV screening, which has a 15% false-positive rate. But that's great for doctors, because then they can do the more invasive procedure "just to make sure".

I don't see it that way at all. What he's complaining about is not immigrants coming to the US, it's the new phenomenon where they come here and isolate themselves instead of becoming part of the great Melting Pot. Immigrants are a wonderful boon to the US in general, but when they isolate themselves and refuse to assimilate with the US culture, they end up nothing more than a slice of their origin country on a carved-out section of US soil. And that creates conflicts. There have even been stories of "honor killings" by father's whose children simply tried to live like mainstream Americans.

This, yes, this. Better education, yes, but Schmidt is just envious of Gates' success in turning a corporate drone curriculum into a national standard via Common Core. And deregulation, yes, but for energy and telecommunication? Those are the last industries that need deregulation, being natural monopolies. Deregulation of power companies (a natural monopoly) has been tried and was a massive failure. Frankly, I'm all in favor of looser immigration laws, but I suspect what Schmidt wants is more H1-B's, not more people that can compete for wages (and start their own companies) on a level playing field.

Oh, come, come, that cannot be true. I think what you mean is "he lies when the truth will do."