I live in Oregon. And I plan to sign up for Obamacare. I am self employed and make enough money to not qualify for any subsidies. I have a fiber internet connection.

I am having some difficulty trying to understand the point you are trying to make.

> Well, the Obamacare compliant plans cost literally over four times as much per month to get comparable insurance.

Please provide information about the policy you had. Policy name and the provider. This would allow us to verify the claim you are making. If you cannot, then we'll assume you were making it up.

When you link to Washington Times (crackpots), you undermine anything you have to say.

> My three cars, together, barely cost me $30k

The EVs cost more. No doubt. But lets not get carried away by comparing the prices on the cars you bought used. For a direct comparison, lets stick with MSRP.

Reminds of the time when Yahoo turned down $47.5B from Microsoft in 2008. They have regretted it since.

> I haven't heard that anywhere though.

You might want to reconsider where you get your information from.

> Sure, they can't "deny" you coverage but that doesn't mean they can't charge you extra if you smoke or have a family history of cancer or something.

They can charge you more, if you smoke. Smoking is a choice. However under Obamacare they cannot charge you more if you have family history of cancer or actually have cancer yourself.

> And remember, if you need telephone assistance with Healthcare.gov, call the help line at 1-800-F1UCKYO. That's really the number - they're not even hiding how much they care.

Sounds like someone desperately trying to find something negative about the phone number. And not govt. intentionally trying to offer an offensive phone number to people for healthcare assistance.

ACA has issues of its own. You do not need to make up stuff to make it look bad.

> You should do what Google wants. What's the big deal? What's wrong with you?

In exchange for creating a G+ profile, Google offers many services. Some of us think that is a fair transaction. We don't put anything in the G+ profile we don't want shared with the rest of the world. Many of us are willing to live with this compromise.

Nobody can guarantee your privacy online. Not Facebook, not Apple, not Microsoft and not Google. If you don't want something shared with the world. Do not put it up there. Once you start treating all of these as equally insecure places, then you'll start to wonder why people are bitching about one in particular.

> Has the privacy disaster that is Facebook not once entered your brain after all these years?

For the eleventh time, nobody is forcing you to add any information you do not want to share. If you have G+ account with no information in it, that is pretty close to not having an account. Do not add any information to it that you do not want to be public. Is that really hard?

What is in it for you? You get to use a Google service for free. That's what. Obviously nobody is forcing you. So there is little room to complain.

So you don't want to give your information to the man. Then don't! Nobody puts a gun to your head to do that. Just create an account in any name you want, could be John Doe, could be your real name. What precisely is the issue with this?

Are you afraid that you'll "accidentally" add friends to your Google+ account and then add more information about yourself to your account when nobody is forcing you to?

I keep seeing the seeing these paranoid critters screaming bloody murder about being forced to use Google+. What exactly is the issue with creating a Google+ account and not adding any information you do not want to share? Please enlighten me!

> The British nuclear weapons have been bought from America, and contain secret self destruct codes that Uncle Sam can turn on anytime it wants to blow the UK up.

So true. I had the exact same dream. And people claim that we are making this stuff up!

1. You assume that everybody has an LVDS panel lying around that they can use with the HDMI-LVDS converter you linked to.
2. The HDMI-LVDS converter you linked to costs $53. $35 + $18 shipping. I am not sure why 50 gram package costs $18 to ship. Shady. USPS can ship a small flat rate box anywhere in the country for about $5. And that is for 2-day delivery.

For some of us a package that includes panel, case and a converter is a better way to go than an overpriced converter alone.

I shoot videos with my DSLR. And I have often wanted a portable HDMI monitor for my rig. When I looked, I was quite surprised to find out that no reasonable options exist. Most portable HDMI monitors utterly suck. They are bulky and max out the resolution at 800x480 or 1024x768. The ones that do not suck are uber expensive. Since this is just a hobby for me, I did not want to shell out the big bucks.

I have been quite surprised that I can buy a $200 Nexus 7 tablet with 1080P display, but cannot get a 1080p or even a 720p portable monitor for anything even close to that.

Don't be a doofus. Is the 19" one portable? No! And that is important to some of us. We already have large/cheap displays. We want portable/cheap displays!

The 7" one you listed is utter joke. First of all it is not under $100. You forgot to look at the sneaky $70 shipping charge. After you add that, you are looking at $150. Oh and you also forgot to look at the resolution. 1024x768. It seems that you haven't been paying attention. But, by now, that isn't surprising.