You do know it's possible to have security breaches without being connected to the Internet, right?

That's nonsense. If you're interested, read his biography - lots that's quintessentially Apple came from Jobs, good and bad.

Yeah... you undo two screws and snap the new battery in. Big deal.

I got a battery pack from eBay for £30 which can charge my iPhone at least 3 times from empty, and charges overnight in about 7-8 hours. Works great, and I don't have to do a reboot to swap the battery out. I also don't have the issue of having to swap batteries around to charge them on the phone, which is a major inconvenience of proprietary phone batteries that usually don't come with a battery-only charger.

Jobs is well known to have loved Braun products, it's not a secret.

At risk of stating the obvious... an online bot crawls well-known webmail interfaces trying obvious names and passwords. When it gets a hit, it pulls a few names from the address book, and sends an email to that account appearing to come _from_ that email address. That mail contains a link to download malware that then infects the PC. All of this effort is to bypass the now well-known advice not to click a link in a message when you know the sender.

No, familiarity means prior knowledge or understanding. Intuitive means your instincts (intuition) are usually right. For example, back in the day (10 years ago), I would regularly recommend people try out non-Nokia cellphones. The usual response was "the menus are unintuitive". What they meant was, they had invested so much time in learning to use their Nokia that they couldn't cope with trying anything else. It used to be said often that putting "shut down" on the "start" menu in Windows is ridiculous (which it is) and unintuitive (which it clearly is), but because it's familiar this has become the standard. OSX would definitely be unfamiliar to a Windows user, but there is little that is clearly unintuitive.

By what you're describing, he's on a pretty outdated version of the OS, and has it configured stupidly. And, by the way, unintuitive is not the same as unfamiliar.

Sad story. But THIS story is about ultrasound (echocardiogram) so my point stands.

Bollocks to you too. If it hadn't been noticed at the time, then it's highly unlikely to be on the recorded image. The recorded image only shows where the sonographer pointed the probe and therefore what they noticed. You've very unlikely to see something new 8 years later that has any clinical relevance. Ultrasound is a dynamic imaging modality that is very much operator dependent.

It's not bullshit, it's because he wants an irrelevant scan from old records on an old system that no longer exists. The "charge" isn't a charge, it's a statement of what the hospital would have to pay in order to convert the old data.

You can, it's called "Choose and Book"

If the equipment was 20 years old in 2004, and they got rid of it in 2005 (I don't know if that's the case, just guessing) then it's entirely reasonable to claim it's obsolete, as it is - in fact - obsolete. I got rid of my Palmpilot in 2004 - would it be wrong to say that the records I had on there are obsolete?

Yes... and reviewing 8 year old ultrasound results won't help with those.

The 'customer' being someone who has received free healthcare, and is now demanding clinically irrelevant data that would cost a huge amount of money to provide.