The concept of Google having any access to health information is frightening, to say the least. They already have way too much information about way too many things for way too many of us, already.
I have a feeling I am not alone in this feeling about the Google overlords and this might have contributed to the non-popularity of Google Health. And no, I wouldn't want to give health information to Facebook, Twitter, Amazon, or Microsoft either!
I am amazed regarding the postings here of people who have never heard of it. But for those people, Wikipedia is your friend: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_health
I investigated Insteon for many years (pretty much since the stuff came out), but they lacked some of the features I needed, like those wonderful, RF controlled, battery operated, 4 button wall plates. They also had no option for magnetic induction lighting (low voltage transformer compatible).
Every few years, I look at the stuff again, and end up being disappointed again. Has been a few, maybe it is time again.
Update- oooh- the RemoteLinc2 might have just solved at least one major problem. Need to research more...
Sorry, but that is just not correct. I have tried replacing just ONE incandescent flood with a modern, dimmable, Philips-branded, CLF in a track with 4 bulbs. I immediately lost all X10 communication with that fixture. This was just last year. I don't think the technology has changed much with CLF.
It is extremely frustrating. I hate X10, but there are a few places in the house where I absolutely need it and there is nothing else on the market that will work as a substitute.
LED is not quite there yet.. but it is very close. If it will work with X10, I can get the color I want (soft white), and the spread I want (a very even flood), I will try it out. This is the closest I have seen yet:
Looks like a well designed bulb that will fit, be on instantly, have enough brightness (finally), and a decent diffuser. However, it is still too cool (blue). If I am going to try a $40 bulb (when I will need from 8 to 20 of them, depending on how far I want to go) it better be a PERFECT replacement!
Like I said, believe what you like. All three examples included shadow from the large base as a problem in that application. I had additional reasons also, but the ballast size and shadow it cast was an issue in each.
My over-vanity light fixtures in my master bathroom and also my guest bathroom: 1) The bulbs would barely fit 2) The back is mirrored, so 50% of the light that would be reflected would lost due to the shadow, looking horrible. 3) The crystal covers would clearly show the ugly white bulbs 4) They are on a dimmer
The lights over my bar: 1) The are on an X10 system 2) They are on a dimmer 3) They have frosted covers with bulbs that point down. The shadow would cause half of the fixture to be dark and horrible looking.
The light at my front door (granted, I usually just leave it off): 1) Bulb faces up and fixture is high. It would cast a shadow completely blocking light from the entire front door.
>"Light dispersal is only a concern with LED, not CFL or other types."
Actually, that is not true. LED has issues, but the large ballast in CFL will cast a huge shadow near the base, making it unsuitable in many applications.
There are many reasons why one might need or still require incandescent bulbs in certain applications. Trying to outlaw them is just plain stupid. At the most, slap a tax on them to make them cost more than the alternatives. I am *STILL* waiting for the "perfect" incandescent replacement- one doesn't exist. That said, I have replaced MOST of my incandescents.
* Dimming characteristics * Flicker * Color type or quality * X10 compatibility * Light dispersal * Start up time * EFI * Fixture compatibility * Fixture size
That is not the message I got from their protests. It was more of just complaining with no rally to any particular goal of action. To many, it just looked like a generic cry of support for extreme "left" Socialism.
The demonstrations and posting online are not helping people become aware of a solution or cause of action. It is just complaining.
And 2) *can* change something, just not easily, and not if you vote for people solidly in the two party system. You either have to look for a change candidate that barely fits in party box (like Ron Paul) or support another party. It is a long shot- because, probably, for another party to work, there has to be reform, like elimination of the electoral college and changing to a runoff type voting system. I doubt the two parties in power will allow such changes.
Holding hippie demonstrations and posting online isn't going to change anything.
As Americans, you have TWO powers to make change:
1) Your wallet- you can decide how to spend the 25% of your money that doesn't go to one of the hundreds of taxes.
2) Your vote- you can decide which candidate to vote for, help make others aware, and pick/find/support a different kind of candidate.
Focus on those two things. My guess is that #1 is not of much use. And #2 won't matter either, if you vote for a Republicrat or Demopublican. Both are solidly against real change, as has been proven over and over.
He is exactly right. I stopped going to the movies because
1) Prices are too high. 2) Sound quality is poor: often too loud, not spaced correctly, distorted, poor surround effect, etc. 3) People are just so annoying with their damn phones. If it isn't ringing or chirping, it is just very distracting with the super-bright screens every few minutes. Can't you turn the damn thing off and watch the damn movie??? 4) Kids screaming/crying/being annoying, seemingly no matter what time you choose to go. 5) Poor selection of quality films.
I can eliminate 1-4 by simply watching at home, with my huge HDTV and properly tuned surround sound system. Number 5 is another whole topic.
No I am not. I KNOW people who did just that. They spent way beyond their means, then filed for personal bankruptcy, and then started it all over again.
>"the millions of people who will never dig themselves out of debt."
Sure they will, they just declare bankruptcy and force all the responsible people to pay for it with higher prices. Then, 6 months later, they get sent new credit cards again.
Their test REQUIRED the driver to perform things while on the phone that most people would not do. I am not going to perform math, or try to recall lists of things, etc, while driving a car through an obstacle course!
Of course I would fail, just like 99% of people would! You are missing my point entirely. If there were few or no cars on the road and I was on a straight highway, yes, I could do it. But if traffic conditions call for it, I would start to ignore the conversation for that moment, tell the caller to stand by, or call them back. That is what most *normal* people would do.
And you know what? If there was a passenger in the car and I was required to perform the exact same test- uninterrupted memory recall, complex thought, etc, I WOULD FAIL THAT TOO, the EXACT same way.
It is not a REALISTIC test. And people, like you, are drawing unreasonable conclusions from it.
My logic is that A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W and Z are all dangerous too. The incremental improvement is not nearly enough to justify stripping the majority of responsible people of yet more liberty.
"Those who choose safety over freedom deserve neither.â - Ben Franklin, 1759
Slashdot Mirror
It is "HIPAA", not "HIPPA", and yes it most certainly DOES apply to information you give to a company :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_health_information
The concept of Google having any access to health information is frightening, to say the least. They already have way too much information about way too many things for way too many of us, already.
I have a feeling I am not alone in this feeling about the Google overlords and this might have contributed to the non-popularity of Google Health. And no, I wouldn't want to give health information to Facebook, Twitter, Amazon, or Microsoft either!
I am amazed regarding the postings here of people who have never heard of it. But for those people, Wikipedia is your friend:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_health
Right, I am a total idiot with no eyes. Whatever makes you feel more important....
I investigated Insteon for many years (pretty much since the stuff came out), but they lacked some of the features I needed, like those wonderful, RF controlled, battery operated, 4 button wall plates. They also had no option for magnetic induction lighting (low voltage transformer compatible).
Every few years, I look at the stuff again, and end up being disappointed again. Has been a few, maybe it is time again.
Update- oooh- the RemoteLinc2 might have just solved at least one major problem. Need to research more...
Sorry, but that is just not correct. I have tried replacing just ONE incandescent flood with a modern, dimmable, Philips-branded, CLF in a track with 4 bulbs. I immediately lost all X10 communication with that fixture. This was just last year. I don't think the technology has changed much with CLF.
It is extremely frustrating. I hate X10, but there are a few places in the house where I absolutely need it and there is nothing else on the market that will work as a substitute.
LED is not quite there yet.. but it is very close. If it will work with X10, I can get the color I want (soft white), and the spread I want (a very even flood), I will try it out. This is the closest I have seen yet:
http://www.homedepot.com/Electrical-Light-Bulbs-LED-Light-Bulbs/Philips/h_d1/N-5yc1vZbm79Z15bZ1z0z043/R-202673214/h_d2/ProductDisplay?langId=-1&storeId=10051&catalogId=10053 (Philips AmbientLED 13-Watt (65W) LED BR30 Light Bulb Model # 414904)
Looks like a well designed bulb that will fit, be on instantly, have enough brightness (finally), and a decent diffuser. However, it is still too cool (blue). If I am going to try a $40 bulb (when I will need from 8 to 20 of them, depending on how far I want to go) it better be a PERFECT replacement!
Like I said, believe what you like. All three examples included shadow from the large base as a problem in that application. I had additional reasons also, but the ballast size and shadow it cast was an issue in each.
Your interpretation of my posting has problems, but you can believe what you want to believe :)
I have tried CLF in the fixtures and they are unacceptable, so it is not speculation or academics.
If you insist on examples....
My over-vanity light fixtures in my master bathroom and also my guest bathroom:
1) The bulbs would barely fit
2) The back is mirrored, so 50% of the light that would be reflected would lost due to the shadow, looking horrible.
3) The crystal covers would clearly show the ugly white bulbs
4) They are on a dimmer
The lights over my bar:
1) The are on an X10 system
2) They are on a dimmer
3) They have frosted covers with bulbs that point down. The shadow would cause half of the fixture to be dark and horrible looking.
The light at my front door (granted, I usually just leave it off):
1) Bulb faces up and fixture is high. It would cast a shadow completely blocking light from the entire front door.
>"Light dispersal is only a concern with LED, not CFL or other types."
Actually, that is not true. LED has issues, but the large ballast in CFL will cast a huge shadow near the base, making it unsuitable in many applications.
There are many reasons why one might need or still require incandescent bulbs in certain applications. Trying to outlaw them is just plain stupid. At the most, slap a tax on them to make them cost more than the alternatives. I am *STILL* waiting for the "perfect" incandescent replacement- one doesn't exist. That said, I have replaced MOST of my incandescents.
* Dimming characteristics
* Flicker
* Color type or quality
* X10 compatibility
* Light dispersal
* Start up time
* EFI
* Fixture compatibility
* Fixture size
>"The 'government dashboard' will include health waiting list figures'"
First on the list of dashboard info! Primary concern I suppose, for the model of socialized medicine....
Oh... but that is OK because it is "free"!
Hmm, ipads for are Apes. They are used to being walled. I guess Apes are not good enough to get Android tablets :)
(Sorry, just couldn't resist. Comedy? OK, I will keep my day job in tech).
That is not the message I got from their protests. It was more of just complaining with no rally to any particular goal of action. To many, it just looked like a generic cry of support for extreme "left" Socialism.
The demonstrations and posting online are not helping people become aware of a solution or cause of action. It is just complaining.
And 2) *can* change something, just not easily, and not if you vote for people solidly in the two party system. You either have to look for a change candidate that barely fits in party box (like Ron Paul) or support another party. It is a long shot- because, probably, for another party to work, there has to be reform, like elimination of the electoral college and changing to a runoff type voting system. I doubt the two parties in power will allow such changes.
Holding hippie demonstrations and posting online isn't going to change anything.
As Americans, you have TWO powers to make change:
1) Your wallet- you can decide how to spend the 25% of your money that doesn't go to one of the hundreds of taxes.
2) Your vote- you can decide which candidate to vote for, help make others aware, and pick/find/support a different kind of candidate.
Focus on those two things. My guess is that #1 is not of much use. And #2 won't matter either, if you vote for a Republicrat or Demopublican. Both are solidly against real change, as has been proven over and over.
He is exactly right. I stopped going to the movies because
1) Prices are too high.
2) Sound quality is poor: often too loud, not spaced correctly, distorted, poor surround effect, etc.
3) People are just so annoying with their damn phones. If it isn't ringing or chirping, it is just very distracting with the super-bright screens every few minutes. Can't you turn the damn thing off and watch the damn movie???
4) Kids screaming/crying/being annoying, seemingly no matter what time you choose to go.
5) Poor selection of quality films.
I can eliminate 1-4 by simply watching at home, with my huge HDTV and properly tuned surround sound system. Number 5 is another whole topic.
Wasn't aware of that. I am glad it FINALLY had some reform thrown at it!
No I am not. I KNOW people who did just that. They spent way beyond their means, then filed for personal bankruptcy, and then started it all over again.
>"the millions of people who will never dig themselves out of debt."
Sure they will, they just declare bankruptcy and force all the responsible people to pay for it with higher prices. Then, 6 months later, they get sent new credit cards again.
It is disgusting and totally unfair.
>"China has passed the US as the number one filer of patents this year"
Yes, but are they REAL patents or stupid, unfair, poor-quality software "concept" patents that have totally clogged the US system?
OMG, I want to rip my eyes out and my ears off! I really could have gone the rest of my life without having been exposed to THAT!
First they admit that they don't know how to make a compelling Android device (yet want to blame it on Android).
Now they are dropping netbooks.
Makes you wonder what they will give up on next!
Their test REQUIRED the driver to perform things while on the phone that most people would not do. I am not going to perform math, or try to recall lists of things, etc, while driving a car through an obstacle course!
Of course I would fail, just like 99% of people would! You are missing my point entirely. If there were few or no cars on the road and I was on a straight highway, yes, I could do it. But if traffic conditions call for it, I would start to ignore the conversation for that moment, tell the caller to stand by, or call them back. That is what most *normal* people would do.
And you know what? If there was a passenger in the car and I was required to perform the exact same test- uninterrupted memory recall, complex thought, etc, I WOULD FAIL THAT TOO, the EXACT same way.
It is not a REALISTIC test. And people, like you, are drawing unreasonable conclusions from it.
My logic is that A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W and Z are all dangerous too. The incremental improvement is not nearly enough to justify stripping the majority of responsible people of yet more liberty.
"Those who choose safety over freedom deserve neither.â - Ben Franklin, 1759
Now repeat all those studies with conversations with passengers vs. driving with silence and I will lend credibility to a ban.