That is about 100 meals per person per year which works out to about 10-15% of all meals consumed.
If 10% of the food you consume is causing you to retain 50% more body fat, it would be a HUGE effect easily noticed by scientists.
And your averaging out of the numbers makes no sense. Some people will be HUGE consumers of fast food, and buying high-priced menu items, while others will NEVER eat there.
If fast food was the source of the problem, it would be EASY to demonstrate. Instead, fast food has the same effect as all other food, and those staying away from it are NOT immune from the current obesity epidemic.
Some people eat out for EVERY meal, some eat out for NONE. The majority eat out very little. "Average" is useless.
There's fleetingly little evidence to indicate fast food is the cause of obesity, and plenty of counter evidence to be had that the cause lies elsewhere.
Two miles of walking doesn't make a huge difference in my calorie consumption, but it makes an enormous difference in my weight that week. If I walk, I lose weight. If I don't walk, I gain weight. For me, there's no in-between.
Your weight over a week is not a sign of a longer trend, no even an accurate measure. Your body may hold as much as 15lbs of water weight, so people are fooled with quick results by being slightly dehydrated, or over hydrated. That's the margin of error, and without running a marathon or starving, you can't have that big of a real weight change in a week.
That said, I don't want to discourage exercise... It is a very good thing, and it will *help* with weight loss and has any other benefits.
Put me on 1800 calories a day and I'll start looking for ways to cheat. Put me on 2300 calories a day and I don't even have to count.
Somewhere in-between would be better... And while in the short-term you'll feel the desire to cheat, but after several weeks, your stomach will shrink, your body will be used-to smaller meals and less calories, you'll have more energy, and you won't be able to FORCE yourself to eat a 2300 calories a day... You'll have to keep upping your calorie count each day to get back up to being able to tolerate that much food, the same way you've had to gradually work your way down.
Don't eat process sugar, don't eat more the 25g of fat per day.
Show me one scientific report that shows that "processed" sugar is worse than unprocessed sugar. Despite what we've been told, a can of soda is healthier for you than fruit juice.
You can get fat without ever eating any fat... And high-fat diets (Atkins) have been shown to be equally as effective as low-fat (high carb) diets.
Write down everything you eat. You will loose weight.
Is as much as maintaining that list will be time you can't use to stuff your face, it might help, but that's about it.
but what about walking 200 yards a day? What about taking the stairs once in a while? Swimming? Biking?
Walking isn't good exercise. Humans have an EXTREMELY efficient gait, and will burn fleetingly few calories until they up the speed to a jog. Of course starting anywhere is a good thing, but walking should be a short step on your way to actual exercise.
What about - gasp - not eating candy/ice cream/cup cakes/fruit loops/cookies/pancakes/cheeseburgers - ever.
Yes, diet (rather than exercise) will absolutely be the DOMINANT force in weight loss, which was my whole point.
Yeah, any population that considers 5 cookies or 2 bottles of Gatorade to be an insignificant amount of food is going to have a weight problem. Just the thought of that much in addition to my normal diet over the course of a day makes me slightly ill.
The idea with the cookies was the cutting out desert would be better than the exercise.
And when you're exercising hard, hot and sweating, it's EASY to down an extra bottle of Gatorade without noticing.
And it wouldn't make you "ill" at all. If you're burning those extra calories, you'll feel hungrier, and will likely eat more. You HOPE it won't be enough to negate the effect of the exercise, but that's quite often NOT the case.
And your opinion that EVERYONE eats at McDonalds all the time is completely baseless. Many people eat there, but a big chunk of the population almost never do.
There's actually almost no evidence that calorie restriction diets work (in fact there is much more evidence in favor of low carb type diets).
That's so idiotic it hurts my head to read it.
ALL DIETS involve calorie restrictions. Low-fat diets, low-carb diets, Mediterranean diets, all-kelp diets, etc., they ALL involve reducing calorie intake as the fundamental first step in the diet program.
No studies have shown any type of diet is more effective than any other (beyond the margin of error). Whether you follow Atkins, or the FDA pyramid, or Jenny Craig, or anything else, your chances of success are the same, and you'll lose the same amount of weight. It's the "diet" part, consuming slightly fewer calories, that causes the weight loss and health improvements.
Calorie restriction ALWAYS works. There's no way for it not to. All the body reactions that can cause gains or reduce losses, are entirely temporary and rather short-term. And starving is never required... Just keeping yourself very slightly hungry for a few weeks, rather than stuffing your face at every opportunity.
Failure to control a variable: false assumption that lab animal food hasn't changed. Oops!
Of course SOMETHING about it has changed, hence the effect. But it's reasonable to assume that researchers haven't switched from pellets to hamburgers, and are delivering the same number of calories as they always have.
I burn an extra 400 calories a day on the crosstrainer.
You're effectively running 1/8th of a marathon each day, and you're doing it every single day, which is atypical, so almost a marathon each week.
And you're STILL not burning a significant number of calories. You would completely erase all your work by just eating 5 cookies, or drinking 2 bottles of Gatorade.
I have never seen anyone who exercises regularly and still is fat...
You've got the cause and effect backwards... Fat will prevent you from doing much exercise, making you tire quickly, blowing out your joints, and your respiratory and circulatory systems just can't keep up with the huge demands on a body twice the normal size.
Very simply food manufacturers removed the fat in the 70's and replaced it with huge amounts of sugar. The problem with sugar is the brain doesn't see it as nutrition thus it doesn't suppress your appetite when you eat sugar filled foods.
There are survival foods which are mostly sugar, yet people eating them don't get the sensation of starving to death.
And what "food manufacturers" do shouldn't affect EVERYONE. I'm sure there are lots of people who rarely or never eat processed food, yet they're getting fat along with everyone else.
And something else also happened in the 70s... food packaging and serving switched away from glass, and went to plastics... From canned food to baby bottles, plastic chemicals like BPA and other phthalates are leaching into your food. BPA is recognized by your body as estrogen, and excess estrogen is known to cause weight gain...
There is NO evidence of an obesity rise in WILD stocks of ANY of these animals.
Except you don't know that at all.
Scarcity of food and natural selection would keep wild animals at a healthy weight, even if they are consuming something that makes their bodies prone to produce more fat. ie. Either they're hungry and stay skinny, or a few get fat and get eaten, and we don't even notice.
What do humans and lab animals have in common ? Diets filled with processed and manufactured foods.
Ugg. "Processed and manufacturered" are too damn vague to be useful in any way. WHAT part of the processing and manufacturing is causing this problem? And how do you know it's the problem, and not modern plastic containers, or pesticides used on crops, or any of a million other things that have changed that might be the root cause of our current epidemic?
if you consume 2000 calories instead of 2030, many people's bodies biochemistry will simply decide to poop out 30 calories less fat.
Then you repeat the process with 30 fewer calories again, and pretty soon you WILL lose weight. It's simple physics, you WILL lose weight after cutting down on calories.
Whatever is going on might make it easier for our bodies to gain fat, or stimulate our appetites so we're not naturally regulating like previous generations, or anything else. But none of that changes the laws of physics... you CAN still lose weight if you have enough will power to be slightly hungry for a long time.
Frankly, I think that companies like McDonald's have successfully hacked the human brain and created foods that people just can't say no to. It's not all of us, I get nauseous eating McD's more than once a week (the smell outside the restaurant is enough to drive me away) but there are plenty of us who are wholly unable to resist
This makes NO SENSE. Most people don't eat out more than once a week, yet they're overweight. Some people don't EVER eat at McDonalds or similar fast-food places, and yet they're fat, too.
Your anecdote, that you know some fat people with no self control, does NOT apply to EVERY OVERWEIGHT PERSON OUT THERE. Your dislike of McDonald biases you to be only too happy to blame them for every ill in the universe, but that's not supported by ANY evidence.
Conclusion: the guy wanted to write 4,700 words to get his name in print and support his pre-existing political views, not because he had something insightful to say.
His observation that laboratory animals are even getting fatter is pretty hard to discount, and really indicates a bigger problem. Nothing you've said can POSSIBLY account for this data. So it's YOU who has nothing insightful to say.
Is it genetic modifications to foods? Herbicides or Pesticides used on crops? HFCS? Calorie-free sweeteners? Or something else?
My money is on BPA and other phthalates. They are recognized by the body as estrogen, and have been "shown to affect the developmental and reproductive systems." Estrogen has effects on the body like weight-gain (retaining more calories as fat), and fatigue.
Phthalates are everywhere, from plastic baby bottles to canned food. It's only in the past generation that we've been exposed to them at astronomical levels, which coincides nicely with the epidemic of weight gain. A few more years of research, and we might find we've all been poisoned, and have to deal with these side-effects of cheap plastic food/drink containers for the rest of our lives.
Want to know why im fucking fat? Cus im fucking lazy and like to eat pizza while watching 4 episodes of TNG on Netflix
Exercise is absolutely insignificant next to the baseline caloric intake. Any dietician will tell you the same. You have to get as much exercise as a marathon runner to lose substantial weight without changing your diet. It's almost ALL about diet.
Are you kidding? I was paying that much per month for Cable...
Netflix isn't cable, and the fact that you've wasted more money before, doesn't make wasting money NOW a good idea.
And you should be comparing Netflix to the real alternatives, not cable or other hypothetical options... Check the prices of Hulu, Amazon Video, Apple TV, etc. As I said, Hulu works extremely well on my Linux box.
It's insane to suggest spending MORE money on a product from a company that has made it clear THEY DON'T WANT YOU AS A CUSTOMER.
I'm hard pressed to find a device *other than* your Linux box that doesn't do Netflix! In my large-family household, we have: My phone, Wife's phone, Son's phone, 3 Daughters' phones, my still-working, wifi-only old phone, my 7" tablet, Son's Xbox, PS3, Wif'e's iPad, and several laptops and desktops up to 3 or 4 generations old.
My 18 month-old mid-level phone plays Netflix movies like a slideshow... No option to change the bitrate, quality or any other settings, so no Netflix. Of course watching Netflix primarily on a phone would be absolute madness... And how INSANELY LONG did it take Netflix to FINALLY release a dammed Android version? Netflix really doesn't seem to want your business, or mine...
Hulu works perfectly on my Linux box, my phone, and no doubt on your family's phones and computers, too. Better TV selection, including things like news and just-aired major TV shows, etc.
Do you have recommends for how to quickly turn collector items profit on eBay?
Buy up all the Windows RT tablets you can find, which have been signed by Babe Ruth. Sit on them for a couple years, and re-list them on eBay. GUARANTEED PROFIT
i cannot begin to voice how insanely dangerous it is to put random genes into food crops like this.
We've been modifying crops for millennia. What you think of "natural" is heavily modified. Apocalypse has been entirely averted thus far. I see no reason to go all tin-foil hat just because we've gotten significantly better at doing it quicker and with fewer side effects.
now imagine some completely insane person creating "generation" time-bomb seeds, which grow, seed, grow, seed then grow sterile. now imagine _those_ cross-pollenating with wild crops and other species. you'd be looking at a world-wide famine in 5-10 years as the time-bomb gene would be both latent and undetectable.
Plants' DNA aren't computer programs... You can't stick some code in there which will just self destruct exactly when you want to.
But hypothetically; you'd need much more than 10 years for your hybrid weeds to take over the wild parts of this plant, and then you'd be contending with mutations and evolution... Those plants that turned-off your modification would survive the mass extinction, and they would take over the empty space your mass die-off created.
Easy solution: cut off your nose to spite your face.
That would make sense if Netflix was the only streaming video service around, but it's not. Hulu works quite well on Linux, and its no more expensive than Netflix. They even made a HuluDesktop app for Linux and Windows (though they've stopped hosting it) with a 10' interface, remote-friendly navigation, and LIRC libs.
And Hulu is a better substitute for TV than Netflix. Can you get current world news every day with Netflix? How about popular TV shows from ABC/FOX/NBC the day after they air? Great old shows like Total Recall 2070?
At some point you just spend $130 and buy an Android tablet at wally world. Or a $50 Roku.
Throw another $50 / $130 on top of Netflix's monthly fee, and it doesn't turn out to be a very good deal at all...
Besides, I already have my Linux box connected to my TV, handling all my TV/DVR, DVD/BluRay, Hulu, gaming, and other functions. Telling me I have to have a separate box just for Netflix just tells me I shouldn't get Netflix.
Hulu works well enough on Linux. Though they've since hidden the project, they even had HuluDesktop for Windows and Linux, which works nicely with a remote control. Seems like a better plan for Linux users to subscribe to HuluPlus and boycott Netflix instead.
Another reason why I say it's likely still around: - It does pretty much everything they need it to. - Unlike most x86 servers (but not unlike most high-end UNIX boxen) could probably take a direct 1-megaton nuclear detonation and keep going without so much as a dropped routine. - You could swap out everything but the power cable without shutting it down (I think only a microcode and certain IPL patches would force any real cold downtime). Yes, I'm including RAM and processors.
"everything" is a subjective matter, changing from year to year. No doubt it was meeting expectations when purchased, but I'm sure they'd love to have MORE features that the box doesn't provide, and they just don't dare touch it due to hardware restrictions and age.
You can get super-heavy-duty x86 servers, but almost nobody wants to pay for them, so they're hard to find.
x86 servers can do the hot-swap thing, too, if you're so inclined. SMP processors in a redundant configuration. Memory module mirroring, multiple controllers, etc. It's a small reconfiguration to do it, but folks don't do it because they want cheaper x86 boxes with reasonable reliability, not more expensive and very reliable. And you can even swap out the power cables, one at a time, without down time. Reliability is typically handled with clustering instead of single-box redundancy.
No, it's LESS diversified. Linux dominates. AIX is healthy. Solaris, and HP-UX are still alive but on life support. All the other formerly significant players are GONE.
They've all got so little market share as to be virtually nonexistent today.
HP-UX porting to Itanium put it on a roller-coaster ride to irrelevance. And Solaris won't be too far behind. AIX is kept afloat by IBM making damn good hardware, but it's been tough, and once the hardware falls behind, the OS will decline as well.
It's ALL going to Linux. I'm a fan of the BSDs myself, but Linux isn't a bad second-choice, and I look forward to having a lot more job openings ahead of me.
Slashdot Mirror
If 10% of the food you consume is causing you to retain 50% more body fat, it would be a HUGE effect easily noticed by scientists.
And your averaging out of the numbers makes no sense. Some people will be HUGE consumers of fast food, and buying high-priced menu items, while others will NEVER eat there.
If fast food was the source of the problem, it would be EASY to demonstrate. Instead, fast food has the same effect as all other food, and those staying away from it are NOT immune from the current obesity epidemic.
Some people eat out for EVERY meal, some eat out for NONE. The majority eat out very little. "Average" is useless.
There's fleetingly little evidence to indicate fast food is the cause of obesity, and plenty of counter evidence to be had that the cause lies elsewhere.
Your weight over a week is not a sign of a longer trend, no even an accurate measure. Your body may hold as much as 15lbs of water weight, so people are fooled with quick results by being slightly dehydrated, or over hydrated. That's the margin of error, and without running a marathon or starving, you can't have that big of a real weight change in a week.
That said, I don't want to discourage exercise... It is a very good thing, and it will *help* with weight loss and has any other benefits.
Somewhere in-between would be better... And while in the short-term you'll feel the desire to cheat, but after several weeks, your stomach will shrink, your body will be used-to smaller meals and less calories, you'll have more energy, and you won't be able to FORCE yourself to eat a 2300 calories a day... You'll have to keep upping your calorie count each day to get back up to being able to tolerate that much food, the same way you've had to gradually work your way down.
Show me one scientific report that shows that "processed" sugar is worse than unprocessed sugar. Despite what we've been told, a can of soda is healthier for you than fruit juice.
You can get fat without ever eating any fat... And high-fat diets (Atkins) have been shown to be equally as effective as low-fat (high carb) diets.
Is as much as maintaining that list will be time you can't use to stuff your face, it might help, but that's about it.
As are all other forms of exercise...
Walking isn't good exercise. Humans have an EXTREMELY efficient gait, and will burn fleetingly few calories until they up the speed to a jog. Of course starting anywhere is a good thing, but walking should be a short step on your way to actual exercise.
Yes, diet (rather than exercise) will absolutely be the DOMINANT force in weight loss, which was my whole point.
The idea with the cookies was the cutting out desert would be better than the exercise.
And when you're exercising hard, hot and sweating, it's EASY to down an extra bottle of Gatorade without noticing.
And it wouldn't make you "ill" at all. If you're burning those extra calories, you'll feel hungrier, and will likely eat more. You HOPE it won't be enough to negate the effect of the exercise, but that's quite often NOT the case.
Cite:
http://my.news.yahoo.com/half-americans-eat-fast-food-every-week-080408947.html
And your opinion that EVERYONE eats at McDonalds all the time is completely baseless. Many people eat there, but a big chunk of the population almost never do.
That's so idiotic it hurts my head to read it.
ALL DIETS involve calorie restrictions. Low-fat diets, low-carb diets, Mediterranean diets, all-kelp diets, etc., they ALL involve reducing calorie intake as the fundamental first step in the diet program.
No studies have shown any type of diet is more effective than any other (beyond the margin of error). Whether you follow Atkins, or the FDA pyramid, or Jenny Craig, or anything else, your chances of success are the same, and you'll lose the same amount of weight. It's the "diet" part, consuming slightly fewer calories, that causes the weight loss and health improvements.
Calorie restriction ALWAYS works. There's no way for it not to. All the body reactions that can cause gains or reduce losses, are entirely temporary and rather short-term. And starving is never required... Just keeping yourself very slightly hungry for a few weeks, rather than stuffing your face at every opportunity.
Of course SOMETHING about it has changed, hence the effect. But it's reasonable to assume that researchers haven't switched from pellets to hamburgers, and are delivering the same number of calories as they always have.
You're effectively running 1/8th of a marathon each day, and you're doing it every single day, which is atypical, so almost a marathon each week.
And you're STILL not burning a significant number of calories. You would completely erase all your work by just eating 5 cookies, or drinking 2 bottles of Gatorade.
You've got the cause and effect backwards... Fat will prevent you from doing much exercise, making you tire quickly, blowing out your joints, and your respiratory and circulatory systems just can't keep up with the huge demands on a body twice the normal size.
There are survival foods which are mostly sugar, yet people eating them don't get the sensation of starving to death.
And what "food manufacturers" do shouldn't affect EVERYONE. I'm sure there are lots of people who rarely or never eat processed food, yet they're getting fat along with everyone else.
And something else also happened in the 70s... food packaging and serving switched away from glass, and went to plastics... From canned food to baby bottles, plastic chemicals like BPA and other phthalates are leaching into your food. BPA is recognized by your body as estrogen, and excess estrogen is known to cause weight gain...
Except you don't know that at all.
Scarcity of food and natural selection would keep wild animals at a healthy weight, even if they are consuming something that makes their bodies prone to produce more fat. ie. Either they're hungry and stay skinny, or a few get fat and get eaten, and we don't even notice.
Ugg. "Processed and manufacturered" are too damn vague to be useful in any way. WHAT part of the processing and manufacturing is causing this problem? And how do you know it's the problem, and not modern plastic containers, or pesticides used on crops, or any of a million other things that have changed that might be the root cause of our current epidemic?
Then you repeat the process with 30 fewer calories again, and pretty soon you WILL lose weight. It's simple physics, you WILL lose weight after cutting down on calories.
Whatever is going on might make it easier for our bodies to gain fat, or stimulate our appetites so we're not naturally regulating like previous generations, or anything else. But none of that changes the laws of physics... you CAN still lose weight if you have enough will power to be slightly hungry for a long time.
This makes NO SENSE. Most people don't eat out more than once a week, yet they're overweight. Some people don't EVER eat at McDonalds or similar fast-food places, and yet they're fat, too.
Your anecdote, that you know some fat people with no self control, does NOT apply to EVERY OVERWEIGHT PERSON OUT THERE. Your dislike of McDonald biases you to be only too happy to blame them for every ill in the universe, but that's not supported by ANY evidence.
His observation that laboratory animals are even getting fatter is pretty hard to discount, and really indicates a bigger problem. Nothing you've said can POSSIBLY account for this data. So it's YOU who has nothing insightful to say.
Is it genetic modifications to foods? Herbicides or Pesticides used on crops? HFCS? Calorie-free sweeteners? Or something else?
My money is on BPA and other phthalates. They are recognized by the body as estrogen, and have been "shown to affect the developmental and reproductive systems." Estrogen has effects on the body like weight-gain (retaining more calories as fat), and fatigue.
Phthalates are everywhere, from plastic baby bottles to canned food. It's only in the past generation that we've been exposed to them at astronomical levels, which coincides nicely with the epidemic of weight gain. A few more years of research, and we might find we've all been poisoned, and have to deal with these side-effects of cheap plastic food/drink containers for the rest of our lives.
Exercise is absolutely insignificant next to the baseline caloric intake. Any dietician will tell you the same. You have to get as much exercise as a marathon runner to lose substantial weight without changing your diet. It's almost ALL about diet.
WOW. If my comment isn't squarely ON-TOPIC, I don't know what is.
Story is "The Steady Decline of Unix" and I'm talking about the Unixes that have lost substantial market-share.
Lovely.
Netflix isn't cable, and the fact that you've wasted more money before, doesn't make wasting money NOW a good idea.
And you should be comparing Netflix to the real alternatives, not cable or other hypothetical options... Check the prices of Hulu, Amazon Video, Apple TV, etc. As I said, Hulu works extremely well on my Linux box.
It's insane to suggest spending MORE money on a product from a company that has made it clear THEY DON'T WANT YOU AS A CUSTOMER.
My 18 month-old mid-level phone plays Netflix movies like a slideshow... No option to change the bitrate, quality or any other settings, so no Netflix. Of course watching Netflix primarily on a phone would be absolute madness... And how INSANELY LONG did it take Netflix to FINALLY release a dammed Android version? Netflix really doesn't seem to want your business, or mine...
Hulu works perfectly on my Linux box, my phone, and no doubt on your family's phones and computers, too. Better TV selection, including things like news and just-aired major TV shows, etc.
Buy up all the Windows RT tablets you can find, which have been signed by Babe Ruth. Sit on them for a couple years, and re-list them on eBay. GUARANTEED PROFIT
We've been modifying crops for millennia. What you think of "natural" is heavily modified. Apocalypse has been entirely averted thus far. I see no reason to go all tin-foil hat just because we've gotten significantly better at doing it quicker and with fewer side effects.
Plants' DNA aren't computer programs... You can't stick some code in there which will just self destruct exactly when you want to.
But hypothetically; you'd need much more than 10 years for your hybrid weeds to take over the wild parts of this plant, and then you'd be contending with mutations and evolution... Those plants that turned-off your modification would survive the mass extinction, and they would take over the empty space your mass die-off created.
That would make sense if Netflix was the only streaming video service around, but it's not. Hulu works quite well on Linux, and its no more expensive than Netflix. They even made a HuluDesktop app for Linux and Windows (though they've stopped hosting it) with a 10' interface, remote-friendly navigation, and LIRC libs.
And Hulu is a better substitute for TV than Netflix. Can you get current world news every day with Netflix? How about popular TV shows from ABC/FOX/NBC the day after they air? Great old shows like Total Recall 2070?
Throw another $50 / $130 on top of Netflix's monthly fee, and it doesn't turn out to be a very good deal at all...
Besides, I already have my Linux box connected to my TV, handling all my TV/DVR, DVD/BluRay, Hulu, gaming, and other functions. Telling me I have to have a separate box just for Netflix just tells me I shouldn't get Netflix.
Hulu works well enough on Linux. Though they've since hidden the project, they even had HuluDesktop for Windows and Linux, which works nicely with a remote control. Seems like a better plan for Linux users to subscribe to HuluPlus and boycott Netflix instead.
"everything" is a subjective matter, changing from year to year. No doubt it was meeting expectations when purchased, but I'm sure they'd love to have MORE features that the box doesn't provide, and they just don't dare touch it due to hardware restrictions and age.
You can get super-heavy-duty x86 servers, but almost nobody wants to pay for them, so they're hard to find.
x86 servers can do the hot-swap thing, too, if you're so inclined. SMP processors in a redundant configuration. Memory module mirroring, multiple controllers, etc. It's a small reconfiguration to do it, but folks don't do it because they want cheaper x86 boxes with reasonable reliability, not more expensive and very reliable. And you can even swap out the power cables, one at a time, without down time. Reliability is typically handled with clustering instead of single-box redundancy.
No, it's LESS diversified. Linux dominates. AIX is healthy. Solaris, and HP-UX are still alive but on life support. All the other formerly significant players are GONE.
Irix, Digital-Unix/Tru64, OpenVMS*, SCO OpenServer/Unixware/Xenix, SunOS, BSDi, Ultrix, QNX, NextStep, MINIX, etc.
They've all got so little market share as to be virtually nonexistent today.
HP-UX porting to Itanium put it on a roller-coaster ride to irrelevance. And Solaris won't be too far behind. AIX is kept afloat by IBM making damn good hardware, but it's been tough, and once the hardware falls behind, the OS will decline as well.
It's ALL going to Linux. I'm a fan of the BSDs myself, but Linux isn't a bad second-choice, and I look forward to having a lot more job openings ahead of me.