I've tried to use them, but, at least for the ones I've used, over time they get a "fading" effect. They start off dim and slowly get brighter. It's REALLY annoying in the places I used them. I've ended up going back to regular incandescent bulbs.
Actually, one of the reasons I switched to CFLs was more light per watt -- in some places in my house, I wanted more light, but was limited by the 60 watt fire limitation. Using bigger CFLs allowed me to get more light.
Hopefully when LEDs come of age, CFLs will be replaced.
You know, this is why one should make restrained posts. I don't expect everyone to know everything, but making an arrogant post like this just makes you look like an idiot when you're corrected.
Specifically, the New York Times publishes an International Edition under a different name. So they've probably had some threats made to them by the UK government. Considering the arrogance of the New York Times, I'm sure they would've told them to pound sand, unless there was money at stake.
(I know, I know, the NY Times would never lower themselves to worry about mere money)
What contract did the mother and fetus sign giving the fetus possesion of the body?
They "signed" a natural law contract. The intrinsic design of human beings requires a host in order to grow for the first nine months of life. Therefore, the fetus has an "easement", if you will, on the mother's body. The mother created the life, therefore, she created the easement requirement.
You would force a person to support a creature that for all intents and purposes is not a full, independent human being but a parasite incapable of living on its own? That, my friend, is socialism. I'm a socialist and I still wouldn't go that far.
Yes, I would force that person to support the internal child, just like I would force them to feed, clothe and house their external children. It's not socialism, it's simple human societal requirements. We require parents to care for their offspring. It's exactly the same concept.
A baby is not a "full, independent" human being, but presumably you would not argue that the parents have the "right" to kill the baby. Also note that a newborn baby is NOT sentient. Human babies are born before their brains are fully developed, because the head size would be too big if they were kept full to term.
I don't know what the Republican party believes anymore. They're all over the map.
Yeah, I'm with you there. Generally speaking, I think economic freedom is the most important freedom, so I generally vote Republican. The problem is that now that the Republicans have power, they're spending like drunken sailors (and not just on Defense, which I generally support). What the hell? This is the party of low taxes and relatively limited government? This is the party that used to complain about the pork spending of the Democrats? I also HATE the religious wing of the Republicans, which drags down the whole party.
I'd love to see a party with the (theoretical) economic pragmatism and strong defense of the Republicans (but without the religious wing), with the "mind your own business" social wing of the Democrats (but without the socialist part) combined into one party, which would be kind of Libertarian, but it would be without the idiotically simplistic philosophy of the Libertarians. (I'd have the party burn the Ayn Rand books first-thing)
Of course, I'm also anti-abortion, which would be a bone of contention in "my" party.:) But then, I think the Libertarian position is logically anti-abortion, since the fetus has an inalienable right to life (and jointly owns the mother's body with the mother). But that's another subject.
I'd wager that if you dropped that number to 80%, it'd be true for all major parties.
You know, I think I'd probably disagree with that. I think most Republicans probably know more-or-less what the platform advocates, and the same with Democrats. It's not that hard to know what they believe. There aren't too many surprises buried in the platforms.
On the other hand, I think a lot of Libertarians have an "anyone but the mainstream" combined with liking the idea of "smaller government". The problem is that most Libertarians don't understand just how radical the party really is -- things like all roads should be private, there should be no public parks (including national parks), private nuke ownership is OK with them, things like that (and that's just for starters).
All the envious "higher ups get there because they steal ha ha ha" comments aside, I think there's a simpler explanation. The more money you make, the smaller the theft seems. A buck to someone making a million a year is not the same as someone who has to watch every dollar and appreciates it.
Or to put it another way, a more interesting experiment would be to put a penny candy jar out. A penny is nothing to everyone, so I would expect the rates of theft to much closer to the same.
...what the problem is with technology that can produce vast amounts of nutritious food that can feed people who may otherwise not have access to such a resoruce?
Basically, it's superstition. Europe et al likes to act superior when they make fun of our creationists (who should be made fun of), but the general public over there is just as fearful and anti-science as most other populations. This is just one of the ways it gets expressed.
XP was a genuine improvement to the common user. Vista really isn't.
Have you actually used Vista? I highly doubt it.
In any case, you DO realize people said that EXACT same thing about XP over Win/2000, right? "XP is just eye candy, there are absolutely no *real* improvements."
Except, there were. Lots and lots and lots of little improvements, which is the same with Vista. Except with Vista, we have some major security improvements (e.g., truly running as a regular user, instead of adminstrator all the time), as well as the slick new user interface. And the new user interface can run on a lot more hardware than people seem to think.
Microsoft's income and profits are set for a multiyear decline, what with OSS biting their heals and an upcoming OS that I predict will be met with a collective yawn. Pretty pictures make great games, but why would I want that for an OS? Especially if my hardware needs to be upgraded before I can play. No thanks!
You do realize I could lift that exact quote from any number of people just before XP came out, right?
Dr. Jackson stared in horror at the meat growing vats as he slowly realized what had happened. He felt growing nausea, his stomach threatening to turn his delicious former meal into a mouth-fired projectile.
His assistant saw the look on his. "Dr. Jackson -- what is it? What's the matter?"
He slowly turned to her. He couldn't help but imagine the juicy, tender beef passing her lips -- or what he thought was beef.
"My God, Janice. It all makes sense. When I added the beef cells to the cloning solution -- the cut on my finger -- the blood, the blood THE BLOOD --" he couldn't continue.
"No!" Janice screamed, her hands holding her mouth. "But -- that was months ago --"
Dr. Jackson slowly nodded. "The entire East Coast has been eating -- ME!"
Unless you can exercise the meat that is "grown" it will be mostly tasteless.
Actually, it's exactly the opposite. It's fat that gives meat flavor, not lean "exercised" meat. In fact, Kobe Beef, which is widely recognized as tender and flavorful uses steers that are specifically fattenened up and never exercised.
You should base your conclusions on the soundness of the arguments, not who made them.
Granted. But how many people here who are jumping up and down like monkeys have really read the study to find out exactly what the arguments are?
She automatically gets a lot more credibility not because of her degree, but because she's actually studied the question versus the knee jerk reactions around here.
(I don't actually have an opinion on her study one way or the other, just making the observation that she has de facto more credibility than anyone on Slashdot).
Participants are exposed to a range of mainframe technologies and programming languages such as JCL, REXX, COBOL, and Java. The contest is divided into sections of increasing difficulty, building upon the first, which states "No Experience Necessary".
The final level of difficulty in mainframe technology is the dreaded "dropped box of punch cards" which they have to sort in the shortest time.
Given the level of scientific illiteracy, what the hell is the point of taking something that everyone does know and declaring it to be wrong?
"Everyone" knew there were eight planets prior to 1930. Did the world end when it was changed to nine, especially with something that wasn't even obviously a planet?
Guess what? A whole generation of children will grow up with the new, consistent rules and won't know any different. What's unarguable is that the new rules are better. I'm all in favor of fixing things that are broken, even if certain curmudgeons are too mentally inflexible to make the adjustment. See also: the metric system in the US, which is kept down by the same curmudgeons.
But while testing went well, the team endured a troubled time in the US.
Sources said the motor had been making an unbelievably loud clunking sound, as well as spewing black smoke. Only later did they figure out that was the way the engine was supposed to sound.
(/RM101, the not-so-proud one-time owner of a Diesel Mercedes Benz, the loudest, most embarrassing-to-drive car he's ever owned)
I'm just curious. How many evil acts will Apple have to do to convince you (and other Mac fans) that Apple really -- really -- is one of the worst companies in the world when it comes being a corporate citizen?
They lie ("twice as fast", "there's no problem with scratched screens", "The cube cracks are supposed to be there", etc, etc).
They abuse their customers in numerous ways (overcharging for hardware, charging over $100 for every tiny OS upgrade, computers that intentionally can't be upgraded, iPods with batteries that intentionally can't be changed so you have to buy a new one, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc).
And they CONSTANTLY use lawsuits as weapons against people to the detriment of the consumer. From the infamous look-and-feel lawsuits to this new idiocy.
Then we have the new revelations about the accounting irregularities that have ripped off shareholders for who-knows how much money.
And don't tell me that "everyone does it". First, everyone does NOT do it. Second, Mac fans always tell me that Apple is a "cut above" the fray.
I mean, seriously. How much is it going to take? What does Apple need to do for you to finally say "enough is enough"?
Apple Fan: What's all this about accounting regularities? God, I hate Corporatism. Always out to screw the little guy. Artificially inflating their stock prices at the expense of the small investor. These people need to be run out of town on a rail! Put 'em in jail, by God!
(Normal Guy): Pssst! Apple was one of the worst offenders! Steve Jobs was right in the middle of it!
Apple Fan: Damn mainstream media! Always picking on Apple. Can't they just leave Apple alone and stop making crap up? Obviously it's just more of the same lies. Steve would NEVER do anything underhanded. No, those commercials were just trying to be funny. Besides, everyone lies in advertising, it's part of the game. Some Micro$ofty probably snuck in and changed Apple's records to get them in trouble...
...the idea is utterly worthless, since if you're a polished and practiced enough liar, your bodily functions are not going to change significantly, because you believe every word you're speaking.
I don't think they send the polished, intelligent, cool-under-pressure terrorists to blow themselves up. Generally, they send the expendable, naive, "777 virgins when I die" terrorists.
In any case, why do so many people equate "not perfect" with "utterly worthless"? If you're waiting for a perfect system, it's never going to happen.
You're probably right that I might've been a tad too negative, but I thought it was an important point to make. As the other guy who replied to you said as well, things we do for our hobbies don't always make a good career choice. While much programming is fun and interesting, a LOT of programming is damn boring.
People do change, and as long as he's kept his mind supple and receptive through continued learning and mental activity, he shouldn't find it too much of a struggle to pick these things up.
I agree. I wasn't trying to talk the guy out of it, I was only trying to inject a little realism into his possible fantasy he might have going on. I'd rather he said he wanted to go into programming for the money, than go into it for the love -- not because loving your career is bad, but that someone going into programming solely for love is probably already doing it. That was my point -- if love hasn't been enough to motivate him in his hobbies to learn it, love probably won't be enough to make him happy in his career, because he doesn't love it enough to do it solely for that reason.
Three years on, I'm still working at my mundane college job, though one thing has never changed in all this time- my love of and devotion to technology, keeping up with hardware news and the intricacies of powerful software through daily reading of sites like Slashdot and lots of home-brew system building and amateur web development.
I'm a little suspicious of this. If you have a "love and devotion" to technology, then what's stopped you so far from learning programming? You say you've done some amateur web development, so that's a gateway that normally might've led you to it.
I'm assuming you haven't learned any programming to speak of. If that's the case, then I suspect you have some romantic notion of what programming is all about that probably won't live up to your expectations. Coding is not all hot tubs full of babes.:) I'd say that people with a passion for programming already know that's what they want to do and don't need to "ask Slashdot", especially when you're looking at a career change for a job you think is boring.
I could be wrong, of course, but I think you need to consider that the career grass isn't greener on the other side.
So if the stalling is due to PC hardware, the joke applies. Apple is a hardware company, remember.
Only if Apple's hardware is more reliable than the average PC hardware. Considering that most of Apple's hardware is identical to that used in PCs (except for the chassis -- and the price), that's highly doubtful.
If your computer is hanging, stalling or crashing, you have a hardware problem. Don't blame Microsoft for that. I'm not saying that Microsoft's software is perfect -- FAR from it, actually -- but out-and-out lockups simply don't happen unless it's a hardware problem (or a driver problem, of course, which is another symptom crappy hardware). Apple's ads show the "PC guy" actually stopping, which hasn't happened in what, ten years?
You do fully believe that a criminal is more honest than a braggert. Amazing. Frightening, too.
No. I'm comparing Apple with Microsoft on the basis of their respective sins. Apple's sins are FAR FAR FAR greater than Microsoft's. The difference is that Apple's marketshare is so tiny that no one cares (or even is hardly aware of it). Apple can play their dirty tricks in the shadows of obscurity.
The only way to even try to say Microsoft is more honest than Apple is to blind oneself to Microsoft's criminal market abuses.
Pfff. Microsoft is not even the same league as Apple. You might disagree with Microsoft's business policies (e.g., the contracts they negotiated with PC manufacturers), but rarely (if ever, I can't think of any time) have they out-and-out lied to their customers like Apple does regularly. You think Microsoft has had some anticompetitive behavior? Look at Apples:
1) The look-and-feel lawsuits where Apple tried to kill anyone who made ANY sort of interface that happened to use graphics. That was lovely. Say what you want about Microsoft, but they almost never use the lawsuit as a weapon like Apple does.
2) Suing journalists who might happen to talk to Apple products.
3) Pulling licenses of the clone manufacturers and driving them to bankruptcy. Just the fact that Microsoft embraces open hardware standards gives Microsoft the moral high ground over Apple.
4) Of course, it doesn't stop with the Mac. There is Apple's iPod, where they sue companies who might want to let you play music that Apple doesn't approve of. This one especially galls me. F-YOU Steve! If I want to buy software to modify the iPod, then get the hell away from me!
5) Then they deny, deny, deny whenever there is a problem, like the iPods that got constantly scratched up.
I could go on and on and on. Apple sucks. Imagine if Apple had won the PC wars instead of Microsoft. PCs would be $15,000 (not including monitor), and there would be exactly one source.
Slashdot Mirror
I've tried to use them, but, at least for the ones I've used, over time they get a "fading" effect. They start off dim and slowly get brighter. It's REALLY annoying in the places I used them. I've ended up going back to regular incandescent bulbs.
Actually, one of the reasons I switched to CFLs was more light per watt -- in some places in my house, I wanted more light, but was limited by the 60 watt fire limitation. Using bigger CFLs allowed me to get more light.
Hopefully when LEDs come of age, CFLs will be replaced.
You know, this is why one should make restrained posts. I don't expect everyone to know everything, but making an arrogant post like this just makes you look like an idiot when you're corrected.
Specifically, the New York Times publishes an International Edition under a different name. So they've probably had some threats made to them by the UK government. Considering the arrogance of the New York Times, I'm sure they would've told them to pound sand, unless there was money at stake.
(I know, I know, the NY Times would never lower themselves to worry about mere money)
What contract did the mother and fetus sign giving the fetus possesion of the body?
They "signed" a natural law contract. The intrinsic design of human beings requires a host in order to grow for the first nine months of life. Therefore, the fetus has an "easement", if you will, on the mother's body. The mother created the life, therefore, she created the easement requirement.
You would force a person to support a creature that for all intents and purposes is not a full, independent human being but a parasite incapable of living on its own? That, my friend, is socialism. I'm a socialist and I still wouldn't go that far.
Yes, I would force that person to support the internal child, just like I would force them to feed, clothe and house their external children. It's not socialism, it's simple human societal requirements. We require parents to care for their offspring. It's exactly the same concept.
A baby is not a "full, independent" human being, but presumably you would not argue that the parents have the "right" to kill the baby. Also note that a newborn baby is NOT sentient. Human babies are born before their brains are fully developed, because the head size would be too big if they were kept full to term.
I don't know what the Republican party believes anymore. They're all over the map.
Yeah, I'm with you there. Generally speaking, I think economic freedom is the most important freedom, so I generally vote Republican. The problem is that now that the Republicans have power, they're spending like drunken sailors (and not just on Defense, which I generally support). What the hell? This is the party of low taxes and relatively limited government? This is the party that used to complain about the pork spending of the Democrats? I also HATE the religious wing of the Republicans, which drags down the whole party.
I'd love to see a party with the (theoretical) economic pragmatism and strong defense of the Republicans (but without the religious wing), with the "mind your own business" social wing of the Democrats (but without the socialist part) combined into one party, which would be kind of Libertarian, but it would be without the idiotically simplistic philosophy of the Libertarians. (I'd have the party burn the Ayn Rand books first-thing)
Of course, I'm also anti-abortion, which would be a bone of contention in "my" party. :) But then, I think the Libertarian position is logically anti-abortion, since the fetus has an inalienable right to life (and jointly owns the mother's body with the mother). But that's another subject.
I'd wager that if you dropped that number to 80%, it'd be true for all major parties.
You know, I think I'd probably disagree with that. I think most Republicans probably know more-or-less what the platform advocates, and the same with Democrats. It's not that hard to know what they believe. There aren't too many surprises buried in the platforms.
On the other hand, I think a lot of Libertarians have an "anyone but the mainstream" combined with liking the idea of "smaller government". The problem is that most Libertarians don't understand just how radical the party really is -- things like all roads should be private, there should be no public parks (including national parks), private nuke ownership is OK with them, things like that (and that's just for starters).
All the envious "higher ups get there because they steal ha ha ha" comments aside, I think there's a simpler explanation. The more money you make, the smaller the theft seems. A buck to someone making a million a year is not the same as someone who has to watch every dollar and appreciates it.
Or to put it another way, a more interesting experiment would be to put a penny candy jar out. A penny is nothing to everyone, so I would expect the rates of theft to much closer to the same.
Basically, it's superstition. Europe et al likes to act superior when they make fun of our creationists (who should be made fun of), but the general public over there is just as fearful and anti-science as most other populations. This is just one of the ways it gets expressed.
XP was a genuine improvement to the common user. Vista really isn't.
Have you actually used Vista? I highly doubt it.
In any case, you DO realize people said that EXACT same thing about XP over Win/2000, right? "XP is just eye candy, there are absolutely no *real* improvements."
Except, there were. Lots and lots and lots of little improvements, which is the same with Vista. Except with Vista, we have some major security improvements (e.g., truly running as a regular user, instead of adminstrator all the time), as well as the slick new user interface. And the new user interface can run on a lot more hardware than people seem to think.
Microsoft's income and profits are set for a multiyear decline, what with OSS biting their heals and an upcoming OS that I predict will be met with a collective yawn. Pretty pictures make great games, but why would I want that for an OS? Especially if my hardware needs to be upgraded before I can play. No thanks!
You do realize I could lift that exact quote from any number of people just before XP came out, right?
Steaks made from clones.
Can't you just see the horror movie?
Dr. Jackson stared in horror at the meat growing vats as he slowly realized what had happened. He felt growing nausea, his stomach threatening to turn his delicious former meal into a mouth-fired projectile.
His assistant saw the look on his. "Dr. Jackson -- what is it? What's the matter?"
He slowly turned to her. He couldn't help but imagine the juicy, tender beef passing her lips -- or what he thought was beef.
"My God, Janice. It all makes sense. When I added the beef cells to the cloning solution -- the cut on my finger -- the blood, the blood THE BLOOD --" he couldn't continue.
"No!" Janice screamed, her hands holding her mouth. "But -- that was months ago --"
Dr. Jackson slowly nodded. "The entire East Coast has been eating -- ME!"
Unless you can exercise the meat that is "grown" it will be mostly tasteless.
Actually, it's exactly the opposite. It's fat that gives meat flavor, not lean "exercised" meat. In fact, Kobe Beef, which is widely recognized as tender and flavorful uses steers that are specifically fattenened up and never exercised.
You should base your conclusions on the soundness of the arguments, not who made them.
Granted. But how many people here who are jumping up and down like monkeys have really read the study to find out exactly what the arguments are?
She automatically gets a lot more credibility not because of her degree, but because she's actually studied the question versus the knee jerk reactions around here.
(I don't actually have an opinion on her study one way or the other, just making the observation that she has de facto more credibility than anyone on Slashdot).
Participants are exposed to a range of mainframe technologies and programming languages such as JCL, REXX, COBOL, and Java. The contest is divided into sections of increasing difficulty, building upon the first, which states "No Experience Necessary".
The final level of difficulty in mainframe technology is the dreaded "dropped box of punch cards" which they have to sort in the shortest time.
[this joke may be too old for this audience. :)]
Given the level of scientific illiteracy, what the hell is the point of taking something that everyone does know and declaring it to be wrong?
"Everyone" knew there were eight planets prior to 1930. Did the world end when it was changed to nine, especially with something that wasn't even obviously a planet?
Guess what? A whole generation of children will grow up with the new, consistent rules and won't know any different. What's unarguable is that the new rules are better. I'm all in favor of fixing things that are broken, even if certain curmudgeons are too mentally inflexible to make the adjustment. See also: the metric system in the US, which is kept down by the same curmudgeons.
But while testing went well, the team endured a troubled time in the US.
Sources said the motor had been making an unbelievably loud clunking sound, as well as spewing black smoke. Only later did they figure out that was the way the engine was supposed to sound.
(/RM101, the not-so-proud one-time owner of a Diesel Mercedes Benz, the loudest, most embarrassing-to-drive car he's ever owned)
I'm just curious. How many evil acts will Apple have to do to convince you (and other Mac fans) that Apple really -- really -- is one of the worst companies in the world when it comes being a corporate citizen?
They lie ("twice as fast", "there's no problem with scratched screens", "The cube cracks are supposed to be there", etc, etc).
They abuse their customers in numerous ways (overcharging for hardware, charging over $100 for every tiny OS upgrade, computers that intentionally can't be upgraded, iPods with batteries that intentionally can't be changed so you have to buy a new one, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc).
And they CONSTANTLY use lawsuits as weapons against people to the detriment of the consumer. From the infamous look-and-feel lawsuits to this new idiocy.
Then we have the new revelations about the accounting irregularities that have ripped off shareholders for who-knows how much money.
And don't tell me that "everyone does it". First, everyone does NOT do it. Second, Mac fans always tell me that Apple is a "cut above" the fray.
I mean, seriously. How much is it going to take? What does Apple need to do for you to finally say "enough is enough"?
Apple Fan: What's all this about accounting regularities? God, I hate Corporatism. Always out to screw the little guy. Artificially inflating their stock prices at the expense of the small investor. These people need to be run out of town on a rail! Put 'em in jail, by God!
(Normal Guy): Pssst! Apple was one of the worst offenders! Steve Jobs was right in the middle of it!
Apple Fan: Damn mainstream media! Always picking on Apple. Can't they just leave Apple alone and stop making crap up? Obviously it's just more of the same lies. Steve would NEVER do anything underhanded. No, those commercials were just trying to be funny. Besides, everyone lies in advertising, it's part of the game. Some Micro$ofty probably snuck in and changed Apple's records to get them in trouble...
I don't think they send the polished, intelligent, cool-under-pressure terrorists to blow themselves up. Generally, they send the expendable, naive, "777 virgins when I die" terrorists.
In any case, why do so many people equate "not perfect" with "utterly worthless"? If you're waiting for a perfect system, it's never going to happen.
This is what happened to Xerox. 'A xerox machine' once used to mean that the machine actually was made by Xerox Corporation.
That's never happened to Xerox. It has never been legally declared a generic word, though the company has an ongoing battle and concern over it.
You're probably right that I might've been a tad too negative, but I thought it was an important point to make. As the other guy who replied to you said as well, things we do for our hobbies don't always make a good career choice. While much programming is fun and interesting, a LOT of programming is damn boring.
People do change, and as long as he's kept his mind supple and receptive through continued learning and mental activity, he shouldn't find it too much of a struggle to pick these things up.
I agree. I wasn't trying to talk the guy out of it, I was only trying to inject a little realism into his possible fantasy he might have going on. I'd rather he said he wanted to go into programming for the money, than go into it for the love -- not because loving your career is bad, but that someone going into programming solely for love is probably already doing it. That was my point -- if love hasn't been enough to motivate him in his hobbies to learn it, love probably won't be enough to make him happy in his career, because he doesn't love it enough to do it solely for that reason.
Three years on, I'm still working at my mundane college job, though one thing has never changed in all this time- my love of and devotion to technology, keeping up with hardware news and the intricacies of powerful software through daily reading of sites like Slashdot and lots of home-brew system building and amateur web development.
I'm a little suspicious of this. If you have a "love and devotion" to technology, then what's stopped you so far from learning programming? You say you've done some amateur web development, so that's a gateway that normally might've led you to it.
I'm assuming you haven't learned any programming to speak of. If that's the case, then I suspect you have some romantic notion of what programming is all about that probably won't live up to your expectations. Coding is not all hot tubs full of babes. :) I'd say that people with a passion for programming already know that's what they want to do and don't need to "ask Slashdot", especially when you're looking at a career change for a job you think is boring.
I could be wrong, of course, but I think you need to consider that the career grass isn't greener on the other side.
So if the stalling is due to PC hardware, the joke applies. Apple is a hardware company, remember.
Only if Apple's hardware is more reliable than the average PC hardware. Considering that most of Apple's hardware is identical to that used in PCs (except for the chassis -- and the price), that's highly doubtful.
hangs, stalls, and crashes
If your computer is hanging, stalling or crashing, you have a hardware problem. Don't blame Microsoft for that. I'm not saying that Microsoft's software is perfect -- FAR from it, actually -- but out-and-out lockups simply don't happen unless it's a hardware problem (or a driver problem, of course, which is another symptom crappy hardware). Apple's ads show the "PC guy" actually stopping, which hasn't happened in what, ten years?
You do fully believe that a criminal is more honest than a braggert. Amazing. Frightening, too.
No. I'm comparing Apple with Microsoft on the basis of their respective sins. Apple's sins are FAR FAR FAR greater than Microsoft's. The difference is that Apple's marketshare is so tiny that no one cares (or even is hardly aware of it). Apple can play their dirty tricks in the shadows of obscurity.
The only way to even try to say Microsoft is more honest than Apple is to blind oneself to Microsoft's criminal market abuses.
Pfff. Microsoft is not even the same league as Apple. You might disagree with Microsoft's business policies (e.g., the contracts they negotiated with PC manufacturers), but rarely (if ever, I can't think of any time) have they out-and-out lied to their customers like Apple does regularly. You think Microsoft has had some anticompetitive behavior? Look at Apples:
1) The look-and-feel lawsuits where Apple tried to kill anyone who made ANY sort of interface that happened to use graphics. That was lovely. Say what you want about Microsoft, but they almost never use the lawsuit as a weapon like Apple does.
2) Suing journalists who might happen to talk to Apple products.
3) Pulling licenses of the clone manufacturers and driving them to bankruptcy. Just the fact that Microsoft embraces open hardware standards gives Microsoft the moral high ground over Apple.
4) Of course, it doesn't stop with the Mac. There is Apple's iPod, where they sue companies who might want to let you play music that Apple doesn't approve of. This one especially galls me. F-YOU Steve! If I want to buy software to modify the iPod, then get the hell away from me!
5) Then they deny, deny, deny whenever there is a problem, like the iPods that got constantly scratched up.
I could go on and on and on. Apple sucks. Imagine if Apple had won the PC wars instead of Microsoft. PCs would be $15,000 (not including monitor), and there would be exactly one source.