That was an interesting response and I think you are right that wage earners see the recovery later in the process. An excellent point.
"Leading indicators are things like building permits, interest rates, stock prices, and so on. These have been positive for a while now."
Hmm...but that's also the problem. Building permits have been positive, but probably we've seen the hight point for now. With interest rates this low this long, those who wanted to buy or re-mortgage have done so. Which ties into interest rates which can only rise from here. As for stock prices, look at those P/E ratios. They are still historically too high, something that was ridiculed during the boom but turned out to be right.
So if those have been the positive indicator so far, and I agree they have been, it doesn't bode well for the future. I think your original point is correct: Once businesses start hiring en masse, and manufacturing increases production significantally, then we'll see a real recovery. The point of this/. story was that maybe we are seeing those things happen. If so, it's the first I've heard it. Let's see.
" Greenspan won't raise the interest rates until the economy actually is doing better, not just showing signs of doing better. So while there may be other factors that will effect the possibly-pending recovery, I wouldn't count on raising interest rates being the one to kill it off."
I agree that is the likely way rates will go up, but it could still be a problem. If consumers have been propping up the economy as best they can (which they have) by borrowing instead of getting real wage gains (which is how it has happened), when interest rates rise their credit costs increase. Simultaneously the real estate boom slows dramatically as those mortgages and 2nd mortgages are no longer such bargains. Real estate values will then drop a bit which, coupled with a increase cost in credit, will stress any recovery. It had better be a real strong recovery to withstand rising rates, in other words. What we have so far appears not to be that kind of recovery. It seems to be a recovery for islands in the economy, not the overall ocean.
" I'm sure many people will flame over this but I think the economy is generaly on it's way up anyways."
No flame, just a cautious disagreement. There were a lot of headlines this week about the economy finally doing well, but it was based on GDP numbers. I'm not sure how much the war in Iraq is affecting that, but I'm sure it is having some impact. Lots of manufacturing is needed to repair the damage. In addition, consumer spending went up in the 3rd quarter, but there are problems with that: Part of it is the spending of the latest tax refund. And part of it is the continued hot real estate buying as a result of historic low interest rates.
Why are those problems? The war is not something to base long-term economic revival on, and can easily mask hidden GDP weakness. Tax refunds are one-off events. And real estate has gotten about as hot as it can for now since rates will not go lower, but will go higher in the next year.
There's a bigger problem: This "recovery" doesn't look like one to the average wage-earner. Note this look at wage and salary income and how this "recovery" doesn't look like other recoveries in the past. If the average guy doesn't see benefits, there will be no real recovery. Thow in massive deficit spending and a pending credit crunch when interest rates inevitably rise, and I'm not yet convinced that we are seeing a real recovery.
See? Not a flame. Just a reasoned disagreement. I would be interested in people's views of the above.
"To add insult to injury, it works too well. All that insulin in your blood strips out the blood sugar, causing you to crash; it also prevents your body from turning some of that fat back into blood sugar. Overall, your blood sugar and insulin levels looks like rollar coasters (which is very unhealty, and lead to diabetes)."
Thank you for making my point. Atkins is unhealty in the long term. Enjoy your short-term loss.
"Is it impossible to "keep off carbs forever"? Because if it is, I must be defying some law of physics or something."
Nope, not impossible, but you are altering your body's production of insulin and forcing it to behave in ways that it was not designed for. Good luck, if you keep on doing this.
The Atkins diet does not work in the long run. Yes, at first you lose the weight and this is why everyone thinks this is a great diet. But you cannot keep off carbs forever, you eventually have to bring them back into your diet, and as soon as you do the weight will come back. This is NOT the diet for you if you want permanent weight loss.
Now if you want to lose a few quick pounds so you can fit into your tux or something, this will work in the short term. But don't fool yourself into thinking it's permanent. It's not. And keep in mind that the lack of carbohydrates decreases insulin production, so you are playing with your body chemistry in a futile attempt to permanently lose weight.
Wand to permanently lose weight? Find a healthy, sustainable, balanced diet that cuts your daily caloric intake. That's it. Lose calories, lose weight. Sorry pizza boys, but that's the secret. Atkins fails because you cannot keep on that diet long term and be healthy. So you need to permanently drop calories while maintaining a balanced diet that will do the trick. That's hard to do.
It does't create enough of a physical barrier, as that student repeatedly proved by carrying box cutters onto airplanes. So yes, you are correct that legal barriers help set up physical barriers. I guess the discussion on this topic is more along the lines of whether the Patriot Act is setting up the right legal barriers, and whether or not these legal barriers are effective enough to warrant the effect they have on law-abiding citizens.
Legal freedom applies. If you ignore the fact that a person can use his physical freedom to ignore the law, one could point out that you can only have safety if one has no legal freedom. The more legal freedom you have, the more risks you have to face. Same sliding scale applies.
Of course, terrorists don't care about legal restrictions except as they constrict their physical freedom. That's why all these new laws don't make people safer. Those who are willing to die for their beliefs won't let new laws stop them. And thus we are back to physical freedom or lack thereof and the fruitless quest for safety.
" I think that many people are finally latching onto the concept that freedom to live safely is more important than freedom to be a criminal."
I don't know anyone making that comparison. For one thing, there is no freedom to live safely. You can lose all your freedom and be "safe," or you can have freedom and take the normal risks we all face. But you cannot have freedom and safety, not entirely. So if safety is what you want, kiss your freedom good-bye.
Now back in the real world, the rest of us recognize that freedom and safety exist on opposite sliding scales. The more free you are, the less safe. For example, if you allow people the freedom to cross the street against the light, you take the risk that they will get hit by a car. If you physically prevent them from being able to cross against the light, that risk goes way down. Their safety (at least with that one risk) increases. Of course they could still get hit by a falling safe, but hey, that's life. It's full of risks.
So what you should have said is: Freedom to live means you are less safe. Safety means you are less free. Now all you have to do is figure out where on the sliding scale you would prefer to live.
Are most people willing to give up a lot of their freedom in order to gain safety? Seems that way. Sadly for them, they probably aren't that much safer for true safety is more of an illusion than anything. Life has risks. Deal.
" I know others will point this out - but when will MS actually be punished for persistent illegalities rather than "giving away" stuff of "$$$" value that they claim a tax refund on?"
Well, the government basically does not see Microsoft as doing anything wrong, not really. Before the current administration took over, they telegraphed their desire to see antitrust actions against Microsoft done away with.
You and I can read the antitrust regulations and see obvious violations. Serial offenders? Absolutely they are. Not only that, but blatant serial offenders. They walk into a courtroom and blatantly try to pull falsehoods over on the judge. When they get caught, they just keep on going. When they get found judicially to be an illegal monopoly, they disagree and appeal. When the appeals court agrees they are an illegal monopoly, they release statements saying they are just "innovators" instead.
So instead of the orange jump suits and chains, they get tax credits and market share increases. When justice is measured out in terms of profit and loss, those who make the most profits are viewed as the most just. Business as usual today. Expect a lot more of the same.
Still...it is a fun vision to picture Billy G. and Monkey Boy Ballmer on a chain gang.:)
The job of a reporter is to report...the facts. Now if a subject tells obvious falsehoods, the job of a reporter is to interview someone else who can correct the falsehoods. It is a dereliction of duty for a reporter to just quote someone spouting well-known lies.
I'll make it easy for you: Let's take an obvious example. A spokesperson for the government makes a speech in which he claims that an asteroid is going to destroy the earth in 24 hours. Should the reporter just print those words, just report, as you claim? Or should the reporter see if there is another side to the story?
Oh boy, this is too easy to dissect such naked, false, and desperate Microsoft FUD:
"There is no road map for Linux, nobody who has his rear end on the line."
Quick, alert Linus and the rest of the kernel maintainers and planners. Also, better not spread around the road map for Linux so Ballmer won't look like a fool.
" We think it's an advantage a commercial company can bring--we provide a road map, indemnify customers."
ROFL! Indemnify?! Ever read a Microsoft EULA? You're on your own, buddy. How stupid does he think people are? Never mind, don't answer that...
" They know where to send e-mail. "
Oh, puleeeze! Ever try to complain to Microsoft about a bug in their software? Now, take that to the next level. Ever try to complain to one of their software developers about a bug in the particular software they wrote? What's that? You have no idea who wrote that piece of software? And you have no way of finding out? So tell me again where the accountability is.
"None of that is true in the other world. "
Uh, precisely the opposite of what you said, but thanks for playing anyway. Tell Steve what he's won. Seriously, it really is just the opposite. Linux code comes with people's name on it. You want accountability? Put your name on software used by millions and put it out into the world to be dissected.
"So far, I think our model works pretty well,"
(Wiping the tears from my face while I shake with laughter) If the current mess of the state of Windows is his idea of things working "pretty well," oh never mind...This speech sure wasn't directed at the cluefull.
That means, of course, that most reporters will report it verbatim and at face value. *sigh*
"What a crock. There has, and always will be, alternatives. While it's entirely appropriate for concerns to be raised now, to expect that we'll end up with some sort of "Evil Corporate Control" over what we can do with our lives is kind of paranoid, don't you think?"
Not really, not when it is the current trend. People are just extrapolating current trends to future forecasts. And although the future is rarely that linear, when you see a trend the time to cry out about it is before it's too late. So it's not paranoid at all, just cautious.
Corporations are not evil. That is a human concept. However, the effect of corporate actions can appear "evil" to humans who suffer the effects of the corporate drive for profits above all (Bhopal, anyone?). A corporation is an entity that is designed to raise profits, and almost anything that helps that goal is taken. If you, the private citizen, benefit from that corporation, all well and good, but that is not the goal of the corporation. If you suffer from the results of the coporate actions, too bad for you, but that is not the goal of the corporation.
Now picture a world under the control of these corporations. Will they have your interests at heart? Only in the sense that a zookeeper would prefer that the caged monkeys stay healthy so that they continue to be a profit center for the zoo. Corporations want you to buy and use their products, but otherwise they have no use for you.
Step by step this country, and a good chunk of the world, is moving in that direction. Already the megacorps are basically calling the shots on American policy (war in Afghanistan? in Iraq? These both benefit corporations big time). Now they are telling the FCC to protect their interests at the cost of our rights. How much more of this would you like before you begin to extrapolate those current trends yourself?
"Ummm, yes, remind me how many different Mac vendors there are? Just one you say?"
Huh?! I was pointing out the hypocrisy of Microsoft's statement, not talking about Apple. Turning the topic around does not answer the hypocrisy. The Microsoft way is no choice, if at all possible. So for them to cry "choice!" is just laughable.
"drawback for Windows users, who expect choice in music services, choice in devices, and choice in music from a wide-variety of music services to burn to a CD or put on a portable device."
ROFL! Talk about naked FUD. Choice, choice, choice. Yeah, that's the Microsoft Way, isn't it? NOT. What hypocrisy!
It's not even accurate. You CAN burn iTunes Store music to a CD. Rip it again to MP3, put it on any device you want. Oh wait, iPods are just about the best device you can use, so I'm just guessing that if you have an iPod you don't have too many other devices you care to have. For that matter, no matter what device you have, you probably don't have too many others. Why would you? Use what works and done with it.
Choice in music? Well, the biggest choice is probably Kazaa, but that's beside the point. We're talking about the pay sites, and iTMS has 400,00 and growing. Not much of a problem, and becoming less so as time goes on.
Apple just signed with Pepsi and AOL to do cross-marketing. That's some big partners to get the word out. But the word is out already. I see so many iPods in use it's amazing. In short, Apple did something right and Microsoft is running scared about it. With only the Mac market so far, Apple captured, what, 30% of paid downloads. Now the other 90% can use their service, so watch out Microsoft.
"She said the practice of patching systems after they've been certified opens the possibility for anyone -- from Diebold employees to local election officials -- to install malicious code on a machine that could alter election results and then delete itself to avoid detection."
Elections in this, and many other countries, have a long history of fraud. The obtaining of power is so important to some people they will do whatever is necessary to get and maintain it. You can be certain that if there is a way to manipulate results without detection, the temptation will be too great. Countless examples riddle American election history, and yes, from both major parties.
But this is the worst of all. Closed-sourced, buggy, patched (with what? we don't know) after certification electronic voting machines represent power without accountability. Read that again: Power without accountability. That is a recipe for disaster. All you have to do is patch things your way and, voila, you get some "odd" election results that contradict all the polls, but who cares? You're in power now, baby!
This is a huge story, and I'm glad to see Wired covering it. But this belongs on the front page of every newspaper in the country, and on every evening newscast. Why don't we see it there? Ask yourself who owns these voting machine companies. Now ask yourself who owns the mainstream media companies. Connect the dots.
" Can you state with absolute certainty that every program I will ever want to run will come out for Windows first, or at least not more than a week later? No? Because I can do that about Mac, despite all its flaws."
I just re-worded your statement to match my reality, and thus show you that you have your opinion and software needs, and I have mine. So everybody should pick what works best for them.
As for me, I spent 15 years in the WinTel world. A few years ago I tried a Mac and you couldn't pay me to go back to Windows ever again. YMMV, but don't discount the grass over here until you actually try it.
As someone who has been following the computer industry since the late 70s, and thus has seen Microsoft's actions from their earliest days, this is hardly new behavior:
Word Processors: When WordStar was king and WordPerfect came along and dominated, Word was the upstart. Microsoft kept throwing more and more features into the product. Fast forward a few years: Word is king, innovation slows to a trickle. The Word you use today is like the Word you used half-a-decade ago.
Programming Tools: When Borland was kicking Microsoft's butt in IDEs and compiler technology, Microsoft had to add features like mad to get their market share back. Fast forward a few years: The Visual IDEs are king, innovation slows to a trickle.
Web browsers: When Netscape was king, blah, blah blah. The IE you use today, blah, blah, blah.
Monopolies traditionally stagnate as often as they can get away with. Ain't nothing new here. Move along.
What is this strange MacDonald's place you speak of? Is it perhaps a Scottish outpost of the famous McDonalds corporation? McHaggis, anyone? Servers wearing kilts?
Slashdot Mirror
"Leading indicators are things like building permits, interest rates, stock prices, and so on. These have been positive for a while now."
Hmm...but that's also the problem. Building permits have been positive, but probably we've seen the hight point for now. With interest rates this low this long, those who wanted to buy or re-mortgage have done so. Which ties into interest rates which can only rise from here. As for stock prices, look at those P/E ratios. They are still historically too high, something that was ridiculed during the boom but turned out to be right.
So if those have been the positive indicator so far, and I agree they have been, it doesn't bode well for the future. I think your original point is correct: Once businesses start hiring en masse, and manufacturing increases production significantally, then we'll see a real recovery. The point of this /. story was that maybe we are seeing those things happen. If so, it's the first I've heard it. Let's see.
I agree that is the likely way rates will go up, but it could still be a problem. If consumers have been propping up the economy as best they can (which they have) by borrowing instead of getting real wage gains (which is how it has happened), when interest rates rise their credit costs increase. Simultaneously the real estate boom slows dramatically as those mortgages and 2nd mortgages are no longer such bargains. Real estate values will then drop a bit which, coupled with a increase cost in credit, will stress any recovery. It had better be a real strong recovery to withstand rising rates, in other words. What we have so far appears not to be that kind of recovery. It seems to be a recovery for islands in the economy, not the overall ocean.
No flame, just a cautious disagreement. There were a lot of headlines this week about the economy finally doing well, but it was based on GDP numbers. I'm not sure how much the war in Iraq is affecting that, but I'm sure it is having some impact. Lots of manufacturing is needed to repair the damage. In addition, consumer spending went up in the 3rd quarter, but there are problems with that: Part of it is the spending of the latest tax refund. And part of it is the continued hot real estate buying as a result of historic low interest rates.
Why are those problems? The war is not something to base long-term economic revival on, and can easily mask hidden GDP weakness. Tax refunds are one-off events. And real estate has gotten about as hot as it can for now since rates will not go lower, but will go higher in the next year.
There's a bigger problem: This "recovery" doesn't look like one to the average wage-earner. Note this look at wage and salary income and how this "recovery" doesn't look like other recoveries in the past. If the average guy doesn't see benefits, there will be no real recovery. Thow in massive deficit spending and a pending credit crunch when interest rates inevitably rise, and I'm not yet convinced that we are seeing a real recovery.
See? Not a flame. Just a reasoned disagreement. I would be interested in people's views of the above.
Thank you for making my point. Atkins is unhealty in the long term. Enjoy your short-term loss.
Nope, not impossible, but you are altering your body's production of insulin and forcing it to behave in ways that it was not designed for. Good luck, if you keep on doing this.
Yes, before everyone jumps on this, I just noticed this very Freudian typo. Ah, if only there were a magic wand that could make us lose weight...
Now if you want to lose a few quick pounds so you can fit into your tux or something, this will work in the short term. But don't fool yourself into thinking it's permanent. It's not. And keep in mind that the lack of carbohydrates decreases insulin production, so you are playing with your body chemistry in a futile attempt to permanently lose weight.
Wand to permanently lose weight? Find a healthy, sustainable, balanced diet that cuts your daily caloric intake. That's it. Lose calories, lose weight. Sorry pizza boys, but that's the secret. Atkins fails because you cannot keep on that diet long term and be healthy. So you need to permanently drop calories while maintaining a balanced diet that will do the trick. That's hard to do.
Which is why so many people are fat.
Including ex-Atkins people.
It does't create enough of a physical barrier, as that student repeatedly proved by carrying box cutters onto airplanes. So yes, you are correct that legal barriers help set up physical barriers. I guess the discussion on this topic is more along the lines of whether the Patriot Act is setting up the right legal barriers, and whether or not these legal barriers are effective enough to warrant the effect they have on law-abiding citizens.
Of course, terrorists don't care about legal restrictions except as they constrict their physical freedom. That's why all these new laws don't make people safer. Those who are willing to die for their beliefs won't let new laws stop them. And thus we are back to physical freedom or lack thereof and the fruitless quest for safety.
I don't know anyone making that comparison. For one thing, there is no freedom to live safely. You can lose all your freedom and be "safe," or you can have freedom and take the normal risks we all face. But you cannot have freedom and safety, not entirely. So if safety is what you want, kiss your freedom good-bye.
Now back in the real world, the rest of us recognize that freedom and safety exist on opposite sliding scales. The more free you are, the less safe. For example, if you allow people the freedom to cross the street against the light, you take the risk that they will get hit by a car. If you physically prevent them from being able to cross against the light, that risk goes way down. Their safety (at least with that one risk) increases. Of course they could still get hit by a falling safe, but hey, that's life. It's full of risks.
So what you should have said is: Freedom to live means you are less safe. Safety means you are less free. Now all you have to do is figure out where on the sliding scale you would prefer to live.
Are most people willing to give up a lot of their freedom in order to gain safety? Seems that way. Sadly for them, they probably aren't that much safer for true safety is more of an illusion than anything. Life has risks. Deal.
Well, the government basically does not see Microsoft as doing anything wrong, not really. Before the current administration took over, they telegraphed their desire to see antitrust actions against Microsoft done away with.
You and I can read the antitrust regulations and see obvious violations. Serial offenders? Absolutely they are. Not only that, but blatant serial offenders. They walk into a courtroom and blatantly try to pull falsehoods over on the judge. When they get caught, they just keep on going. When they get found judicially to be an illegal monopoly, they disagree and appeal. When the appeals court agrees they are an illegal monopoly, they release statements saying they are just "innovators" instead.
So instead of the orange jump suits and chains, they get tax credits and market share increases. When justice is measured out in terms of profit and loss, those who make the most profits are viewed as the most just. Business as usual today. Expect a lot more of the same.
Still...it is a fun vision to picture Billy G. and Monkey Boy Ballmer on a chain gang. :)
The job of a reporter is to report...the facts. Now if a subject tells obvious falsehoods, the job of a reporter is to interview someone else who can correct the falsehoods. It is a dereliction of duty for a reporter to just quote someone spouting well-known lies.
I'll make it easy for you: Let's take an obvious example. A spokesperson for the government makes a speech in which he claims that an asteroid is going to destroy the earth in 24 hours. Should the reporter just print those words, just report, as you claim? Or should the reporter see if there is another side to the story?
"There is no road map for Linux, nobody who has his rear end on the line."
Quick, alert Linus and the rest of the kernel maintainers and planners. Also, better not spread around the road map for Linux so Ballmer won't look like a fool.
" We think it's an advantage a commercial company can bring--we provide a road map, indemnify customers."
ROFL! Indemnify?! Ever read a Microsoft EULA? You're on your own, buddy. How stupid does he think people are? Never mind, don't answer that...
" They know where to send e-mail. "
Oh, puleeeze! Ever try to complain to Microsoft about a bug in their software? Now, take that to the next level. Ever try to complain to one of their software developers about a bug in the particular software they wrote? What's that? You have no idea who wrote that piece of software? And you have no way of finding out? So tell me again where the accountability is.
"None of that is true in the other world. "
Uh, precisely the opposite of what you said, but thanks for playing anyway. Tell Steve what he's won. Seriously, it really is just the opposite. Linux code comes with people's name on it. You want accountability? Put your name on software used by millions and put it out into the world to be dissected.
"So far, I think our model works pretty well,"
(Wiping the tears from my face while I shake with laughter) If the current mess of the state of Windows is his idea of things working "pretty well," oh never mind...This speech sure wasn't directed at the cluefull.
That means, of course, that most reporters will report it verbatim and at face value. *sigh*
Not really, not when it is the current trend. People are just extrapolating current trends to future forecasts. And although the future is rarely that linear, when you see a trend the time to cry out about it is before it's too late. So it's not paranoid at all, just cautious.
Corporations are not evil. That is a human concept. However, the effect of corporate actions can appear "evil" to humans who suffer the effects of the corporate drive for profits above all (Bhopal, anyone?). A corporation is an entity that is designed to raise profits, and almost anything that helps that goal is taken. If you, the private citizen, benefit from that corporation, all well and good, but that is not the goal of the corporation. If you suffer from the results of the coporate actions, too bad for you, but that is not the goal of the corporation.
Now picture a world under the control of these corporations. Will they have your interests at heart? Only in the sense that a zookeeper would prefer that the caged monkeys stay healthy so that they continue to be a profit center for the zoo. Corporations want you to buy and use their products, but otherwise they have no use for you.
Step by step this country, and a good chunk of the world, is moving in that direction. Already the megacorps are basically calling the shots on American policy (war in Afghanistan? in Iraq? These both benefit corporations big time). Now they are telling the FCC to protect their interests at the cost of our rights. How much more of this would you like before you begin to extrapolate those current trends yourself?
Better overly cautious than not cautious enough.
Why is Microsoft scared? They have their own designs on the music market, and they want Apple to not dominate here as they have done so far.
Huh?! I was pointing out the hypocrisy of Microsoft's statement, not talking about Apple. Turning the topic around does not answer the hypocrisy. The Microsoft way is no choice, if at all possible. So for them to cry "choice!" is just laughable.
ROFL! Talk about naked FUD. Choice, choice, choice. Yeah, that's the Microsoft Way, isn't it? NOT. What hypocrisy!
It's not even accurate. You CAN burn iTunes Store music to a CD. Rip it again to MP3, put it on any device you want. Oh wait, iPods are just about the best device you can use, so I'm just guessing that if you have an iPod you don't have too many other devices you care to have. For that matter, no matter what device you have, you probably don't have too many others. Why would you? Use what works and done with it.
Choice in music? Well, the biggest choice is probably Kazaa, but that's beside the point. We're talking about the pay sites, and iTMS has 400,00 and growing. Not much of a problem, and becoming less so as time goes on.
Apple just signed with Pepsi and AOL to do cross-marketing. That's some big partners to get the word out. But the word is out already. I see so many iPods in use it's amazing. In short, Apple did something right and Microsoft is running scared about it. With only the Mac market so far, Apple captured, what, 30% of paid downloads. Now the other 90% can use their service, so watch out Microsoft.
Dots the point...
(Sorry, couldn't resist)
Elections in this, and many other countries, have a long history of fraud. The obtaining of power is so important to some people they will do whatever is necessary to get and maintain it. You can be certain that if there is a way to manipulate results without detection, the temptation will be too great. Countless examples riddle American election history, and yes, from both major parties.
But this is the worst of all. Closed-sourced, buggy, patched (with what? we don't know) after certification electronic voting machines represent power without accountability. Read that again: Power without accountability. That is a recipe for disaster. All you have to do is patch things your way and, voila, you get some "odd" election results that contradict all the polls, but who cares? You're in power now, baby!
This is a huge story, and I'm glad to see Wired covering it. But this belongs on the front page of every newspaper in the country, and on every evening newscast. Why don't we see it there? Ask yourself who owns these voting machine companies. Now ask yourself who owns the mainstream media companies. Connect the dots.
No Kool Aid, just reality. Ever sit in a Mercedes Benz? Want to go back to that Taurus afterward? It ain't Kool Aid, it's just quality.
I just re-worded your statement to match my reality, and thus show you that you have your opinion and software needs, and I have mine. So everybody should pick what works best for them.
As for me, I spent 15 years in the WinTel world. A few years ago I tried a Mac and you couldn't pay me to go back to Windows ever again. YMMV, but don't discount the grass over here until you actually try it.
- Word Processors: When WordStar was king and WordPerfect came along and dominated, Word was the upstart. Microsoft kept throwing more and more features into the product. Fast forward a few years: Word is king, innovation slows to a trickle. The Word you use today is like the Word you used half-a-decade ago.
- Programming Tools: When Borland was kicking Microsoft's butt in IDEs and compiler technology, Microsoft had to add features like mad to get their market share back. Fast forward a few years: The Visual IDEs are king, innovation slows to a trickle.
- Web browsers: When Netscape was king, blah, blah blah. The IE you use today, blah, blah, blah.
Monopolies traditionally stagnate as often as they can get away with. Ain't nothing new here. Move along.What is this strange MacDonald's place you speak of? Is it perhaps a Scottish outpost of the famous McDonalds corporation? McHaggis, anyone? Servers wearing kilts?