Since I've never worked the hell out of a *nix box, I'm wondering if you're talking *that* great an advantage here --given the learning curve. W2k = one crash in the last 16 months. That was probably due to the fact that I was working the hell out of my machine using three different graphics programs, Eudora, Firefox, IE, Opera, Netscape, notepad, Word, Windows's native search tool, Zip program, FTP program, InDesign, Acrobat, and probably something I've forgotten. Alas, I've heard *nix fans say they work them even harder. I just don't happen to "suffer" any consequences from using Windoze, not enough to take up my OpenBS project. Sorry guys, Joe and my UNIX wizard friend convinced me long ago and I ain't changing my mind. :)
The only program that habitually crashes is Eudora -- chokes on any quick CTRL-A > CTRL-C > CTRL-V action. She doesn't like wham-bam-thank-you-ma'ams, obviously!
Not that I'm defending Windoze, it's just that 2k seems to be pretty stable -- though I do have a pretty kick ass box given all the graphics programs I run. For your average user who is only going to surf Titty Chat rooms, e-mail, and share digital cam pics is it worth it? As linux distros stand now?
Personally, if linux or contenders have a fighting chance, it won't be with the Suzie Scotchenwater and Jim LimeZima crowd.
Books: From a techwriter's POV, I'd recommend two terrific linuxhead techwriters, Sandy Harris [sandy [at] storm [dot] ca ] and Bruce Byfield [bbyfield [at] axionet [dot] com]. Sandy was working on (may still be?) Free S/Wan. Last I heard from him, he was in China teaching English after the bottom dropped out of the tech market. Bruce currently writes for Linux Today and is a big Open Office booster, recently made ./ with an article on it. (Which sure has improved since I downloaded it in 1998! or 9?)
I guess I'm _really_ surprised to see ravi pointing out all the usability problems with linux! :)
oh, and as for networking, it only took us 5 minutes or so. But we do run an apache server for testing. Alas, hosting is free, so we take what we can get -- which doesn't make me happy nosiree. IIS sucks ass. HARD.
Oh, and the MS marketing onslaught is formidible. When I first started working in security, all my clients were non-MS shops. Banking industry is still often operating in a MF environment, etc. WELL! I've seen a couple of clients fall under the sway of the MS marketing buoyz and the IT people turned into pod people -- according to the security departments folk anyway.
At 12:36 PM 3/30/2005, Michael Dawson wrote:
>I was at the 3-post limit yesterday, and somehow couldn't get this through
>to snit's off-list mail.
I guess not, since I wrote you offlist and no reply. :(
>I didn't mean to be harsh. Snit is a deep and helpful thinker, and I want
>to run through the possible counter-arguments about obesity, so I can avoid
>mistakes in my book.
I thought it was about automobiles?
>I really am interested in knowing why the alarms might be overstated.
I was responding to your claim that the meal was unhealthy. A vegetarian will obviously think so. And most of us have been conditioned to think so as well-- mostly based on poor information from the media. My point in these discussions is usually that most of us, as smart and well-informed as we are, usually don't know that, for instance, the cholesterol in eggs doesn't cause your cholesterol level to rise. Your body upregulates and downregulates cholesterol according to your consumption levels. Indeed, for us, when you don't get enough of the "good fats," your body actually upregulate cholesterol production. Which is why super lowfat diets don't help us, though they may help others.
Most of us think bacon is full of the bad fats, rather than the "good" fat. You can go to the government database and look it up. For slice of bacon it's 2:1 (mono/poly - good)
Many doctors don't know this. I happen to have a mother who's a pushy nurse and a family who's been keeping up with the literature for many, many years. The men in my family die of heart attacks when they are in their forties and the women usually suffer a heart attack in their 50s, though they usually survived into their 60s. With modern healthcare, gram is approaching 80.
It's kind of hard to expect ordinary USers to understand all these complex issues.
It's calories in and calories out, right. The rule is supposed to be 15 kcal/lb. for a non-athletic man.
As for an epidemic, there's some evidence that it's not exactly an epidemic in the sense that it's spreading. Apparently, if you break down the numbers, the people who were already fat have just gotten fatter in the past 10-15 yrs or so. As a sociologist, you can understand how this pulls up the numbers. The argument is that there are some people who are prone to being overweight. Some environmental conditions keep it in check, some don't.
Fat people didn't apear quite as frequently in the past because all sorts of things prevented them from gaining so much weight: reliance on walking (geez, even riding a horse burns more calories than walking, IIRC), more activity on the job, more activity devoted to household tasks, etc. Then, combine that with all the things you speak of.
There is some research that's attempted to look at changes in average weight through the 20th c. They attributed a certain amount of it to the occupational structure. Likewise, I believe it was in China, that there's research to support a similar argument.
AGain, I'm not saying fastfood and empty calories have nothing to do with it. I just think it's not such a good idea to make the issues too simple. Making them simple has led to things like people thinking eggs and bacon are evil. (and not a little lefty snootiness around here about people eating such things!)
I have to watch my intake of eggs and red meat because of the arachidonic acid in them. I also have to watch my intake of carbohydrates, because insulin interfere with my liver's ability to regulate cholesterol production. So, I just laugh when people try to impose ignorant (and, I think, classist, for lack of better word) dietary standards on others because they think their eating habits are healthy and mine aren't. Healthy for whom?
A tossed salad, dressing, bowl of chili, and some tortialla chips probably have as many calories as the BK breakfast! Yet, if asked to pick the one with the least calories, they'd pick the Taco Salad.
If you'd like me to hunt down research... no problem. OTOH, you can probably get away with saying all manner of incorrect and/or very tenuous things on this topic. Everyone wants to believe it's all about one or two things. Which is just exactly what the 'health industry' seems to thrive on.
baaaaaaaaaaaaaah humbug. :)
k
--Bruce Sterling