There's a reason as stated in Lustig's presentation about why eating fruits as a source of sugar is NOT bad -- it's because the fruits don't just contain fructose, they also contain fiber, a substance which among other things inhibits the absorption of fructose through the intestines, unlike the sugar/fructose that's put into candy, salad dressings, junk food in general and soda which have NO FIBER. That's something you would have picked up *HAD YOU WATCHED EITHER VIDEO*. If it makes you feel any better, *I* appreciate you letting me know what kind of diet you are eating and the results you're getting. Based on Lustig's presentation and the South Beach diet I've managed to lose 50lbs. since September 1st just by ditching the junk food + sodas + any foods high in sugars (but with no fiber) or carbs such as potatos (which if you're not familiar are processed into sugars by the human body). I'm going to try switching to a higher fruit diet to see if I can get results similar to yours.

It's not meant to be a point of criticism, but it's not meat that's making so many American's fat -- it's fructose in the diet from table sugar and just as bad high corn fructose syrup. Here's a link to a fascinating video by Dr. Robert Lustig, an endocrinologist specializing in childhood obesity, entitled "The Bitter Truth About Sugar" that covers among other topics the biochemical process that connects fructose to creation of fat cells: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM. Checkout the history between the size of soda cans/bottles and the correlation to obesity rates in America. If you just want the highlights from the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdMjKEncojQ In my own personal research it's mind blowing the amount of fructose in soda vs. other food products. The amount of sugar in a low sugar whole wheat slice of bread: 1g. The amount of sugar in a 24 oz. Dr. Pepper bottle: 80g! Unholy bat guano! It's a miracle that people's pancreas don't explode from the amount of sugar consumed on a daily basis.

This is not the first time I've heard something like it, and I still don't understand it. How can all hackers and malware programmers "generally love" Linux so much that they don't attack Linux sites? Can this really be true? I don't see how, but for the sake of argument, assuming that statement is true, WHY would hackers and malware programmer loooovvvvvvvee Linux so much and not Microsoft that they protect Linux and attack Microsoft? Why?

• From the Halloween documents (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halloween_Documents), specifically document 1 (http://www.catb.org/~esr/halloween/halloween1.html) and document 3 (http://www.catb.org/~esr/halloween/halloween3.html) ESR's analysis of how Microsoft perceives interacting with others:

  To put it even more bluntly: "commodity" services and protocols are good things for customers; they promote competition and choice. Therefore, for Microsoft to win, the customer must lose.

  Microsoft truly behaves as though it corporately believes that there's only a fixed pool of key ideas, most already discovered, which software designers must squabble over in zero-sum competition until the end of time. In that game, the only definition of `winning' is cornering enough goodies to guarantee you a monopoly lock.

• Micorosoft is a software company (even if it's run by a marketing execs); they make money selling software.
• Microsoft is an OS company; they make money selling an operating system.
• Microsoft is a for profit company that sells software for their operating system. They're not in the business of supporting other operating systems (example: the recent H264 plugin for Chrome is for Windows only Chrome. Some choice!)
• Microsoft encourages developers,developers,developers,developers, only so long as it improves their market share of operating systems. Any developer who competes with Microsoft software or whose product is deemed useful to Microsoft is either eliminated or assimilated (preferrably after running them into bankruptcy first -- see Spyglass and Internet Explorer -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Internet_Explorer)
• From wikipedia's entry on conflict resolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_resolution) there are 5 strategies of resolving conflict: accommodation,avoidance,collaboration,compromise,and competition. Here's the definition of competition:

  assert one's viewpoint at the potential expense of another. It can be useful when achieving one's objectives outweighs one's concern for the relationship.

  Here's the definition of accommodation:

  surrender one's own needs and wishes to accommodate the other party.

  • In any negotiations with Microsoft one might assume that because Microsoft is a corporation composed of many individuals that negotiations will involved either collaboration or compromise. However, you need to keep in mind that Microsoft believes in zero sum --- in order for them to win, you have to lose. Which means that in the process of negotiations with Microsoft you'll be going through the following stages of negotiation:
    1. Assume collaboration. You'll explain your requirements and assume they will explain theirs and you'll assume you'll find a way to satisfy both. However, this won't happen as Microsoft want to win by making you lose, so they won't accede to your suggestions.
    2. Since you don't get everything you want you'll assume the strategy has switched to compromise, clearly you're giving some to Microsoft, and you expect them to give some concessions in return to you as a way of compromising. But, Microsoft believes in zero sum, and its strategy is competitive. Microsoft gives no concessions, only face saving rationalizations so you can convince yourself that you're getting something from them.
    3. Whether you realize it or not, your strategy has now become accommodation. To save face, you delude yourself into believing you're an equal partner with Microsoft until it's too late.

    Let's analyze the Nokia-Microsoft "deal". What has Microsoft gained?

    • Nokia is using Microsoft's operating system. (No Linux need apply. Die symbian, die!)
    • Nokia is using Microsoft's api instead of another. (No qt is allowed)
    • Microsoft is getting a large slice of the cell phone market exclusively. (Don't have to compete with Android for Nokia)
    • Microsoft has exclusive control of the software. (Talk about a wet dream for Microsoft!)

    What has Nokia "gained"?

    • Loss of their own operating systems.
    • Loss of the direction of the software for their cellphones. (That's Microsoft's purview now.)
    • Loss of their Symbian, Qt, and Meego developers (what do they need them for now? They're nonprofitable baggage now.)

    In summary it looks to me like the bargaining resolution was a (competition, accommodation) pairing with Microsoft in the drivers' seat. If I was on Nokia's board or a shareholder I would probably demand an investigation into fraud and at the very least fire Elop.

Why do people allow chairmen to make ignorant remarks like that? Friends don't let friends make asinine remarks about security without at least understanding the issues: Kerckhoff's Principle.

It was a well written, respectful, explanation excusing Mr. Gates' behavior by rationalizing that everybody's money in some way or another funds "bad" things in life. I, however, don't agree nor do I accept any attempt to excuse his behavior. The bottom line is that MOST people don't have BILLIONS of dollars invested DIRECTLY into corporations with unethical behavior. Does Gates foundation fund charities? Well, maybe they do. The questions I have for everyone who thinks that Mr. Gates is doing good is this: Are there any restrictions on the donations,i.e., does the charity have to use ONLY Microsoft products? If the answer is yes, they do have to use ONLY Microsoft products, then do you still believe that is he's doing good charity or good marketing? They are not the same, and they are exclusive.

Let me just start with a wikipedia entry, on Kerchoff's principle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerckhoffs'_principle

If you get the point of Kerchoff's principle, you understand why *if* all things are equal *then* open source code is inherently better than closed source code because public disclosure finds the flaws in the source code faster so they can be fixed faster.

If you want to force a *proprietary* vendor to *immediately* fix a vulnerability, you have to disclose it to the public first, as the vendor will have to scramble to fix the vulnerability or risk losing angry customers.

Talking to the vendor first results at best in delay and/or inaction by the vendor, and at worst threats of lawsuits and criminal prosecution by the vendor should you disclose the vulnerability to the public.

It's like that video by that law professor, the one that advises you not to talk to police. Here's the url: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4097602514885833865#

In the case of an open source vendor, the code is open to anyone to inspect, and hence is easier to fix. This is why for example Mozilla and Google offers bounties to anyone for finding bugs. They are *actively* encouraging people to find flaws so they can be patched. This is why open source code is better.

h4rm0ny, You're not the first post I've seen like this, where the posters says something like "I'm a Linux user, I use it at work, I use it at home. I have #N number of Linux boxes, I've used #M linux distros, but I really recommend to people who have never used a computer to use Microsoft (tm) products." I don't get it. Is it like cognitive dissonance? How can someone say "I'm an expert in technology A *which* I really like and I'm good at, but I advise friends and family to use technology B, which I'm not an expert on *and* I believe is an *inferior* technology?" I mean you voluntary use Linux and you *sound* like you really like it, so why would advise them to use *any* Microsoft product. If I was paranoid I might say you're a shill, but I'm willing to believe that I'm missing something here and I would like someone to help me out. Why would someone new to the wonderful world of computers be better of using a proprietary product with onerous EULAS, viruses, trojans, malware, etc. rathen than a Freedom platform with none of that nonsense? Is it a matter of distros? Why not tell then to run Ubuntu, or openSuSe, Fedora, etc.? What am I missing?

The reason why most Linux distros have some kind of package management is because there's so much software with inter-related dependencies that it's a pain in the buttox to try to manage all those dependencies by hand.

One key point about the Linux package managers is that they are needed to manage *all* that open source software. Why open source software? Because no (or rather very few) proprietary companies provide proprietary software for Linux. So if you want some kind of functionality under Linux your best option is to write an open source version because there is very little proprietary software for Linux.

Why then is package management bad for Windows, if it's so useful for Linux? Well, because package management is effective if you have can pull source code, compile, and determine dependencies. That means an open source license for the source code. That means that Microsoft is telling it's huge "ecosphere" of proprietary software vendors to "Piss off you sod!", because *their* software doesn't fit the package management model. That leaves 2 possibilities in the Microsoft world:

1. The package manager is successful and really takes off. Which means most software is open sourced and provided packaged by Microsoft and the proprietary vendors are so screwed out of existence, as they are no longer needed if you can just do an "apt-get install" on Windows without the vendors.
2. The independent vendors realize the implication of this package manager and what it means to their bottom lines and either threaten to leave the Microsoft world for Apple OS X or Microsoft drops the package manager idea.