TWiT 29: The Sony Sucks Edition

[Corey]

http://thisweekintech.com/29

I must admit, Leo has grown on me. :yes

[TJ_Tigger]

http://thisweekintech.com/29

I must admit, Leo has grown on me. :yes
Corey,

Did you listen to the Security Now on RootKits with Steve Gibson? They have a big discussion on Rootkits and Sony BMG on there too.

Tigg

[Corey]

Yep, #12. I posted a link in the "interesting read" thread. These big city creeps really boil my cabbage I tell you. I'm fed up of their shenaniganry. :o

[TJ_Tigger]

mmmmmmm boiled cabbage :yes

[eric_darling]

I must admit, Leo has grown on me.
What I really like most about Leo is his unabashed sense of optimism regarding technology. He embraces technology that makes sense, and exposes that which doesn't. From where I sit, the guy is nearly always right on the money. I've loved listening to his take on things since the "old days" when he was on the original Tech TV (NOT G4, mind you). He's smart without being flippant, and easy to understand. You can just tell from listening to him that he has a healthy persona, too - a guy with whom you'd love to have a drink or two. We need more champions of tech like him.

[TJ_Tigger]

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=27508

[Intrigued]

Speaking of Rootkits, don't forget RootkitRevealer (http://www.sysinternals.com/utilities/rootkitrevealer.html) !

[Corey]

If I were authoring a rootkit remover I would name it "Root Canal" and just watch the millions roll in, laughing maniacally with a Panama hat on and mint julep in my hand and graham cracker crumbs flying out of my mouth with each laugh. :yes

[Intrigued]

I just read over at Slashdot.org about how Sony's Rootkit can be manipulated to bypass their own DRM.

Excuse me (leaves room and goes into hall, then.. LMAO!, comes back into room).

Ahem, anyone have a piece of gum!

;)

[Corey]

Leo said it's particularly poorly written. In fact it's the first rootkit to release a service pack. No lie. It a farce of a mockery of a sham. :rolleyes

[Intrigued]

Rootkit service pack... ha! That's gets me going good.

Oye vay!

[Corey]

Yeah, Leo and the boys had a good chuckle about that in the latest podcast. High level baboonery. I read an interview with the CEO of the company who built Sony's rootkit. He defends it throughout and then finishes with, "But, we've abandoned this methodology for future versions..." Translation: "It worked so incredibly well that we've decided to discontinue it". :rolleyes

Not only did Sony install those rootkits, but they didn't even bother to hire a proper programming team to write a decent quality rootkit. Ergo the "disappearing CD Drive" anomaly which has become a common problem lately... :rolleyes

[Intrigued]

Smacks forehead....

[Corey]

I noticed Leo has changed the title on his site from "Sony Sucks" to "Sony Baloney".

[Intrigued]

Oh, poor little Sony. And I soooo like their PSP (Portable Sony Playstation) I got for x-mas was it... last year.

Now, how to I get this baloney into the drive bay, *smussshaza*

[Corey]

And here's the punchline... [drum roll]

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1009_22-5944643.html

[eric_darling]

Great thing about Macs - it's difficult for users or software to use the root user mode... Which makes the use of rootkits much more difficult for the likes of Sony or anyone else on OS X. In Windows, everyone is the root. So, razzes on Microsoft, on top of those already pronounced for Sony, for that little security oversight in all of their operating systems.

[Corey]

Here's one for Mac:

http://it.asia1.com.sg/newsdaily/news002_20051015.html

I'm not going to go through it again but obviously if you are the least popular platform you enjoy also being the least popular target. Not getting asked to the prom is am effective way to avoid getting a wine stain on your dress but it hardly makes you immune to wine stains. :D

[eric_darling]

Love the big ad for a certain Symantec product at the bottom of the page, too. :)

I don't buy that the "only" reason we don't have any Mac viruses is due to the lack of popularity of the operating system. I've never said it wasn't possible - just more difficult. And I stand by that. There were hundreds - maybe thousands of viruses/trojans/worms for earlier versions of the Mac OS (I know because I once had to contend with one). There's yet to be one of any consequence for OS X. That's not a prediction, mind you, just a FACT.

[Corey]

I'm not sure I understand your Symantec implication. Mac OS was indeed penetrated by virii, based upon my past experience with humans I'm nowhere near inclined to just add an 'X' to it this year and suddenly pretend it's some bastion of impervious security. Just for the record I'm not interested in any debate about the virii which existed for OS, I'm fully aware that the Mac community blames them on MS. Big surprise. :lol

In the big scheme of world statistics it's a vastly unused platform, comparing "OS X" stats to "Windows" stats is like comparing an apple with an orchard. There's absolutely no basis in logic whatsoever for direct comparisons between "OS X" and "all versions of Windows" in terms of virii.

[eric_darling]

Well, "impervious" and "unbreakable" are your words, not my implication. You've incorrectly convoluted my argument into something I didn't say.

The undeniable reality, whether it's a truth that you like or not, is that Macs are more secure. Theoretically, probably not so much. But in practice, and historically, indeed. We don't use computers in a theoretical world, or at least I don't.

Could they (Mac users) one day expect that trend to reverse? I doubt it. And so do you, since you don't believe the trend of computing platform ownership to change much. I'm already too worried about catastrophic hurricanes, bird flu and a meteor crashing into my backyard. Add to that a Mac virus, and it's just too much! I guess I'll just have to carry on in my own little intrepid way. :)

[eric_darling]

Bringing this thread full circle:
http://www.macintouch.com/#tip.2005.11.10.sony

Sony is wanting to put the rootkit on the Mac too! But, one key difference is that you, as an admin user of the system, are required (as is the norm in OS X), to enter a password to authorize the install. One little extra security step that requires third-party software (such as the most recent version of Zone Alarm Pro) to realize on Windows.

[Corey]

Sony really takes the cake on this one.

[eric_darling]

Succumbing to pressure, Sony has announced it will stop making anti-piracy CDs...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4430608.stm

[Corey]

Only once they had absolutely no choice, i.e. once multiple law suits were launched against them. :)

Sony used to be a premium brand which people gladly payed higher prices for but now it's just average products, inflated prices, and poor support... :o

[eric_darling]

Sony makes the best CRTs I've ever used. So, that goes for video monitors and TVs, too. Trinitron monitors ruled (until the advent of high quality plasma and LCD in similar price ranges). Aside from that, in the consumer area, their stuff is pretty much inconsequential. They do make some great broadcast equipment - but they've proven they're behind the curve on the next generation, where Panasonic has a truly well engineered upgrade path that all uses the same tape stock and is backwards compatible. Sony is format of the month, and that policy has really been confusing. I also don't like their stripped-down DVD players. Many better choices exist.

[longedge]

In contrast to Sony's appalling behaviour my Belkin modem/router broke recently. It's well over 2 years old now but it's guaranteed for life.

Belkin have a freephone telephone support line and after I'd spoken to their representative I quickly got a returns number emailed to me. I am now waiting for my new one to arrive. Mine was obsolete so it's being replaced with a current model.

The service has impressed me and they've now got a long term customer in me.

[Corey]

I used some Belkin audio cabling in the past. Decent price and it came with a lifetime warranty which I never had to use because the product was high quality to begin with. :yes

[Eagle]

Side Note: one thing with MS, gotta give credit to Mr Bill here, is although unauthorised copying,
distribution etc for their products is rampant worldwide, they still maintain an 'open' style binary scheme.

the 'Genuine Advantage' thing via windows update is a step forward in an
attempt to tighten up on some of this though.

Remeber the Amiga range of PC's ahead of their time in those days,
OS was onchip, wonder if one day things may return to this method.

Hav'nt come across much to suggest this in the near future anyways..

[Corey]

An interesting wrinkle which I hadn't heard about before. The Sony rootkit also phones home. Sony directly denied that until they were presented with packet data as proof, at which time they said, "Well we're not keeping any of that data..." They're basic jumping from lie to lie. Leo and Steve Gibson elaborate:

http://aolradio.podcast.aol.com/sn/SN-013.mp3

[Intrigued]

You know what I have been thinking with all of this Sony bad this... Sony bad that talk?

They have gotten their name out there even more now. And in the long run it may be like the politician that is corrupt and runs for re-election and gets five percent (5%) of the voters just because they remember his/her name at the time they vote. Now with Sony it will be "at the time they (we) buy".

:eek:

[Corey]

Don't believe the hype. Bad publicity is bad publicity. Period. Check out some recent examples such as the damage to Omnimedia stock during the period when Martha Stewart was front page news every single day.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=MSO&d=t

I can guarantee you this has *no upside* for Sony at the till. There will be a concerted effort in the media to minimize the appearance of the downside but don't mistake that for reality. Never, ever, ever, ever, ever mistake what your TV/paper is telling you for reality. The two are *profoundly* disconnected. :yes

The media has a way of making people think that anti-fame is equal to fame but that's only "believable" because our collective attention span these days is down to about 2 seconds and we never bother to stop and analyze the back story on things before formulating an emotional response. When you check the back story behind these anti-fame cases, it's hard times ahead 99.9% of the time. It works that way for brands too. Supersize Me brought McDonalds name into the press more than it had been for years, which correlated with one of the most troubling periods in McDonalds stock/sales history. So that's the real value of bad publicity. :D

The exception is monopolies. They may have an overwhelmingly negative image without sales suffering as a result. :o

[eric_darling]

McDonalds is up near 52 week highs again.
http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/charts/chartdl.asp?Symbol=MCD

So, despite a few dollars per share drop correlating to the release of "Supersize Me," there was no lasting negative impact.

[Corey]

there was no lasting negative impact
Sure there was. *Tons*. Too much for me to outline here for you but let's just take a look at one tiny long lasting negative impact, restaurant closures. Supersize Me aside, there's also lawsuits from obese children, labor disputes, BSE, etc. which all adds up in terms of brand image. And in the past few years they've permanently shut down hundreds of restaurants worldwide and withdrawn completely from several countries. Nothing hurts McDonalds more than closing a location permanently except for withdrawing completely from an entire country. Period. :)

They prop up their overall numbers by penetrating new markets abroad. Nice in the short run to offset the hundreds of restaurant closures for the stock report, but exactly the same in the long run. Why did they withdraw *completely* from over a dozen self-admittedly "strategically important" countries in the past couple years? Because people abroad show less tolerance for low quality food, tend not to be chronic overeaters, and don't value the McDonalds brand except as a source of employment. That's the facts, it's all on Google. The high paid business experts at McDonalds certainly didn't open up restaurants in those dozen+ countries with the goal of permanently shutting them down a year later... :)
http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/internet/inimr-ri.nsf/en/gr112736e.html

Reponse to the closures has been overwhelmingly positive amongst citizenry, even up here in the icy north as recent as this summer. Which means those markets are not only lost, but also no longer neutral to re-enter in the future. In an increasing number of places the golden arches are viewed as a negative presence and one of the key forces fueling that process is bad publicity.
http://www.jasperbooster.com/story.php?id=173198

As to the larger metaphor, will Sony's stock be up in a few years too? Sure, of course... Does that mean that their brand will have more value? Heck no... :D

[eric_darling]

Aw, c'mon, Corey... If the stock price climbs, things can't be all bad. :) Profits are also up.


For the first nine months of 2005, McDonald's reported net income of $1.99 billion, or $1.56 per share, compared with $1.88 billion, or $1.48 per share, a year earlier. Revenues grew 6 percent to $15.2 billion from $14.1 billion.

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/051020/earns_mcdonald_s.html?.v=10

So I guess that's an aberration? This is a capitalistic economy, so by the primary guages - those being stock price and profits, McDonalds can only be judged as successful.

I am not stating a judgement on the ethics of their policy, just citing facts. I'm with you - after watching Supersize Me, I was left with a bad taste in my mouth (pun intended). But then I wasn't particularly bullish on McDonalds beforehand.

[Corey]

What can I say, I like to look at the whole picture...

[eric_darling]

I admire you for that, Corey. Sincerely. The world needs more careful and honest analysis. It will temper runaway ridiculousness on the part of corporations.

[Corey]

All I can say is thank goodness for Colin. He's truly a tenth dan master of regulating ridiculousness and the only force in this universe which gives me any faith at all in the future of business. :D

[eric_darling]

I'll drink to that! :)

[Desmond]

I remember hearing two phrases of wisdom that pertain to this:

1. There is no such thing as bad publicity

and

2. McDonalds is not in the restaurant business.

For the first . . . while every rule has an exception, most publicity can be used as a positive. As an example, take a look at Clinton. Sure, at the time his scandal seemed bad, but no-one can deny he has become quite successful on the lecture circuit ... which he's piggy-backed on miss L (and being President, i'm sure that helped). And as for Martha, while her one company may have taken a dive, she's quickly building her star power yet again.

As for McDonalds not being in the restaurant business ... of course they sell food, but their real purpose is real-estate. I think that came from a McD's exec way back when. And assuming that you buy that statement, restaurant closures are actually a good thing (from a pure $$, 'who cares about the workers' position), because it means they've sold their real-estate, and probably for quite the profit. The investment in real-estate only pays off when you sell it. Or rent it out I suppose . . .

[Corey]

I wholeheartedly disagree 100%. Cliches are dangerous when taken literally. Bad publicity is bad publicity. If you can cite some unambiguous examples of bad publicity turning permanently into good publicity I'd sure love to hear them. I can cite thousands of cases of bad publicity being bad publicity, I cannot cite a single example of bad publicity working better for someone than good publicity.

As for the rationalization about Martha, that's nuts. Being a CEO is not about losing your company tens of millions of dollars and then making it up over the next 2-3 years on the back end. :eek: Her personal dishonesty set the entire corporation back by 3-4 years minimum . That is *inexcusable* in every way, particulary in terms of her so called "commitment" to stock holders. I'm shocked anyone would view it otherwise. Now her shows ratings are in the toilet (rightfully), there's less positive buzz about her now than there was a decade ago, and she has clearly devalued her stock substantially.

Check out the hit Omnimedia took over her show, it cost them millions and millions of dollars without providing any of the value she promised. Trump is bad mouthing her in the press, etc. It's a fiasco from a branding standpoint. A truly amatuer decision on her part. CEOs are "supposed" to have a knack for avoiding failure. :D

Trump is hilarious, he's running around saying "I knew it, I knew it! I told Burnett that Marth'a show would drag down the ratings for my show when we started all this." and meanwhile he says you're supposed to fire people who run to the boss at the start of a project and say, "This is going to fail." So I guess The Donald has to fire himself now. Good, it's about time. That hairdo has surely earned a little holiday by now. That combover does more work by 7AM than most combovers do all day. :yes

I disagree 100% with the second point as well. McDonalds is in the restaurant business. Sure they're the world's largest retailer of toys, etc. but at the end of the day they're brand is based purely on food-to-mouth, without it they have zero, zip, nothing... I'm not a fan of blanket cliches, they don't hold consistent in real life. They're just an easy way for business profs to kill some time. :yes

All that being said, Desmond rules, my post is completely tertiary to that fact. :D

[Desmond]

Well, good publicity is better than bad publicity, but is bad publicity better than no publicity? While it may be hard to recover any business from a bout of bad press, it's equally hard to make a company prosper that no-one knows about. I guess it all depends on your point of view.

As for McDonalds . . . again, it depends on who we're talking about. If we're talking about the owner(s) of individual locations, sure, their business is entirely food-based -- they get money when I go eat.

But if we're speaking of McDonalds as a whole, that being the franchiser, their business is two-fold -- first, obviously there is money drawn from franchise sales / fees / equipment and supplies sold. But arguably equal to that is the value that McDonalds as an entity draws from its vast real-estate holdings:


From http://www.swarthmore.edu/bulletin/archive/96/nov96/backpages.html

In 1960 Kroc's corporation had turned a paltry profit of $77,000, less than half of what was paid to the brothers in California. But the company's net worth had jumped from $24,000 in 1958 to $16 million in 1960, mostly as a result of Kroc's "extremely silent partner," a financial wizard named Harry Sonneborn. Sonneborn had hit on a way of building assets that was virtually independent of the "millions sold" slogan touted by Kroc's marketing people. He proposed buying the ground under the stores and leasing it to the operators. Sonneborn, no burger evangelist like Kroc, "viewed the food service business as a vehicle for making money in real estate."

And from the same article, one of the hooks to get investors when money was needed:

`He got across the idea that McDonalds was building substantial value in real estate and that the franchisee was on the hook to lease property ... for a much longer period than it would take McDonalds to pay off its real estate purchases.'

Obviously McDonald's couldn't exist without the food part of their business, for that is their ultimate product. But equally obvious is that without their real estate model (buy land on the franchisee's dime, then lease it back to them for as long as they want to keep the store open), they wouldn't have been able to grow as fast, and wouldn't be where they are today. Much of the company's value (brand value aside) is in their real-estate holdings, and it can be deduced that if all (or even some) of their locations are paying lease payments to headquarters, there's a nice monthly positive cash flow going on.

Or so thinks moi.

[Corey]

Bad publicity is bad publicity. Don't mistake it for anything else. Real world experience has taught me that bad publicity is not valuable for any good business. Period. But I don't see a need to convince anyone else of that so that's about all I can say on it...

In terms of cutting through the cliches, I consider "the business you are in" as "the one thing you cannot remove without your operation failing." McDonalds operates perfectly smooth without real estate. Without food they fail instantly. The only single thing they can't operate without is food. So to me that means one thing, they are in the food business. Again, I'm not out to convince anyone...

Here's my closing thought on this, take it for what it is. My experience has been that managers who recite cliches produce the least valuable results almost without exception. The managers who consistently provide the best results from what I see are the ones like Colin. I may be wrong but I'd be surprised to hear Colin ever defend any business cliche. Sure Indigo Rose isn't a household name like Sony but 98% of the people who know us trust us and that is a very unique brand victory which *very few* companies share with us. There is absolutely no subsitute for trust, and absolutely no way to maintain trust in the face of bad publicity. It all comes down to priorities. If you care about your staff and clientele then bad publicity simply is not an option.

As for the value of bad publicity, there is none. If anyone can cite examples to the contrary I would truly enjoy checking them out. Again, there are thousands and thousands of examples of how bad publicity is poison to success. From Edsel to Joey Buttafuoco, the roadside is littered with the carcasses of those who didn't understand that process. :)

Of course the caveat here is that I haven't personally executed a successful business yet so my gums are just flapping in the wind anyhow. :o

[Intrigued]

Real word for ya...

One of my ISP's was Adelphia sometime ago. If you know anything about Adelphia they have had their fair share of "bad press" to say the least. But yet they are adding on folks in record numbers (per an office manager I spoke to last year and from other stats I viewed online at the time).

So, even with corruption, scandal, VERY poor service for MONTHS... in the end.

Bad Press = Good Press. As name recognition shot WAY up. And brandname recognition is VERY important. To think otherwise is just plain foolish.

:yes

[Corey]

They are a monopoly in many of those markets. You can't compare monopolies to non-monopolies. Besides in this case bad press *clearly* did not equal good press because you are here bad mouthing them. There's no basis to believe that they wouldn't be selling subscriptions in lieu of the bad press either, to assume that they are related is a huge leap of logic.

As for foolish, I would say that it's more apt to put that label on situations where people only look at one tiny, usually short term, aspect of something and attempt to extrapolate that to the big picture. If you think brand name recognition outweighs brand name reputation then you are thinking emotionally because you usually don't buy things from people you don't trust, i.e. your behavior and your theory are in conflict.

What's important here is not what people say but what they actually do. :)

Good brands are not built on bad publicity. Period. You guys can argue that until the cows come home but the market clearly proves this fact in 99.99% of cases. Dwelling on the other .01% is counter productive. As for the value of bad publicity:
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/entertainment/gossip/13166503.htm

With two shows failing (rightfully) and limited options for the future, I think it's fair to say that the bad publicity was not auspicious for Martha anyway you slice it. Would you trade your reputation for hers? :D

[Corey]

the hamster-haired mogul
http://www.eonline.com/News/Items/0,1,17618,00.html?newsrellink

Hoo hoo, dang! "Hamster haired"? I would like to take this opportunity to present the 2005 "adjective of the year" award to eonline for "hamster haired". Dang, that's *cold*. Cold but sweet. Hamster haired? Tee hee hee hee hee heeeeee... :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

[Intrigued]

You can't compare monopolies to non-monopolies.

Non-issue as Sprint DSL (that works GREAT I have heard from three people I know. As their gateway is even closer. (low latency = coo' game night out.. online!).

Plus, their is Satellite service.

:yes

[Corey]

I believe you are missing the point. But no biggie, everybody MAMBO!!! [dee-dee-dee da-dee-dee da-dee-boomsh]

[Intrigued]

I believe you are missing the point.

Now.. now.. no taking my wife's comments for a defense.

:D

[Corey]

At this point I feel compelled to remind you that eonline described Donald Trump as a "hamster haired mogul" this week. I submit that a stiff belly laugh is in order, possibly even some milk coming out of someone's nose, and I believe it takes precedence over everything else. "Hamster haired" is rapidly becoming my favorite all time adjective. *Dang* that's funny. I can't even proof this post without breaking up each time I see the phrase. :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

[Corey]

More Sony:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/16/technology/16sony.html

At the risk of misquoting the saxophone player guy from The Simpsons just let me say on behalf of myself and others, "Heh, heh. heh..." :D

[clubsoda]

I would have to agree with the “McDonalds is in the food business” argument but, on a different level then on the franchisee side of things. We had a speaker in one of my classes lecture on what kind of financial power a company like McDonalds has on the futures market. When you have the buying power over spuds and soybeans that they have, they play the food game at a whole different level. On a quick Google, this older document (2002) highlights the correlation nicely.

http://www.csidata.com/techjournal/csinews/200208/page01.htm

When you have that kind of influence you get your own; Big Mac Index.
:D

[Desmond]

McDonalds certainly operates in the food business. When I was there yesterday, I was ordering a double-cheeseburger, not buying a house.

But at the same time, they are HEAVY into real estate:

From: http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node=McDonald's

"We are not basically in the food business. We are in the real estate business."

"We are in the real estate business. The only reason we sell hamburgers is because they are the greatest producer of revenue from which our tenants can pay us rent."

Regardless of whether either variant of the quotes above, often attributed to former McDonald's CFO, Harry J. Sonneborn were actually uttered, there is little doubt that they are nonetheless true. While McDonald's does not generally outright advertise this -- although inferences to it can be found on the corporate website -- perhaps one of the most negelected points people seem to miss, when talking about McDonald's, is the fact that the corporation is a real estate powerhouse.

The largest commercial real estate landowner in the United States, McDonald's property portfolio was estimated to be valued around eight billion dollars, as of 2001. The origins of McDonald's real estate empire begin much earlier than this, however.

Although McDonald's first opened its doors in 1954, it wasn't until 1956, after courting many an investor, did Ray Kroc consider and implement an idea put forth by Sonneborn, to tap into the real estate market. Shortly after Sonnenborn made his pitch to the investors (the same audience to whom he purported made the statements above), the Franchise Realty Corporation, McDonald's real estate subsidiary, was born.

In simplified terms, McDonald's makes money on real estate via two methods. First, it buys and sells properties, as one might suspect. Often these are restaurant lots, but such is not necessarily always the case. McDonald's will buy properties that it feels are, or will be, hot locations, and it of course sells properties that are underperforming or otherwise not doing so well. Again, all of this seems pretty orthodox.

Secondly, on top of the franchise fees which McDonald's charges its franchisees to use the "McDonald's" name, it charges rent to the franchisees to use the corporately-owned properties. According to their August, 2003 10-Q, McDonald's had approximately $1.6 billion dollars in earnings available for fixed charges, for the six months prior to June 30, 2003. Of those earnings, $141.6 million -- nearly ten percent -- came from "rent charges...considered to be representative of interest factor".

...nope, those numbers sure ain't no small fries. In the end, while it is true that McDonald's is best known for its famous burgers and fries, it might be said that the corporation's overall focus is aimed more at construction than consumption.

Arguing that thier business is one or the other is fruitless, as with it's current model, it isn't just one or the other. They are DEFINITELY in the food business, and DEFINITELY in the real-estate business.

[Corey]

they play the food game at a whole different level

100% Agreed. Mickey D's has also been the world's largest distributor of toys too for many, many years now which is *massive* as Ali G would say. They have power in many arenas, real estate, labor, etc. In some geographical areas they employee more staff numbers than the local government (even though their payroll is significantly lower). :D

I haven't eaten in a McDonalds since about 2002, I doubt I ever would again.

[Desmond]

I haven't eaten in a McDonalds since about 2002, I doubt I ever would again.

But their high quality beef . . . it's so good!

[Corey]

Hee. Seriously, I doubt their beef is substantially different from what you get at chain grocery stores. :yes

Anyhow I'm a vegatarian but not anti-beef. Life is short, no matter what you do something's going to get you, so it may as well be something you enjoy. :)

[Desmond]

mmmm . . . . steak . . . ;)

[Adam]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4376758.stm

I can't wait to see my favorite burgers info:

Double Quarter Pounder with Cheese and Bacon... drooool

Adam.

[Corey]

Hee. :) :yes

1. Publishing nutritional data doesn't change a thing vis-a-vis the habits of obese clientele. Zero. They're just as intelligent as any other group, they already know what's in there.

2. When I was a kid we had McDonalds and we didn't have anywhere near the rate of obesity we have here now. Sample place, same people, same food-- completely different problem. McDonalds hasn't changed, we changed.

3. When I was a kid "self discipline" was something people talked about. It was seen as a positive attribute. The term was used on TV, in school, and in casual conversation. Athletes, musicians, and celebrities would talk about "having self discipline" during interviews, etc. I haven't heard anyone use the term "self discipline" casually for 10-15 years now. That change occured in a mere 15 years. During that same 15 years the essence of McDonalds has barely changed at all.

4. That link says a big mac has 30g of fat. That's quite a bit, say around half your daily intake. And it's basically the worst possible type of fat also, but certainly there's no reason why an occasional big mac is precluded from being a component of a successful healthy diet. It all has to be taken in context. The problem with the critics is that they always attempt to frame the debate in the form of a soundbyte but it's much more complex than that.

Blaming McDonalds for obesity is like blaming your hammer for a bashed thumb. :yes

Hey Adam-- GREEN MILKSHAKES!!! GREEN MILKSHAKES!!! GREEN MILKSHAKES!!! :D

[Adam]

I think it's a smart move on McDonalds part. Now people can't blame them for everything. I mean what did people think that a Big Mac is healthy?? No way man, everyone knows the food is "junk" food but it must be treated as such..

I love the food sometimes, but my true mistress is the Chinese food Buffet..

Adam.

[Corey]

Agreed. :yes

Buffets rule. Jimmy Buffet also rules, albeit admittedly only to a tertiary extent vis-a-vis chinese buffets. :yes

[eric_darling]

This thread wins for most posts of the year! :)

Speaking of Jimmy Buffett, check out our little bit of handiwork on the Crab Shack's home page (http://www.thecrabshack.com) (we didn't do the site, just the SWF that plays Jimmy Buffett tunes on that page).

Yes, the restaurant made all the necessary clearances with the artist and publishers. :cool

[Corey]

Cooooool site. Did the restaurant make all the necessary clearances with the artist and publishers? Ohhh, yeah... :yes

[eric_darling]

You cheeky monkey. :D

[Corey]

Hee hee!!!!! (hee-hee-hee hee) :D

[Intrigued]

This thread wins for most posts of the year! :)

Speaking of Jimmy Buffett, check out our little bit of handiwork on the Crab Shack's home page (http://www.thecrabshack.com) (we didn't do the site, just the SWF that plays Jimmy Buffett tunes on that page).

Yes, the restaurant made all the necessary clearances with the artist and publishers. :cool

speaking of crab food, my wife and I just had for the first time some stone crab and all three pounds were excellent! I usually shy from crab, but thankfully not this time! Lov'in Florida and the fresh seafood. This week we may do the Greek food thing again.

:yes

[csd214]

Irony (?)
http://newtechinc.blogspot.com/2005/11/using-sonys-drm-against-itself.html

[Corey]

Har! Great link csd. :)

Sounds awesome I-man, Greek food rules. The Mediterranean diet is amongst the healthiest on earth in fact. Researchers believe this is because people there typically eat about 1-2 pounds of vegetables per day. :yes

[eric_darling]

I think where Intrigued is there's a hotbed of Greek activity - Tarpon Springs and what not, eh, I-man? And I know exactly what you mean about the seafood. Having grown up in landlocked Pennsylvania, I had no idea how seafood was supposed to taste!

[Intrigued]

Tarpon Springs and what not, eh, I-man?

Bingo! Ma'ma's Kitchen is where we went last time, we got in just before the music (post-retirement gent) tuned up. And we got seated outside on the belcony. It was a nice balmy day, then turned night.

:yes

The other restaurant burned down on the main strip that has the best (that we have tried in that area) pasticcio! I can't wait till they reopen (dang, what was their name again... *scratches head)

Also we recently went to another seafood place just before you get back to U.S. 19 and the three guys played some ragae, including steal drums and the lead guitar (wickedly cool carved lion into such) even approached us and others in the audience with jokes and what not. Much fun it was! :cool

[Corey]

Donald trump should be so lucky, you've got it made in the shade I-man. :yes

[Intrigued]

Top that all off with:


"Radar" O'Reilly residing in county

He has earned his place in the TV tome as the lovable Cpl. “Radar” O’Reilly from “M*A*S*H.” Now, Gary Burghoff is an official resident of Citrus County, and will be honored this Saturday at the Nature Coast Landings RV resort in Crystal River.

(source: Chronicle newspaper)

Which is near us. He is a spokesperson for a local mobile home park my wife said (she read the article), which is 15 minutes from us. My wife also stated, "if you see him, call him by his real name of Gary, he prefers such!"

:D

[Corey]

I met that guy once when I was a kid. Gary Burghoff. At some dinner theater thing. Nice enough guy. Seems to me he could actually act too. :yes

M*A*S*H was, for my money, one of the best series in TV history. And I'm specifically not into military themes either. But that show had the greatest writing and such an incredible chemistry between the cast. You could get more laughs out of one single episode of that show than an entire season of today's nonsense. And they dealt with some incredibly hard hitting, often very dark, themes at the same time in a shockingly truthful way. Those writers and actors were just so much more talented and dedicated than today's crop that you practically can't even compare them. :yes

Seriously, if you took every single episode from each season of "The Simple Life" (billed as a "prime time comedy" and therefore directly equivalent) and extracted every single moment which makes you laugh hard, and then laid them end to end, I doubt it would add up to a single episode of MASH.

To be fair, Burghoff was a great part of that chemistry. When he left and Farr took over it was still funny but different, Farr was never my favorite character because he always overacted plus I'm not into slapstick. Strangely enough I also met Farr at the same dinner theater as a kid, which is really odd because I think those were the only two times in my entire life I ever went to a dinner theater.

Ron Palillo was there too, the guy Horshack who got pounded in celebrity boxing. He gave me an autographed 8 X 10 glossy which I never quite understood why. I was 8. I remember he asked me if I wanted one and I started to say "Of course not. What would I do with that?" but just as my mouth opened, my ear suddenly wrenched painfully sideways (mom) causing me to tilt to one side and blurt "Yes please!" instead. Ergo the autographed glossy of Ron Pallilo.