The point of Wikipedia is not to become super-awesome-editor-who-gets-credit-for-their-work.
But that's what it has become. It's also interesting that you ignore what actually drove him away, someone stalking his edits and reverting them for no reason. No wonder you posted anonymously.
You've gotta kidding me. Slashdot's moderation system is atrociously bad, and groupthink is rampant. It's so bad that there was a long-promised new moderation system that was supposed to replace this one, but that promise seems to have slipped through the cracks of time. It only takes a couple of people to bring a comment down to 0 or -1, and then that comment is filtered out by most user's comment view settings. There are also constant abuses of the fact that Overrated/Underrated modifiers aren't subject to meta-moderation (in other words, they can't be reversed), so you can censor somebody without risking your ability to moderate future comments.
I wonder if id Tech 5 will ever see a source release now that id is under Zenimax's wing. As for other developers releasing source, that's not always possible due to third-party technology licenses, ownership issues, and the source code flat-out missing (if I remember correctly, Rise of the Triad was missing for years until someone found it for 3D Realms).
Apple is intuitive, stylish, and their software just works. They think differently.
If you're claiming that Apple fans think the hardware and software is flawless, you've obviously never visited MacRumors, AppleInsider, and other Apple forums. Apple customers are the whiniest critics in existence and will complain about mismatched colors at the pixel level (granted, the guy I'm talking about was an interface designer, but still).
But yes, all the high-level qualities about Apple are true, which is why they have such a devoted fanbase and billions of dollars in the bank.
Exactly the same thing could be said to the submitter claiming every single person with a mid-2010 MBP is having kernel panics every five minutes. Do you realize how many customers that is? It would have been huge news the day Lion was released. My point is that the issue obviously only affects a small segment of customers, like most hardware and software issues.
The submitter also claimed Apple "hasn't responded to the issue," but the linked article says they have said that they are looking into it and are taking crash reports.
I see this kind of exaggeration all the time when dealing with technical support issues. Everyone thinks their issue is also affecting everyone else and that there's a conspiracy on the part of the evil company not to help them.
Apple OS X Lion shipped with new NVidia video drivers that are causing anyone with a mid 2010 Macbook Pro to get a kernel panic every 5-10 minutes.
Oh, yeah? I'm posting this on a mid-2010 17-inch MacBook Pro with an Nvidia card. I've been running Lion developer previews for months, and the only time I've ever have graphics problems is when I'm playing a game and the system gets too hot because my room isn't well-ventilated. In fact, Lion could be the most stable first release of any OS X operating system. I regularly play World of Warcraft, Starcraft II, Borderlands, Left 4 Dead 2, and Team Fortress 2 without issue.
Nvidia isn't saying that nothing will get fixed. Apple works with Nvidia on their drivers. What Nvidia is saying is simply that they can't provide technical support. Removing posts about goofy boycotts and petitions is just clearing out nonsense posts in what is supposed to be a support forum. Apple's support forums are some of the silliest, whiniest forums on the web, and you'll rarely find useful information from the users there.
I also question the claim that "Apple knew about the issue before shipping Lion," as if there's some big conspiracy that Apple knew it was going to cause your machine to black-screen but didn't care. Give me a break.
How a major hardware manufacturer can ship such a faulty product without getting much press about it is completely beyond me.
Because the issue only affects a tiny segment of customers. If, as you claim, every single person with a mid-2010 MBP was getting kernel panics every 5-10 minutes, that would be major news. Like most customers with technical problems, you're acting like it's a bigger deal than it is and that it's affecting more people than it is. Installing a new operating system is a major procedure that can uncover previously invisible problems lurking on a person's computer. That's why, every time there's a console firmware update, you'll see a bunch of posts from people claiming the updates ruined their machines.
My point is that this story was posted because of the Microsoft connection, not the presidential donation. People in government are actively involved in politics, which often involves donations to candidates they support. That's just common sense and is hardly scandalous.
If you want to complain about trading money for power, Obama personally attended a fundraiser at Marissa Mayer's house a week before the FTC dropped its inquiry into Google's Street View data-harvesting.
Google is a very hostile company, but people are so used to viewing them as the benevolent Linux-using company that they don't see it. Google's hostility comes from their use of search monopoly profits to prop up their products in other markets and destroy other businesses. Once upon a time, Microsoft was regularly trashed on Slashdot for using monopoly profits to destroy other businesses--the biggest sin being giving away Internet Explorer for free to dismantle companies that had no choice but to charge for their browsers. This is exactly what Google does with Android and with any of the services it prominently displays at the top of its search results page. Remember that Google once responded to antitrust concerns by stating that its search results page was entirely algorithmically objective, but that has since been disproved--certain hard-coded search terms will display Google's services at the top of the results page, above more popular services.
Google's biggest problem is that they started out with a perception of being the good guys based on an irreverent self-awareness ("Don't be evil"), which has let to an inaccurate sense of self, just like when Microsoft started out believing they were the upstarts overthrowing IBM. Google thinks that it's not a big deal if they withhold Android source or snoop data from neighborhood wifi networks or use monopoly profits to buyout or drive away competitors in other markets. They think they're still some kind of friendly engineers' playground with a sense of humor. It's as if they're not aware that they're a for-profit megacorp whose business relies on selling people's personal data and that their poor behavior has major consequences. They seem to believe that by talking about openness all the time, it somehow negates hypocrisies like bundling of Flash in Chrome or signing non-neutral Internet deals with phone carriers just to prop up Android.
Google still has the support of many techies, and they maintain that appeal by pretending to be an open source company. But if Google is all about open source, where is the source code for their core business, the search engine and advertising platform? Where are the algorithms for users to poke at? Google's data-indexing is as closed source and proprietary as Windows. If open source is about providing freedom for users to obtain the source of the software they use daily, where is the outcry over the fact that Google has taken over most of the internet with a closed-source product?
It seems like the last couple of years have really exposed a bad upper-management element within the company. Google is trying to destroy or buy out as many competitors in as many markets as it can, just like Microsoft did when they had a monopoly, and just like practically every other company does when they have a monopoly. The monopoly profits are used to flood new markets with low-priced or free products, often bundled, that existing competitors are incapable of competing with because they must charge for their products. Again, Microsoft received so much shit for that behavior, year after year, and it seems that few have noticed that Google is doing the exact same thing. It doesn't matter if their product is based on Linux. That doesn't make it right. If you respond by saying that competitors should just come up with a better product in order to compete, that's exactly what Microsoft and its supporters said in the days of their antitrust investigation.
What happened to the Google that just had a cool search engine? Why is it taking advantage of search monopoly profits to either buy out or crush every competitor in every non-core market? Why do they talk about openness when their core business is based on a search and advertising engine that is not open source?
I have a bigger question. Why is this even news? Who cares what desktop environment Linux Torvalds chooses to use? It doesn't mean anything. In that context, he's just another user and has no unique insight or authority to comment on user experience.
Posting an anti-privacy rant with the name Schmidt was the first laugh. The second was your accusation that Slashdot is made up of libertarians. This community hates corporations and the free market.
Slashdot on Google: "Google is awesome! Google+ already has 25 million users. So what if your info is out there, you give out your info with everything you do. It's not a big deal. Snooping passwords and emails with Street View vans? Your fault for not securing your network! Excuse me while I send more private messages through Gmail to be indexed for advertisers."
Slashdot on Facebook: "The whole damn site is a privacy violation! People are doing things with my pictures without my knowing, and I have no way to stop them. All Facebook wants to do is exploit my data for selling to advertisers. Those bastards and their privacy violations!"
Don't worry, even if every Mac ran iOS tomorrow, people would still make inaccurate marketshare comparisons between the entire Android platform of devices and just one single iOS device, the iPhone. With iPads and iPods included, iOS far surpasses Android in marketshare, but little facts like that get in the way.
But we do. We understand that 23 Twinkies a day is bad. We do not drink drain cleaner because it came with some neat stickers that we really wanted. We understand about basic nutrition and exercise.
Your post is hilarious, because most of the people reading this site are probably out of shape and possibly even obese, and that's not even getting into other hygiene issues. Computer nerds are not known for being physically fit.
Well, the big problem with most IE users is that IE, to them, simply is the Internet. The computer is simply this mysterious black box that they play Mahjong and read emails on. If they're really savvy, they use Microsoft Office and know how to print documents. So whenever you're asked to troubleshoot a problem for them, it's a bit like fixing a child's favorite toy.
That's because they have a life away from the computer. Probably whatever they specialize in for a living is something you know nothing about, and you might even sound pretty dumb to them in that field of expertise.
As long as it works, they never have the drive to learn anything more about their computers. I've explained to people what I've done to their computers to fix it all the time and all I get is a blank face and "Ok." The net effect is that they look incredibly dumb most of the time to those of us who do take the time to learn something more than how to turn the computer on and open Internet Explorer, even if they're incredibly smart otherwise.
To people who have lives, computers are just a tool to get something done and not a hobby to maintain. When a mechanics fixes your car or a doctor explains the surgery they performed on you, I bet they see the same blank stare on your face as you nod obediently. However, because they work in fields that require customer interaction, they've learned not to be assholes about it.
People like you live alone. You're bitter, and you hate people, so you tie your self-worth to your knowledge of computers. And now you're expressing your smugness on Slashdot, the stereotypical community for angry zealots with neckbeards who treat operating systems like religions. Why don't you go outside for a while?
No, it's not. By the way, it's telling that there are only a million unique daily visits, much less than the claimed number of registered users. Google Buzz also achieved millions of users in a very short time but lost momentum as the novelty wore off and people stopped using the service.
So you don't think it's fishy how Amazon publicly advertises 20% even for free apps? And in the screenshot, Amazon told them they received $54,805.14 in earnings that day? As stated in the article's comments section, the terms are confusing and fuzzy.
Hey, it's the anonymous Android troll who posts in every single Android article. I like how you ignore the part where Amazon publicly states a 20% payment, even for free apps, but then slips in the 0% figure at the bottom of an email, guarded by restrictive clauses preventing public discussion of the deal.
Speaking of which, it seems like you didn't RTFA, which states that Amazon publicly declares 20% to developers, even for free apps, but then sends an email saying it's actually 0% and that you're not allowed to publicly discuss it. That was followed by a list of other major problems with the store.
Even the usual Slashdot logic which predicts that giving away something for free is "free advertising" that somehow generates sales didn't happen in this situation. Fail all around.
Slashdot Mirror
But that's what it has become. It's also interesting that you ignore what actually drove him away, someone stalking his edits and reverting them for no reason. No wonder you posted anonymously.
Stop double-spacing every sentence.
You've gotta kidding me. Slashdot's moderation system is atrociously bad, and groupthink is rampant. It's so bad that there was a long-promised new moderation system that was supposed to replace this one, but that promise seems to have slipped through the cracks of time. It only takes a couple of people to bring a comment down to 0 or -1, and then that comment is filtered out by most user's comment view settings. There are also constant abuses of the fact that Overrated/Underrated modifiers aren't subject to meta-moderation (in other words, they can't be reversed), so you can censor somebody without risking your ability to moderate future comments.
People who aren't dicks.
I wonder if id Tech 5 will ever see a source release now that id is under Zenimax's wing. As for other developers releasing source, that's not always possible due to third-party technology licenses, ownership issues, and the source code flat-out missing (if I remember correctly, Rise of the Triad was missing for years until someone found it for 3D Realms).
Apple is intuitive, stylish, and their software just works. They think differently.
If you're claiming that Apple fans think the hardware and software is flawless, you've obviously never visited MacRumors, AppleInsider, and other Apple forums. Apple customers are the whiniest critics in existence and will complain about mismatched colors at the pixel level (granted, the guy I'm talking about was an interface designer, but still).
But yes, all the high-level qualities about Apple are true, which is why they have such a devoted fanbase and billions of dollars in the bank.
What Nvidia is saying is that they can't provide technical support.
They're out of grape this month.
Exactly the same thing could be said to the submitter claiming every single person with a mid-2010 MBP is having kernel panics every five minutes. Do you realize how many customers that is? It would have been huge news the day Lion was released. My point is that the issue obviously only affects a small segment of customers, like most hardware and software issues.
The submitter also claimed Apple "hasn't responded to the issue," but the linked article says they have said that they are looking into it and are taking crash reports.
I see this kind of exaggeration all the time when dealing with technical support issues. Everyone thinks their issue is also affecting everyone else and that there's a conspiracy on the part of the evil company not to help them.
Oh, yeah? I'm posting this on a mid-2010 17-inch MacBook Pro with an Nvidia card. I've been running Lion developer previews for months, and the only time I've ever have graphics problems is when I'm playing a game and the system gets too hot because my room isn't well-ventilated. In fact, Lion could be the most stable first release of any OS X operating system. I regularly play World of Warcraft, Starcraft II, Borderlands, Left 4 Dead 2, and Team Fortress 2 without issue.
Nvidia isn't saying that nothing will get fixed. Apple works with Nvidia on their drivers. What Nvidia is saying is simply that they can't provide technical support. Removing posts about goofy boycotts and petitions is just clearing out nonsense posts in what is supposed to be a support forum. Apple's support forums are some of the silliest, whiniest forums on the web, and you'll rarely find useful information from the users there.
I also question the claim that "Apple knew about the issue before shipping Lion," as if there's some big conspiracy that Apple knew it was going to cause your machine to black-screen but didn't care. Give me a break.
Because the issue only affects a tiny segment of customers. If, as you claim, every single person with a mid-2010 MBP was getting kernel panics every 5-10 minutes, that would be major news. Like most customers with technical problems, you're acting like it's a bigger deal than it is and that it's affecting more people than it is. Installing a new operating system is a major procedure that can uncover previously invisible problems lurking on a person's computer. That's why, every time there's a console firmware update, you'll see a bunch of posts from people claiming the updates ruined their machines.
My point is that this story was posted because of the Microsoft connection, not the presidential donation. People in government are actively involved in politics, which often involves donations to candidates they support. That's just common sense and is hardly scandalous.
If you want to complain about trading money for power, Obama personally attended a fundraiser at Marissa Mayer's house a week before the FTC dropped its inquiry into Google's Street View data-harvesting.
There are several former Google employees working in the administration as well. Eric Schmidt even serves as one of Obama's technology advisers.
Google is a very hostile company, but people are so used to viewing them as the benevolent Linux-using company that they don't see it. Google's hostility comes from their use of search monopoly profits to prop up their products in other markets and destroy other businesses. Once upon a time, Microsoft was regularly trashed on Slashdot for using monopoly profits to destroy other businesses--the biggest sin being giving away Internet Explorer for free to dismantle companies that had no choice but to charge for their browsers. This is exactly what Google does with Android and with any of the services it prominently displays at the top of its search results page. Remember that Google once responded to antitrust concerns by stating that its search results page was entirely algorithmically objective, but that has since been disproved--certain hard-coded search terms will display Google's services at the top of the results page, above more popular services.
Google's biggest problem is that they started out with a perception of being the good guys based on an irreverent self-awareness ("Don't be evil"), which has let to an inaccurate sense of self, just like when Microsoft started out believing they were the upstarts overthrowing IBM. Google thinks that it's not a big deal if they withhold Android source or snoop data from neighborhood wifi networks or use monopoly profits to buyout or drive away competitors in other markets. They think they're still some kind of friendly engineers' playground with a sense of humor. It's as if they're not aware that they're a for-profit megacorp whose business relies on selling people's personal data and that their poor behavior has major consequences. They seem to believe that by talking about openness all the time, it somehow negates hypocrisies like bundling of Flash in Chrome or signing non-neutral Internet deals with phone carriers just to prop up Android.
Google still has the support of many techies, and they maintain that appeal by pretending to be an open source company. But if Google is all about open source, where is the source code for their core business, the search engine and advertising platform? Where are the algorithms for users to poke at? Google's data-indexing is as closed source and proprietary as Windows. If open source is about providing freedom for users to obtain the source of the software they use daily, where is the outcry over the fact that Google has taken over most of the internet with a closed-source product?
It seems like the last couple of years have really exposed a bad upper-management element within the company. Google is trying to destroy or buy out as many competitors in as many markets as it can, just like Microsoft did when they had a monopoly, and just like practically every other company does when they have a monopoly. The monopoly profits are used to flood new markets with low-priced or free products, often bundled, that existing competitors are incapable of competing with because they must charge for their products. Again, Microsoft received so much shit for that behavior, year after year, and it seems that few have noticed that Google is doing the exact same thing. It doesn't matter if their product is based on Linux. That doesn't make it right. If you respond by saying that competitors should just come up with a better product in order to compete, that's exactly what Microsoft and its supporters said in the days of their antitrust investigation.
What happened to the Google that just had a cool search engine? Why is it taking advantage of search monopoly profits to either buy out or crush every competitor in every non-core market? Why do they talk about openness when their core business is based on a search and advertising engine that is not open source?
I have a bigger question. Why is this even news? Who cares what desktop environment Linux Torvalds chooses to use? It doesn't mean anything. In that context, he's just another user and has no unique insight or authority to comment on user experience.
Posting an anti-privacy rant with the name Schmidt was the first laugh. The second was your accusation that Slashdot is made up of libertarians. This community hates corporations and the free market.
Slashdot on Google: "Google is awesome! Google+ already has 25 million users. So what if your info is out there, you give out your info with everything you do. It's not a big deal. Snooping passwords and emails with Street View vans? Your fault for not securing your network! Excuse me while I send more private messages through Gmail to be indexed for advertisers."
Slashdot on Facebook: "The whole damn site is a privacy violation! People are doing things with my pictures without my knowing, and I have no way to stop them. All Facebook wants to do is exploit my data for selling to advertisers. Those bastards and their privacy violations!"
It should be noted that German investigators were also the ones who caused Google to admit their four years of Street View data-snooping.
Don't worry, even if every Mac ran iOS tomorrow, people would still make inaccurate marketshare comparisons between the entire Android platform of devices and just one single iOS device, the iPhone. With iPads and iPods included, iOS far surpasses Android in marketshare, but little facts like that get in the way.
Your post is hilarious, because most of the people reading this site are probably out of shape and possibly even obese, and that's not even getting into other hygiene issues. Computer nerds are not known for being physically fit.
That's because they have a life away from the computer. Probably whatever they specialize in for a living is something you know nothing about, and you might even sound pretty dumb to them in that field of expertise.
To people who have lives, computers are just a tool to get something done and not a hobby to maintain. When a mechanics fixes your car or a doctor explains the surgery they performed on you, I bet they see the same blank stare on your face as you nod obediently. However, because they work in fields that require customer interaction, they've learned not to be assholes about it.
People like you live alone. You're bitter, and you hate people, so you tie your self-worth to your knowledge of computers. And now you're expressing your smugness on Slashdot, the stereotypical community for angry zealots with neckbeards who treat operating systems like religions. Why don't you go outside for a while?
"The conclusion of the hoax coincides with my ideology, so I choose to believe it anyway."
No, it's not. By the way, it's telling that there are only a million unique daily visits, much less than the claimed number of registered users. Google Buzz also achieved millions of users in a very short time but lost momentum as the novelty wore off and people stopped using the service.
So you don't think it's fishy how Amazon publicly advertises 20% even for free apps? And in the screenshot, Amazon told them they received $54,805.14 in earnings that day? As stated in the article's comments section, the terms are confusing and fuzzy.
Hey, it's the anonymous Android troll who posts in every single Android article. I like how you ignore the part where Amazon publicly states a 20% payment, even for free apps, but then slips in the 0% figure at the bottom of an email, guarded by restrictive clauses preventing public discussion of the deal.
Speaking of which, it seems like you didn't RTFA, which states that Amazon publicly declares 20% to developers, even for free apps, but then sends an email saying it's actually 0% and that you're not allowed to publicly discuss it. That was followed by a list of other major problems with the store.
Even the usual Slashdot logic which predicts that giving away something for free is "free advertising" that somehow generates sales didn't happen in this situation. Fail all around.