Since Linux users make up 1% of the market share (I'm not sure the % for gamers, but could be lower), I'll doubt they'll lose sleep over it.
The question is, if they get really rock-solid drivers for Linux desktops, would the effort carry over towards entering the market for graphics chips in other things that run Linux like Android tablets and phones? That might gain them a lot more than some fraction of 1%.
Ah, another pseudointellectual trying to live the dream of all such small-minded people: the drive-by one-liner that presumes its own cleverness.
The point, my dear AC, is: there is a good reason I don't personally have an AMD card for comparison. Maybe I would be interested in one, but not until such time as AMD acts like they want the business of Linux users.
What I *can* compare my experience to is the Linux users who did choose AMD and all the problems they have, both in terms of malfunctions/bugs and lower performance. It's all right there in the summary and article if you aren't familiar with it or don't believe me. These are problems I don't have with my nVidia cards. That is a meaningful comparison when I'm shopping for video hardware and making a decision about which brand to purchase. That is, in fact, much more meaningful than any idiotic bickering you seem to have been expecting.
I didn't follow this closely but is second rate support for Linux by AMD anything new??
Since the late 90s I've always used nVidia for Linux systems* and I've never regretted that choice. I would prefer having nVidia open-source their own driver (nouveau has made progress but just isn't there yet) but this is not a big deal to me. I run a source-based distro (Gentoo) so I compile my own kernels anyway; it's no big deal to add "&& emerge --oneshot nvidia-drivers" at the end of that command line. That's the most I've ever had to do. Unfortunately some binary distros are more "purist" out of either ideology or fear of legal action so they make users jump through a few hoops to get proprietary drivers and codecs.
The more I heard about first ATI and now AMD driver quality on Linux, the more convinced I am that I made the right choice. I hope AMD gets their shit together in this area because competition is a good thing.
* That's on my desktop system which has a discrete card. My netbook with Intel graphics runs Linux Mint which "just works" (I believe that driver *is* open source, MIT licensed IIRC).
Take your crying about your submission being ignored to Fark.
Take your whining about my criticism to your mom. Maybe she will dry your tears. Been a Slashdot editor long?
The AC had correct spelling and punctuation. He or she also clearly and unambiguously expressed the intended thought. So, I strongly doubt it was a Slashdot "editor".
The battery in your phone is no longer holding a useful amount of energy to power the phone all day. You could replace the battery and bring the whole phone back to "like-new" condition, but the manufacturer has glued the case together. This is the malicious intent: The manufacturer *KNEW* that the battery would not last forever, and still welded the case shut. You would not stand for this if it were your car.
I really don't like defending cell phone companies, but I have to play devil's advocate on this one. Gluing all the components together may be the only, or most cost effective, way of giving the phone enough structural integrity to not bend when put in your pocket. These things are/always/ malicious, sometimes it is a really engineering problem that needs to be solved in a way that balances the different things the consumer wants.
Did you intend to write "these things are NOT/always/ malicious"?
Anyways, with the wide variety of fasteners, case designs and manufacturing techniques, all of which are a small fraction of the total cost of a smartphone, to suggest that this really is the one and only viable and cost-effective way to make a study phone requires a burden of proof.
Doesn't it seem to be a bit self-serving for a repair company to complain that things need to be more repairable?
I care first and foremost about: are they telling the truth and do they have a point? As a distant second I might think about their motivation.
Usually, any concerns about a cynical motivation are used to explain a falsehood. It's not as common as it should be, but sometimes, people actually do build a profitable (and thus, self-serving) business around a good idea that really fulfills a legitimate need.
Please consider: if this company can repair your phone, there is also at least a slim chance that you can repair your phone yourself. This is a case where your interests could (should?) align with theirs. I mean really, proprietary screws? That's just plain asinine. There is no legitimate reason to do that. It deserves to be called out publically.
When I purchased my first computer with an actual hard drive larger then 500 meg, we had to select an operating system and purchase it separate. I ended up with windows 3 (which was later upgraded to 3.11 windows for workgroups- for the networking stack) because it came preinstalled on a I486 system and the price was about the same as the other systems I was looking at sans OS.
Marketing is about right. D.O.S or Disk Operating System was named so in order to get the "well. you need an operating system now" confusion advantage. Then when Microsoft started OEM bundling deals with windows that basically made it appear to be a free operating system, they had a huge leg up. Until then. I had purchased OS2 warp and DOS, both of which had Microsoft's name on it when you went to install even though you had to purchase it though IBM for a hefty sum. At this time, when you purchased a modem and went online (because the computers didn't come with them unless you paid for an add on when ordering), you were either stuck with a BBS screen through telnet or had to purchase a web browser. Netscape was my choice at the time too as it was leading in almost every area as a web suit and I was familiar with it from OS2. Then when Microsoft included Internet Explorer with win 95, it was a no brainer as my 3.1 investment was largely still compatible and I could upgrade and have an easier time with my sound card IRQs (sound blaster awe32).
Marketing is something MS did right. Of course they used their size and profitability from other areas of commerce to enhance that marketing. I will openly admit, I fell for it.
With you honesty you show a great deal of integrity and honor, and shine a light on the history of modern computing. It wasn't coincidence or accident that things played out the way that they did. It's that a genius for business outweighed a genius for sound system design, because all products of that era had to actually sell to gain marketshare. This was long before the GPL.
Actually that you would attribute that to me is amusing. Apparently I and Coren have gotten under your skin so thoroughly that you think every random comment is either he (I think that's a he) or I, at it again, as though you were so important and so much on our minds. No, sir, this fixation is a one-sided fixation, belonging to you alone. Those of us who have lives have other things going on besides fucking with you on Slashdot, fun (in that fish-in-a-barrel way) though that may be. Really now, you're beginning to show signs of paranoia. Wait, nevermind. We're all out to get you. ^H^H^H^H^H etc...
Being a demonstrably single-minded creature, I suppose it never dawned on you to think, if I were going to create another account for the purpose of being sock puppet, would I really give it such an obvious name as "MyAlternateID?" No, I wouldn't. I'd make at least the slightest effort to be inconspicuous. I know you think you hold a monopoly on cleverness, but really, you don't. I honestly and blatantly named my second account so it would indicate that there is a primary account because I did not wish to hide this fact. But my primary account is not one you seem to have guessed so far. If it makes you feel better, this particular account has never once received mod points (again - as though you were so important that I would waste them dealing with you - ah, the ego...).
And yet has become the most used, most useful operating system in the world. Shut up.
Likewise, the most common form of government all throughout history has been some form of tyranny. Therefore, by your logic, tyranny is a good and highly desirable form of government.
There's this amazing invention called Google. Perhaps you have heard of it? It's very easy to use. Using it and getting a solid answer even takes less time than posting stupid questions! Have you tried it? Give it a try, it really works! Why, the very first search result answers your question -- how 'bout that?
Too bad cars like this will never be street legal.
The states have an incentive to fight it. They receive a tremendous revenue stream from speeding tickets and other violations (which is why the speed limits are often too low, or change by 5 mph for no apparent reason). While the public service commercials talk a good game about "safety", the major use for traffic cops is revenue collection agents. Automated cars would likely be programmed to never commit traffic violations. This could seriously break the budgets of many local and state governments.
On the upside, the widespread use of autonomous cars could completely eliminate the problem of drunk driving. Hell, some of them might even have a mini bar installed.
So, when gathering the info, they technically provided free labor to the FBI in doing so, right? Even if it's just pointing them to the correct paperwork.
They probably compared the cost of said free labor, against the cost of being penalized for failure to comply with a subpoena, and decided that the former was much cheaper than the latter.
No it wouldn't get by. This exact practice has been ruled discriminatory in several cases. Several restaurants throughout the US over the past decade have found out that offering "10% off meal on Sunday's, when you bring in today's church bulletin" is a fast way to get a lawsuit happening and all of them have been forced to stop it. Offer 10% off to everybody or to nobody, but you can't offer pubic services to one group (Christians) and not the same to another group (anyone else who doesn't attend Sunday church) unless you're a private club. Again, it's a matter that if you offer something to the public, you can't pull this sort of discriminatory shenanigans.
How exactly do they define a "private club" for this purpose? Is any arbitrary membership criteria acceptable?
It's their website. It's free. They can block whatever they want. You are not paying for a QoS guaranteeing content. They can delete all your shit if they feel like it. I don't understand this debate.
To really understand it, you would first have to grok this insidious entitlement mentality first perfected by the Baby Boomers with their love of government "entitlements" (as they are literally called) and lack of concern for the long-term ability (of their grandchildren) to pay for them, handed down to the younger generations in the form of "you're a special snowflake no matter what" and later expanded to "you must have high self-esteem, no matter what, and it must never be conneced to any regard for whether you have actually accomplished anything".
Consdiering the entitlement mentality and its gradual entrenchment over several generations, it's no wonder that people act shocked that Facebook has goals other than constantly pleasing and catering to them. If they really wanted to guarantee a certain set of behaviors from Facebook, they should obtain a written contract to that effect.
Never using Facebook for any purpose and blocking all of their tracking buttons has always worked well for me. I can't say I've ever missed them.
I hope eventually people will figure out that Facebook is but one way to communicate, in a vast global network with a great many ways to communicate, owned by a marketing company that does not (and arguably cannot) have their best interests at heart.
FTA: "In a statement, Pannun wrote that the Silcon Valley firm should have at least offered an explanation to SFJ as to who ordered the blocking – “Facebook owes an explanation to its users after or before blocking and removing the content which is guaranteed under freedom of speech.”"
Someone clearly doesn't understand how freedom of speech actually works. Big hint fellas, it only means the government can't regulate it, not that others cannot do so.
... which is why I believe that Pannun was arguing this on moral grounds. Saying something "should have" been offered isn't the same as saying "there is a law compelling you to offer" it. That it was guaranteed against government censorship under the 1st Amendment means Facebook had no obligation to remove it, thus this was an arbitrary decision, thus there must have been a reason, ergo that reason could have been offered.
Though I know it's trendy to assume other people are complete morons who don't understand basic things, and never to consider that perhaps you may have failed to understand where they're coming from or what they actually meant. It's very rare that there is one and only one single way to interpret written words. Slashdotters tend to choose whichever one makes the writer look more stupid and themselves more clever, never considering other options. It's childish.
But as "printer", they don't have to say jack squat. The "wedding cake" lawsuits are shaping up this way -- a cake in general with two grooms, must do. With particular phrases, nope.
Both are instances of whether a private organization can decide whether or not to interact with a recipient of services in ways said organization does not desire to.
Either both should have this discretion or neither should have it. As believe it's generally wrong to force people to do things they don't wish to do (whether I support their reasons or find them reprehensible), I believe both Facebook and the wedding cake makers should have a choice. Both should also accept any public backlash resulting from the way they exercise this choice.
I dunno... I have a stalker that pops up once in a while. Just think of it as you having the power to control them and it does your ego some good. They're just powerless, sad, people who feel obliged (and entitled) to voice their opinions in an effort to control you. The reality is, you control them. Just a few packets, some ones and zeros, and you can control their behavior. It's titillating.
Actually I have no desire to control anyone, being of a libertarian bent. So that doesn't appeal to me. The only person I really want to fully control is myself (a worthy challenge if you have a philosophical bent). But it really did amuse me, to consider how pathetic he must be to put that much effort into something so useless. Incidentally he doesn't seem to realize how much he harms his own credibility by engaging in such behavior.
As I told him each time he did it, the things I said must have really struck a nerve, gotten under his skin, and gotten stuck in his craw. I told him that each time he did that, he was proving it. No one else, other than APK, ever got that upset by anything I wrote - presumably because they had lives.
But I do appreciate what you're saying. You're right about him being a sad person. In my opinion he needs to obtain three things: a qualified psychiatrist, a girlfriend, and an off-line life.
Your opinion doesn't make you qualified to judge others mental condition moron. Get over your delusion of grandeur you're a psychiatric pro.
Did you see the part where I recommended he find a therapist, that way "someone who really is a shrink can diagnose you"? It's right there in my post. Hard to miss. Did you somehow miss that part? Or do you not understand the concept of having a medical/mental health professional perform a diagnosis? It's pretty basic, you know. See, the point of saying that, is to recommend that someone who IS qualified to judge his mental condition does so. Inherent in that statement is the implication that I am not.
It's amusing but also pathetic the way you APK fanboys have to clutch at straws like this. Still waiting for anything I said to be rebuted... guess that's not likely to happen. If you could have, you would have by now.
Slashdot Mirror
Since Linux users make up 1% of the market share (I'm not sure the % for gamers, but could be lower), I'll doubt they'll lose sleep over it.
The question is, if they get really rock-solid drivers for Linux desktops, would the effort carry over towards entering the market for graphics chips in other things that run Linux like Android tablets and phones? That might gain them a lot more than some fraction of 1%.
> I've always used nVidia for Linux systems
So you have nothing to compare to. I see.
Ah, another pseudointellectual trying to live the dream of all such small-minded people: the drive-by one-liner that presumes its own cleverness.
The point, my dear AC, is: there is a good reason I don't personally have an AMD card for comparison. Maybe I would be interested in one, but not until such time as AMD acts like they want the business of Linux users.
What I *can* compare my experience to is the Linux users who did choose AMD and all the problems they have, both in terms of malfunctions/bugs and lower performance. It's all right there in the summary and article if you aren't familiar with it or don't believe me. These are problems I don't have with my nVidia cards. That is a meaningful comparison when I'm shopping for video hardware and making a decision about which brand to purchase. That is, in fact, much more meaningful than any idiotic bickering you seem to have been expecting.
'"Burden of proof?" That's just pompous.'
Apparently so pompous you didn't understand what he meant!
Amen, sir or madam. Around here, the complete and utter failure to comprehend never seems to stop anyone from writing a snappy response anyway.
I didn't follow this closely but is second rate support for Linux by AMD anything new??
Since the late 90s I've always used nVidia for Linux systems* and I've never regretted that choice. I would prefer having nVidia open-source their own driver (nouveau has made progress but just isn't there yet) but this is not a big deal to me. I run a source-based distro (Gentoo) so I compile my own kernels anyway; it's no big deal to add "&& emerge --oneshot nvidia-drivers" at the end of that command line. That's the most I've ever had to do. Unfortunately some binary distros are more "purist" out of either ideology or fear of legal action so they make users jump through a few hoops to get proprietary drivers and codecs.
The more I heard about first ATI and now AMD driver quality on Linux, the more convinced I am that I made the right choice. I hope AMD gets their shit together in this area because competition is a good thing.
* That's on my desktop system which has a discrete card. My netbook with Intel graphics runs Linux Mint which "just works" (I believe that driver *is* open source, MIT licensed IIRC).
Take your crying about your submission being ignored to Fark.
Take your whining about my criticism to your mom. Maybe she will dry your tears. Been a Slashdot editor long?
The AC had correct spelling and punctuation. He or she also clearly and unambiguously expressed the intended thought. So, I strongly doubt it was a Slashdot "editor".
Hard to see how it can be useful for IoT
Let's give the folks at Raspberry some credit. It appears they are much smarter than the morons jumping on the IoT security nightmare bandwagon.
The battery in your phone is no longer holding a useful amount of energy to power the phone all day. You could replace the battery and bring the whole phone back to "like-new" condition, but the manufacturer has glued the case together. This is the malicious intent: The manufacturer *KNEW* that the battery would not last forever, and still welded the case shut. You would not stand for this if it were your car.
I really don't like defending cell phone companies, but I have to play devil's advocate on this one. Gluing all the components together may be the only, or most cost effective, way of giving the phone enough structural integrity to not bend when put in your pocket. These things are /always/ malicious, sometimes it is a really engineering problem that needs to be solved in a way that balances the different things the consumer wants.
Did you intend to write "these things are NOT /always/ malicious"?
Anyways, with the wide variety of fasteners, case designs and manufacturing techniques, all of which are a small fraction of the total cost of a smartphone, to suggest that this really is the one and only viable and cost-effective way to make a study phone requires a burden of proof.
Doesn't it seem to be a bit self-serving for a repair company to complain that things need to be more repairable?
I care first and foremost about: are they telling the truth and do they have a point? As a distant second I might think about their motivation.
Usually, any concerns about a cynical motivation are used to explain a falsehood. It's not as common as it should be, but sometimes, people actually do build a profitable (and thus, self-serving) business around a good idea that really fulfills a legitimate need.
Please consider: if this company can repair your phone, there is also at least a slim chance that you can repair your phone yourself. This is a case where your interests could (should?) align with theirs. I mean really, proprietary screws? That's just plain asinine. There is no legitimate reason to do that. It deserves to be called out publically.
Shmoozing with other execs, both within their company and outside it, is a very large part of the job description.
Yes. From a sane viewpoint this is called cronyism, but in the current business environment this is called "networking".
When I purchased my first computer with an actual hard drive larger then 500 meg, we had to select an operating system and purchase it separate. I ended up with windows 3 (which was later upgraded to 3.11 windows for workgroups- for the networking stack) because it came preinstalled on a I486 system and the price was about the same as the other systems I was looking at sans OS.
Marketing is about right. D.O.S or Disk Operating System was named so in order to get the "well. you need an operating system now" confusion advantage. Then when Microsoft started OEM bundling deals with windows that basically made it appear to be a free operating system, they had a huge leg up. Until then. I had purchased OS2 warp and DOS, both of which had Microsoft's name on it when you went to install even though you had to purchase it though IBM for a hefty sum. At this time, when you purchased a modem and went online (because the computers didn't come with them unless you paid for an add on when ordering), you were either stuck with a BBS screen through telnet or had to purchase a web browser. Netscape was my choice at the time too as it was leading in almost every area as a web suit and I was familiar with it from OS2. Then when Microsoft included Internet Explorer with win 95, it was a no brainer as my 3.1 investment was largely still compatible and I could upgrade and have an easier time with my sound card IRQs (sound blaster awe32).
Marketing is something MS did right. Of course they used their size and profitability from other areas of commerce to enhance that marketing. I will openly admit, I fell for it.
With you honesty you show a great deal of integrity and honor, and shine a light on the history of modern computing. It wasn't coincidence or accident that things played out the way that they did. It's that a genius for business outweighed a genius for sound system design, because all products of that era had to actually sell to gain marketshare. This was long before the GPL.
Actually that you would attribute that to me is amusing. Apparently I and Coren have gotten under your skin so thoroughly that you think every random comment is either he (I think that's a he) or I, at it again, as though you were so important and so much on our minds. No, sir, this fixation is a one-sided fixation, belonging to you alone. Those of us who have lives have other things going on besides fucking with you on Slashdot, fun (in that fish-in-a-barrel way) though that may be. Really now, you're beginning to show signs of paranoia. Wait, nevermind. We're all out to get you. ^H^H^H^H^H etc...
Being a demonstrably single-minded creature, I suppose it never dawned on you to think, if I were going to create another account for the purpose of being sock puppet, would I really give it such an obvious name as "MyAlternateID?" No, I wouldn't. I'd make at least the slightest effort to be inconspicuous. I know you think you hold a monopoly on cleverness, but really, you don't. I honestly and blatantly named my second account so it would indicate that there is a primary account because I did not wish to hide this fact. But my primary account is not one you seem to have guessed so far. If it makes you feel better, this particular account has never once received mod points (again - as though you were so important that I would waste them dealing with you - ah, the ego...).
And yet has become the most used, most useful operating system in the world. Shut up.
Likewise, the most common form of government all throughout history has been some form of tyranny. Therefore, by your logic, tyranny is a good and highly desirable form of government.
Do you see the fault in that yet?
Everyone loves Snide Lmgtfy Guy!
As much as I love what I call "willful helplessness", or the helplessness you choose.
I wasn't aware of anything like that. Story?
There's this amazing invention called Google. Perhaps you have heard of it? It's very easy to use. Using it and getting a solid answer even takes less time than posting stupid questions! Have you tried it? Give it a try, it really works! Why, the very first search result answers your question -- how 'bout that?
Too bad cars like this will never be street legal.
The states have an incentive to fight it. They receive a tremendous revenue stream from speeding tickets and other violations (which is why the speed limits are often too low, or change by 5 mph for no apparent reason). While the public service commercials talk a good game about "safety", the major use for traffic cops is revenue collection agents. Automated cars would likely be programmed to never commit traffic violations. This could seriously break the budgets of many local and state governments.
On the upside, the widespread use of autonomous cars could completely eliminate the problem of drunk driving. Hell, some of them might even have a mini bar installed.
So, when gathering the info, they technically provided free labor to the FBI in doing so, right? Even if it's just pointing them to the correct paperwork.
They probably compared the cost of said free labor, against the cost of being penalized for failure to comply with a subpoena, and decided that the former was much cheaper than the latter.
In the "land of the free" of course.
...what was the $1 million for? What did the taxpayers get out this?
I bet it would have cost them a lot less than $1 million to hire a lawyer and at least make even the most feeble effort to resist this subpoena.
Awww... I thought *I* had APKs attention. Seems you're his new favorite. *pouts*
No it wouldn't get by. This exact practice has been ruled discriminatory in several cases. Several restaurants throughout the US over the past decade have found out that offering "10% off meal on Sunday's, when you bring in today's church bulletin" is a fast way to get a lawsuit happening and all of them have been forced to stop it. Offer 10% off to everybody or to nobody, but you can't offer pubic services to one group (Christians) and not the same to another group (anyone else who doesn't attend Sunday church) unless you're a private club. Again, it's a matter that if you offer something to the public, you can't pull this sort of discriminatory shenanigans.
How exactly do they define a "private club" for this purpose? Is any arbitrary membership criteria acceptable?
It's their website. It's free. They can block whatever they want. You are not paying for a QoS guaranteeing content. They can delete all your shit if they feel like it. I don't understand this debate.
To really understand it, you would first have to grok this insidious entitlement mentality first perfected by the Baby Boomers with their love of government "entitlements" (as they are literally called) and lack of concern for the long-term ability (of their grandchildren) to pay for them, handed down to the younger generations in the form of "you're a special snowflake no matter what" and later expanded to "you must have high self-esteem, no matter what, and it must never be conneced to any regard for whether you have actually accomplished anything".
Consdiering the entitlement mentality and its gradual entrenchment over several generations, it's no wonder that people act shocked that Facebook has goals other than constantly pleasing and catering to them. If they really wanted to guarantee a certain set of behaviors from Facebook, they should obtain a written contract to that effect.
You can leave and not use it.
Problem solved!
Never using Facebook for any purpose and blocking all of their tracking buttons has always worked well for me. I can't say I've ever missed them.
I hope eventually people will figure out that Facebook is but one way to communicate, in a vast global network with a great many ways to communicate, owned by a marketing company that does not (and arguably cannot) have their best interests at heart.
FTA: "In a statement, Pannun wrote that the Silcon Valley firm should have at least offered an explanation to SFJ as to who ordered the blocking – “Facebook owes an explanation to its users after or before blocking and removing the content which is guaranteed under freedom of speech.”"
Someone clearly doesn't understand how freedom of speech actually works. Big hint fellas, it only means the government can't regulate it, not that others cannot do so.
... which is why I believe that Pannun was arguing this on moral grounds. Saying something "should have" been offered isn't the same as saying "there is a law compelling you to offer" it. That it was guaranteed against government censorship under the 1st Amendment means Facebook had no obligation to remove it, thus this was an arbitrary decision, thus there must have been a reason, ergo that reason could have been offered.
Though I know it's trendy to assume other people are complete morons who don't understand basic things, and never to consider that perhaps you may have failed to understand where they're coming from or what they actually meant. It's very rare that there is one and only one single way to interpret written words. Slashdotters tend to choose whichever one makes the writer look more stupid and themselves more clever, never considering other options. It's childish.
But as "printer", they don't have to say jack squat. The "wedding cake" lawsuits are shaping up this way -- a cake in general with two grooms, must do. With particular phrases, nope.
Both are instances of whether a private organization can decide whether or not to interact with a recipient of services in ways said organization does not desire to.
Either both should have this discretion or neither should have it. As believe it's generally wrong to force people to do things they don't wish to do (whether I support their reasons or find them reprehensible), I believe both Facebook and the wedding cake makers should have a choice. Both should also accept any public backlash resulting from the way they exercise this choice.
I dunno... I have a stalker that pops up once in a while. Just think of it as you having the power to control them and it does your ego some good. They're just powerless, sad, people who feel obliged (and entitled) to voice their opinions in an effort to control you. The reality is, you control them. Just a few packets, some ones and zeros, and you can control their behavior. It's titillating.
Actually I have no desire to control anyone, being of a libertarian bent. So that doesn't appeal to me. The only person I really want to fully control is myself (a worthy challenge if you have a philosophical bent). But it really did amuse me, to consider how pathetic he must be to put that much effort into something so useless. Incidentally he doesn't seem to realize how much he harms his own credibility by engaging in such behavior.
As I told him each time he did it, the things I said must have really struck a nerve, gotten under his skin, and gotten stuck in his craw. I told him that each time he did that, he was proving it. No one else, other than APK, ever got that upset by anything I wrote - presumably because they had lives.
But I do appreciate what you're saying. You're right about him being a sad person. In my opinion he needs to obtain three things: a qualified psychiatrist, a girlfriend, and an off-line life.
Your opinion doesn't make you qualified to judge others mental condition moron. Get over your delusion of grandeur you're a psychiatric pro.
Did you see the part where I recommended he find a therapist, that way "someone who really is a shrink can diagnose you"? It's right there in my post. Hard to miss. Did you somehow miss that part? Or do you not understand the concept of having a medical/mental health professional perform a diagnosis? It's pretty basic, you know. See, the point of saying that, is to recommend that someone who IS qualified to judge his mental condition does so. Inherent in that statement is the implication that I am not.
It's amusing but also pathetic the way you APK fanboys have to clutch at straws like this. Still waiting for anything I said to be rebuted... guess that's not likely to happen. If you could have, you would have by now.