That said, going after Google for a "monopoly" is bullshit, just like it is going after MS.
Agreed...... except that Microsoft actually used their monopoly for illegal actions. That stood up in court pretty well, as I recall. Even the appeals failed to dismiss that one.
Being a monopoly is a natural product of some businesses. Nothing wrong with that. Using the monopoly for product tying or to destroy competition is illegal under anti-trust laws in the US (and similar laws in most other jurisdictions). If Google are using their monopoly power illegally, then they deserve to be punished.
It means Google can leverage the data they get from their market share to gain even more market share and finally destroying the competition totally and gaining 100% monopoly over search market.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
I'll wait for the smoking gun you'll need to post to back up this allegation of intent. You must clearly have one, or it would look as though you're astroturfing for Microsoft. Ha! the very idea!
If Google holds a monopoly position that creates a barrier to entry for competitors— including those who might do it better than Google, then, according to capitalist economics, there no longer exists a reason to keep their product good, or continue to introduce more good products.
Thankfully Google cannot create such a barrier, and has not done so. In fact, it's hard to imagine how any search engine could do that, without being locked into an OS.
Monopolies are bad. Period. I don't care how they came about.
Excellent thinking. Now what can you do about that local power company monopoly? Nothing without the required $100M to build your own power station? Well then, it seems like you're just whining for the sake of posting a bland, motherhood statement. "Things I don't like are bad!" you cry, but say nothing of substance.
Monopolies are an inevitable result of business. They are neither good nor bad in and of themselves. That you dislike them for existing is a naive view of business.
So your point is that Microsoft can't compete with Google, because... what? They don't have enough funding?
What stops Microsoft getting into search in the same way as Google?
Nothing at all that I can see. They are giving it a red-hot go with Bing. People may or may not like it, but it's hard to construct a good point around Google making the market difficult to enter when Microsoft are in the process of doing exactly that.
I find the thinking exposed in your posts fairly muddled, sopssa. You lack logic and seem to be defending Microsoft when no need exists. They're doing fine without you, and this cases will stand or fall on its merits regardless of the/. groupthink.
Linux users complains boils down to "It's not fair that Windows is successful."
Except for that whole anti-trust case, and the many other cases in the EU, that would be a good point.
I'm pretty sure the antipathy towards Microsoft didn't start with Linux users. I feel pretty sure that Microsoft's illegal actions have a lot to do with it.... you do remember that Microsoft fought and lost those cases, don't you? That they are guilty of illegal actions? I can't recall the punishment in the US though.
I was thinking of buying a painting from her. I asked if I would have the right to make prints of the painting I bought. She said I wouldn't - the rights remained with her.
Surely this was no surprise. The artist not only is protecting her copyright, she's also protecting her business (prints of her original artwork). What you want is to unlimited freedom to copy her art, and since you probably only need one copy for your house, the others may well be for sale or to be given as gifts.
You want freedom to copy the works of others. Why should you have such a right?
Be honest. You really do not shield children from violence. Unless you're in a country with no television, they're going to see a lot of violence before they're ten years old.
When was the app store about making money for Apple?
It was always about selling iPhones and iPod Touches (and soon iPads).
The 30% that Apple gets really is meant to cover costs. When the App Store launched, a number of real developers (ie people with retail software behind them, not just/. posters) mentioned that they spent anywhere between 20 to 40% on those costs, so were generally happy with Apple taking 30% to handle them.
What's more odd about your post is that you don't think that billions of downloads doesn't equate to success. Apple's devices are flying off the shelves, customers have a lot of choice and are clearly happy to use the store.
Why would you feel safe? The terrorists have already caused your country to cower in fear, installing detectors at airports, ramping up people's paranoia and generally screwing you over.
On top of that, you've spent hundreds of billions on wars, one to hit back at them, the other being an unrelated military adventure.
They won years ago. Few people have been killed, but your country is terrified of them and acts accordingly.
Whilst the motives of the pirate party are generally okay, they're all but a gauranteed failure due to their ridiculous name and single focus. Few voters will put a tick next to "Pirate Party" on their ballot form, just from the name alone.
It'd be infinitely better to get real political parties onboard with the ideas than play around with joke parties that will never have the power to implement their ideas. Sadly many nations are stuck in faux democracy two party politics where voters get to choose the lesser of two very similar evils.
Failing that, at least change the name to appeal to the more general population. Something like "Reform Party." Something that isn't trivial to twist in the voters minds. Something that's not setting the party up to be easily demonised into irrelevance.
It's up with "The Gimp" for 'worst name ever' award. It's hard to think of a worse name for a political party, although rural canola producers one day might come up with the "Farmers for Rape" party. I live in hope.
This one time, a hacker got into my PC and used it to serve up some stolen music. When I tried to kick him, he bricked my machine, but it rebooted okay.
When Jobs returned, he did a lot for Apple's business strategy, but the Apple UI purist was over. Apple now has its own third party masters: content owners.
When I use iTunes wth the iTunes store, it's simply wonderful for doing things which are very profitable for Apple's mass market content partners. It's not so great if I want to find things that aren't the latest episode of some popular TV show. It's glitzy, but that doesn't really matter, because it's a *tool*, one that is really on the sidelines of what users want, but also a place where users can be steered to Apple favored content.
Not to spoil your delusions of the big conspiracy out there, or your fantasy about Apple being mastered by content owners (gee, where'd the music DRM go, and why?) but I have to ask - if iTMS doesn't host old movies or obscure TV shows, then should Apple be required to put them up? If so, what about the people who hold the rights to those shows? If not, what exactly is your point?
The iTMS is a shop. That's all. If they don't sell what you want to buy, go elsewhere. If no-one sells what you want, then maybe you're just not a good market for anyone, or maybe it's a market ripe for you to start a new business in.
I see a fair bit of muddy thinking in your post, wrapped up in a fashionable anti-corporate attitude.
* Code written for the iPhone (ObjC) is a PITA to port to any other OS other than OSX.
Only for an amateur developer.
A real developer writes the majority of their app in C++, and writes a wrapper for every system the app is ported to.
For Windows, the wrapper would be in C++, and control the app launch, window set-up, graphics calls, etc. For Linux, the wrapper would be in C++, and control the app launch, window set-up, graphics calls, etc. For iPhone the wrapper is in Obj-C, and controls the app launch, window set-up, graphics calls, etc.
No serious developer should post that the wrapper is too hard for them. It's a non-issue.
How do you imagine that companies like PopCap get all their software out for so many platforms? Trivial example, but valid nonetheless.
You don't actually know what you're talking about, do you? It's okay, a lot of stuff happened back then, and a lot of people either weren't around, or have since forgotten.
Let me help you:
Anyone could develop for the Mac.
Anyone at all. Apple did nothing whatsoever to stop them. In fact, they encouraged them. They sold development books (the classic Inside Macintosh series) to anyone at all. Even Microsoft, who had an acrimonius relationship with Apple back then, were premium developers.
Your point (and I'll make it for you, since you're failing to do it) is that Apple refused to licence the OS to other manufacturers. By closing the hardware, you could only get a Mac from Apple.
All that is unrelated to the issue at hand, although it'd be great if you expanded on the hint that you had a point. You know, by actually making it.
Filibuste said he spent more time with the kids who needed it, not all his time. There's a huge difference, but people are falling over each other to castigate him for their perception of his post.
Like the others, you failed to understand a simple post.
The imaginary world was the one in which one of the other kids gets some serious injury due purely to a lack of parenting. As if kids are under the watchful eyes of their parents every second of every day. No parent can do that, and no child wants it.
Again, you failed to understand a fairly clear post.
The vehemence of your response leads me to question your ability to parent a child. Heaven help the poor kid should he or she be misunderstood.
Here's a titbit for you - parenting is different for every combination of child and adult. You don't define what it is for you, except to say that not doing it (whatever 'it' is) makes someone a shitty parent. No matter how good a parent you are, there will be someone who will call you a shitty parent by their standards. There are whole nations that parent differently to you, probably most of the world. To them, you're a crap parent who coddles your kid, or who is overly harsh, or who stunted their mental growth or whatever. To someone else, you're a shitty parent.
Not very nice is it? But then you're quick to judge others, so you should remember that they can judge you just as harshly. You're not special, not amazing and most likely not a role model for parents across the planet.
Perhaps you can calm down, drop the absolutist attitude and just read the posts instead. No-one died, no-one was hurt, everyone seems fairly happy and they're all just getting along. Everyone gets the attention they need, but some need more than others.
I find it amazing that people want to attack someone before they understand, or even read, the original post. It must be the whole "think of the children" thing. Although it's derided on Slashdot, a lot of posters talking about parenting do all but say the line. They're certainly as fervent as any weirdo religious nut when it comes to their personal view of raising children.
I'm starting to suspect that the people who really get into technology are the dying market.
When you had to solder your computer together, users were all pretty hard-core techies. They were the original hackers, trying stuff out, working out how it all runs and making their own stuff.
Since then computing has moved more into the commodity space and away from techies. It's more about ubiquitous computing, devices that connect seamlessly, being able to transfer stuff around than it is about technical specs and data formats.
Apple are moving deep into that commodity space with their iPod, iPhone and now iPad devices. The success of the first two indicates that the more technical users are not the market to aim for.
People don't care how it works, so long as it does at a price they are comfortable with.
That's fine with me. We see that in every other field of technology. At some point, the tech evolves into our everyday world and is submerged until only the interface remains.
A quick business use right off the top of my head - you're talking with a person about their processes, trying to map them out. You could try pen and paper, but you'll be making alterations as you go and end up with a mess.
Instead you use diagramming software like OmniGraffle ( http://www.omnigroup.com/applications/OmniGraffle/ ) and get the process down, with all the edits you like, until the other person is happy. Sure, you can do it at your desk, but it's often better to deal with people in their normal environment, and get them to walk through their process 'live' to check your process map is accurate.
I'd have loved one of these for that. Instead we had meeting rooms, electronic whiteboards and people who are better at showing than telling.
I can see a number of great uses for this device, although it's too early to say if it'll realise the promise it has. Apple's handful of apps show it off about as well as the built-in apps did for the iPhone. The really interesting thing is when you get the third-party apps onto the device, when you see the ways people come up with to use it.
Writing it off as consumption-oriented misses the bigger picture. Sure, you can use it to consume media (when did that revolting phrase take hold?) but there's a myriad of other applications out there waiting for devices like this. Maybe Apple's isn't the best model (and there's good reason to suppose it's not), but it might kick something better off.
Couldn't have been the many pundits who make their living from your viewing ads on their websites, could it? You know, those ones who use you as a resource to sell advertising against.
You've never dealt with people on a serious issue before, have you?
Here's a tip - starting a message by outright denying the validity of the issue will result in anything you say being summarily dismissed. If you're comfortable with being ignored completely, then go nuts.
There is a good case to make that some support for online child safety is important. How that support is delivered is another matter, and the Australian government is going about this in the wrong way. That the authors of this letter agree that there is an issue (and that's all they're doing in that first sentence) is trivial and does not provide support for the filter.
The other poster said he had less time to spend with two of his children, focusing more time on the two with learning difficulties.
You heard that he spent no time on two of his children, and then used your failure to understand what was said to construct a fantasy world in which filibuste was responsible for serious injuries.
I love this style of debate. It's used by politicians, bad businesses and lawyers. It's only good for bolstering weak points and for polarising opinion - that is, it's everything we hate in politics. And now we see it in Slashdot, where it puts another nail into the coffin of the 'community.'
On top of all that, the accepted meme at Slashdot is that parents should watch their kids more frequently, and that people just don't take responsibility. Bad laws are attempted because of parental failure. When that's challenged, posters like filibuste are drowned in a deluge of invective from posters who just don't seem to like other points of view.
Lastly, most of the responses to filibuste's post have the assumption that the first two children had obvious learning difficulties. Even if it was the first two, I'm pretty sure such issues are impossible to spot for a while, and maybe, just maybe, they had some more kids because they love children and even if they did realise, thought they were fine to work through this. As indeed they seem to be based on the very short post - the kids who need more attention get it.
Shatteredstar, your post is not insightful. The mods got this very wrong. Moreover, you have no shred of understanding or compassion. You should think more before you post.
Slashdot Mirror
That said, going after Google for a "monopoly" is bullshit, just like it is going after MS.
Agreed... ... except that Microsoft actually used their monopoly for illegal actions. That stood up in court pretty well, as I recall. Even the appeals failed to dismiss that one.
Being a monopoly is a natural product of some businesses. Nothing wrong with that. Using the monopoly for product tying or to destroy competition is illegal under anti-trust laws in the US (and similar laws in most other jurisdictions). If Google are using their monopoly power illegally, then they deserve to be punished.
It means Google can leverage the data they get from their market share to gain even more market share and finally destroying the competition totally and gaining 100% monopoly over search market.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
I'll wait for the smoking gun you'll need to post to back up this allegation of intent. You must clearly have one, or it would look as though you're astroturfing for Microsoft. Ha! the very idea!
I'm patient.
If Google holds a monopoly position that creates a barrier to entry for competitors— including those who might do it better than Google, then, according to capitalist economics, there no longer exists a reason to keep their product good, or continue to introduce more good products.
Thankfully Google cannot create such a barrier, and has not done so. In fact, it's hard to imagine how any search engine could do that, without being locked into an OS.
Monopolies are bad. Period. I don't care how they came about.
Excellent thinking. Now what can you do about that local power company monopoly? Nothing without the required $100M to build your own power station? Well then, it seems like you're just whining for the sake of posting a bland, motherhood statement. "Things I don't like are bad!" you cry, but say nothing of substance.
Monopolies are an inevitable result of business. They are neither good nor bad in and of themselves. That you dislike them for existing is a naive view of business.
So your point is that Microsoft can't compete with Google, because... what? They don't have enough funding?
What stops Microsoft getting into search in the same way as Google?
Nothing at all that I can see. They are giving it a red-hot go with Bing. People may or may not like it, but it's hard to construct a good point around Google making the market difficult to enter when Microsoft are in the process of doing exactly that.
I find the thinking exposed in your posts fairly muddled, sopssa. You lack logic and seem to be defending Microsoft when no need exists. They're doing fine without you, and this cases will stand or fall on its merits regardless of the /. groupthink.
Linux users complains boils down to "It's not fair that Windows is successful."
Except for that whole anti-trust case, and the many other cases in the EU, that would be a good point.
I'm pretty sure the antipathy towards Microsoft didn't start with Linux users. I feel pretty sure that Microsoft's illegal actions have a lot to do with it. ... you do remember that Microsoft fought and lost those cases, don't you? That they are guilty of illegal actions? I can't recall the punishment in the US though.
I was thinking of buying a painting from her. I asked if I would have the right to make prints of the painting I bought. She said I wouldn't - the rights remained with her.
Surely this was no surprise. The artist not only is protecting her copyright, she's also protecting her business (prints of her original artwork). What you want is to unlimited freedom to copy her art, and since you probably only need one copy for your house, the others may well be for sale or to be given as gifts.
You want freedom to copy the works of others. Why should you have such a right?
You clearly have forgotten Alston, the World's Biggest Luddite.
But hey, if you believe only ALP pollies can be bad, go nuts. The saner people on /. will just ignore your ranting.
We shield children from ... violence until...
Be honest. You really do not shield children from violence. Unless you're in a country with no television, they're going to see a lot of violence before they're ten years old.
I find your post a bit odd.
When was the app store about making money for Apple?
It was always about selling iPhones and iPod Touches (and soon iPads).
The 30% that Apple gets really is meant to cover costs. When the App Store launched, a number of real developers (ie people with retail software behind them, not just /. posters) mentioned that they spent anywhere between 20 to 40% on those costs, so were generally happy with Apple taking 30% to handle them.
What's more odd about your post is that you don't think that billions of downloads doesn't equate to success. Apple's devices are flying off the shelves, customers have a lot of choice and are clearly happy to use the store.
Why would you feel safe? The terrorists have already caused your country to cower in fear, installing detectors at airports, ramping up people's paranoia and generally screwing you over.
On top of that, you've spent hundreds of billions on wars, one to hit back at them, the other being an unrelated military adventure.
They won years ago. Few people have been killed, but your country is terrified of them and acts accordingly.
Whilst the motives of the pirate party are generally okay, they're all but a gauranteed failure due to their ridiculous name and single focus. Few voters will put a tick next to "Pirate Party" on their ballot form, just from the name alone.
It'd be infinitely better to get real political parties onboard with the ideas than play around with joke parties that will never have the power to implement their ideas. Sadly many nations are stuck in faux democracy two party politics where voters get to choose the lesser of two very similar evils.
Failing that, at least change the name to appeal to the more general population. Something like "Reform Party." Something that isn't trivial to twist in the voters minds. Something that's not setting the party up to be easily demonised into irrelevance.
It's up with "The Gimp" for 'worst name ever' award. It's hard to think of a worse name for a political party, although rural canola producers one day might come up with the "Farmers for Rape" party. I live in hope.
This one time, a hacker got into my PC and used it to serve up some stolen music. When I tried to kick him, he bricked my machine, but it rebooted okay.
When Jobs returned, he did a lot for Apple's business strategy, but the Apple UI purist was over. Apple now has its own third party masters: content owners.
When I use iTunes wth the iTunes store, it's simply wonderful for doing things which are very profitable for Apple's mass market content partners. It's not so great if I want to find things that aren't the latest episode of some popular TV show. It's glitzy, but that doesn't really matter, because it's a *tool*, one that is really on the sidelines of what users want, but also a place where users can be steered to Apple favored content.
Not to spoil your delusions of the big conspiracy out there, or your fantasy about Apple being mastered by content owners (gee, where'd the music DRM go, and why?) but I have to ask - if iTMS doesn't host old movies or obscure TV shows, then should Apple be required to put them up? If so, what about the people who hold the rights to those shows? If not, what exactly is your point?
The iTMS is a shop. That's all. If they don't sell what you want to buy, go elsewhere. If no-one sells what you want, then maybe you're just not a good market for anyone, or maybe it's a market ripe for you to start a new business in.
I see a fair bit of muddy thinking in your post, wrapped up in a fashionable anti-corporate attitude.
iTunes sorts into Artist > Album > Track as well.
Is there something special about the way you sort your files?
* Code written for the iPhone (ObjC) is a PITA to port to any other OS other than OSX.
Only for an amateur developer.
A real developer writes the majority of their app in C++, and writes a wrapper for every system the app is ported to.
For Windows, the wrapper would be in C++, and control the app launch, window set-up, graphics calls, etc.
For Linux, the wrapper would be in C++, and control the app launch, window set-up, graphics calls, etc.
For iPhone the wrapper is in Obj-C, and controls the app launch, window set-up, graphics calls, etc.
No serious developer should post that the wrapper is too hard for them. It's a non-issue.
How do you imagine that companies like PopCap get all their software out for so many platforms? Trivial example, but valid nonetheless.
You don't actually know what you're talking about, do you? It's okay, a lot of stuff happened back then, and a lot of people either weren't around, or have since forgotten.
Let me help you:
Anyone could develop for the Mac.
Anyone at all. Apple did nothing whatsoever to stop them. In fact, they encouraged them. They sold development books (the classic Inside Macintosh series) to anyone at all. Even Microsoft, who had an acrimonius relationship with Apple back then, were premium developers.
Your point (and I'll make it for you, since you're failing to do it) is that Apple refused to licence the OS to other manufacturers. By closing the hardware, you could only get a Mac from Apple.
All that is unrelated to the issue at hand, although it'd be great if you expanded on the hint that you had a point. You know, by actually making it.
Another one who reacts before reading.
Filibuste said he spent more time with the kids who needed it, not all his time. There's a huge difference, but people are falling over each other to castigate him for their perception of his post.
Like the others, you failed to understand a simple post.
The imaginary world was the one in which one of the other kids gets some serious injury due purely to a lack of parenting. As if kids are under the watchful eyes of their parents every second of every day. No parent can do that, and no child wants it.
Again, you failed to understand a fairly clear post.
The vehemence of your response leads me to question your ability to parent a child. Heaven help the poor kid should he or she be misunderstood.
Here's a titbit for you - parenting is different for every combination of child and adult. You don't define what it is for you, except to say that not doing it (whatever 'it' is) makes someone a shitty parent. No matter how good a parent you are, there will be someone who will call you a shitty parent by their standards. There are whole nations that parent differently to you, probably most of the world. To them, you're a crap parent who coddles your kid, or who is overly harsh, or who stunted their mental growth or whatever. To someone else, you're a shitty parent.
Not very nice is it? But then you're quick to judge others, so you should remember that they can judge you just as harshly. You're not special, not amazing and most likely not a role model for parents across the planet.
Perhaps you can calm down, drop the absolutist attitude and just read the posts instead. No-one died, no-one was hurt, everyone seems fairly happy and they're all just getting along. Everyone gets the attention they need, but some need more than others.
I find it amazing that people want to attack someone before they understand, or even read, the original post. It must be the whole "think of the children" thing. Although it's derided on Slashdot, a lot of posters talking about parenting do all but say the line. They're certainly as fervent as any weirdo religious nut when it comes to their personal view of raising children.
I'm starting to suspect that the people who really get into technology are the dying market.
When you had to solder your computer together, users were all pretty hard-core techies. They were the original hackers, trying stuff out, working out how it all runs and making their own stuff.
Since then computing has moved more into the commodity space and away from techies. It's more about ubiquitous computing, devices that connect seamlessly, being able to transfer stuff around than it is about technical specs and data formats.
Apple are moving deep into that commodity space with their iPod, iPhone and now iPad devices. The success of the first two indicates that the more technical users are not the market to aim for.
People don't care how it works, so long as it does at a price they are comfortable with.
That's fine with me. We see that in every other field of technology. At some point, the tech evolves into our everyday world and is submerged until only the interface remains.
You lack vision.
A quick business use right off the top of my head - you're talking with a person about their processes, trying to map them out. You could try pen and paper, but you'll be making alterations as you go and end up with a mess.
Instead you use diagramming software like OmniGraffle ( http://www.omnigroup.com/applications/OmniGraffle/ ) and get the process down, with all the edits you like, until the other person is happy. Sure, you can do it at your desk, but it's often better to deal with people in their normal environment, and get them to walk through their process 'live' to check your process map is accurate.
I'd have loved one of these for that. Instead we had meeting rooms, electronic whiteboards and people who are better at showing than telling.
I can see a number of great uses for this device, although it's too early to say if it'll realise the promise it has. Apple's handful of apps show it off about as well as the built-in apps did for the iPhone. The really interesting thing is when you get the third-party apps onto the device, when you see the ways people come up with to use it.
Writing it off as consumption-oriented misses the bigger picture. Sure, you can use it to consume media (when did that revolting phrase take hold?) but there's a myriad of other applications out there waiting for devices like this. Maybe Apple's isn't the best model (and there's good reason to suppose it's not), but it might kick something better off.
The FSF claims they forced Apple to drop DRM on music?
I can't decide if that's an outright lie or if they really imagine that they were so important.
Either way, their inability to understand recent history doesn't fill me with confidence that they know what they're doing today.
Really? Who led you to believe that?
Couldn't have been the many pundits who make their living from your viewing ads on their websites, could it? You know, those ones who use you as a resource to sell advertising against.
You've never dealt with people on a serious issue before, have you?
Here's a tip - starting a message by outright denying the validity of the issue will result in anything you say being summarily dismissed. If you're comfortable with being ignored completely, then go nuts.
There is a good case to make that some support for online child safety is important. How that support is delivered is another matter, and the Australian government is going about this in the wrong way. That the authors of this letter agree that there is an issue (and that's all they're doing in that first sentence) is trivial and does not provide support for the filter.
Ah, the new Slashdot debating style.
The other poster said he had less time to spend with two of his children, focusing more time on the two with learning difficulties.
You heard that he spent no time on two of his children, and then used your failure to understand what was said to construct a fantasy world in which filibuste was responsible for serious injuries.
I love this style of debate. It's used by politicians, bad businesses and lawyers. It's only good for bolstering weak points and for polarising opinion - that is, it's everything we hate in politics. And now we see it in Slashdot, where it puts another nail into the coffin of the 'community.'
On top of all that, the accepted meme at Slashdot is that parents should watch their kids more frequently, and that people just don't take responsibility. Bad laws are attempted because of parental failure. When that's challenged, posters like filibuste are drowned in a deluge of invective from posters who just don't seem to like other points of view.
Lastly, most of the responses to filibuste's post have the assumption that the first two children had obvious learning difficulties. Even if it was the first two, I'm pretty sure such issues are impossible to spot for a while, and maybe, just maybe, they had some more kids because they love children and even if they did realise, thought they were fine to work through this. As indeed they seem to be based on the very short post - the kids who need more attention get it.
Shatteredstar, your post is not insightful. The mods got this very wrong. Moreover, you have no shred of understanding or compassion. You should think more before you post.
Get with the times. Gamma was changed to 2.2 in 10.6.
Perhaps you might want to read up before you comment.
That's some quality trolling. Or is it just rabid hatred? Hard to tell.