How you got modded up will be a question for the ages...
You very simply do not know how to use your Mac very well.
Your first point is easily fixed by navigating to the View preferences in the top menu bar. Also, each folder should keep the view that was last used. Besides the fact that this isn't a "headache" issue, it's a usage issue, a mere "difference/annoyance" at best.
Your second point, bashing something that does not have a Windows equivalent mind you, because you don't have a firewire cord is silly. How much of a "headache" was it when you bought a new PC and wanted to make it look just like your old PC with just a few button clicks? Oh wait... Seriously unbelievable dude...
Lastly, if you bought your Mac within the last two years, then you have a Mighty Mouse that comes with 4 buttons, all programmable using the Mouse preferences. It is one button by default, but easily changed. If you do not have a mighty mouse, go out and by any X button mouse on the market and plug it in. No driver installs, etc.. it will just work.
If these are the only "headaches" you "suffered" using your Mac, then you completely destroy your own argument. The list of issues for the average user on Windows would make your list look like an Apple commercial.
"You might want to check your reading level, even the sub title says "EVIDENCE OF EVOLUTION" not PROOF. From what I read, it sounds like they don't even know how the observed change occurred, it doesn't say that they know for a fact it was evolution."
You don't understand. Where is this "evidence" of ID? I can fill up my house with research papers building on Darwin's theories proving well beyond reasonable doubt that evolution theory is indeed correct to anyone that bothers to do the research themselves. There are certainly questions yet to be answered, but ID is just beyond silly when considering the vast amounts of verifiable, tested, observed evidence for evolution theory. ID is borne of faith based beliefs, and then people went out to try and find reason to take it seriously... which fails miserably with, well, everyone else.
It's all faith-based BS, and should be left in Sunday school where facts are largely unimportant, and critical thought is denounced. Remember, in most successful faith-based religions, questioning your faith is the biggest sin...
But, how do you know the buffalo aren't there? They would have to exist before they could "not want to be found". But, if we don't even look, then...
Why did we spend a dime going to the moon? Mars? Why do we do anything that doesn't directly line our pockets with more money? Are we human beings?
I'm sorry, but just as the parent noted, the extraordinary amounts of money we spend on far less lucrative endeavors sure makes a few pennies a citizen for even the possibility of finding intelligent life elsewhere seem worth it.
Again, unless you can tell me the buffalo aren't there... no, we're not spending money trying to find flying pink elephants. We're trying to find something that is completely plausible, and would change the collective psyche of the entire human race. How could this be bad? Do you have a better method of searching? If so, that would also be welcome.
"A bit like advertising - you never know how much of it really works."
Actually, you can monitor and record the effectiveness of advertising quite well. There are entire businesses whose sole purpose is to show the market research to prove this and has for decades. The very large marketing firm I used to work for wouldn't have sold advert #2 if they hadn't proved that advert #1 increased sales.
I'm sorry, but your statement regarding this is utterly wrong. If it was that vague, or if you completely discount the ability to sway the minds of customers through advertisement then the entire industry would be a wash.
If you live in the US, you are completely ignoring tax benefits of owning a home. It makes renting when your household income is large enough look like you just don't like money, or you REALLY don't want to mow your own lawn.
And yes, to those that own a home w/gutters can probably afford $100.
That may be true, but you are then much more likely to kill/maim yourself or someone close to you by having a gun in the house. This is a big reason why (as stated correctly by a post a few above here), that gun deaths and injuries are much lower in places where guns are controlled. Much lower than any foreseeable increase in crime using guns. The "substantial drop" you opine is approx 4-5%, mostly due to criminals moving to other, lesser crimes (Univ Chicago Study). So you basically have your choice: either take the chance of some gun wielding person, bent on killing you, or a higher chance of your own gun being used to hurt yourself, someone close to you, or having it be robbed.
You pick.
And a hand gun toting citizenry isn't going to "overtake" this government either, so that is also a moot point. I think there are just some very scared people out there, and for some reason they think a gun is going to help them. Are there times and places where one would be nice? Of course! But the stats simply show that less people die when there are gun control laws in place. Period.
The reason it takes a decade to build an oil rig has nearly nothing to do with those bastard environmentalists (how dare they want to protect the environment! assholes...). It's permit granting and construction.
And, did you miss the stat stating that even if so, we would add only 1% to the world oil market, which is where oil is purchased? This would do next to nothing to the price of gas at American pumps, no matter when it starts or ends. It would make rich oil companies richer, not much else. Besides, in 10 years (if we did open up drilling offshore/Alaska, etc...), the added production could mean even less at worst, and 2% at best. But, the oil companies would just pad their record breaking profits, selling most of it to other countries (Exxon, BP, etc... aren't bound to sell this oil just to the US!). Remember, it's a world market.
The fix isn't drilling for more oil, domestically or otherwise. This is a red herring from McCain at best, misinformation at worst, and those that have done the research know this, including those "environmentalist" hell bent on saving this planet from the greedy, isolationist, "screw everyone else, and the planet.. it's all mine!!! bwuaaaahahahaa!" people. You get the point...
Then, what about... for coercing congress into a criminal act causing the deaths of thousands of people (massive amount of Iraqi's and more American's than died in 9/11) through willful misinformation. Intentionally leaving out, or leaving in certain "details" can be shown to have a very clear pattern. Why not from this very highly respected source, and why from this very questionable one?
If you line up the sources they didn't accept on the left, and the list of sources they did accept on the right, the evidence is blindingly clear. This has also been written about in several books from people involved, as we all know.
Just to clarify, opening up to new drilling as proposed recently would yield oil producing structures in approx. 10 years, and would add to approx. 1% of the world's oil market.
McCain will use it of course as a "too many people do not know this, and am going to 'play that card'", but it should be seen as nothing more than a boon for the oil companies, and a whole bunch of 1%, in 10 years (up to 15, depending on the difficulty of permit granting and construction location).
Why in the hell is it so hard to have the above explained (to me by a neutral -stated- Havard Prof via NPR) in the 10 seconds it would take to dispel any further discussion about it, which IMO would be the right thing to do, on any network "news"?
"The same process is used in elite military forces, religious cults and even in street gangs."
All of which are very successful in their own right, so... I don't understand the problem here. They are happy, passionate, free-spirited employees (which would run counter to a few in your list there...). Wouldn't any company want this?
I'm sorry, but you post merely points out a general truism, but doesn't counter the effectiveness or want of such things for a company like Apple. If you were to point out your generalization to your average Apple employee, they would probably say "so what, who gives a fuck?". I would agree.
Why is no one pointing out, correctly I might add, that genes alone can in fact lead to obesity, no matter your food intake or physical activity routine? How is this continually missed during these discussions. Just as every thing else in nature, there are differences in genetic makeup in every single human being. Differences in eye color, chemical difference, disease, chronic disorders, enlarged heart, etc... how is it that fat collection via metabolism, etc... differences isn't on the list? We have even cornered genes that lead some to alcoholism far easier than others.
Smoking is a completely different issue, I agree.
But until someone can prove that every other natural variable can be accounted for except for how much fat your body tends to keep, then this question is still valid. Of course much (especially in the US) can be attributed to diet and lack of exercise, but certainly not all of it can, which make rules like this seem very one sided. Next thing you know we'll be firing those that have any number of other genetic "flaws". Yikes...
Agreed. But we do see him eat mostly veggies, and the café in the middle of campus serves many vegan derivatives (like, cookies) that he also seems to enjoy. I made no reference to his actual eating habits, or whether or not he is "vegan".
"don't play everyone acting the same as a positive."
Wouldn't it completely depend on what they acted like? If they were all assholes that worked for nothing more than the paycheck because they worked in shitty conditions, then yes, that would suck no matter how much you are paid, which also makes the point.
Hmmm, record sales, doubling of market share, #1 Music Player, #1 Music online store, iPhone, iLife, OS X, etc.. fuck, all of it. If this is the result of paying your employees peanuts then my employees are in for a big surprise come Friday when their paychecks are replaced with boxes of Cracker Jacks®.
Benefits: Working in a genuinely cool atmosphere (I see guys walking around with blue dreadlocked hair, eating at Café Mac (great food, BTW) sitting across from Steve eating his veggies and vegan gourmet cookies, playing volleyball on lunch in the inner lawn of 1 Infinite Loop, etc...
But I think the greatest thing is working with other extraordinarily talented people passionate about Apple. I don't know how else to explain it. I've told this to countless people, but I think the thing that Apple does the best, bar none, is hire the right people. The process is long and arduous (even for the lowest of the low), and they make you feel very special. It's also something you notice after a while, but almost everyone else at Apple kind of behaves the same. Always upbeat, hip, and very passionate. Most have hardcore hobbies (from playing in bands to mountain climbing, almost to a person it seems), and are very goal driven. But, who wouldn't want to hire people like that? The execution at Apple in this regard is just brilliant.
Lastly, and why this has to be explained, and why nearly no one here has mentioned it is quite strange... money is not everything, not even close. Yes, the stock (not options, actual stock placed in an ETrade account, all set up for you to sell at your convenience, although I wouldn't!), 25% off product is nice, the free shit is also nice, and well, working for a great company means a hell of a lot, but the salary isn't at the top of the list of things most of the employees are wanting as far as compensation, it's all the rest, and being able to be who they are (when you saw a suit, you knew they were from out of town) and being pushed to be passionate... it's not that money, at least to the type of people Apple hires... which is my point.
"I can't see that it's my responsibility to anticipate that a cyclist will pull out to pass a parked car without looking to see if I'm approaching at 18 mph faster than him - it's your life, and your safety."
Sooo... the fact that you have a 2000 lb advantage/killing machine means nothing? Interesting...
You make it sound as if the world will end if you have to slow down in situations that could become hazardous, for any reason, dumb cyclists or not.
Nucleobases do not "incorporate" carbon in the way that you think. And the "problems" with the giant impact theory are too numerous to go into detail here. See "Difficulties" section from the Wikipedia page you posted for some of the "problems".
Good luck.
No, it was right the first time. That is, unless, you are suggesting that this meteorite is made of Earth material, which would be a pretty neat trick considering "the nucleobases contain a heavy form of carbon which could only have been formed in space". Not to mention the whole "meteors usually not "originating" from Earth" thing...
Seriously, if you have further evidence, please expound. Otherwise your post makes no sense.
Agreed. "If the Nuremberg laws were applied, then every post-war American president would have been hanged. By violation of the Nuremberg laws I mean the same kind of crimes for which people were hanged in Nuremberg."
BTW, he can certainly be both. I think he's stupid enough to think that he could help his oil buddies AND somehow think it was the right thing to do (unbelievably). As far as masterminding... no, no. Swaying the public with false rhetoric is very easy. Too easy...
Please help keep him to his word, by signing this petition asking him to stop making movies. As he stated, if 1 million people sign it he will stop... not likely, but it would be nice.
"Not every home even has a drier, or a microwave oven (surprise surprise) or even a TV. Heaps of people don't own anything more than a small radio and cheap TV.
Apple is not going to rule the home because it cannot produce products that everybody can afford."
Apple is going to rule the Digital Home. Read the article and the title of this/. article again.
Besides, the people that live without a microwave or a TV aren't even close to Apple's target customer. In fact, those people wouldn't be near many company's target customer. Apple does not produce products that "everybody" can afford. Neither do most companies.
I think you may be a tad confused... or are just someone that has a very limited income that really wants a Mac. Either way, welcome to the real world! It's nice to have you...
"You know, there was a time before we all updated our operating systems on a daily basis. And I recall being able to do some pretty successful things with my computer back then."
True. A few decades ago the internet wasn't nearly as ubiquitous as it is today. And yes, you can still do "pretty successful things" with computers that have not had updates applied. But why in the world would this be an excuse to not want to update applications that fix issues and add functionality?
"There are some of us (music and video producers, artists, etc.) who even occasionally work on computers that are not connected to the Internets."
Really? Why not? My job is supporting the "artist" community, and has been for over 10 years now (all Mac based), and I've never known any of them to be always internet free. Not sure why you think your particular line of work prevents you from gaining internet access.
"When you are in Apple's position, you leave the semiconductor development to others and let them battle it out to make the best component at the best price. This was stupid."
How in the world would this help Apple? If they could make their own, cutting out the middle men that need to make a profit, it seems to me that this would be a great move. Developing in house almost always yields cheaper components, better fits, etc... You own it! Now couple this with the fact that Apple at least seems to think that these would be better than what is out there now, and this truly is a no-brainer.
You make it seem as if there are a few 10 year olds deciding Apple's business practice over peanut butter and jelly's. And if that's true, then they deserve a higher allowance.
Slashdot Mirror
How you got modded up will be a question for the ages... You very simply do not know how to use your Mac very well.
Your first point is easily fixed by navigating to the View preferences in the top menu bar. Also, each folder should keep the view that was last used. Besides the fact that this isn't a "headache" issue, it's a usage issue, a mere "difference/annoyance" at best.
Your second point, bashing something that does not have a Windows equivalent mind you, because you don't have a firewire cord is silly. How much of a "headache" was it when you bought a new PC and wanted to make it look just like your old PC with just a few button clicks? Oh wait... Seriously unbelievable dude...
Lastly, if you bought your Mac within the last two years, then you have a Mighty Mouse that comes with 4 buttons, all programmable using the Mouse preferences. It is one button by default, but easily changed. If you do not have a mighty mouse, go out and by any X button mouse on the market and plug it in. No driver installs, etc.. it will just work.
If these are the only "headaches" you "suffered" using your Mac, then you completely destroy your own argument. The list of issues for the average user on Windows would make your list look like an Apple commercial.
"Parts is parts.".
"You might want to check your reading level, even the sub title says "EVIDENCE OF EVOLUTION" not PROOF. From what I read, it sounds like they don't even know how the observed change occurred, it doesn't say that they know for a fact it was evolution."
You don't understand. Where is this "evidence" of ID? I can fill up my house with research papers building on Darwin's theories proving well beyond reasonable doubt that evolution theory is indeed correct to anyone that bothers to do the research themselves. There are certainly questions yet to be answered, but ID is just beyond silly when considering the vast amounts of verifiable, tested, observed evidence for evolution theory. ID is borne of faith based beliefs, and then people went out to try and find reason to take it seriously... which fails miserably with, well, everyone else.
It's all faith-based BS, and should be left in Sunday school where facts are largely unimportant, and critical thought is denounced. Remember, in most successful faith-based religions, questioning your faith is the biggest sin...
Very different. If you let American, United, etc... tank, who's there to fly everyone around? Mercedes? Honda?
But, how do you know the buffalo aren't there? They would have to exist before they could "not want to be found". But, if we don't even look, then...
Why did we spend a dime going to the moon? Mars? Why do we do anything that doesn't directly line our pockets with more money? Are we human beings?
I'm sorry, but just as the parent noted, the extraordinary amounts of money we spend on far less lucrative endeavors sure makes a few pennies a citizen for even the possibility of finding intelligent life elsewhere seem worth it.
Again, unless you can tell me the buffalo aren't there... no, we're not spending money trying to find flying pink elephants. We're trying to find something that is completely plausible, and would change the collective psyche of the entire human race. How could this be bad? Do you have a better method of searching? If so, that would also be welcome.
Thank you.
"A bit like advertising - you never know how much of it really works."
Actually, you can monitor and record the effectiveness of advertising quite well. There are entire businesses whose sole purpose is to show the market research to prove this and has for decades. The very large marketing firm I used to work for wouldn't have sold advert #2 if they hadn't proved that advert #1 increased sales.
I'm sorry, but your statement regarding this is utterly wrong. If it was that vague, or if you completely discount the ability to sway the minds of customers through advertisement then the entire industry would be a wash.
If you live in the US, you are completely ignoring tax benefits of owning a home. It makes renting when your household income is large enough look like you just don't like money, or you REALLY don't want to mow your own lawn.
And yes, to those that own a home w/gutters can probably afford $100.
That may be true, but you are then much more likely to kill/maim yourself or someone close to you by having a gun in the house. This is a big reason why (as stated correctly by a post a few above here), that gun deaths and injuries are much lower in places where guns are controlled. Much lower than any foreseeable increase in crime using guns. The "substantial drop" you opine is approx 4-5%, mostly due to criminals moving to other, lesser crimes (Univ Chicago Study). So you basically have your choice: either take the chance of some gun wielding person, bent on killing you, or a higher chance of your own gun being used to hurt yourself, someone close to you, or having it be robbed.
You pick.
And a hand gun toting citizenry isn't going to "overtake" this government either, so that is also a moot point. I think there are just some very scared people out there, and for some reason they think a gun is going to help them. Are there times and places where one would be nice? Of course! But the stats simply show that less people die when there are gun control laws in place. Period.
The reason it takes a decade to build an oil rig has nearly nothing to do with those bastard environmentalists (how dare they want to protect the environment! assholes...). It's permit granting and construction.
And, did you miss the stat stating that even if so, we would add only 1% to the world oil market, which is where oil is purchased? This would do next to nothing to the price of gas at American pumps, no matter when it starts or ends. It would make rich oil companies richer, not much else. Besides, in 10 years (if we did open up drilling offshore/Alaska, etc...), the added production could mean even less at worst, and 2% at best. But, the oil companies would just pad their record breaking profits, selling most of it to other countries (Exxon, BP, etc... aren't bound to sell this oil just to the US!). Remember, it's a world market.
The fix isn't drilling for more oil, domestically or otherwise. This is a red herring from McCain at best, misinformation at worst, and those that have done the research know this, including those "environmentalist" hell bent on saving this planet from the greedy, isolationist, "screw everyone else, and the planet.. it's all mine!!! bwuaaaahahahaa!" people. You get the point...
Then, what about... for coercing congress into a criminal act causing the deaths of thousands of people (massive amount of Iraqi's and more American's than died in 9/11) through willful misinformation. Intentionally leaving out, or leaving in certain "details" can be shown to have a very clear pattern. Why not from this very highly respected source, and why from this very questionable one?
If you line up the sources they didn't accept on the left, and the list of sources they did accept on the right, the evidence is blindingly clear. This has also been written about in several books from people involved, as we all know.
Just to clarify, opening up to new drilling as proposed recently would yield oil producing structures in approx. 10 years, and would add to approx. 1% of the world's oil market.
McCain will use it of course as a "too many people do not know this, and am going to 'play that card'", but it should be seen as nothing more than a boon for the oil companies, and a whole bunch of 1%, in 10 years (up to 15, depending on the difficulty of permit granting and construction location).
Why in the hell is it so hard to have the above explained (to me by a neutral -stated- Havard Prof via NPR) in the 10 seconds it would take to dispel any further discussion about it, which IMO would be the right thing to do, on any network "news"?
"The same process is used in elite military forces, religious cults and even in street gangs."
All of which are very successful in their own right, so... I don't understand the problem here. They are happy, passionate, free-spirited employees (which would run counter to a few in your list there...). Wouldn't any company want this?
I'm sorry, but you post merely points out a general truism, but doesn't counter the effectiveness or want of such things for a company like Apple. If you were to point out your generalization to your average Apple employee, they would probably say "so what, who gives a fuck?". I would agree.
Why is no one pointing out, correctly I might add, that genes alone can in fact lead to obesity, no matter your food intake or physical activity routine? How is this continually missed during these discussions. Just as every thing else in nature, there are differences in genetic makeup in every single human being. Differences in eye color, chemical difference, disease, chronic disorders, enlarged heart, etc... how is it that fat collection via metabolism, etc... differences isn't on the list? We have even cornered genes that lead some to alcoholism far easier than others.
Smoking is a completely different issue, I agree.
But until someone can prove that every other natural variable can be accounted for except for how much fat your body tends to keep, then this question is still valid. Of course much (especially in the US) can be attributed to diet and lack of exercise, but certainly not all of it can, which make rules like this seem very one sided. Next thing you know we'll be firing those that have any number of other genetic "flaws". Yikes...
Agreed. But we do see him eat mostly veggies, and the café in the middle of campus serves many vegan derivatives (like, cookies) that he also seems to enjoy. I made no reference to his actual eating habits, or whether or not he is "vegan".
"don't play everyone acting the same as a positive."
Wouldn't it completely depend on what they acted like? If they were all assholes that worked for nothing more than the paycheck because they worked in shitty conditions, then yes, that would suck no matter how much you are paid, which also makes the point.
Hmmm, record sales, doubling of market share, #1 Music Player, #1 Music online store, iPhone, iLife, OS X, etc.. fuck, all of it. If this is the result of paying your employees peanuts then my employees are in for a big surprise come Friday when their paychecks are replaced with boxes of Cracker Jacks®.
Step 3. Profit!
Benefits: Working in a genuinely cool atmosphere (I see guys walking around with blue dreadlocked hair, eating at Café Mac (great food, BTW) sitting across from Steve eating his veggies and vegan gourmet cookies, playing volleyball on lunch in the inner lawn of 1 Infinite Loop, etc...
But I think the greatest thing is working with other extraordinarily talented people passionate about Apple. I don't know how else to explain it. I've told this to countless people, but I think the thing that Apple does the best, bar none, is hire the right people. The process is long and arduous (even for the lowest of the low), and they make you feel very special. It's also something you notice after a while, but almost everyone else at Apple kind of behaves the same. Always upbeat, hip, and very passionate. Most have hardcore hobbies (from playing in bands to mountain climbing, almost to a person it seems), and are very goal driven. But, who wouldn't want to hire people like that? The execution at Apple in this regard is just brilliant.
Lastly, and why this has to be explained, and why nearly no one here has mentioned it is quite strange... money is not everything, not even close. Yes, the stock (not options, actual stock placed in an ETrade account, all set up for you to sell at your convenience, although I wouldn't!), 25% off product is nice, the free shit is also nice, and well, working for a great company means a hell of a lot, but the salary isn't at the top of the list of things most of the employees are wanting as far as compensation, it's all the rest, and being able to be who they are (when you saw a suit, you knew they were from out of town) and being pushed to be passionate... it's not that money, at least to the type of people Apple hires... which is my point.
"I can't see that it's my responsibility to anticipate that a cyclist will pull out to pass a parked car without looking to see if I'm approaching at 18 mph faster than him - it's your life, and your safety."
Sooo... the fact that you have a 2000 lb advantage/killing machine means nothing? Interesting...
You make it sound as if the world will end if you have to slow down in situations that could become hazardous, for any reason, dumb cyclists or not.
Nucleobases do not "incorporate" carbon in the way that you think. And the "problems" with the giant impact theory are too numerous to go into detail here. See "Difficulties" section from the Wikipedia page you posted for some of the "problems". Good luck.
No, it was right the first time. That is, unless, you are suggesting that this meteorite is made of Earth material, which would be a pretty neat trick considering "the nucleobases contain a heavy form of carbon which could only have been formed in space". Not to mention the whole "meteors usually not "originating" from Earth" thing...
Seriously, if you have further evidence, please expound. Otherwise your post makes no sense.
Agreed. "If the Nuremberg laws were applied, then every post-war American president would have been hanged. By violation of the Nuremberg laws I mean the same kind of crimes for which people were hanged in Nuremberg."
BTW, he can certainly be both. I think he's stupid enough to think that he could help his oil buddies AND somehow think it was the right thing to do (unbelievably). As far as masterminding... no, no. Swaying the public with false rhetoric is very easy. Too easy...
Please help keep him to his word, by signing this petition asking him to stop making movies. As he stated, if 1 million people sign it he will stop... not likely, but it would be nice.
"Not every home even has a drier, or a microwave oven (surprise surprise) or even a TV. Heaps of people don't own anything more than a small radio and cheap TV. Apple is not going to rule the home because it cannot produce products that everybody can afford."
/. article again.
Apple is going to rule the Digital Home. Read the article and the title of this
Besides, the people that live without a microwave or a TV aren't even close to Apple's target customer. In fact, those people wouldn't be near many company's target customer. Apple does not produce products that "everybody" can afford. Neither do most companies.
I think you may be a tad confused... or are just someone that has a very limited income that really wants a Mac. Either way, welcome to the real world! It's nice to have you...
"You know, there was a time before we all updated our operating systems on a daily basis. And I recall being able to do some pretty successful things with my computer back then."
True. A few decades ago the internet wasn't nearly as ubiquitous as it is today. And yes, you can still do "pretty successful things" with computers that have not had updates applied. But why in the world would this be an excuse to not want to update applications that fix issues and add functionality? "There are some of us (music and video producers, artists, etc.) who even occasionally work on computers that are not connected to the Internets."
Really? Why not? My job is supporting the "artist" community, and has been for over 10 years now (all Mac based), and I've never known any of them to be always internet free. Not sure why you think your particular line of work prevents you from gaining internet access.
Seriously strange comments, please explain. Thank you.
"When you are in Apple's position, you leave the semiconductor development to others and let them battle it out to make the best component at the best price. This was stupid."
How in the world would this help Apple? If they could make their own, cutting out the middle men that need to make a profit, it seems to me that this would be a great move. Developing in house almost always yields cheaper components, better fits, etc... You own it! Now couple this with the fact that Apple at least seems to think that these would be better than what is out there now, and this truly is a no-brainer.
You make it seem as if there are a few 10 year olds deciding Apple's business practice over peanut butter and jelly's. And if that's true, then they deserve a higher allowance.