I agree. I hadn't owned a computer in a few years when I bought my first Mac in 2003. After using my school's Mac Lab, and doing some research, I decided that I'd get a Mac. That way, I could conceivably run any neat open source software, on top of a slick interface. The OS X development environment is relatively weak compared to Linux's, but only because Apple didn't spend much time tweaking things like.bashrc. (So I copied it over from my work box) Gentoo for OS X is also an option.
The proposition has become even better now that Apple has moved to using x86 processors.
Re:Shell as a scripting language...
on
Bash Cookbook
·
· Score: 1
No, actually it's an asinine question. Why do some people buy diamonds to wear as trinkets? Why do some people insist on driving gas guzzling SUVs? Why do some people like the color red more than blue? To ask "why" is nonsense because it's a purely subjective answer.
I am asking for your answer, yes. I asked why you care enough about a trivial business decision that won't even affect you to argue about it on the internet. Also, I fail to see why asking about your involvement and or interests in the decision is nonsense. Your reasons are surely personal (as in, belonging to you), and possibly private. But subjective they are not. (That word probably doesn't mean what you think it does, either)
First, a mere 8 sales added $2,399.92 in revenue to Apple's bottom line. That's hardly nothing. And second, I've yet to hear described any actual problems, let alone about any "potential" problems. If you have some, please let me know about them.
Apple didn't make 8 sales. Parents of newly grounded teens asked for refunds. Suddenly, this third party product had support costs. And while a fraction of that $2,400 made it onto Apple's bottom line -- and while a WHOLE EIGHT PEOPLE thought the program was worth a thousand dollars, everybody else thinks they're idiots. It sullies Apple's image, which is essential to its core business as a seller of slick commodities, including slick iPhone applications. Apple doesn't want to sell anything that will associate them with junk. Apple doesn't want people saying "The iTunes Store is full of junk". A thousand dollar program that does nothing is junk.
What was pretty obvious? I was paying attention but I have no idea what is obvious.
The reasons behind Apple's decision. Well, at least 8 people disagreed with you prior to Apple yanking it. And most people think Blu-rays are too expensive for the price, should we ban them too?
Who is we? Last I checked, Apple doesn't sell Blu-Ray, either.
Why should it matter whether or not I'm affected? Apparently, you're not affected, but you're commenting.
Indeed, I am not affected by Apple's decision. But I became sincerely curious about your zeal towards it. Have I expressed my motivation clearly enough? I am serious. This isn't the kind of trivia you should waste your life on. Telling you that was important enough for me to take the time to say it.
I really hate this quote-a-line-out-of-context style of posting you use. It is inherently rhetorically antagonistic. I dislike quibbling. If you must respond, please quote at least an entire sentence, and use paragraphs to develop your points in response. (I bet you'll have to reply LOL)
Fine. Here's a better question: Why do you care? You wouldn't have bought the thing anyway. The answer to this question is the only interest regarding this matter.
It all seems really stupid to me. Apple sells slick, flashy commodities -- music, movies, mp3 players, computers and software, and cell phones. A thousand dollar cell phone application is not a commodity. Nor is it particularly slick or flashy -- certainly not slick enough to justify the price. It added nothing but potential problems to their business. So they dropped it, like they should have.
This is pretty obvious. So I really don't see the need for speculation on the subject, especially when you are not affected.
Apparently, you have not been reading this thread. The issue is not whether Apple has the right to yank the app. It clearly does and it clearly did.... This thread started when FireStormZ wrote: "but you have to agree with apple for yanking it.."
1) Free Market Enterprise. 2) The people's right to choose what they wish to buy 3) The product was useless, but also harmless 4) This product wasn't even immoral to anyone, seriously, there was nothing threatning, illegal, nonewhatsoever to this product.
1) Apple has the right of "Free Market Enterprise" 2) Apple has the right to choose what they wish to sell. 3) Fair enough, but see 2. 4) Fair enough, but see 2.
Any definition of life doesn't make everyone happy because life is subjective.
Life is not subjective. On the other hand, you are on the right track. When looking for the meaning of the word 'Life' (in the sense of being alive), we should follow Wittgenstein and note that use gives language meaning, and not the other way around.
That said, you're correct that not ALL sports have a degree of difficulty baseline.
Every game with rules has a "baseline difficulty". And that is the difficulty of scoring a single point or goal. Many games do not deviate from this baseline -- the GP listed a few. Many do.
A "subjective" judgement that has BEEN CODIFIED. EVERYBODY who does a triple whammy spin flip starts off with 10 or 17 or whatever points, depending on the technique they're attempting. Points are deducted depending on the actual performance.
This is no different than saying that basketball's three point shots are harder than two point shots, and so should be worth more.
This was done extensively after the First Gulf War. Werner Herzog did a documentary called Lessons of Darkness about it.
Re:Plastic beads, like you make a necklace out of?
on
A Quasi-Quasicrystal
·
· Score: 1
Mayonnaise is a decent example. Mayo is essentially bubble-fied oil suspended in a viscous protein "gel" (the egg). The bubbles of oil get in the way of the protein collapsing, and vice-versa. But if you heat mayonnaise, the suspension breaks as the protein gains enough energy to deform the bubbles.
I say it ought to still work, even with a third party boot loader, provided that the user has elected to run a small MS utility to cryptographically sign the boot loader and add it to the chain of trust. Ideally, this utility and information about it would be easily available to anybody who needed it.
Slashdot Mirror
RTFM LUSAR NUUB
$ sudo su /usr/local/lib/KDE /etc
# rm -rf
to get rid of the KEtcetera (games, mouse gazers, and other pointless) stuff.
I agree. I hadn't owned a computer in a few years when I bought my first Mac in 2003. After using my school's Mac Lab, and doing some research, I decided that I'd get a Mac. That way, I could conceivably run any neat open source software, on top of a slick interface. The OS X development environment is relatively weak compared to Linux's, but only because Apple didn't spend much time tweaking things like .bashrc. (So I copied it over from my work box) Gentoo for OS X is also an option.
The proposition has become even better now that Apple has moved to using x86 processors.
Don't forget Squeak either.
No, actually it's an asinine question. Why do some people buy diamonds to wear as trinkets? Why do some people insist on driving gas guzzling SUVs? Why do some people like the color red more than blue? To ask "why" is nonsense because it's a purely subjective answer.
I am asking for your answer, yes. I asked why you care enough about a trivial business decision that won't even affect you to argue about it on the internet. Also, I fail to see why asking about your involvement and or interests in the decision is nonsense. Your reasons are surely personal (as in, belonging to you), and possibly private. But subjective they are not. (That word probably doesn't mean what you think it does, either)
First, a mere 8 sales added $2,399.92 in revenue to Apple's bottom line. That's hardly nothing. And second, I've yet to hear described any actual problems, let alone about any "potential" problems. If you have some, please let me know about them.
Apple didn't make 8 sales. Parents of newly grounded teens asked for refunds. Suddenly, this third party product had support costs. And while a fraction of that $2,400 made it onto Apple's bottom line -- and while a WHOLE EIGHT PEOPLE thought the program was worth a thousand dollars, everybody else thinks they're idiots. It sullies Apple's image, which is essential to its core business as a seller of slick commodities, including slick iPhone applications. Apple doesn't want to sell anything that will associate them with junk. Apple doesn't want people saying "The iTunes Store is full of junk". A thousand dollar program that does nothing is junk.
What was pretty obvious? I was paying attention but I have no idea what is obvious.
The reasons behind Apple's decision.
Well, at least 8 people disagreed with you prior to Apple yanking it. And most people think Blu-rays are too expensive for the price, should we ban them too?
Who is we? Last I checked, Apple doesn't sell Blu-Ray, either.
Why should it matter whether or not I'm affected? Apparently, you're not affected, but you're commenting.
Indeed, I am not affected by Apple's decision. But I became sincerely curious about your zeal towards it. Have I expressed my motivation clearly enough? I am serious. This isn't the kind of trivia you should waste your life on. Telling you that was important enough for me to take the time to say it.
I really hate this quote-a-line-out-of-context style of posting you use. It is inherently rhetorically antagonistic. I dislike quibbling. If you must respond, please quote at least an entire sentence, and use paragraphs to develop your points in response. (I bet you'll have to reply LOL)
Fine. Here's a better question: Why do you care? You wouldn't have bought the thing anyway. The answer to this question is the only interest regarding this matter.
It all seems really stupid to me. Apple sells slick, flashy commodities -- music, movies, mp3 players, computers and software, and cell phones. A thousand dollar cell phone application is not a commodity. Nor is it particularly slick or flashy -- certainly not slick enough to justify the price. It added nothing but potential problems to their business. So they dropped it, like they should have.
This is pretty obvious. So I really don't see the need for speculation on the subject, especially when you are not affected.
Apparently, you have not been reading this thread. The issue is not whether Apple has the right to yank the app. It clearly does and it clearly did. ... This thread started when FireStormZ wrote: "but you have to agree with apple for yanking it.."
And I am saying, Who cares?
1) Free Market Enterprise. 2) The people's right to choose what they wish to buy 3) The product was useless, but also harmless 4) This product wasn't even immoral to anyone, seriously, there was nothing threatning, illegal, nonewhatsoever to this product.
1) Apple has the right of "Free Market Enterprise"
2) Apple has the right to choose what they wish to sell.
3) Fair enough, but see 2.
4) Fair enough, but see 2.
Why is this even an issue? Apple could yank it and wanted to. So they did.
Better leather, better fit, better workmanship.
Three point shots are not easy. That is the point.
No, it really isn't.
Any definition of life doesn't make everyone happy because life is subjective.
Life is not subjective. On the other hand, you are on the right track. When looking for the meaning of the word 'Life' (in the sense of being alive), we should follow Wittgenstein and note that use gives language meaning, and not the other way around.
That said, you're correct that not ALL sports have a degree of difficulty baseline.
Every game with rules has a "baseline difficulty". And that is the difficulty of scoring a single point or goal. Many games do not deviate from this baseline -- the GP listed a few. Many do.
Soccer - a goal is 1 point. Period.
Except when you go into tie breaking penalty shots, where those goals don't count as points.
A "subjective" judgement that has BEEN CODIFIED. EVERYBODY who does a triple whammy spin flip starts off with 10 or 17 or whatever points, depending on the technique they're attempting. Points are deducted depending on the actual performance.
This is no different than saying that basketball's three point shots are harder than two point shots, and so should be worth more.
I quite often look at the cash in the till when in the supermarket - does that make me an armed robber ?
No.
There are countries in the world where 12 or 14 is the normal age for marriage and sex - does that make the whole country paedophiles ?
Yes.
Never mind that "sports" like boxing are judged.
No, you really didn't.
This was done extensively after the First Gulf War. Werner Herzog did a documentary called Lessons of Darkness about it.
Mayonnaise is a decent example. Mayo is essentially bubble-fied oil suspended in a viscous protein "gel" (the egg). The bubbles of oil get in the way of the protein collapsing, and vice-versa. But if you heat mayonnaise, the suspension breaks as the protein gains enough energy to deform the bubbles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_leaf
blame ebaums
Obviously. They work for the RIAA. DUR.
I say it ought to still work, even with a third party boot loader, provided that the user has elected to run a small MS utility to cryptographically sign the boot loader and add it to the chain of trust. Ideally, this utility and information about it would be easily available to anybody who needed it.