A game might be hard because [list of reasons] [...] Plus, it's not even really something to set in opposition to casual games.
I think Guitar Hero III is an excellent example of this.
If you play at the easier levels, you can have some casual fun with friends (if you have two controllers or can put up with using a wiimote.)
On the higher difficulty levels, you can get some real finger-twitching challenges, topping out at Through the Fire and Flames. I've tried hard, I've only completed it once on Expert. Raining Blood is pretty tough too.
Plus, if you play in battle mode, you get to exercise your brain---the lefty switch and the amp overload (makes all the dots blink) requires you to pay attention, remember lots of data, and think fast.
As a poster above you said: games being difficult is really about being an appropriate challenge. For games of opposition, that means playing against a roughly even opponent. For single-player GH3, you can choose between a wide range of songs, each at four different difficulty levels. I guesstimate that most people can find a suitable difficulty level, where they make progress but not blazingly fast.
Now, the game is buggy, the menu layout is crap, the QA team has done a shoddy job, it ought to have better lag handling and...; the game design is 9/10, implementation 4/10.
But Guitar Hero really hits both the casual gamers and the twitch lovers, and it hits twitch lovers at various skill levels. Heck, you can even play casually with your friends and you still play at expert.
I'm not saying "Don't distrust Wakefield". Nor am I saying "Ignore all unethical acts when deciding whether to trust Wakefield or not". I'm saying "Evaluate all his actions and distrust him for the right reasons".
He lied in his paper
Then you should distrust him because what he's saying isn't true, not because his lying is unethical.
In this case, considering that his choice of samples would certainly [...] skew his results
Again, his science isn't wrong because he punched people in the face. His science is wrong because of his choice of people to punch in the face. That is, selection bias.
Fraud is unethical, but one should not distrust him because the fraud is unethical, one should distrust him because fraud is fraudulent.
(unless there's some meaning to the word "unethical" I don't know...)
No doubt there's an illness for people like me, too.
If you don't feel like there's anything wrong with you, why ask for a diagnosis? OTOH, if you (say) have trouble interpreting non-verbal social cues and intensely focus on a single interest (there's those websites again), but don't have a language impairment (that'd be Asperger's Syndrom, not Kanner's Autism), you may benefit from, say, social skills training and (possibly) a few other things.
If you can learn those social skills from your grandparents, priest, cool dude on the street, whatever, then good on you.
FWIW, I was shy as a kid. Really, really shy. I told my mum there was this girl in class I really liked but I was really shy and "what do I do?" Next thing I know, I'm holding our phone in my hand and she's the one being called. I was scared out of my (rather little) wits when she said "$name speaking"; too scared to say anything useful. The only thing it taught me was not to ask for help again, to avoid the horrible stress and anxiety.
I figure a trained psychologist would've done something more helpful.
Still when your child starts acting weird, and stops talking within days after getting a shot it is easy to draw a conclusion.
When your child goes to church for the confirmatio* (age ~13) and soon afterwards starts drinking beer and/or having sex, it's easy to draw conclusions about what effect your priest has on the local youth.
But that would be wrong; it's just normal to (want to) do those things at that age, and two things happen to coincide, timing-wise.
(* confirming what your parents said on your behalf when you were baptised: "I believe in God [...]". We have that in Denmark, in the protestant church. I don't know about the rest of the world.)
Similarly for autism: the age of onset coincides with the age of vaccination. Combine that with people not telling stories about how their kid got the vaccine and didn't stop talking, and people not counting the stories not told, and you get people believing there's a causal connection.
(1) Wakefield performed at least some parts of his study in an unethical manner.
Wait, so let's say I have the following theory:
"If you punch people in the face, they get angry."
Then I go around, punching people in the street in the face, and have some trained observers look for signs of anger (wanting to retaliate, displaying particular facial expressions, waving their fists at me, etc.).
As it turns out, everybody gets angry at me when I punch them in the face.
Clearly, punching people in the face is a bad thing to do. But that doesn't make the theory wrong.
Wakefield acting unethically in his medical experiments is a good reason for not letting him perform further medical experiments. Possibly also for not letting him be a doctor. But is it really a reason for not trusting his conclusion?
If you want to attack factual claims, attack the reasons for believing in them: poor experimental design, too few data points (back this up with statistical arguments!), lack of controls for confounding factors, selection biases, reporting biases, wild off-the-wall interpretation of observations (to name a few). Don't attack the moral character of the experimenter to argue against the factual claims. Attacking the moral character of the experimenter serves a different purpose.
I recall getting points marked down in all my classes (including science classes) for misspellings, and I am stunned by the fact that somehow proper spelling and grammar is not considered something that anyone other than an English teacher should be concerned about when grading.
Speaking as a TA, whenever I look at a hand-in, I offer constructive criticism (in red ink) on all aspects of what I'm handed in (to the extent of my ability). This includes language---i.e. spelling, grammar and choice of words---LaTeX and of course the substance of the assignment.
However, I only grade (i.e. give pass/pass-minus/resubmit) based on the substance, because the hand-ins are there for them to demonstrate an understanding of what they've been taught, not what they have not been taught.
That's not because I don't value clear writing, proper spelling or nice typography. It's because I feel it's not what I'm there to help them learn (that's just a side benefit).
I'm a Linux user, it seems I'm not supposed to say anything positive related to Microsoft.;)
You could compliment them on having a lot of marketing savvy---that's what got them into a monopoly position despite having what many^{[who?]} agreed to be an inferior product.
And in general you can say something positive about your competition; for one, Apple seems to understand how to make a usable desktop OS that still lets power users do powerful things. It's a shame they're not known more for that but the iPods and iPhones which are locked down beyond... well, my comfort level anyway.
Sure, we love Linux around here. But think about this: how would you like a world of 40% Windows, 30% OS X, 20% Linux and 10% Other? I think I would love it---it'd be a market share majority for POSIX. People wouldn't so easily justify the position "Let's make it Windows only, it's the only platform that matters". If a 20% increase in effort lets you hit another 50% of the market, isn't that a good deal? I think it would make a lot of software vendors target Linux.
Even though I'm a raging Linux fanboy, I don't have to impose that on anyone else to get what I want. So I think I'm allowed to recognize the value that Linux competitors can provide to their customers.
"I paid for it, why should my neighbor get it for free? I don't care if it doesn't cost me anything to share it, I'm a selfish bastard."
Please tell me where your ISP provides you with infinite bandwidth and no usage caps, and I will bring a truck full of hard drives.
I think it does cost you something: a slice of your bandwidth pie. Your ISP may also hold you accountable for the kiddie porn your neighbour downloads.
The good news is that once you learn a language from a given family it's a lot easier to learn other languages of the same family due to the similarities in the grammar, words and even whole expressions. I can now understand some German because of knowing Dutch.
I echo that sentiment: knowing Danish (natively), English and German, I can grasp the meaning of Dutch, though only when written---spoken in a normal tempo it's too fast for me.
Drop your ideology and purchase some professionally developed proprietary software.
That wouldn't help OpenLuna fulfil their mission; in fact, it would be completely counter to it:
The OpenLuna Foundation seeks to return mankind to the lunar surface, first through robotic missions, followed by manned exploration, culminating in an eight person permanent outpost, and to do all of this in a way that it is accessible to everyone. Our research and technology will be open-source, we are privately funded, and one of our specific goals is to reach out to the community and educational systems to spread interest, enthusiasm, and involvement.
The point isn't just getting to the moon again. With that in mind, I don't think they will take your advice.
The replaceable battery mantra is another one that is just not important to your typical consumer.
What's your evidence?
See my above post for an idea about why "it sold well" doesn't convince me. The short version: you're not making a controlled comparison.
It could be that everybody wanted a replaceable battery but it was more important to buy Apple brand. Could be, not is. It could be that a combination of factors outweighed the negative of a sealed-in battery. How do you know this isn't the case?
It's my understanding that replacing the picture tube in TVs isn't difficult only on, say, Samsung TVs.
Doesn't have to be, it can [...]
Similarly for thermostats---firmware upgrades are hard on all thermostats, not just the $VENDOR ones.
Doesn't have to be
I trust you on that.
The point was that the problems* on Samsung TVs are TV-specific, while the problems on iPods are Apple-specific, not smartphone-specific.
(* limited to the problems named in your parent^n post; your own, and the iPod-not-particularly-loving one)
By making them unchangable the price of the overall device is lowered and the form factor can be made smaller, its a trade off, and its a trade off that consumers wanted.
Are you arguing that consumers wanted unchangeable batteries in their iPods? If so, what's your evidence? That it sold well? How do you know it wasn't because of the disk space? The Apple brand? The user interface (excluding the battery)? The battery lifetime? The rapidity and ease with which you could transfer music from your computer to your portable music player ("PMP")?
They don't *care* - that's not what they want out of a computer.
Sure. But one thing they do want: low prices. With a monopoly, you don't get that. With Apple as the gatekeeper to their own walled garden, they could potentially become a monopoly---I seem to recall a lawsuit in France about Apple having and abusing monopoly power in the online music sales space (you can look up the details; the point: I'm not a lone "Apple m0n0pollies!!11" crackpot)
What open platforms offer is richer competition: if I can install any application on my $DEVICE, I can in particular install a non-$DEVICE-maker one. More competition, lower prices.
The sooner computer nerds realize that, the easier it will be to adjust to the direction the market will be moving over time.
I don't want to adjust to a world where I can't call the shots regarding what my computer do, because I don't want that world.
Hopefully I won't have to make do with such a world. I think I've made a case for why openness will survive.
Do you bitch about not being able to modify the ECU in your car? Do you bitch about not being able to change the picture tube/lcd/plasma screen in your TV? Are you mad that you can't upgrade the firmware in your digital thermostat in your home or office?
It's my understanding that replacing the picture tube in TVs isn't difficult only on, say, Samsung TVs. It's just difficult on TVs. Similarly for thermostats---firmware upgrades are hard on all thermostats, not just the $VENDOR ones.
It's also my understanding that you can replace the battery easily in most non-Apple portable music players and phones, but you can't on the Apple ones.
If you want the things Apple won't let you have---but others will let you have---it makes sense to not like Apple. When no device maker will let you have the features you want, it makes sense to not like the class of device in question.
When you don't care about the freedoms you're denied, it makes sense to like the class of devices, and not dislike Apple more than others (and, potentially, like them on their merits, depending on how much you value what they do well).
Don't like Apple, don't buy one.
I'm with you on this one. Live and let live. I let the Apple fanbois have their expensive and slick boxes, and they let me fiddle with wifi drivers on my linux box until I'm blue in the face, and everybody is happy. At least when the drivers work;)
The only thing Apple is controlling is what you can do to other people's devices.
I think of it this way: Apple is controlling what you can let other people help you do with your own devices.
Want to run firefox instead of Safari? No, you don't need that. Mutt over mail.app? No, you don't need that either. Apple has decided what you need.
having to try and defend an [enterprise's computers] from malicious software, I'm very happy about this.
I'm not sure, but I think this sounds like you trust Apple more than you trust yourself.
Why do I say that? Well, says that someone wants to put malicious software in the App Store.
If Apple didn't interfere, you would have the power to decide whether or not to install that piece of software. If Apple interferes, you only have the option available if Apple lets you.
Why is that better? Do you think Apple's interests are always aligned with your own? Do you trust them to make the calls at least as well as you?
Let's compare with, say, repositories on Linux. You can place your trust in the ubuntu/debian/... repo maintainers about what constitutes good software, and just live by apt-get. Or you can install software from other sources. And you get to review the code yourself if you want to.
It seems to me that the linux-repo model gives you both a set of other people to trust, and the power to override their decisions if you need to. Why would you prefer not having that power?
Slashdot Mirror
And then there's your equipment. If you can get multiple shots off fast
gun pr0n?
A game might be hard because [list of reasons] [...] Plus, it's not even really something to set in opposition to casual games.
I think Guitar Hero III is an excellent example of this.
If you play at the easier levels, you can have some casual fun with friends (if you have two controllers or can put up with using a wiimote.)
On the higher difficulty levels, you can get some real finger-twitching challenges, topping out at Through the Fire and Flames. I've tried hard, I've only completed it once on Expert. Raining Blood is pretty tough too.
Plus, if you play in battle mode, you get to exercise your brain---the lefty switch and the amp overload (makes all the dots blink) requires you to pay attention, remember lots of data, and think fast.
As a poster above you said: games being difficult is really about being an appropriate challenge. For games of opposition, that means playing against a roughly even opponent. For single-player GH3, you can choose between a wide range of songs, each at four different difficulty levels. I guesstimate that most people can find a suitable difficulty level, where they make progress but not blazingly fast.
Now, the game is buggy, the menu layout is crap, the QA team has done a shoddy job, it ought to have better lag handling and ...; the game design is 9/10, implementation 4/10.
But Guitar Hero really hits both the casual gamers and the twitch lovers, and it hits twitch lovers at various skill levels. Heck, you can even play casually with your friends and you still play at expert.
I'm not saying "Don't distrust Wakefield". Nor am I saying "Ignore all unethical acts when deciding whether to trust Wakefield or not". I'm saying "Evaluate all his actions and distrust him for the right reasons".
He lied in his paper
Then you should distrust him because what he's saying isn't true, not because his lying is unethical.
In this case, considering that his choice of samples would certainly [...] skew his results
Again, his science isn't wrong because he punched people in the face. His science is wrong because of his choice of people to punch in the face. That is, selection bias.
Fraud is unethical, but one should not distrust him because the fraud is unethical, one should distrust him because fraud is fraudulent.
(unless there's some meaning to the word "unethical" I don't know...)
Yo mama's company so fat it's too big to fail?
Sigh. I need to go browse some sexually gratifying websites. Anyone have a link?
How about http://images.google.com/images?q=sexually%20gratifying%20websites
No doubt there's an illness for people like me, too.
If you don't feel like there's anything wrong with you, why ask for a diagnosis? OTOH, if you (say) have trouble interpreting non-verbal social cues and intensely focus on a single interest (there's those websites again), but don't have a language impairment (that'd be Asperger's Syndrom, not Kanner's Autism), you may benefit from, say, social skills training and (possibly) a few other things.
If you can learn those social skills from your grandparents, priest, cool dude on the street, whatever, then good on you.
FWIW, I was shy as a kid. Really, really shy. I told my mum there was this girl in class I really liked but I was really shy and "what do I do?" Next thing I know, I'm holding our phone in my hand and she's the one being called. I was scared out of my (rather little) wits when she said "$name speaking"; too scared to say anything useful. The only thing it taught me was not to ask for help again, to avoid the horrible stress and anxiety.
I figure a trained psychologist would've done something more helpful.
(End of anecdotal evidence)
Draw your own conclusions. I think that googlers are looking for people who have small hands, like women.
Yeah, that seems stupid. Based on /. statistics, they're only like 2% of the market...
(Sorry for the teasing, ladies :P)
Still when your child starts acting weird, and stops talking within days after getting a shot it is easy to draw a conclusion.
When your child goes to church for the confirmatio* (age ~13) and soon afterwards starts drinking beer and/or having sex, it's easy to draw conclusions about what effect your priest has on the local youth.
But that would be wrong; it's just normal to (want to) do those things at that age, and two things happen to coincide, timing-wise.
(* confirming what your parents said on your behalf when you were baptised: "I believe in God [...]". We have that in Denmark, in the protestant church. I don't know about the rest of the world.)
Similarly for autism: the age of onset coincides with the age of vaccination. Combine that with people not telling stories about how their kid got the vaccine and didn't stop talking, and people not counting the stories not told, and you get people believing there's a causal connection.
Advice given out by the medical community has changed
Do you think the advice has change from more to less accurate, to equally accurate, or from less to more accurate?
I trust the scientific process when it is allowed to work properly. I don't know "fershure" that it has, though.
At one point in time, the medical establishment advocated a diet of four food groups, one of which would turn out to be loaded in cholesterol.
But they don't any longer, right? Doesn't that mean they learned from the mistake and chose to not repeat it?
The medical establishment has made some spectacular mistakes through the years and people simply do not trust them.
Who is this "medical establishment"? Practising doctors? If so, what does that have to do with medical researchers?
If your point is that most people don't make that distinction, fair enough. So they distrust medical science for irrelevant reasons. Good on them o_ô
(1) Wakefield performed at least some parts of his study in an unethical manner.
Wait, so let's say I have the following theory:
"If you punch people in the face, they get angry."
Then I go around, punching people in the street in the face, and have some trained observers look for signs of anger (wanting to retaliate, displaying particular facial expressions, waving their fists at me, etc.).
As it turns out, everybody gets angry at me when I punch them in the face.
Clearly, punching people in the face is a bad thing to do. But that doesn't make the theory wrong.
Wakefield acting unethically in his medical experiments is a good reason for not letting him perform further medical experiments. Possibly also for not letting him be a doctor. But is it really a reason for not trusting his conclusion?
If you want to attack factual claims, attack the reasons for believing in them: poor experimental design, too few data points (back this up with statistical arguments!), lack of controls for confounding factors, selection biases, reporting biases, wild off-the-wall interpretation of observations (to name a few). Don't attack the moral character of the experimenter to argue against the factual claims. Attacking the moral character of the experimenter serves a different purpose.
- Push tons of pills in order to fix all his/her social problems.
If you read the article (yes I'm new), you'll see they advocate social skills training.
I know it's fun to blame Big Pharma, but I don't think the researchers are part of a conspiracy.
I think they're just psychology geeks who get their geekasm from finding out how people (rather than computers) work.
(And of course, all the fame and glory that goes along with being published in an academic journal. What was their names again? :P)
- Blame the bullied kid.
They found a causal factor. It's not about assigning blame, or prescribing a particular value judgement. It's about finding facts.
I hope they do a follow-up study which looks at the effectiveness of social skill training.
And one looking at the effectiveness of doing something about the bullies.
Someone who fails to distinguish between formal and informal writing may have difficulty distinguishing formal and informal behavior
Exactly how much of the variation in social savvy can be predicted from language skill? Has anyone collected that data?
It might not even be possible for you to convey particular ideas, not to sound too Orwellian.
You mean nowspeak is doubleplusungood?
I recall getting points marked down in all my classes (including science classes) for misspellings, and I am stunned by the fact that somehow proper spelling and grammar is not considered something that anyone other than an English teacher should be concerned about when grading.
Speaking as a TA, whenever I look at a hand-in, I offer constructive criticism (in red ink) on all aspects of what I'm handed in (to the extent of my ability). This includes language---i.e. spelling, grammar and choice of words---LaTeX and of course the substance of the assignment.
However, I only grade (i.e. give pass/pass-minus/resubmit) based on the substance, because the hand-ins are there for them to demonstrate an understanding of what they've been taught, not what they have not been taught.
That's not because I don't value clear writing, proper spelling or nice typography. It's because I feel it's not what I'm there to help them learn (that's just a side benefit).
'Definitely' is always spelled with an 'a' -'definitely'. I don't know why
Uh-huh.
I think he accidentally added some spurious apostrophes. In reality, he's autistic. Def-definitely autistic. Definitely autistic.
I'm a Linux user, it seems I'm not supposed to say anything positive related to Microsoft. ;)
You could compliment them on having a lot of marketing savvy---that's what got them into a monopoly position despite having what many^{[who?]} agreed to be an inferior product.
And in general you can say something positive about your competition; for one, Apple seems to understand how to make a usable desktop OS that still lets power users do powerful things. It's a shame they're not known more for that but the iPods and iPhones which are locked down beyond... well, my comfort level anyway.
Sure, we love Linux around here. But think about this: how would you like a world of 40% Windows, 30% OS X, 20% Linux and 10% Other? I think I would love it---it'd be a market share majority for POSIX. People wouldn't so easily justify the position "Let's make it Windows only, it's the only platform that matters". If a 20% increase in effort lets you hit another 50% of the market, isn't that a good deal? I think it would make a lot of software vendors target Linux.
Even though I'm a raging Linux fanboy, I don't have to impose that on anyone else to get what I want. So I think I'm allowed to recognize the value that Linux competitors can provide to their customers.
"I paid for it, why should my neighbor get it for free? I don't care if it doesn't cost me anything to share it, I'm a selfish bastard."
Please tell me where your ISP provides you with infinite bandwidth and no usage caps, and I will bring a truck full of hard drives.
I think it does cost you something: a slice of your bandwidth pie. Your ISP may also hold you accountable for the kiddie porn your neighbour downloads.
The good news is that once you learn a language from a given family it's a lot easier to learn other languages of the same family due to the similarities in the grammar, words and even whole expressions. I can now understand some German because of knowing Dutch.
I echo that sentiment: knowing Danish (natively), English and German, I can grasp the meaning of Dutch, though only when written---spoken in a normal tempo it's too fast for me.
Yeah, but does it run... oh wait, yeah, it does run Linux.
Awesome(ly)!
Just wonder, only 12 minutes to "About this Mac"... sweet!
Yeah yeah, but imagine OS X running in parallel over a Beowulf cluster of these!
Drop your ideology and purchase some professionally developed proprietary software.
That wouldn't help OpenLuna fulfil their mission; in fact, it would be completely counter to it:
The OpenLuna Foundation seeks to return mankind to the lunar surface, first through robotic missions, followed by manned exploration, culminating in an eight person permanent outpost, and to do all of this in a way that it is accessible to everyone. Our research and technology will be open-source, we are privately funded, and one of our specific goals is to reach out to the community and educational systems to spread interest, enthusiasm, and involvement.
The point isn't just getting to the moon again. With that in mind, I don't think they will take your advice.
The replaceable battery mantra is another one that is just not important to your typical consumer.
What's your evidence?
See my above post for an idea about why "it sold well" doesn't convince me. The short version: you're not making a controlled comparison.
It could be that everybody wanted a replaceable battery but it was more important to buy Apple brand. Could be, not is. It could be that a combination of factors outweighed the negative of a sealed-in battery. How do you know this isn't the case?
Doesn't have to be, it can [...]
Similarly for thermostats---firmware upgrades are hard on all thermostats, not just the $VENDOR ones.
Doesn't have to be
I trust you on that.
The point was that the problems* on Samsung TVs are TV-specific, while the problems on iPods are Apple-specific, not smartphone-specific.
(* limited to the problems named in your parent^n post; your own, and the iPod-not-particularly-loving one)
By making them unchangable the price of the overall device is lowered and the form factor can be made smaller, its a trade off, and its a trade off that consumers wanted.
Are you arguing that consumers wanted unchangeable batteries in their iPods? If so, what's your evidence? That it sold well? How do you know it wasn't because of the disk space? The Apple brand? The user interface (excluding the battery)? The battery lifetime? The rapidity and ease with which you could transfer music from your computer to your portable music player ("PMP")?
They don't *care* - that's not what they want out of a computer.
Sure. But one thing they do want: low prices. With a monopoly, you don't get that. With Apple as the gatekeeper to their own walled garden, they could potentially become a monopoly---I seem to recall a lawsuit in France about Apple having and abusing monopoly power in the online music sales space (you can look up the details; the point: I'm not a lone "Apple m0n0pollies!!11" crackpot)
What open platforms offer is richer competition: if I can install any application on my $DEVICE, I can in particular install a non-$DEVICE-maker one. More competition, lower prices.
The sooner computer nerds realize that, the easier it will be to adjust to the direction the market will be moving over time.
I don't want to adjust to a world where I can't call the shots regarding what my computer do, because I don't want that world.
Hopefully I won't have to make do with such a world. I think I've made a case for why openness will survive.
Do you bitch about not being able to modify the ECU in your car? Do you bitch about not being able to change the picture tube/lcd/plasma screen in your TV? Are you mad that you can't upgrade the firmware in your digital thermostat in your home or office?
It's my understanding that replacing the picture tube in TVs isn't difficult only on, say, Samsung TVs. It's just difficult on TVs. Similarly for thermostats---firmware upgrades are hard on all thermostats, not just the $VENDOR ones.
It's also my understanding that you can replace the battery easily in most non-Apple portable music players and phones, but you can't on the Apple ones.
If you want the things Apple won't let you have---but others will let you have---it makes sense to not like Apple. When no device maker will let you have the features you want, it makes sense to not like the class of device in question.
When you don't care about the freedoms you're denied, it makes sense to like the class of devices, and not dislike Apple more than others (and, potentially, like them on their merits, depending on how much you value what they do well).
Don't like Apple, don't buy one.
I'm with you on this one. Live and let live. I let the Apple fanbois have their expensive and slick boxes, and they let me fiddle with wifi drivers on my linux box until I'm blue in the face, and everybody is happy. At least when the drivers work ;)
The only thing Apple is controlling is what you can do to other people's devices.
I think of it this way: Apple is controlling what you can let other people help you do with your own devices.
Want to run firefox instead of Safari? No, you don't need that. Mutt over mail.app? No, you don't need that either. Apple has decided what you need.
having to try and defend an [enterprise's computers] from malicious software, I'm very happy about this.
I'm not sure, but I think this sounds like you trust Apple more than you trust yourself.
Why do I say that? Well, says that someone wants to put malicious software in the App Store.
If Apple didn't interfere, you would have the power to decide whether or not to install that piece of software. If Apple interferes, you only have the option available if Apple lets you.
Why is that better? Do you think Apple's interests are always aligned with your own? Do you trust them to make the calls at least as well as you?
Let's compare with, say, repositories on Linux. You can place your trust in the ubuntu/debian/... repo maintainers about what constitutes good software, and just live by apt-get. Or you can install software from other sources. And you get to review the code yourself if you want to.
It seems to me that the linux-repo model gives you both a set of other people to trust, and the power to override their decisions if you need to. Why would you prefer not having that power?