Lack of 48-bit LBA support -- couldn't stick a drive larger than 137 gig on it, which in this day and age, just doesn't quite cut it for a desktop.
You could still do this with linux though, if its an option
Not if it's a BIOS limitation.
Linux hasn't depended on the bios for handling drive geometry for ages... Sometime before the 2.2 kernel iirc.
The GCC team has to work on ARM/MIPS/SPARC/whatever while ICC only need to work on x86.
ICC supports IA-32, Itanium 1 & 2, x86-64, and xscale. Not that it kicks too much of a leg from your argument, but if you are going to argue the point you should at least make it accurate. Ah yeah almost forgot to mention all the extended instruction sets too... SSE, SSE2, SSE3, MMX, MMX2, etc...
The mounting hardware for a removeable battery does not need to take significantly more room than a non-removable battery, and certainly nowhere near 10%.
I'm no apple fan boy, never even owned anything they make aside from an old II/E and an ipod, but I say that you really don't know what you are talking about if you can't see how the space required for a removable battery can't be more than 10% the volume of the battery itself. A removable battery includes a casing, a connector, latches, etc. and these are also present on the laptop too to accept the removable battery. I think that the video on their own site does a pretty decent job of showing the difference, but I suppose you have too big a chip on your shoulder about Apple "trying to be cool" to bother trusting that the simple line drawing explaining the design is clearly both feasible and likely.
Personally I'd like to see Apple give the option of trackpad with some real physical buttons (more than one and certainly more than none); but in the end it doesn't matter since I think their gear is a bit too finicky and pricey for my taste.
x="blah"
y=0
function moo(){
while [[ ${y} -le ${#1} ]]; do
output=${1:$(( y++ )):1}
echo ${output}
done
}
foo=( "`moo ${x}`" )
count=0
if [[ ${#foo[*]} ]];then
echo 'it worked'
fi
maintenance issues inherent in a language which is really a hodge-podge of ancient unix idioms.
What a ridiculous claim, there are no "maintenance issues" with ancient idioms... The very fact that those techniques are ancient shows how incredibly flexible and useful they are. I'd much rather use conventions which are widely accepted and in many cases are required by Posix/SUS/XPG4 than find myself having to hack up my stuff to accommodate broad and pervasive changes such those experienced when moving from python 2.x to python 3.x...
People who are constantly advocating against shell scripts tend to be those who see system administration as something it isn't; namely a low level development job. When in reality a sys admin uses shell scripts to glue together existing products of developers in order to manage administrative tasks. If I were an auto mechanic no one would propose that I learn to master a casting foundry and a milling machine in order to work on cars, those are clearly manufacturing/development tools AND certainly no good mechanic would suggest that using a wrench to fasten a nut to a bolt is "a hodge podge of ancient idioms" which should be replaced with whatever flavour of the week fastening system and power tool happens to be popular at the moment.
Sure there are some arcane aspects to shell scripting, but when I learned Unix in college they taught a thing called "the unix philosophy" which basically said that you should always use the smallest tools for the job, leverage the pipes/redirection, and build to a usable script which doesn't replicate existing functionality of ubiquitous tools. Seems like these days every python/perl wizard around fancies themselves an administrator and yet they waste a large portion of their time rewriting tried and true unixisms; sort, wc, cut, paste, tee, etc...
Also, get off my lawn!
With your bare hands?!?
