> Wait, so an end-user doing that makes the end-user an asshole, but the vendor preventing that doesn't? What does that make the vendor, a patron saint? I didn't say anything about what it makes the vendor. Why do you jump to conclusions?

> Refuse software support until they revert to stock I could understand. Voiding the warranty as a whole is just spiteful.
Sure, refuse support. Then when they fumble the original stuff back in, offer support again in spite of whatever damage they've caused. You're very generous with other people's time & money.

>>> Except that you're under the assumption that he means to put iOS on other hardware.
>> Apple has no interest in adding iOS to other devices unless they design said devices
> And I don't think anyone has suggested they should.
You did, when you assumed I was making an assumption. Which I wasn't.

How is quality not a cash flow issue? Good products sell better.
Credibility with who? You? So what?

No, I meant "don't let people be assholes and install whatever they want or modify their hardware however they like." Or maybe "Let them, but instantly void their warranty. Don't put up with that shit." Apple has no interest in adding iOS to other devices unless they design said devices. Goes right back to the manageable support issue.

Your sarcasm (like most sarcasm) is confusing. Apple market share IS enormous and they're doing great. What are you trying to say?

"However, Wozniak qualified his desire for a more open Apple by arguing that openness should not impinge on the quality of the products themselves"

The moment it is opened to others it will turn into the same mess that Windows has. Keeping the hardware closed makes development & support manageable. There's a reason nobody listens. This idea is dumb.

Also I have a working scale model and I'm looking to build another interim model ~6' with car parts. I tried talking to CAT about sourcing the booms & sticks from their backhoes and they wouldn't speak to me unless I had a patent, a lawyer, and who knows what else.

I can't help but notice they've blown through most of their budget and still have difficult technical questions to answer. They've got no programming, no UI, and their timeline is growing short.

I have the funding, I have the software, I have the control theory, I have a UI, I even have safety protocols and notes about how to assemble the creature. So why haven't I finished mine already? I need engineering help to get the right hydraulic equipment. It's not the kind of thing I can afford to build twice.

Some people say it's the same as the Mondospider or the Beast. The existing models have locked legs that actually move more like a tank. The feet scrape the ground to make turns. My design & Stompy are both independently articulated so it moves more like a crab.

Learning to program is not about language. You need the fundamentals first, which means an understanding of what a compture is and how it works. From there things like pointers, memory allocation, stack, and threads make sense. After that you can get into algorithms, at which point the differences between one language and another start to appear - garbage collection, basic types, oopiness, APIs.

TL;DR: if you've got the fundamentals down then the choice of language is really just a choice of APIs.

Good sir, I think you may have strayed off topic. Perhaps there is something else on your mind?

Can you spam the french president's inbox with links to terrorist websites and push him under his own bus?

I make sure the kitchen is between the office and the bedroom on my morning commute. In my old house I could go from bedroom to office in a straight line and that "let's see if there's any important emails before breakfast" turns into "2pm and still haven't eaten". Having a pet that forces you to take walks is a great break. Don't punish your pet by trying to go faster, it's bad for both of you.

There is no hardware solution to a socioeconomic problem. How can you charge $10k when the competition (your stolen software and/or Blender) is free?

By selling in volume at a smaller margin you produce the same net income and create a much larger user base, which increases your popularity and sells more copies. In the end it's a more profitable move.

How about you charge $500 for the full version, and $100 for the educational version with 50% of the features. Make a second revenue stream with training courses. Get some colleges & universities (esp film schools) to run courses in your software.

There's so many ways to judo your opponents instead of trying to punch them over the internet.

My point is that there's no market for mechanization when there's already a cheaper, faster, easier, and more reliable way to get needs met. I don't care if an indian company markets in my neighborhood or I get a robot to do it. I care about how much it will cost. The OP is suggesting that mechanizing everything is the solution and I'm saying in some cases this just isn't true. The false economy is in thinking a robot is cheaper than a human - it creates more problems than it solves. The false economy is in thinking that if I put the expertise in a robot I won't lose it in my company.

I don't believe most people will have to learn to code. It's an opinion I only see on /., which is obviously pro-coding biased. If programmers do their job right one day we won't need programmers at all, the software will rewrite itself. I mean, if I can replace a worker with a program, why not replace a programmer (who is just another worker)?

Sounds like you missed my point: a robot could be built to do the job. It wouldn't be cheaper than getting a human to do it so there's no market.

I told a friend about a robot I'd designed that could sew clothing tailored to fit. He said "why not send my measurements to india, have a suit fedex'd back the next day? I don't have to give up floor space, hire a programmer or worry about the thing breaking." Mechanization & automation is not a miracle pill.