It's not profitable to plan for rare events. It's profitable to plan for common events and let the insurance cover the catastrophes. The public interest be damned.
As part of the public, I agree with this plan to not overspend to cover extremely rare contingencies.
This is why I don't have hotspare houses on 3 different continents.
no, it actually is, in fact, funny.
They were dead when Apple stopped shipping systems with them. And they merely shifted the burden to the user who had to buy a USB floppy drive. So it went from standard to optional. Note how when I word it that way it turns into the more graceful method you think PC makers used.
MAC address comes to mind, though of course it can be spoofed.
It's not a "rich guys pay lots of money to fight other rich guys to avoid paying taxes" issue.
It's an initiative created to implement, for the first time, a state income tax in a state that has fought hard many times against having one -- A state that has created alternate taxation schemes to make up for the 'lost' revenue over the years. But don't worry! It only applies to the rich! Bill Gates Senior would never tax 'normal' people! Unfortunately, 2 years after being implemented, the legislature can amend the tax rate any time they want with a simple majority vote.
oh, well in that case...
Because speed limits are retarded, have nothing to do with public safety, are never re-evaluated, the agents who enforce them have little accountability, and if everyone drove the speed limit we'd have MASSIVE knots in traffic.
You "just obey the speed law" types need to realize that about 1% of the population agrees with you and just move on. Or find an Apple thread to post the insightful "I don't like Apple products!#%" comment.
"Early 1990s," huh? IE wasn't even *released* until 1995.
Browser wars were more 97 on.
"The Road Ahead" (November 1995) was Bill Gates figuring out that this whole Internet thing might catch on.
Safari + ClickToFlash = done.
Tabbed applications are a crutch for those who use broken window managers. This task should not be handled (inevitably in functionally and cosmetically different ways) by applications.
Um, I think you've got it backwards. The advertisers are paying the bill for the content you're viewing.
Not that I have a moral issue with ad-blocking; quite the opposite. I just think it's silly that you're expecting to be reimbursed for your ad downloads. The CONTENT is the reimbursement.
yes. actually it's ludicrous to expect every person on the internet to know any one piece of information. especially something that's intentionally hidden from the user.
... except the 3G model will have a plastic patch for the cell radio.
Apply this same logic to sites that work in IE but not Firefox.
I hope you're shorting Apple stock, because otherwise you look like a total moron for having such a vested interest in a product failing.
Old programmers never die, they just hit account block limit.
