Because all of
Sure, you can try and mount your most used stuff on SSD, but that's (a) a pain in the neck to fiddle around with (b) something ideally better left to an algorithm. (c) doesn't actually work that well, since you have to divide all your most used stuff into separate file systems.
Sorry, but your "strawman" claim is BS. Flash is not a good thing, and I've read (and been in) many discussions where people have literally claimed that Flash is the proper way to handle video distribution because it solves *all* the problems and is fully supported on *every* platform except for iPhoneOS. And that's simply not true.
If you read my post history, or even the post that you're replying to, I've said multiple times that I disagree with Apple keeping such tight control on application distribution. As an iPhone own (first gen, before there even was an app store), I've made multiple submissions to Apple's suggestion box asking for them to allow people to install whatever applications they want. It's enough that my next phone will probably be an Android phone.
BUT! That's really not the issue here. The issue is that Adobe is astroturfing, trying subvert web standards and push Flash adoption. They're successfully getting people to argue that Flash is the epitome of what's wrong with Apple's controlling nature. It's not. This is an instance where Apple's controlling behavior is doing everyone a tremendous favor, by damaging Adobe's strangle-hold on video distribution on the web. If you want the epitome of what's wrong with Apple's controlling nature, look instead to the rejection of Google Voice from the App store.
Bigger problem than the weather: if you live in a city and rent an apartment, a lot of landlords won't let you install a dish.
As much as people say that the problem with US's telecommunications infrastructure is caused by low population density, I live in NYC and I only have a single choice in Internet or cable. There's no FIOS, no DSL, and no satellite service available. The one and only option is Time Warner Cable, and they generally stink. Still, I guess I can't complain, since a lot of people are still stuck on dialup connections.
Following up my earlier post this BBC News article explains the situation in more detail: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8634276.stm
Try $43 billion over 10 years and even that's likely to be too high, the government is simply playing brinkmanship with Telstra so they don't try to block the plans: http://www.news.com.au/technology/billion-national-broadband-network-price-tag-a-bluff/story-e6frfro0-1225775686353
And virtually all this would've been unnecessary if Telstra had been privatised properly by previous governments - ie. split into an infrastructure company and a normal ISP and phone company, not a huge monopoly.
Australia might finally get a decent competitive broadband market in 2015-2020, if we're lucky.
Is Apple supposed to make it easy for you to do anything you want with the device?
If they want to sell it as a computer, yes, yes they are. It's an implicit part of the definition that the rest of the world has been working with for decades.
"Summit meetings tend to be like panda matings. The expectations are always high, and the results usually disappointing." -- Robert Orben