How's that a hypothesis? For an hypothesis to be scientific requires that it be testable.

Sigh... Why is this so hard for some people? The knowledge claim "I don't know" is a consequence of the claim "it's unknown" or "it's unknowable". They're still separate claims, of course, though only one is relevant to the discussion here.

This is absurdly simple stuff.

For the price, I'd have gone with a cheap laptop. (I grabbed an aspire one 722 with 4gb of RAM and Windows 7 for a about $225 on Amazon a couple months ago as a quick replacement for my wife's work computer. She really seems to like it, so I haven't bothered to pick up anything better.)

A laptop gives you much more utility and it's likely easier to type on than the generally really poor BT keyboards. For schoolwork, a tablet just isn't going to cut it. Most of my wife's work related computer use involves writing documents. She was hoping to use her tablet exclusively, so we tried a few BT keyboards, and a few office suites, but couldn't find anything that wasn't frustrating for her to use.

Remember: Just because you can do something with a tool doesn't mean it's a good tool for the job. I can create documents and spreadsheets on my cell-phone, but it's a poor substitute for a real computer.

If a language is simple and, consequently, easy to learn and use, it WILL be demonized.

Too many programmers are depressingly insecure. They WANT programming to be as difficult as possible -- if learning to program were as simple as it was in the 80's, they wouldn't be special. They've got a lot of their ego wrapped up in a single skill that they *know* any kid can learn in their spare time.

Let's take VB, for example. It's certainly received more that it's fair share of hate over the years. What, exactly, was wrong with it?

"It didn't have some specific feature!" - Okay, but that's true of every language..

"It forced you to write bad code!" - No, you did that all on your own.

"Beginners used it, forcing me to maintain their crap code!" - Do you know who writes bad code? Everyone. Take a look at your own work from a few years back. I guarantee that you'll find a few WTFs.

The truth is tha there wasn't really anything wrong with VB. It worked incredibly well for a broad range of common tasks. For hacking out CRUD apps, it's still unmatched. It was ridiculously easy to use, of course, which would normally be an admirable quality. In the hands of an experienced programmer, it could save countless hours of effort. So why all the hate?

The fact is that insecure programmers hate VB because it's easy to learn and use. So easy, in fact, that people who weren't programmers could use it. That's a HUGE threat to the one-skill-wonders. (They're easy to spot. They're the ones who follow every ridiculous programming fad that comes down the pike.)

If anyone can learn to write computer programs then they can no longer believe that they're above average or have "a special mind". They won't be special or interesting, they'll just be another nobody. They know that they're not smart or ambitious enough to hack math, science, or engineering. However, programming, a skill they picked-up when they were pre-teens, puts them in the same class as those other professionals in the eyes of friends, family, and the lay-public. It makes them feel important.

They don't want to face the truth. That's why they vigorously fight against any tool that comes along that could possibly threaten their delusion.

That's why programming isn't getting easier. I'd argue that it's actually become more difficult. Not because we're doing more complicated things -- this is especially the average developer writing business software. It's become more complicated because developers WANT their tools to become more complex. They need to maintain that priesthood.

Umm, no. That's not what those words mean.

Atheism is a belief statement. To be atheist means that you lack a belief in any god or gods.

Agnosticism is a knowledge statement. To be agnostic, in this context, means that you don't know if any god or gods exist.

You can be an atheist (lacking belief) and also be agnostic (lacking knowledge). An agnostic atheist would not believe in any gods, but also would not claim to know that no gods exist. A gnostic atheist both lacks the belief and claims knowledge that no gods exist.

You make the exact same mistake the parent makes: Proof or the ability to prove need not enter in to it at all. We're dealing with "that" not "why", after all.

Really? I can think of quite a few. From Alfred North Whitehead to John Shelby Spong. In fact, you'll find religious people in virtually every branch of science from the social sciences to physical sciences.

Even among the Catholics, you'll find that many priests, in addition to the normal graduate-level education requirements, often also hold secular masters or doctoral degrees.

In short, being religious isn't a reflection on a persons education or on their ability to think logically or rationally. Equally, being an Atheist says absolutely nothing about a persons education, intelligence, or ability to thing logically or rationally. It's not too difficult to find a below-average atheist -- even among high-profile atheists. Matt Dillahunty is a great example of high-profile yet disturbingly below-average atheist.

You're also a great example of an atheist who seems to lack basic critical thinking skills.

Just ignore them. The average internet Atheist has but about as much (and often less) thought in to their own beliefs as the average religious nut.

The science cheerleaders are the worst. They often lack even a very basic understanding of science, leading them to say some astonishingly absurd things! Don't bother trying to correct them, as the other scientifically illiterate will jump to their defense by posting other (often contradictory) nonsense.

If only Slashdot had a feature that allowed you to preview your post before hitting submit...

What's to discuss? Your unusual belief that what's good Apple is good for developers and consumers? Reality is obviously very different!

I suppose that's why you're attacking me instead of addressing my points. That's okay. I have a thick-skin. You'll come around when you're ready to face facts.

Ummm... I was addressing your ridiculous argument, not reasserting my good one.

Try to keep up here. It's not complicated.

Yeah, a few top developers are making a killing. It's everyone else that gets screwed!

Again, the numbers are in -- if you want to make money selling apps, iOS is absolutely not the place for you!

I know, you absolutely hate the truth. Get over it. The FACTS are in, and they are NOT in your favor!

Enjoy your outdated UI and clunky half-assed gesture suite. I hope they bring you comfort as the world moves on without you.