tralfam
Typical Scribd experience: Search for a document via Google. Google result links to Scribd site. Go to Scribd. Realize the Scribd doesn't actually have that document despite exactly matching title. Get annoyed.
And to counter a few more of his points: 1) The fundamentals don't change every four months. 2) Lectures can be dry, but it doesn't mean you don't learn from them. And you DO get to put it into practice when you have labs or personal projects (often inspired by the new material you learned).
When I read that "many students" would do better as entrepreneurs out of high school, I take that as some significant amount of high school graduates. The vast majority of entering freshman really need the time and environment a university offers to develop their skills and passions (ie. figure out what they want to do and what they're good at.).
I'd be afraid that the students who would do the best without college are the students we need most to pursue educations in engineering and sciences. It would be unfortunate if they spent their resources starting a company which likely wouldn't succeed instead of getting an education that would bear better fruit down the road.
Reason being that I like to use live bookmarks in Firefox, and the RSS feed which goes directly to the submitted link means if I want to read the comments left by HN users, I must go to HN's homepage to look for the article, and then click on comments.
Which is a lot of work compared to clicking on the live bookmark entry, then opening up the submitted webpage (in a new tab) from the submission's comment page.
Second is the ability to easily manipulate large amounts of email. I mean, easily archive, make read, etc. any amount of email through search. I like to see when people follow me on twitter via email. I get an email everytime, which means there is a ton of email that I want to only look at once. Gmail allows me to go: Search:"Twitter", then "Select All", Archive. Now all that is out of my inbox.
I said said they could stop it if they wanted to. It might cost a little extra, but it also wouldn't completely screw over a bunch of small developers. Developers who already paid money to Apple and further invested their time and money into making an application.
Based of how prevalent iPhone app rejections are, you would think the least Apple could do would be to release a comprehensive list of things they do not like.
Would it really cost 'TONS' of effort just to create a set of guidelines and stick to them?
It's the same kind of deal we saw with the Google Checkout story a couple months ago. Honest people get caught up in overzealous protection methods and companies just take it as a loss.
Search for "iPhone app rejected" and you will see this isn't an isolated incident. A lot of the rejected apps probably broke the rules, but plenty have not, and Apple doesn't seem to care unless they have a big soapbox to shout from.
Textbook "evil", no. But, it wouldn't be hard to stop these things. Apple takes a calculated approach because they know the few wrongfully rejected apps won't cost them as much money as implementing a beefier review process across their whole app store. When this policy gets bad press by influential bloggers, like with this app, they can spend a minimal amount of resources to reevaluate the app. It's cold and calculated.