That's right - it's a wee little Apple Store that fits neatly inside a shoebox. "Why?" you're probably asking, but I think the real question is, "Why not?" The tiny store (complete with Genius Bar, of course) was made by Gary Katz, who also made this diorama with a working iPad that's supposed to make you feel like you're at a concert.
Awesome? Weird? Or both?
Link via Geekologie
But the question remains whether there are ever any circumstances where the why-not is answerable regardless of the why. One such example might be killing someone else. Maybe the reason is irrelevant in circumstances where there is a physical/moral principle barring the action. Then an appeal could be made to that principle for the why-not without having the why. If someone said "I plan to kill X person for Y reason" the Y-reason wouldn't even factor into the why-not and therefor would be irrelevant?
Ultimately, I have meditated on the why more than the why-not and haven't really paid this close attention to the why-not before. Naturally this line of inquiry is very interesting to me and has all the requisite qualities of neatness. I even stopped doing my dishes to correct myself and thank you for the inspiration. Back to cleaning and contemplating.
Conversely one could ask "Why?" which would put the onus on the one acting to provide reasons for their actions. To be perfectly rational; I would think that "Why not?" would only ever be justified when the "Why?" had already been determined.
Why not? Because there is no reason for it? Well at least there is no stated reason, there is a reason. Which makes me think "Why not?" is evoked to evade providing the reason, because perhaps the reason is not a good one.
"[A]s little as a ball on a billiard table can move before receiving an impact, so little can a man get up from his chair before being drawn or driven by a motive. But then his getting up is as necessary and inevitable as the rolling of a ball after the impact. And to expect that anyone will do something to which absolutely no interest impels them is the same as to expect that a piece of wood shall move toward me without being pulled by a string." - Arthur Schopenhauer, On The Freedom of the Will
IMHO, one who proposes to act should provide the motive instead of asking "Why not?" as if the motive didn't exist. Once the motive is established then we can consider why not, maybe the motive is fallacious.