pixelpp
Nov 29, 03:08 AM
I heard about this.
This garbage is making me furious.
Microsoft, get your butt out of the music business, you're lame, so very lame.
This garbage is making me furious.
Microsoft, get your butt out of the music business, you're lame, so very lame.
theonekcrow
Jun 18, 07:50 PM
Basically if a store takes 20 reservations, they will get 20 phones plus a few extra based on how many reservations they took.!
Are you certain on this statement, if so I will be camping out in front of Radio Shack on the 24th...
Are you certain on this statement, if so I will be camping out in front of Radio Shack on the 24th...
NJRonbo
Jun 16, 06:18 PM
Raiders -
Do you think perhaps you may get a shipment of
iPhone 4s for the general public without pins prior
to July 24th?
You think that is possible or do you think Apple is
just going to cut RS out of the iPhone 4 equation altogether?
Do you think perhaps you may get a shipment of
iPhone 4s for the general public without pins prior
to July 24th?
You think that is possible or do you think Apple is
just going to cut RS out of the iPhone 4 equation altogether?
extraextra
Aug 26, 09:24 PM
The update time for Apple's store is 9am EST? I was under the impression that it was 9am PST. I'm behind the times! (pun intended, I suppose)
Is the 7-10 days for BTO iMacs? Or stock ones?
Is the 7-10 days for BTO iMacs? Or stock ones?
hobo.hopkins
Apr 25, 02:12 PM
Its none of your business what things I'm involved in and want hidden. Its my right to privacy so back off.
That's why the information is stored locally and can't be accessed by third parties. The information IS private. Unless a device of yours is stolen, in which case almost anything can be done or accessed.
That's why the information is stored locally and can't be accessed by third parties. The information IS private. Unless a device of yours is stolen, in which case almost anything can be done or accessed.
Sydde
Mar 20, 06:56 PM
But they have worked so hard, all these decades, to diminish the "one man, one vote" to something much less than that.
Well, you see, it is not about the one-man-one-vote thing. That works just fine. You just have to make sure you keep the wrong men from voting.
Well, you see, it is not about the one-man-one-vote thing. That works just fine. You just have to make sure you keep the wrong men from voting.
Megadooomer
Mar 22, 01:18 PM
Except the biggest spec is missing from it: compatible with the Apple App Store. Sorry, specs are not the end all and be all of device popularity. What good are specs if few developers write the device?
Absolutely. Have you read the developers comments on the SDK? I downloaded it to try and compile a simple game, which I had already written in Flash/AiR. It runs AiR/Flash, so simple right? NO! You have to jump through a million hoops, (Flash>Flex (which just got switched toFlash-Builder with the new CS5 Workflow, SDK compiler, install VMWare, re-install simulator...)
My first game in iOS was prototyped in an evening, 3-5 hours max. I spent 3 WEEKS trying to get things straight in the Playbook SDK and the thing still won't run right.
This is rediculous. Apple provided a sleek, fun SDK to use. Blackberry relied on Adobe, a 3rd party notoriously terrible at providing a simple, consistent user experience. Flash still barely runs on most platforms.The processes are esoteric and convoluted. Android still has far fewer good, independently developed games, and it already runs on millions of devices for developers to cater to. The Playbook will fall flat entering the market at this point and in this way. It will run almost nothing except perhaps for enterprise/data-base Flex applications, which the IPad can already run fine, in addition to running a million other Apps, including Ereading/News updates. Developers will forget about it, consumers will lose interest, and it will be forgotten before the bugs are even ironed out. RIP Playbook, nice gimmick with the free game.
PS what is with this old "walled garden" argument? Can you connect a camera, or a midi keyboard or a guitar to your Android tablet? Can it play a version of Doom written by Carmack? Can it consistently read and annotate any PDF? The "walled garden" thing is a myth. You can jailbreak and load anything, the only difference is you *may* void the warranty, which is only a problem because AppleCare is generally so awesome compared to other companies that people are afraid of endangering it.
Absolutely. Have you read the developers comments on the SDK? I downloaded it to try and compile a simple game, which I had already written in Flash/AiR. It runs AiR/Flash, so simple right? NO! You have to jump through a million hoops, (Flash>Flex (which just got switched toFlash-Builder with the new CS5 Workflow, SDK compiler, install VMWare, re-install simulator...)
My first game in iOS was prototyped in an evening, 3-5 hours max. I spent 3 WEEKS trying to get things straight in the Playbook SDK and the thing still won't run right.
This is rediculous. Apple provided a sleek, fun SDK to use. Blackberry relied on Adobe, a 3rd party notoriously terrible at providing a simple, consistent user experience. Flash still barely runs on most platforms.The processes are esoteric and convoluted. Android still has far fewer good, independently developed games, and it already runs on millions of devices for developers to cater to. The Playbook will fall flat entering the market at this point and in this way. It will run almost nothing except perhaps for enterprise/data-base Flex applications, which the IPad can already run fine, in addition to running a million other Apps, including Ereading/News updates. Developers will forget about it, consumers will lose interest, and it will be forgotten before the bugs are even ironed out. RIP Playbook, nice gimmick with the free game.
PS what is with this old "walled garden" argument? Can you connect a camera, or a midi keyboard or a guitar to your Android tablet? Can it play a version of Doom written by Carmack? Can it consistently read and annotate any PDF? The "walled garden" thing is a myth. You can jailbreak and load anything, the only difference is you *may* void the warranty, which is only a problem because AppleCare is generally so awesome compared to other companies that people are afraid of endangering it.
leekohler
Mar 7, 07:59 AM
Here's a tidbit from the pdf:
This book is dedicated to the
Holy Family, the sublime model for all
families, and our sure guide in the
reaction to the sexual revolution and
homosexual offensive.
May the Blessed Mother intercede
with Her Divine Son for all Americans
committed to defend the sacred
institutions of marriage and the family.
Interesting... wasn't Mary knocked up by an angel and was she really married to Joseph? :confused:
Whoever wrote this nonsense has no idea how the world really works and what the social and cultural consensus was in the 1700s, the Renaissance and all the way before. Any idealized tradition in family, culture and society the Christians of today are pining for would completely eradicate everything we've worked for to be free and live without fear to be who we are.
I just have one thing to say to all the righteous religious folk; it's over, end of the line, the jig is up. You've had your chance and you blew it. Join us in the 21st century where liberty, freedom and equality prevail - it's not perfect but it's the best we can do. So, rather than fighting it, join it and help it make better.
They really think we're the enemy. It's unbelievable.
This book is dedicated to the
Holy Family, the sublime model for all
families, and our sure guide in the
reaction to the sexual revolution and
homosexual offensive.
May the Blessed Mother intercede
with Her Divine Son for all Americans
committed to defend the sacred
institutions of marriage and the family.
Interesting... wasn't Mary knocked up by an angel and was she really married to Joseph? :confused:
Whoever wrote this nonsense has no idea how the world really works and what the social and cultural consensus was in the 1700s, the Renaissance and all the way before. Any idealized tradition in family, culture and society the Christians of today are pining for would completely eradicate everything we've worked for to be free and live without fear to be who we are.
I just have one thing to say to all the righteous religious folk; it's over, end of the line, the jig is up. You've had your chance and you blew it. Join us in the 21st century where liberty, freedom and equality prevail - it's not perfect but it's the best we can do. So, rather than fighting it, join it and help it make better.
They really think we're the enemy. It's unbelievable.
ThunderSkunk
Mar 26, 10:26 PM
I have a question.
I don't expect we'll be able to use iOS apps in OS X as early as Lion, and I understand based on the different chip architecture, it shouldn't be able to run at all...
buuuuut,
I distinctly remember watching that first keynote when they made their dev program available, and walked us through the iPhone dev tools, and seeing an OS X On-screen emulator, that would let you code and test your apps as you wrote them right there in OS X, with a big clumsy dot for a "fingertip"...
If they'll run in that emulator, isn't it conceivable that in some way, your iOS apps would find a way, using that emulator layer, to look something like dashboard, to run in both environments?
I'm thinking, syncing the data between both mobile and desktop iOS apps would be simple enough to be done automatically, like dropbox for instance, or a basic itunes information sync... Then on your desktop or MBP, you'd have access to content you've created on your mobile device, for a seamless user experience. None of this "sent to itunes, download from itunes" nonsense, with verions all over the place to keep track of.
I imagine a macbook pro will come someday, with a standard vertical screen and basically an ipad for the horizontal keyboard area. Imagine the possibilities there, of integrating the two ecosystems... how could they NOT give that a try?
We're not there yet, obviously, but Lion seems like something of a step in that direction.
I don't expect we'll be able to use iOS apps in OS X as early as Lion, and I understand based on the different chip architecture, it shouldn't be able to run at all...
buuuuut,
I distinctly remember watching that first keynote when they made their dev program available, and walked us through the iPhone dev tools, and seeing an OS X On-screen emulator, that would let you code and test your apps as you wrote them right there in OS X, with a big clumsy dot for a "fingertip"...
If they'll run in that emulator, isn't it conceivable that in some way, your iOS apps would find a way, using that emulator layer, to look something like dashboard, to run in both environments?
I'm thinking, syncing the data between both mobile and desktop iOS apps would be simple enough to be done automatically, like dropbox for instance, or a basic itunes information sync... Then on your desktop or MBP, you'd have access to content you've created on your mobile device, for a seamless user experience. None of this "sent to itunes, download from itunes" nonsense, with verions all over the place to keep track of.
I imagine a macbook pro will come someday, with a standard vertical screen and basically an ipad for the horizontal keyboard area. Imagine the possibilities there, of integrating the two ecosystems... how could they NOT give that a try?
We're not there yet, obviously, but Lion seems like something of a step in that direction.
janstett
Oct 23, 11:44 AM
Unfortunately not many multithreaded apps - yet. For a long time most of the multi-threaded apps were just a select few pro level things. 3D/Visualization software, CAD, database systems, etc.. Those of us who had multiprocessor systems bought them because we had a specific software in mind or group of software applications that could take advantage of multiple processors. As current CPU manufacturing processes started hitting a wall right around the 3GHz mark, chip makers started to transition to multiple CPU cores to boost power - makes sense. Software developers have been lazy for years, just riding the wave of ever-increasing MHz. Now the multi-core CPUs are here and the software is behind as many applications need to have serious re-writes done in order to take advantage of multiple processors. Intel tried to get a jump on this with their HT (Hyper Threading) implementation that essentially simulated dual-cores on a CPU by way of two virtual CPUs. Software developers didn't exactly jump on this and warm up to it. But I also don't think the software industry truly believed that CPUs would go multi-core on a mass scale so fast... Intel and AMD both said they would, don't know why the software industry doubted. Intel and AMD are uncommonly good about telling the truth about upcoming products. Both will be shipping quad-core CPU offerings by year's end.
What you're saying isn't entirely true and may give some people the wrong idea.
First, a multicore system is helpful when running multiple CPU-intensive single-threaded applications on a proper multitasking operating system. For example, right now I'm ripping CDs on iTunes. One processor gets used a lot and the other three are idle. I could be using this CPU power for another app.
The reality is that to take advantage of multiple cores, you had to take advantage of threads. Now, I was doing this in my programs with OS/2 back in 1992. I've been writing multithreaded apps my entire career. But writing a threaded application requires thought and work, so naturally many programmers are lazy and avoid threads. Plus it is harder to debug and synchronize a multithreaded application. Windows and Linux people have been doing this since the stone age, and Windows/Linux have had usable multiprocessor systems for more than a decade (it didn't start with Hyperthreading). I had a dual-processor 486 running NT 3.5 circa 1995. It's just been more of an optional "cool trick" to write threaded applications that the timid programmer avoids. Also it's worth noting that it's possible to go overboard with excessive threading and that leads to problems (context switching, thrashing, synchronization, etc).
Now, on the Mac side, OS 9 and below couldn't properly support SMP and it required a hacked version of the OS and a special version of the application. So the history of the Mac world has been, until recently with OSX, to avoid threading and multiprocessing unless specially called for and then at great pain to do so.
So it goes back to getting developers to write threaded applications. Now that we're getting to 4 and 8 core systems, it also presents a problem.
The classic reason to create a thread is to prevent the GUI from locking up while processing. Let's say I write a GUI program that has a calculation that takes 20 seconds. If I do it the lazy way, the GUI will lock up for 20 seconds because it can't process window messages during that time. If I write a thread, the calculation can take place there and leave the GUI thread able to process messages and keep the application alive, and then signal the other thread when it's done.
But now with more than 4 or 8 cores, the problem is how do you break up the work? 9 women can't have a baby in a month. So if your process is still serialized, you still have to wait with 1 processor doing all the work and the others sitting idle. For example, if you encode a video, it is a very serialized process. I hear some work has been done to simultaneously encode macroblocks in parallel, but getting 8 processors to chew on a single video is an interesting problem.
What you're saying isn't entirely true and may give some people the wrong idea.
First, a multicore system is helpful when running multiple CPU-intensive single-threaded applications on a proper multitasking operating system. For example, right now I'm ripping CDs on iTunes. One processor gets used a lot and the other three are idle. I could be using this CPU power for another app.
The reality is that to take advantage of multiple cores, you had to take advantage of threads. Now, I was doing this in my programs with OS/2 back in 1992. I've been writing multithreaded apps my entire career. But writing a threaded application requires thought and work, so naturally many programmers are lazy and avoid threads. Plus it is harder to debug and synchronize a multithreaded application. Windows and Linux people have been doing this since the stone age, and Windows/Linux have had usable multiprocessor systems for more than a decade (it didn't start with Hyperthreading). I had a dual-processor 486 running NT 3.5 circa 1995. It's just been more of an optional "cool trick" to write threaded applications that the timid programmer avoids. Also it's worth noting that it's possible to go overboard with excessive threading and that leads to problems (context switching, thrashing, synchronization, etc).
Now, on the Mac side, OS 9 and below couldn't properly support SMP and it required a hacked version of the OS and a special version of the application. So the history of the Mac world has been, until recently with OSX, to avoid threading and multiprocessing unless specially called for and then at great pain to do so.
So it goes back to getting developers to write threaded applications. Now that we're getting to 4 and 8 core systems, it also presents a problem.
The classic reason to create a thread is to prevent the GUI from locking up while processing. Let's say I write a GUI program that has a calculation that takes 20 seconds. If I do it the lazy way, the GUI will lock up for 20 seconds because it can't process window messages during that time. If I write a thread, the calculation can take place there and leave the GUI thread able to process messages and keep the application alive, and then signal the other thread when it's done.
But now with more than 4 or 8 cores, the problem is how do you break up the work? 9 women can't have a baby in a month. So if your process is still serialized, you still have to wait with 1 processor doing all the work and the others sitting idle. For example, if you encode a video, it is a very serialized process. I hear some work has been done to simultaneously encode macroblocks in parallel, but getting 8 processors to chew on a single video is an interesting problem.
MacSawdust
Aug 26, 10:40 AM
This nows explains why mine is not valid.
Iconoclysm
Apr 20, 04:19 PM
No they werent, what apple describes was already shows and build BEFORE iphone. If any apple basicly admits they copied it themselves and should get sued.
No, it wasn't shown before the iPhone, the F700 had a different interface when it was shown.
No, it wasn't shown before the iPhone, the F700 had a different interface when it was shown.
iliketyla
Mar 31, 08:46 PM
This is where the Android "community" is going to split.
The ones we've heard from today don't give a crap about "open" or "closed" or Google or anything else other than the fact that Android is not Apple and is stealing some sales from Apple. They'll defend whatever Google does, because all they want is a platform that's not by Apple to take over the mobile space.
The true believers in the "open" propaganda, as ridiculous as it is and as untrue as it's always been, are probably still in a state of shock. By tomorrow they'll split into two warring camps. One will defend everything Google does because they perceive—wrongly of course—that Android is still in some indefinable way more open than iOS, and they'll blow that little invisible kernel of "openness" up until that's all they can see.
The other camp will be viciously angry at Google's betrayal of the True Religion™ and will be flailing around for some other messiah to deliver them from the "Walled Garden" of Apple and now, Android. These are the people who were saying the other day that "Motorola could rot" with their own OS.
Any suggestions on who the zealots will turn to in their hour of despair? I honestly can't think of a candidate, but then I'm not nuts—at least not that way.
Yeah! That's what'll happen!
Or they'll do further research and realize that the implications in this SINGLE ARTICLE might not be 100% true.
To the everyday user this means NOTHING as they have no knowledge of what open truly means, and therefore can't take advantage of it.
To the users who actually have the knowhow to utilize open source operating systems, this might mean a minor hinderance, but not a complete game changer.
And for clarification, the former is the vast majority.
Did no one notice the obvious bias in this article? It's slanted, and the author clearly thinks that Google has been wrong this entire time.
The ones we've heard from today don't give a crap about "open" or "closed" or Google or anything else other than the fact that Android is not Apple and is stealing some sales from Apple. They'll defend whatever Google does, because all they want is a platform that's not by Apple to take over the mobile space.
The true believers in the "open" propaganda, as ridiculous as it is and as untrue as it's always been, are probably still in a state of shock. By tomorrow they'll split into two warring camps. One will defend everything Google does because they perceive—wrongly of course—that Android is still in some indefinable way more open than iOS, and they'll blow that little invisible kernel of "openness" up until that's all they can see.
The other camp will be viciously angry at Google's betrayal of the True Religion™ and will be flailing around for some other messiah to deliver them from the "Walled Garden" of Apple and now, Android. These are the people who were saying the other day that "Motorola could rot" with their own OS.
Any suggestions on who the zealots will turn to in their hour of despair? I honestly can't think of a candidate, but then I'm not nuts—at least not that way.
Yeah! That's what'll happen!
Or they'll do further research and realize that the implications in this SINGLE ARTICLE might not be 100% true.
To the everyday user this means NOTHING as they have no knowledge of what open truly means, and therefore can't take advantage of it.
To the users who actually have the knowhow to utilize open source operating systems, this might mean a minor hinderance, but not a complete game changer.
And for clarification, the former is the vast majority.
Did no one notice the obvious bias in this article? It's slanted, and the author clearly thinks that Google has been wrong this entire time.
mbob
Apr 11, 03:23 PM
So a 50" SD tv is better than a 42" High Def tv?
Nope. But a 50" 1080p is better than a 42" 1080p.
Nope. But a 50" 1080p is better than a 42" 1080p.
Doctor Q
Jul 14, 03:07 PM
Power Supply at the top is REALLY stupid.Why? What are the advantages/disadvantages to having it higher or lower in the case? Does the weight distribution matter?
gnasher729
Jul 27, 05:59 PM
but is still more productive because it handles more calculations per clock cycle
I'm no processor geek. I have a basic understanding of the terminology and how things work so correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't this one of the advantages that the PPC had over Intel chips? Does this mean Intel is moving toward shorter pipes? Are we talking more instructions per clock cycle or what? What does "calculations" mean in this context?
With most processors, especially the Intel/AMD processors, "instructions per cycle" is not a useful number. These processors have both simple instructions (add register number 3 to register number 6) and complex instructions (add register number 3 to the number whose address is in register number 6). A PowerPC has the simple instructions, but not the complex ones. Instead it would need three instructions "load the number whose address is in register number 6, and move it to register 7", "add register 3 to register 7", "store register 7 to the location whose address is in register 6". But the Intel processor doesn't magically do three times as much work. Instead, it splits the complex instruction into three so-called "macro-ops", and does exactly the same work. So in this case, the PowerPC would execute three times as many instructions per cycle (3 instead of 1), but because it doesn't do more actual work, that is pointless. Instead you would count the number of operations, and they are more or less the same.
Intel is indeed moving towards shorter pipelines. They have done that already with the Core Duo chips. Longer pipelines have the advantage that each pipeline step is a bit faster, so you can get higher clockspeed. Shorter pipelines have the advantage that they take much less energy (very important; at some point your chips just melt), they are much faster handling branches, and they are just much much easier to design. Pentium 4 needed absolutely heroic efforts to produce it, and would have needed twice the heroics to improve it. Instead, the Core Duo has a much simpler design, that is just as powerful, and because it was so simple, Core 2 Duo could improve it.
And Core 2 Duo can now execute up to four "micro-ops" per cycle, same as the G5, compared to three for Core Duo, Pentium 4 and G4. It also has some clever features that reduce the number of micro-ops needed up to 10 percent, and some other improvements.
I'm no processor geek. I have a basic understanding of the terminology and how things work so correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't this one of the advantages that the PPC had over Intel chips? Does this mean Intel is moving toward shorter pipes? Are we talking more instructions per clock cycle or what? What does "calculations" mean in this context?
With most processors, especially the Intel/AMD processors, "instructions per cycle" is not a useful number. These processors have both simple instructions (add register number 3 to register number 6) and complex instructions (add register number 3 to the number whose address is in register number 6). A PowerPC has the simple instructions, but not the complex ones. Instead it would need three instructions "load the number whose address is in register number 6, and move it to register 7", "add register 3 to register 7", "store register 7 to the location whose address is in register 6". But the Intel processor doesn't magically do three times as much work. Instead, it splits the complex instruction into three so-called "macro-ops", and does exactly the same work. So in this case, the PowerPC would execute three times as many instructions per cycle (3 instead of 1), but because it doesn't do more actual work, that is pointless. Instead you would count the number of operations, and they are more or less the same.
Intel is indeed moving towards shorter pipelines. They have done that already with the Core Duo chips. Longer pipelines have the advantage that each pipeline step is a bit faster, so you can get higher clockspeed. Shorter pipelines have the advantage that they take much less energy (very important; at some point your chips just melt), they are much faster handling branches, and they are just much much easier to design. Pentium 4 needed absolutely heroic efforts to produce it, and would have needed twice the heroics to improve it. Instead, the Core Duo has a much simpler design, that is just as powerful, and because it was so simple, Core 2 Duo could improve it.
And Core 2 Duo can now execute up to four "micro-ops" per cycle, same as the G5, compared to three for Core Duo, Pentium 4 and G4. It also has some clever features that reduce the number of micro-ops needed up to 10 percent, and some other improvements.
Zadillo
Aug 27, 05:28 PM
I see where you're coming from.
So does this mean there will be no Powerbook G5s next tuesday?
Hey, you never know.... ;)
So does this mean there will be no Powerbook G5s next tuesday?
Hey, you never know.... ;)
MattyMac
Aug 11, 11:09 AM
Yes Yes Yes
aloshka
Apr 25, 03:03 PM
"a perfect storm", "overreaction", "typical for the us to sue.."
... sorry, but in what ways do I benefit by having apple track my whereabouts to the day and meter? why isn't there an opt-in (apart from the general 'eat **** or die' TOU) or at least an opt-out for this? why is it so easy to access the data?
... apple deserves to get a beating for this.
they're known for focussing on the user in terms of design and UI of theirdevices... they should also make the step to focus on their users best interest in terms of privacy and freedom, rather than their own greed.
You obviously missed the point that they do not track anything. It's just a log file on your iphone, it stays with your iphone. I GOT even more news!! I FOUND a file on the iphone that stores text messages. YES PEOPLE text messages. I can read your text messages from this file if I have your phone!! Oh ya, I know you can launch the SMS app, but WHY WOULD APPLE NEED TO STORE TEXT MESSAGES ON MY DEVICE?!?! I'm suing!!
... sorry, but in what ways do I benefit by having apple track my whereabouts to the day and meter? why isn't there an opt-in (apart from the general 'eat **** or die' TOU) or at least an opt-out for this? why is it so easy to access the data?
... apple deserves to get a beating for this.
they're known for focussing on the user in terms of design and UI of theirdevices... they should also make the step to focus on their users best interest in terms of privacy and freedom, rather than their own greed.
You obviously missed the point that they do not track anything. It's just a log file on your iphone, it stays with your iphone. I GOT even more news!! I FOUND a file on the iphone that stores text messages. YES PEOPLE text messages. I can read your text messages from this file if I have your phone!! Oh ya, I know you can launch the SMS app, but WHY WOULD APPLE NEED TO STORE TEXT MESSAGES ON MY DEVICE?!?! I'm suing!!
jpw
Apr 25, 02:27 PM
Regardless of how acurate the info is and how far it is from any given cell tower or whatever, can someone just explain why this information is stored on the device as well as the backup in the first place?
I mean what is the purpose of this data?
"Background location - Navigation apps can now continue to guide users who are listening to their iPods, or using other apps. iOS 4 also provides a new and battery-efficient way to monitor location when users move between cell towers. This is a great way for your social networking apps to keep track of users and their friends' locations." right from apple's site, this is part of the answer to your why question.
The file is in the �User Data Partition� on the device. This is a logical filesystem that maintains non-system level privileges and where most of the data is stored. When you perform an iOS Backup through iTunes, it is backing up this partition. And that is the answer to your how question.
I mean what is the purpose of this data?
"Background location - Navigation apps can now continue to guide users who are listening to their iPods, or using other apps. iOS 4 also provides a new and battery-efficient way to monitor location when users move between cell towers. This is a great way for your social networking apps to keep track of users and their friends' locations." right from apple's site, this is part of the answer to your why question.
The file is in the �User Data Partition� on the device. This is a logical filesystem that maintains non-system level privileges and where most of the data is stored. When you perform an iOS Backup through iTunes, it is backing up this partition. And that is the answer to your how question.
Chris Bangle
Aug 11, 11:24 AM
Ill only buy it if stupid little spoilt english kids dont buy it, i dont mean posh english kids but yobbish ones, I want it to be the coolest thing in the world. The nano has become the essential for yobbish teenage boys and girls in the uk and I just want those stupid turds to stick to their quote "amazing black v3's with itunes and video" which dont actually have itunes and video!!!!!!!!!!! :mad: :mad: :mad: Im not ageist because im 16.....
al2o3cr
Apr 25, 01:43 PM
Hope nobody tells these lawyers that anybody who can access the location data can also get at the address book and text messages - OMG PRIVACY VIOLATION!
dwd3885
Apr 25, 02:46 PM
Strange Google is not on the lawsuit since they do the same. I guess its Apple turn to deal with privacy.
On any android device, you can opt out beginning with the setup of the device. It's not hidden in the TOS when you buy the device.
On any android device, you can opt out beginning with the setup of the device. It's not hidden in the TOS when you buy the device.
ninjadoc
Apr 6, 07:10 PM
I have something better than a MacBook Air. It's called an iPad 2.
That with my iMac and I have no need anymore for my 13" aluminum MacBook. While the Air is a nice looking and light machine, I still like having things like Firewire, an optical drive (without having to pay extra for it or plug it in), and above all, screen real estate.
My 24" iMac gives me that. While my iPad 2 gives my instant on, mobile, and light. When the iMacs get a refresh and ship with Lion, it will be time for a 27".
I can't send a private message, wanna sell that Macbook Air?
That with my iMac and I have no need anymore for my 13" aluminum MacBook. While the Air is a nice looking and light machine, I still like having things like Firewire, an optical drive (without having to pay extra for it or plug it in), and above all, screen real estate.
My 24" iMac gives me that. While my iPad 2 gives my instant on, mobile, and light. When the iMacs get a refresh and ship with Lion, it will be time for a 27".
I can't send a private message, wanna sell that Macbook Air?
No comments:
Post a Comment