aliensporebomb
Apr 21, 01:34 PM
Despite the freaked brigade and people wanting to turn this into a huge political argument I think this guy at Reddit had the best thing to say about this:
I went to WWDC last year where the new Core Location system was discussed in great detail. If you went as well, or have the videos, look at the video for session 115, "Using Core Location in iOS". Skip to around 13:45 for the discussion of "Course Cell Positioning" where they discuss the cache in detail.
The purpose of this is offline GPS. Normally, each cell tower has an identifier and Core Location sends that identifier to Apple and asks for the latitude and longitude for that tower. This requires a data connection, and the use of data. Since cell towers don't move, however, it's inefficient to keep going back to Apple for that information so they cache it. Now if a tower appears with the same ID as the cache, tada! you have a cache hit and a faster fix with no data use. Which also means you can get a "course location" (as in rough) if you are near known towers and don't have a data connection.
That's all this is. It's a cache of identifiers (cell and wifi), locations, and their age (it's a cache, after all). Someone made the decision to never clean it out so they would have more and more information about those GPS "assists" (you know, A-GPS) and so they'd use less and less power and data over time for the places you frequent. It's a great idea, technically.
Practically, yes, you can track location over time. The file is readable only by root and you're free to encrypt your backups for now. I'm sure Apple will either encrypt the file or truncate the data in a future update (I would prefer encryption as I think it's technically sound, but I know many will disagree). I'm also sure someone is considering a toggle for the feature or a button to clear the database. Both are great ideas.
This isn't nefarious, this isn't being sent anywhere, and this isn't as bad as everyone is making it. This is a real feature with a major oversight. That's it.
Yes they probably need to encrypt this to keep thieves and insane people from taking it from your phone but it's nothing that other cellular providers aren't doing with their phones, you just can't see it necessarily.
I went to WWDC last year where the new Core Location system was discussed in great detail. If you went as well, or have the videos, look at the video for session 115, "Using Core Location in iOS". Skip to around 13:45 for the discussion of "Course Cell Positioning" where they discuss the cache in detail.
The purpose of this is offline GPS. Normally, each cell tower has an identifier and Core Location sends that identifier to Apple and asks for the latitude and longitude for that tower. This requires a data connection, and the use of data. Since cell towers don't move, however, it's inefficient to keep going back to Apple for that information so they cache it. Now if a tower appears with the same ID as the cache, tada! you have a cache hit and a faster fix with no data use. Which also means you can get a "course location" (as in rough) if you are near known towers and don't have a data connection.
That's all this is. It's a cache of identifiers (cell and wifi), locations, and their age (it's a cache, after all). Someone made the decision to never clean it out so they would have more and more information about those GPS "assists" (you know, A-GPS) and so they'd use less and less power and data over time for the places you frequent. It's a great idea, technically.
Practically, yes, you can track location over time. The file is readable only by root and you're free to encrypt your backups for now. I'm sure Apple will either encrypt the file or truncate the data in a future update (I would prefer encryption as I think it's technically sound, but I know many will disagree). I'm also sure someone is considering a toggle for the feature or a button to clear the database. Both are great ideas.
This isn't nefarious, this isn't being sent anywhere, and this isn't as bad as everyone is making it. This is a real feature with a major oversight. That's it.
Yes they probably need to encrypt this to keep thieves and insane people from taking it from your phone but it's nothing that other cellular providers aren't doing with their phones, you just can't see it necessarily.
Proud Liberal
Aug 16, 09:54 AM
I have no interest in downloading music on the go or waving around my songs wirelessly.
How about an iPod where we actually increase the quality of audio instead of compromising how everything sounds for the "latest" features. Now we put in even more weak audio components to make up for the lack of power because of a wireless feature.
Pfft
How about an iPod with increased capacity so that we can actually increase the quality of the audio instead of compromising how everything sounds for the "latest" features.
How about an iPod where we actually increase the quality of audio instead of compromising how everything sounds for the "latest" features. Now we put in even more weak audio components to make up for the lack of power because of a wireless feature.
Pfft
How about an iPod with increased capacity so that we can actually increase the quality of the audio instead of compromising how everything sounds for the "latest" features.
JoeG4
Feb 27, 01:39 AM
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/_zZDRx0MKYqE/TWn-nxGOdrI/AAAAAAAABDY/-YhcSkl57lw/s800/IMG_0591.JPG
I finally got a new chair. My 7 year old awesome chair sits up in my bedroom making an awesome tv chair now. :D
Since the theme lately is "Show how your desk REALLY looks!" this one has a pile of papers on the desk and some random chair assembly stuff laying around as my mother bought a chair too! lol. :D
I finally got a new chair. My 7 year old awesome chair sits up in my bedroom making an awesome tv chair now. :D
Since the theme lately is "Show how your desk REALLY looks!" this one has a pile of papers on the desk and some random chair assembly stuff laying around as my mother bought a chair too! lol. :D
Mattsasa
Apr 2, 08:45 PM
I believe! But I'm still not buying one.
"This is what we believe. Technology alone is not enough. Faster, thinner, lighter...those are all good things. But when technology gets out of the way, everything becomes more delightful...even magical very nice. That's when you leap forward. That's when you end up with something like this."
The iPad IS Magic.
Steve jobs said so...
And he's God!
"This is what we believe. Technology alone is not enough. Faster, thinner, lighter...those are all good things. But when technology gets out of the way, everything becomes more delightful...even magical very nice. That's when you leap forward. That's when you end up with something like this."
The iPad IS Magic.
Steve jobs said so...
And he's God!
Multimedia
Sep 8, 09:52 PM
I wouldn't do the comparison like that, the Dual G5 does offer you drive bays and expansion capabilities that you do not get with the Mini. I will take the G5 over the Mini at that price you got it for.Thanks. But I am mainly with the Quad and need to know the actual performance difference between the D 2 G5 and one of the CD or C2D models. Thanks. Please?
I can't perform these tests in the stores because all the G5's are gone.
I can't perform these tests in the stores because all the G5's are gone.
rasmasyean
Mar 31, 02:15 PM
To say any one country defeated the nazis really isn't true. It's as unreasonable a claim as rasmasyean's wargasmic fantasy :p
As it was, the nazi invasion of russia came very close to success. Would the soviets have defeated the nazis if germany hadn't also been engaged in northern africa and then italy and western europe at the same time they were fighting the soviets? Would they have have beaten Hitler if he hadn't gone against the advice of his generals and made some disastrous decisions? Didn't the Persian supply corridor factor into the soviets being able to hold off the germans? etc etc etc
The reality is that the allied forces beat the nazis and not any one country.
But wargasm fantasy aside, I still think that even if the Americans didn't enter the war directly and assuming they didn't supply the Allies with weapons, and they were still able to hold off Nazis by themselves, the Manhattan project sequence was already on the way. It's no doubt that US would have "tested" them not only in Japan, but all over Europe. And I don't think any of the Axis would have kept going.
As it was, the nazi invasion of russia came very close to success. Would the soviets have defeated the nazis if germany hadn't also been engaged in northern africa and then italy and western europe at the same time they were fighting the soviets? Would they have have beaten Hitler if he hadn't gone against the advice of his generals and made some disastrous decisions? Didn't the Persian supply corridor factor into the soviets being able to hold off the germans? etc etc etc
The reality is that the allied forces beat the nazis and not any one country.
But wargasm fantasy aside, I still think that even if the Americans didn't enter the war directly and assuming they didn't supply the Allies with weapons, and they were still able to hold off Nazis by themselves, the Manhattan project sequence was already on the way. It's no doubt that US would have "tested" them not only in Japan, but all over Europe. And I don't think any of the Axis would have kept going.
lordonuthin
Mar 18, 01:32 PM
so i hit 5 million points on jan 27, and i hit 6 million points today. so that last million took me 49 days. not my best so far, but hopefully once i get back to my apartment next month i'll be back in business
Grats on 6 mil!!
Grats on 6 mil!!
razzmatazz
Aug 6, 11:43 PM
Ok - I've been into Macs for a couple years now, so I don't have the history with the company of many of you do.
That said, it seems to me that with these ads or banners for Leopard, that it is closer to being released than we all might think. Has Apple promoted a product this way -- bashing M$ -- with out releasing the product soon after?
To me it just seems like real strong words to use if Leopard wont be out for a while, esp. if it will only be released around the time Vista will be next year.
Anyone know what I mean, or feel the same way?
They did they same thing when introducing Tiger...say things like "Redmond we have a problem" or "Introducing Longhorn"
I don't think you'll be seeing Leopard till end of this year to beginning of next year
Edit: Look at the pics above this post :-)
That said, it seems to me that with these ads or banners for Leopard, that it is closer to being released than we all might think. Has Apple promoted a product this way -- bashing M$ -- with out releasing the product soon after?
To me it just seems like real strong words to use if Leopard wont be out for a while, esp. if it will only be released around the time Vista will be next year.
Anyone know what I mean, or feel the same way?
They did they same thing when introducing Tiger...say things like "Redmond we have a problem" or "Introducing Longhorn"
I don't think you'll be seeing Leopard till end of this year to beginning of next year
Edit: Look at the pics above this post :-)
islanders
Dec 27, 09:35 PM
I�m waiting on buying a HD DVD or BlueRay until the price comes down, so I could see iTV offering a HD alternative, and filling that niche.
Two premium channels cost $20 a month so iTV would sell you the device to steam movies, some broadcast, download like Tivo, so you wouldn�t need a Blueray or HD DVD.
What else could be practical? Of course it will have a hard drive� a cable box DVR has a hard drive.
If it also has the ability to surf the web and run a word processor, handle video from DVR and digital camera, I�ll get one�
That is if the price is about $500.
Some unanswered questions are where are they going to get the bandwidth to do all this? You will have to have a cable subscription, perhaps just a basic subscription, but even then bandwidth is limited.
They will need their own satellite, if they really want to compete. But that would make them iDish? hmmm
This could be very interesting. I have often wondered why all the cable companies and satellite companies are within $5 pricing difference of each other? Is this the rock bottom competitive price so they can break even or are these prices fixed?
I would love to get rid of so many commercials. I�m paying $78 a month for basic digital subscription and have to use a DVR to record programs so I can zap though the commercials.
Obviously I don�t know what the limitiatoins are here for an iCast or iDish, and anticipate something like a TiVo that can surf the web, upload video, and download HD.
Two premium channels cost $20 a month so iTV would sell you the device to steam movies, some broadcast, download like Tivo, so you wouldn�t need a Blueray or HD DVD.
What else could be practical? Of course it will have a hard drive� a cable box DVR has a hard drive.
If it also has the ability to surf the web and run a word processor, handle video from DVR and digital camera, I�ll get one�
That is if the price is about $500.
Some unanswered questions are where are they going to get the bandwidth to do all this? You will have to have a cable subscription, perhaps just a basic subscription, but even then bandwidth is limited.
They will need their own satellite, if they really want to compete. But that would make them iDish? hmmm
This could be very interesting. I have often wondered why all the cable companies and satellite companies are within $5 pricing difference of each other? Is this the rock bottom competitive price so they can break even or are these prices fixed?
I would love to get rid of so many commercials. I�m paying $78 a month for basic digital subscription and have to use a DVR to record programs so I can zap though the commercials.
Obviously I don�t know what the limitiatoins are here for an iCast or iDish, and anticipate something like a TiVo that can surf the web, upload video, and download HD.
Eye4Desyn
Apr 19, 01:53 PM
It's about time. The new iMacs can't get here fast enough :D
dukishdary
Jan 11, 05:15 PM
i highly highly doubt they are calling it the "macbook air." that's borderline laughable. i am willing to bet the phase "there's something in the air" is referring to the soon to be announced rental service, not a piece of hardware. apple is making an obvious attempt to eliminate physical mediums altogether, first cds with mp3s and now dvds with downloadable vids (both via the itunes music store). everything will be available "in the air" or "up in the cloud," if you will. i'll be damned if they name their next product the "macbook air." c'mon people...
alexpaul
Mar 23, 05:11 AM
Of course! No need to do this. Apple can try something innovative on the existing iPod classic like adding bluetooth etc. That would be pretty handy :)
QuarterSwede
Apr 10, 06:03 PM
OK, so apparently you don't have experience with automatics...
But yet you have an opinion on how superior your choice of manuals is.
I had the same thought. Then again, I wasn't sure if he was being sarcastic.
But yet you have an opinion on how superior your choice of manuals is.
I had the same thought. Then again, I wasn't sure if he was being sarcastic.
utgerger
Jan 12, 05:09 PM
Not Found
The requested URL /showpost...1&postcount=94 was not found on this server.
Additionally, a 404 Not Found error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.
You told us so? ;)
I'm sorry, I didn't realize the links were broken..
Check now.. :)
The requested URL /showpost...1&postcount=94 was not found on this server.
Additionally, a 404 Not Found error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.
You told us so? ;)
I'm sorry, I didn't realize the links were broken..
Check now.. :)
paul4339
Apr 27, 01:20 AM
...Thats the exact same thing going on here with App store. Companies trademark "generic" terms all the time. Most trademarks ARE generic. But once it becomes used to associate a brand or product, its no longer generic.
I think that's the point MS was making with it's objection, citing that Eastern Airlines had tried to trademark "Shuttle", and even though people associated Shuttle with Eastern, because the word was used so often, "shuttle" had (or became?) a "de-facto secondary" meaning. The courts ruled against Eastern and all the other airlines (New York airlines shuttle, Delta shuttle, etc) were allowed to use the word. MS then pointed out a list of examples of how 'app store' is used and has now attained a "de-facto secondary' meaning too. (I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just pointing out the Microsoft's case)
I think that's the point MS was making with it's objection, citing that Eastern Airlines had tried to trademark "Shuttle", and even though people associated Shuttle with Eastern, because the word was used so often, "shuttle" had (or became?) a "de-facto secondary" meaning. The courts ruled against Eastern and all the other airlines (New York airlines shuttle, Delta shuttle, etc) were allowed to use the word. MS then pointed out a list of examples of how 'app store' is used and has now attained a "de-facto secondary' meaning too. (I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just pointing out the Microsoft's case)
twoodcc
Oct 5, 07:33 PM
thanks! with those bigadv units i almost feel like im cheating!
yeah i know what you mean. but having 2 towers running full blast in one small apartment room is not good for me right now, so i'm going to wait on the bigadv units for right now
yeah i know what you mean. but having 2 towers running full blast in one small apartment room is not good for me right now, so i'm going to wait on the bigadv units for right now
iEvolution
Mar 23, 02:29 PM
The chance that the iPod Classic is updated to 220GB is zero. Apple has no plans to ever update a hard drive based non-touch portable device (they would not waste their time), and they've shown even less interest in increasing the capacity of any device beyond even 64GB flash.
Tony
Yeah man, because it would be just so much effort to swap the 160GB for the 220GB..it would just cost WAYY too much money and too much time.
What a ignorant post.:rolleyes:
The COST is the issue with beyond 64GB flash at this point.
Tony
Yeah man, because it would be just so much effort to swap the 160GB for the 220GB..it would just cost WAYY too much money and too much time.
What a ignorant post.:rolleyes:
The COST is the issue with beyond 64GB flash at this point.
iJon
Mar 20, 08:21 PM
apple doesnt aim their market at people who shop for those computers, simple as that.
iJon
iJon
Stridder44
Nov 28, 11:55 AM
For all those people talking about XBox let's not forget one major thing about it. It took off because of Halo. What you may not know is that Halo was originally a mac game from a mac developer that MS bought in 2000. Read up on it to tell your MS fanboi friends here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bungie_Studios
Without Apple gaming there probably would be no XBox today.
Enjoy
Wow! That was new to me! The more you know I guess..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bungie_Studios
Without Apple gaming there probably would be no XBox today.
Enjoy
Wow! That was new to me! The more you know I guess..
seedster2
Apr 27, 07:46 PM
What does this have to do with patents?
Nothing at all. LOL explains why he disappeared.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; U; Android 2.3.3; en-gb; Nexus S Build/GRI40) AppleWebKit/533.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile Safari/533.1)
WordPerfect Office X5?
http://www.corel.com/servlet/Satellite/gb/en/Product/1207676528492#tabview=tab0
I totally forgot about those guys
They should also be careful with their quotes in their financials. Tim Cook in the last conference call basically gave Microsoft and Amazon ammunition when he said things "We have the largest app store", making the term quite generic and descriptive. This doesn't help their case at all.
I am quite surprised that Apple legal hasnt counseled them on this.
I am not sure if you know, but there are differences between trademark law and patent law. In this case, the one you cited (which I studied), Amazon was protecting its system or process by which they achieved a 1-click process. This is a clear cut patent infringement.
However, the current article deals with a trademark issue, which is different from patent law. In this instance, we are dealing with generic terms (App Store) and Apple cannot trademark that. As another member said, Apple does not have a trademark in App Store ;)
Quoted for truth. Great post. Really helpful for the non-legal folk here. It helps quiet down the know it alls as well.
Nothing at all. LOL explains why he disappeared.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; U; Android 2.3.3; en-gb; Nexus S Build/GRI40) AppleWebKit/533.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile Safari/533.1)
WordPerfect Office X5?
http://www.corel.com/servlet/Satellite/gb/en/Product/1207676528492#tabview=tab0
I totally forgot about those guys
They should also be careful with their quotes in their financials. Tim Cook in the last conference call basically gave Microsoft and Amazon ammunition when he said things "We have the largest app store", making the term quite generic and descriptive. This doesn't help their case at all.
I am quite surprised that Apple legal hasnt counseled them on this.
I am not sure if you know, but there are differences between trademark law and patent law. In this case, the one you cited (which I studied), Amazon was protecting its system or process by which they achieved a 1-click process. This is a clear cut patent infringement.
However, the current article deals with a trademark issue, which is different from patent law. In this instance, we are dealing with generic terms (App Store) and Apple cannot trademark that. As another member said, Apple does not have a trademark in App Store ;)
Quoted for truth. Great post. Really helpful for the non-legal folk here. It helps quiet down the know it alls as well.
TerryJ
Jul 14, 10:45 AM
Because this is MacRumors which has more Sony fans that Mac fans
Heck, I have a Sony RP television. I love Sony TVs. And I'm no MS fan.
But HD DVD just plain looks better than BD at this point, and for much less money. (And I can actually get some decent movies for it!)
-Terry
Heck, I have a Sony RP television. I love Sony TVs. And I'm no MS fan.
But HD DVD just plain looks better than BD at this point, and for much less money. (And I can actually get some decent movies for it!)
-Terry
PodPacker
Mar 26, 10:30 PM
Just got my hands on the latest DVDs and I hope to have this (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814161350&cm_re=his_6870-_-14-161-350-_-Product&nm_mc=AFC-C8Junction&cm_mmc=AFC-C8Junction-_-na-_-na-_-na&AID=10446076&PID=3640352&SID=skim292X457X738749bfb67cbcce684cebad603a1577) soon. I'll let you guys know how it turns out on my Mac Pro 3,1
oMc
Feb 28, 02:41 PM
@benjayman2 : very nice setup.
Lord Blackadder
Mar 4, 02:27 PM
In many ways, it's shameful today that we think that 60 or even 70mpg is somehow remarkable for a family car. :(
It certainly could be significantly higher. Public taste, laziness on the part of manufacturers and other things have all conspired to keep the bar set low on fuel economy.
In the US, there's one key reason why small cars don't sell (above and beyond the reasons I already listed), and that is that popular wisdom holds that you will die in a small car when someone in a large SUV or truck hits you. It's a self-fulfilling prophesy as people buy big cars because they don't feel safe in small ones, with the result that they become part of the "problem". Ultimately it's down to selfishness. Apparently people would rather kill someone else in an accident than risk being killed themselves.
It's idiotic, but this "wisdom" will only be unlearned slowly. Smaller cars are much safer now then they once were - safer than trucks and SUVs.
By way of a postscript, it's worth pointing out that today's safety and environmental regulations make it more difficult to make a car frugal, small and light than it was when Alec Issigonis designed the Mini. Also, aluminum construction (in smaller production cars such as the A2) remains nearly as rare and expensive as it was in the 50s.
But not the brand image... that could perhaps be the biggest stumbling block of all, it certainly is in Europe anyway.
True, and that's a shame, because brand image often matters than a car's actual merits. If the new Jetta is a turd, people will still buy it because the VW badge has cachet here that GM does not, at least in the realm of small cars.
I'm not going to stand up too much for GM, I've never held a high opinion of most of their products, but I have reasonably read good reviews of the Cruze and I hope they bring the diesel here.
Have to say my preference is for saloons... occasionally an estate (particularly A4 & A6 allroads, also 159 Sportwagons, that sort of thing), hatches (the bigger ones anyway) & estates can/tend to be a little boomy in my experience. Saloons also often have better body rigidity too.
The sedan body is the default in the US. Hatches and wagons are much rarer and therefore more interesting. In Europe it's really the other way around. When you're talking about mid-size or larger cars, sedans do generally have better proportions in my opinion (with a few exceptions - I like 5-Series wagon, and the 1990s Subaru Legacy wagon). Hatches look good on small cars though. The Focus, for example, looked stupid as a sedan but great as a hatch.
I do agree with you about the noise though - my Forester's rear suspension is sometimes very audible in the cabin, especially with the seats down. A few years before I bought my Forester, I used to mock it as the ugliest thing on the road, but I've gotten used to it and while it's never going to be attractive it does have a certain pleasing purposefulness in its proportions. Even though a lesbian couple I know call it my lesbian wagon. :rolleyes::D
It certainly could be significantly higher. Public taste, laziness on the part of manufacturers and other things have all conspired to keep the bar set low on fuel economy.
In the US, there's one key reason why small cars don't sell (above and beyond the reasons I already listed), and that is that popular wisdom holds that you will die in a small car when someone in a large SUV or truck hits you. It's a self-fulfilling prophesy as people buy big cars because they don't feel safe in small ones, with the result that they become part of the "problem". Ultimately it's down to selfishness. Apparently people would rather kill someone else in an accident than risk being killed themselves.
It's idiotic, but this "wisdom" will only be unlearned slowly. Smaller cars are much safer now then they once were - safer than trucks and SUVs.
By way of a postscript, it's worth pointing out that today's safety and environmental regulations make it more difficult to make a car frugal, small and light than it was when Alec Issigonis designed the Mini. Also, aluminum construction (in smaller production cars such as the A2) remains nearly as rare and expensive as it was in the 50s.
But not the brand image... that could perhaps be the biggest stumbling block of all, it certainly is in Europe anyway.
True, and that's a shame, because brand image often matters than a car's actual merits. If the new Jetta is a turd, people will still buy it because the VW badge has cachet here that GM does not, at least in the realm of small cars.
I'm not going to stand up too much for GM, I've never held a high opinion of most of their products, but I have reasonably read good reviews of the Cruze and I hope they bring the diesel here.
Have to say my preference is for saloons... occasionally an estate (particularly A4 & A6 allroads, also 159 Sportwagons, that sort of thing), hatches (the bigger ones anyway) & estates can/tend to be a little boomy in my experience. Saloons also often have better body rigidity too.
The sedan body is the default in the US. Hatches and wagons are much rarer and therefore more interesting. In Europe it's really the other way around. When you're talking about mid-size or larger cars, sedans do generally have better proportions in my opinion (with a few exceptions - I like 5-Series wagon, and the 1990s Subaru Legacy wagon). Hatches look good on small cars though. The Focus, for example, looked stupid as a sedan but great as a hatch.
I do agree with you about the noise though - my Forester's rear suspension is sometimes very audible in the cabin, especially with the seats down. A few years before I bought my Forester, I used to mock it as the ugliest thing on the road, but I've gotten used to it and while it's never going to be attractive it does have a certain pleasing purposefulness in its proportions. Even though a lesbian couple I know call it my lesbian wagon. :rolleyes::D
