Liste de Stars nues
Apple today has released the sixth developer preview of OS X 10.11 El Capitan. Just last week the company released beta 5 to developers, although the update appeared to be very minor and didn't include any noticeable changes. It is likely that this new beta has a similar focus, with Apple working mainly on under-the-hood bug fixes and improvements. The update carries the build number 15A244d.
We'll update this post with enhancements as they are discovered. The update is available via the Mac App Store now and via the Developer Center.Filed under: Mac Tagged: OS X
For more news on Mac and OS X continue reading at 9to5Mac.
What do you think? Discuss "Apple releases OS X El Capitan beta 6 to developers" with our community.
I was genuinely excited when my colleague Mark Gurman revealed iOS 9's Proactive — Apple's competitor to the Android assistant Google Now — because it sounded like something that would radically improve my daily iPhone use. “Like Google Now,” Mark said, “Proactive will automatically provide timely information based on the user's data and device usage patterns,” details Apple confirmed when it officially announced Proactive at WWDC. Google Now's success made an Apple response inevitable: who wouldn't want an iPhone that correctly anticipated your needs, reducing your need to manually hunt for information?
But unlike Google, which Apple CEO Tim Cook has portrayed as a miner of personal data for “God-knows-what advertising purpose,” Apple has positioned itself as a champion of user privacy. As such, Proactive apparently doesn't use cloud servers to process your personal data, which Google has done to great effect. Instead, iOS processes data directly on your device, so its scope — whatever your device is holding — and utility are a lot more limited. Consequently, the iOS 9 beta version of Proactive doesn't do much; its features could have appeared on the annual WWDC slide that flashes 50 new iOS additions on screen for less than a minute before disappearing.
Readers, I'd like to ask you a question. We've seen what Google and third-party developers are currently doing with Google Now cards, and it's pretty awesome — everything from helping you manage commutes (like Proactive) and trips (way beyond Proactive) to finding TV shows, scheduling return taxi rides, and sending birthday greetings. My question: would you rather see Apple slowly iterate on Proactive as it sorts through each new feature's privacy implications, or tackle Google Now with a bolder and more powerful Proactive, privacy be (mostly) damned? A poll is below…
Because it's so device-dependent, Proactive currently feels more like a collection of small parlor tricks than a major new feature. One tweak creates a shortcut to the Music or Podcasts app when you plug in headphones, routing you to something you left off playing before. Another cross-references your emails against incoming calls so you can guess who's calling even without a contact on file. And the most visible feature uses your location to suggest nearby places to visit, and show you news headlines popular with people around you.
Proactive primarily lives in the former Spotlight search location, where you are presented with a list of recent contacts, app suggestions, a collection of nearby things you might want to do at a given time of day, and a handful of recent news articles. Unfortunately, over the weeks I've been using Proactive, very little in this collection has been useful to me, even though I read news and use apps every day. The app recommendations are almost thoughtless and the nearby recommendations are repetitive and mechanical; I don't feel like either my device usage or the data I'm willing to share with Apple are being used well. My favorite Proactive feature, a Lock Screen computation of the travel time to my next calendar event's destination, has been great as a reminder to leave but not as an accurate estimate of driving time — it's usually significantly off for some reason.
Google's philosophy with Google Now was essentially that people would love the results of processing their emails and data, and get used to the privacy tradeoffs. There's a lot of evidence to suggest that some people agree entirely with Google. Even so, the Google Now web site says that “you control the settings that determine the information provided,” implicitly acknowledging that yes, data processing is being done, but you can turn off Google's access to data you don't feel comfortable sharing.
Apple has portrayed Google's “let us go through your mail and make your life easier” approach as creepy, and suggested that Google Now-like services are only worth adding to iOS if the user's data remains private. Of course, some people agree with Apple. But there's another possibility: trust Apple with your data, because Apple (thus far) hasn't appeared to be as willing to exploit user data for unspecified purposes as Google.
How would you prefer to see Proactive evolve? Register your opinion in the poll below, and share comments if you have them!Take Our PollFiled under: iOS, Opinion Tagged: Apple, iOS 9, poll, Proactive, search
Continue reading more about Apple, iOS, and Opinion at 9to5Mac.
What do you think? Discuss "Poll: Should iOS 9's Proactive make privacy compromises to better rival Google Now?" with our community.
Alexandra Marzella is up on the femoinist hustle…
You know shaving her pussy into a perfectly porno landing strip, while growing out her armpit hair, to prove some kind of point I am unsure of…but know all these girls are all about it, and I don't find that it looks cute, not that I care if a bitch is hairy, I've loved bush forever, I just find it irritating her armpit has more bush than her fucking bush does, which is what I am actually into…but I guess bush doesn't really get much exposure to prove a point when in public…
I just think these young feminists are right to want women's rights or to fight people like the Kardashians for objectifying women in the media, it's like fuck that trash, but the reality is, when they get naked and “empowered” they are essentially doing the same thing as Kim Kardashian…and more importantly, they are fighting a fight they've already won…but any excuse to get girls naked, works for me, that's why I am a feminist, cuz I like empowering women through nudity…and I like nudity…and I fucking hate the Kardashians…but I still don't like to fuck with Armpit hair…it just isn't sexy to me, unless girl is on her period and her menstrual cup is stinky, and her armpit is the only thing I can fuck..it's very Euro..
The post Feminist Armpit Hair and Trimmed Pussy Inconsistency for Purple Magazine of the Day appeared first on DrunkenStepfather.
Map showing Apple's San Jose property, via Silicon Valley Business Journal
According to a new report from Silicon Valley Business Journal, Apple has purchased a 43-acre development plot in North San Jose. The report claims that Apple paid slightly more than $138 million for the property, which is located on North First Street in San Jose.
Today's news comes just a month after Apple leased 300,000 square feet of already constructed building in North San Jose. Also last week, Apple leased 76,000 square feet of office space in San Francisco, marking the company's first major office space in the city.
Apple's acquisition of 43-acres in North San Jose means it could build a sizable presence in the city. The plot is already approved for 2.8 million square feet of office space, which is roughly the same size as Apple's upcoming Campus 2 headquarters in Cupertino. It's also notable that Apple chose to buy, not lease, this San Jose plot, signaling that it wants to have more control over what it can do to the area.
The possibilities with the latest transaction are wide open: The undeveloped land is approved for up to 2.8 million square feet of office space — about the same size as Apple's under-construction Spaceship campus in Cupertino. But Lowe had been marketing plans from global architecture firm Gensler to build 1.8 million square feet in a sleek urban-style campus setting. Apple, of course, could do its own program at the site. As of Monday, no new building plans had been turned in for the project.
Apple's recent expansions into San Jose and San Francisco aren't all that surprising. Apple has maintained satellite offices across the United States and overseas including locations in Seattle, Boston, Sweden, England, and Japan. Apple is also, of course, currently developing its new Campus 2 headquarters in Cupertino, which open in 2016. You can read our full timeline of that project here. Just last week it was revealed that the new campus will feature a rooftop observation deck and visitor's center.Filed under: AAPL Company Tagged: Apple, office space, retail, San Jose
For more news on AAPL Company, Apple, and retail continue reading at 9to5Mac.
What do you think? Discuss "Apple purchases 43-acre developmental plot in San Jose for $138M" with our community.
For some reason, a popular opinion floating around the web these days is that splitting iTunes up into a bunch of separate apps that all do one individual task each would be a vast improvement on the current one-app-for-everything design. “They did it on iOS,” the logic goes, “so why not do it on the Mac as well?”
After pondering this suggestion for a while, I'm fully convinced that doing so would that be an unnecessary over-complication of the entire ecosystem.
Let's consider exactly what functions in iTunes could be broken out into separate applications. At the moment iTunes is used for listening to music and podcasts, watching music videos and movies, playing streaming radio, managing audiobooks, syncing iOS devices, making purchases from Apple's various digital stores (with the exception of iBooks), and downloading iTunes U content.
So in order to break up iTunes based on the iOS model (and assuming audiobooks get moved into the existing iBooks app), we'd need to have several different apps:
This model works on iOS because mobile applications have limited screen real estate, meaning each app needs to be focused on a single function. You can't cram an infinite number of icons in the tab bar at the bottom of the screen, so instead, you break out features and hide them behind different home screen icons.
On the Mac, this problem doesn't exist. We have much more screen space to work with, and the Mac's entire interface is designed for apps that are able to do many related tasks.
Another problem arises with some of apps dedicated to specific types of content. On iOS, music videos can now appear in the Music app as part of the Apple Music service, even though there's a separate Videos app where your purchased videos go. Do we break out music videos and movies into two separate apps? Do we put music videos entirely in the music app, and let Videos hold only movies and TV shows? Do we just call that the Movies app? Could a Movies app also store home videos exported from iMovie?
Both of these points lead to a similar conclusion: we should combine apps that serve related purposes. Music, videos, and movies could all be combined into one media manager. iTunes U and podcasts could be added there as well.
So now we've reduced the above list to the following:
The App Store can be combined into the iOS manager since that's the only app that can sync those apps to mobile products. This puts us at three apps:
So, three things: a media playback app, a media store, and a mobile media syncing app. A media playback app, a media store, and a mobile media syncing app. Are you getting it? These are not three separate apps. This is one app. And we are calling it “iTunes.”
Like it or not, iTunes is one app because the all-in-one approach works. Right now you might think that you want three or four or seven separate apps for micromanaging every little aspect of your media collection. You might think you want your dock filled with half a dozen different icons for tasks that could easily be accomplished in one bundle.
But trust me: you don't want that. It's a bad idea. Soon you'd be complaining that seven apps crash too often or take too long to do something instead of just one. You'd wish you could get to your podcasts and music all at once. You'd get annoyed at having to deal with it all.
I'm not saying iTunes is a great app. Like most of the software Apple has released in recent years, they've dumbed down things that don't need to be dumbed down and made other things more complicated than they need to be. They've released yet another buggy piece of software that gets harder and harder to deal with on a daily basis. This isn't new.
Apple is still building on a fifteen-year-old foundation that, quite frankly, needs to be completely obliterated and rebuilt. I'm not denying that. I'm just saying that when they rebuild, it would be advisable to keep everything in one package.
iTunes isn't a slow, buggy, pain to use because it does too much stuff. It's like that because it's built on old code that should have been put out to pasture five years ago. Taking the current functionality and breaking it into separate apps is just going to spread that pain around a little bit more.
The idea is just as ridiculous as Facebook forcing everyone to download a separate app simply to send messages while blocking access to the inbox from the main client—a move that may have put Messenger at the #1 spot on the free app listings, but also earned it an average review of one star at the time.
So yes, nuke iTunes from orbit and start from scratch. Please, Apple, for the love of all that is good, build us a new, less-bloated, less-buggy, version of this app. While you're at it, perhaps reconsider basically everything about the interface and bring back the simplicity of older versions.
Just don't overcomplicate everything by needlessly dragging OS X into the iOS world with separate apps for every single function.Filed under: Opinion Tagged: iTunes, Mac, Opinion
For more information about iTunes, Mac, and Opinion continue reading at 9to5Mac.
What do you think? Discuss "Opinion: iTunes needs to be rebuilt from scratch, but not split into separate apps" with our community.