You really don't understand the law of large numbers, do you? Yes, the chances are vanishingly small, but the number of solar systems is exceedingly large. Multiple the two together and you will still get a very, very large number.
Uh, do yo know the definition of insanity? Repeating the same action over and over again expecting a different result. Since there is not a single example of life outside of this planet, the chances are not small but rather unknown. You would have to have another data point other than Earth to even begin to speculate on the "chances" of extraterrestrial life. Large numbers have nothing to do with it. For example, Zero divided by any number regardless of size is still zero.
Part of the surge in corporate purchases probably involve development and QA environments for testing iOS software as well a to test websites on Safari for the mac.
Nothing gets under my skin more than devs who like to follow the latest trends without considering whether what they are doing actually delivers concrete value to the end user or at least makes the codebase more maintainable in a real measurable way. Newer is not always better.
Interesting that you should mention string theory. It is a perfect example of philosophy being referred to as "science". The problem with relying heavily on models is that researchers may be unconsciously steering design their experiments and interpreting their data with a bias in favour of their pet model so you end up with a similar phenomenon to how people can see "shapes" in cloud formations. People have a tendency to see patterns in what is chaotic data points.
In a nutshell, the research might be seeing what they expect to see rather than actual phenomenon that matches the model.
The scientific method is a toy model thrown together by philosophers to attempt what scientists do when they're doing "good science." Very few people in philosophy or science actually subscribe to it. The fact that it's taught as gospel in primary schools is somewhat depressing.
Your other objections are simply not a realistic depiction of modern science or of Meibom's study.
Really? How fascinating. So what is the name of your science based religion? So you do not "believe" in controls in clinical trials then? Are you sure that you are not confusing philosophy with science?
Good science is testable. Meibom's paper is an example of this. Your post and 36233236 are not; they are nothing more than a bare denial that anything in the universe is knowable. Yours additionally contains several factual errors, which would be more of an issue if the overall thesis wasn't a denial of the potential existence of true knowable facts.
You are still missing the point. Much of what we consider to be "modern" science is still a house of cards which is not built on a known quantity. In the classical scientific method, you have to have a known value that has been verified to be true. Mathematical models are not an adequate replacement for known values derived from direct observation.
You're ether poorly trying to communicate sarcasm or your a deliberate troll.
Just in case you're not a troll and really are this miss informed about those words your throwing about as Mutually Exclusive when they really are Generic Terms. Here is a News Paper Scan from the now about-to-be-abandoned scan archive. See the Date Feb 27, 1997 along with office 97 all highlighted for you.
You might not be aware but besides Apps on OS X being stored in the/Applications directory, every app on OS X has had the.app extension whereas programs on dos/windows had the extensions of either.exe or.com. Given that Apple's desktop OS was using the.app extension to denote user facing Application packages/launchers, I would say that Apple has the strongest claim to "App" and "App store".
No it won't. USB will be the next USB. The connector is too common now to ever be replaced as the default digital interface for most things. It's on the front of my car radio, for damn sake.
A good parallel is the 3.5mm headphone jack. Frankly, it's stupidly large and poorly designed for what it needs to do (USB isn't). But it will never be replaced by another (wired) connector in it's application space. There's just too many of them, and it's hard to make a compelling case for replacement for 98% of users.
That is a bad analogy. The 3.5mm jack is easy to use because there is no wrong way to plug it in. Now the USB connector on the other hand is crap because a lot of people probably have to make two or three tries before then can plug something in. It is a really poor design which is only marginally better than those stupid PS/2 keyboard/mouse ports.
Now the Thunderbolt connector, on the other hand, has just one right way that you can try to even plug it in. It is easy to see which side is up.
The user is giving permission to iOS built-in apps when they look at the terms and conditions of every iOS upgrade and when they turn location services on. You need location services on in order to use Google maps if you want to find your location on the map and you need it turned on in order for "Find my iPhone" service to work.
If you don't want location services, you can turn it off in the preferences but then you also lose the ability to find your device through the "Find my iPhone" service.
I've got a much better idea, quit your pimp or drug dealer job and you won't have to worry about being tracked because you won't be interesting enough for anyone to bother tracking you.
Speaking as an EU citizen, I don't want to see member states paying money for this sort of foolishness. Individual third party apps already have to request access to location services on iOS.
I've never met a windows fanboy defending their faith in person (have met plenty of Mac fanboys at work though!). Most Windows users are normal people just doing stuff with their computers.
I could go on and even mention the rabid Xbox 360 fanboys that ignore the flaws and after market costs of their console of choice while attacking anyone who buys a PS3 for any purpose.
Why is it that atheists on the internet spend so much more time talking about god on the internet than people of faith and why do they spend so much time complaining about christians while they are trolling against christians themselves? Why is it that windows fanboys spend more time talking about Apple products and why do they spend so much time trolling Apple users with alleged stories about arrogant mac users?
The answer is simple, both of these anti-groups have members who have some gnawing feeling inside them that they are missing something and they try to cover it up by attacking what they fear is what they secretly want.
I don't know about you but I'm a little sick and tired of all of the anonymous "buttsecks" trolls on here. It seems to me that these PC using trolls seem obsessed with it. Do you see mac users talking incessantly about it? No, because mac users come from all walks of life and most of them are grown up people living on their own instead of little trolls living in their mother's basements obsessed with anal rape and apple users. Grow up already for crying out loud. I'm neither gay or a supporter of rights other than "human" rights for all but we should treat all people with respect regardless of how we feel about their way of life or political views.
If you count tablets and phones linux is on its way to becoming the most popular OS.
If you count iPhone, tablets and iPod Touches in addition to OS X then linux still have a long way to go. Most supporters of Android only country iPhones versus Android phones since including iPod Touches and iPads changes the dynamic significantly.
He also predicted that HD DVD would beat out Blu-ray just before Warner Brothers announced that they were going Blu-ray exclusive. Rob was on the payroll of Toshiba as a "consultant".
Yeah, but once you get to the point where (s)he's intelligently 'designing' (more like modifying) bacteria to be more resistant to our attempts to keep ourselves alive, you've definitely crossed the line into malevolence.
I think you are missing the point. The Christians believe that creation was perfect and that original sin created the corruption of creation. That corruption would include bacteria that mutates into harmful bacteria. Our digestive system contains a lot of bacteria which is beneficial to our bodies but even that bacteria can become harmful if it gets into the water supply. Disease along with death is seen as a side effect on the fall of man.
Then how do you recommend making one application whose business logic runs on Windows Phone 7 and iOS, or one video game whose game logic runs on both Xbox 360 and iOS?
Simple, don't bother with a Windows Phone 7 port.
I mentioned Xbox 360 too. What alternative to XNA Game Studio, App Hub, and Xbox Live Indie Games do you recommend?
Do a cost benefit analysis of whether it is worth developing for both platforms or choose the platform that will bring you the most income if you cannot afford to have two development streams. Xbox live is big but it is also really crowded so you might get lost in the noise.
The.NET framework is my bread and butter in the business world but if I was developing mobile apps and/or games, I would probably concentrate my development on iOS if the app/game was not online centric. If you have an app that relies on network services then you can write those on.NET if you want and just write the client UI using the best framework for each platform that you choose to target. My motto is to use the best tool for the job. You cannot get stuck on thinking that everything has to be on one codebase especially if it is highly network dependent.
Then how do you recommend making one application whose business logic runs on Windows Phone 7 and iOS, or one video game whose game logic runs on both Xbox 360 and iOS? There's an old technique of splitting an application into a front-end and a back-end, allowing different presentation modules (input, graphics, etc.) for different platforms to share the same application logic. It has been called "I/O abstraction", "model-view-controller", or "multitier architecture", according to whatever fad is in season. But this that works only if all platforms share a language in which to write the application logic. All Windows Phone 7 applications and all Xbox 360 Indie Games must be written in a language that compiles to verifiably type-safe IL, which rules out standard C++ and Objective-C.
Simple, don't bother with a Windows Phone 7 port. If MSFT cannot be bothered to support standard C++ for the core logic engine of games or apps then they have to be willing to not have apps ported to their platform. If they want to be a player then they have to be willing to compromise. Even Apple supports standard C++ in combination with Objective C.
If someone were intelligently designing bacteria, then it would be a lot easier...
Many a fundies head would explode, as this would simultaneously prove that there is a creator and that she's malevolent.
You are assuming that creation exists as it was intended. Many Christians believe that man's fall from grace also caused the corruption of creation around him. For example, with the right genes turned on, humanity could live forever because the signal to induce Telomere shortening would never trigger and you would see virtually unlimited cell repair and regeneration. The reason why we grow old and die is because the telomeres eventually wears out and your cells stop dividing. Google for "immortal cells" and you will find stories of cultures of cancer cells that can live indefinitely.
Anonymous has no leadership or ranks so they can't have any of what you mention.
People like you keep saying that but unless if you actually are a member of anonymous then you cannot appeal to authority on the matter. Time and time again we see the same bullshit about it being "decentralized" and yet this group seems to be able to issue ultimatums and even videos with the same production values. You cannot have that amount of consistency or claims to authority on whether anonymous was or was not responsible for a specific attack without a leadership.
Stop being a such a prole and grow a pair. Think for yourself.
The end user does not give a rats arse about the source code, it's availability or what license it is under.
The point of free software licenses is to ensure the end user has access to the source code. So that if the end user does give a rat's ass he can actually do something to examine and improve the code, if only for his own use and edification.
I.e., it's all about the end user.
It's when someone realized that there were users in the middle doing things to the code that they might not want to give to the end user, and that they had every right not to, that it all got weird.
That might be the point of the end user but not the BSD. It can actually be a disservice to the end user if you include the source code in the same package as the binary because that means that they are downloading something that they do not actually need or want. You are confusing end users with interested third parties who can also be end users of the product. However, to assume that end users have any interest in examining code let alone assuming that they have the capability to improve the code just show how out of touch supporters of GPL are. End users are typically not developers and to assume that they are means that you really don't give a rat's arse about serving the average end user. Get this through your head already. USERS!=Programmers. Programmers can also "USE" the software but they are different groups.
Your confusion over users versus contributors is symptomatic of why GPL software is often hard to use and poorly documented.
The BSD also offers the freedom to take that source, use it and incorporate it into a larger closed source product which implements the same standard as the original project.
Or arbitrarily change or extend it so there's no or flawed interoperability between the closed and open version.
Wouldn't that defeat the whole purpose of a "standard"? What possible reasons would someone have to take working code and break it?
Or withhold bug fixes as a competitive advantage over the open version. The BSD license is great if everyone plays nice, but if someone wants to fuck you over you are all lubed up. If you really, really mean that you want nothing from them then choosing the BSD is fine, good for you. But if you start throwing hissy fits over asshattery when you specifically chose a license that allows it over one that doesn't, well you don't get much sympathy from me.
BSD is like a commune where everyone contributes to the codebase to improve the product for everyone and nobody is forced to contribute everything they make whereas GPL is like communism where you are forced to contribute to the project all changes that you make if you publish a binary. BSD relies on trust and the belief in the good will of other people whereas GPL is built on an inherent distrust of other people and attempts to thwart any possible competition by removing the ability for a competitor to have an advantage.
Most BSD project seem to be alive and well so your assumption that they collapse and die because people don't contribute back fixes appears to be false rhetoric.
Finally, I noticed that you seem to use a lot of curse words and other anti-social phrases. I suggest that you work on your attitude problem before it gets you in trouble.
But one major point of free software is that end user and distributor need not be mutually exclusive. An end user can help his neighbor by also becoming a distributor.
This is precisely the wrong headed thinking which makes so much GPL'ed software so damn hard to use and in some cases to setup and install. Stop confusing the end users with distributors or interested third parties wanting to look at the code or contribute to the code base. In 99.9% of the cases there is no overlap.
Regardless, whether the license applies or not, the average joe probably is not going to bother looking at the license and just assume that gratis mean freely distributable. You would have a hard time suing some average person for not distributing the source to their friend and if you did then you would end up looking like a first class asshole.
BSD license is more free, but does not preserve the freedoms.
Choice of license should depend on your goals. If one of them is philosophy, so be it. If one of them is business, so be it. I always pick the license that I feel best for a project.
It is more free but it does not preserve the freedoms? Who's freedoms? Stop it with the doublespeak/orwellian newspeak. Neither the BSD or GPL have anything to do with the end user. The end user does not give a rats arse about the source code, it's availability or what license it is under. The only people interested are third parties looking for an opportunity to contribute to the codebase and both licenses offer that freedom to those "developers". The BSD also offers the freedom to take that source, use it and incorporate it into a larger closed source product which implements the same standard as the original project.
if you want to push a particular ideology represented by the GNU foundation then you would choose the GPL but if you are interested in pushing forward an open standard that can be implemented and integrated by anyone then you would choose the BSD. Part of the reason why TCP/IP became the standard for the internet is because the stack was release under the BSD license which meant that closed source software vendors could implement the same stack on their platform quickly without fear of viral licenses or contamination.
My understanding was that what was being logged was not the users' locations but rather that of the nearest cell tower or hotspot.
Your understanding is flawed. It wasn't logging the nearest cell tower or wifi. It was, based on location, downloading to the phone a list of nearby cell towers and wifi networks (from a crowdsourced database run by Apple) so that when the user used an app that requested the location of the phone, this cache could be used to quickly generate a rough estimate and speed up the GPS location. This is a very useful optimization for most of us and the fact that it allowed people to generate a very rough log of our locations over time was simply an unintended side effect.
In order to get that data a third party would have to either steal your phone or steal your iPhone backups from your computer. Either way, you would have bigger problems than a log file with your locations.
Slashdot Mirror
You really don't understand the law of large numbers, do you? Yes, the chances are vanishingly small, but the number of solar systems is exceedingly large. Multiple the two together and you will still get a very, very large number.
Uh, do yo know the definition of insanity? Repeating the same action over and over again expecting a different result. Since there is not a single example of life outside of this planet, the chances are not small but rather unknown. You would have to have another data point other than Earth to even begin to speculate on the "chances" of extraterrestrial life. Large numbers have nothing to do with it. For example, Zero divided by any number regardless of size is still zero.
Part of the surge in corporate purchases probably involve development and QA environments for testing iOS software as well a to test websites on Safari for the mac.
Nothing gets under my skin more than devs who like to follow the latest trends without considering whether what they are doing actually delivers concrete value to the end user or at least makes the codebase more maintainable in a real measurable way. Newer is not always better.
Interesting that you should mention string theory. It is a perfect example of philosophy being referred to as "science". The problem with relying heavily on models is that researchers may be unconsciously steering design their experiments and interpreting their data with a bias in favour of their pet model so you end up with a similar phenomenon to how people can see "shapes" in cloud formations. People have a tendency to see patterns in what is chaotic data points.
In a nutshell, the research might be seeing what they expect to see rather than actual phenomenon that matches the model.
The scientific method is a toy model thrown together by philosophers to attempt what scientists do when they're doing "good science." Very few people in philosophy or science actually subscribe to it. The fact that it's taught as gospel in primary schools is somewhat depressing.
Your other objections are simply not a realistic depiction of modern science or of Meibom's study.
Really? How fascinating. So what is the name of your science based religion? So you do not "believe" in controls in clinical trials then? Are you sure that you are not confusing philosophy with science?
Good science is testable. Meibom's paper is an example of this. Your post and 36233236 are not; they are nothing more than a bare denial that anything in the universe is knowable. Yours additionally contains several factual errors, which would be more of an issue if the overall thesis wasn't a denial of the potential existence of true knowable facts.
You are still missing the point. Much of what we consider to be "modern" science is still a house of cards which is not built on a known quantity. In the classical scientific method, you have to have a known value that has been verified to be true. Mathematical models are not an adequate replacement for known values derived from direct observation.
You're ether poorly trying to communicate sarcasm or your a deliberate troll.
Just in case you're not a troll and really are this miss informed about those words your throwing about as Mutually Exclusive when they really are Generic Terms. Here is a News Paper Scan from the now about-to-be-abandoned scan archive. See the Date Feb 27, 1997 along with office 97 all highlighted for you.
You might not be aware but besides Apps on OS X being stored in the /Applications directory, every app on OS X has had the .app extension whereas programs on dos/windows had the extensions of either .exe or .com. Given that Apple's desktop OS was using the .app extension to denote user facing Application packages/launchers, I would say that Apple has the strongest claim to "App" and "App store".
No it won't. USB will be the next USB. The connector is too common now to ever be replaced as the default digital interface for most things. It's on the front of my car radio, for damn sake.
A good parallel is the 3.5mm headphone jack. Frankly, it's stupidly large and poorly designed for what it needs to do (USB isn't). But it will never be replaced by another (wired) connector in it's application space. There's just too many of them, and it's hard to make a compelling case for replacement for 98% of users.
That is a bad analogy. The 3.5mm jack is easy to use because there is no wrong way to plug it in. Now the USB connector on the other hand is crap because a lot of people probably have to make two or three tries before then can plug something in. It is a really poor design which is only marginally better than those stupid PS/2 keyboard/mouse ports.
Now the Thunderbolt connector, on the other hand, has just one right way that you can try to even plug it in. It is easy to see which side is up.
The user is giving permission to iOS built-in apps when they look at the terms and conditions of every iOS upgrade and when they turn location services on. You need location services on in order to use Google maps if you want to find your location on the map and you need it turned on in order for "Find my iPhone" service to work.
If you don't want location services, you can turn it off in the preferences but then you also lose the ability to find your device through the "Find my iPhone" service.
I've got a much better idea, quit your pimp or drug dealer job and you won't have to worry about being tracked because you won't be interesting enough for anyone to bother tracking you.
Speaking as an EU citizen, I don't want to see member states paying money for this sort of foolishness. Individual third party apps already have to request access to location services on iOS.
I've never met a windows fanboy defending their faith in person (have met plenty of Mac fanboys at work though!). Most Windows users are normal people just doing stuff with their computers.
http://www.istartedsomething.com/
http://www.neowin.net/
http://www.winsupersite.com/
http://www.zunescene.com/
http://www.zuneluv.com/
I could go on and even mention the rabid Xbox 360 fanboys that ignore the flaws and after market costs of their console of choice while attacking anyone who buys a PS3 for any purpose.
Why is it that atheists on the internet spend so much more time talking about god on the internet than people of faith and why do they spend so much time complaining about christians while they are trolling against christians themselves? Why is it that windows fanboys spend more time talking about Apple products and why do they spend so much time trolling Apple users with alleged stories about arrogant mac users?
The answer is simple, both of these anti-groups have members who have some gnawing feeling inside them that they are missing something and they try to cover it up by attacking what they fear is what they secretly want.
I don't know about you but I'm a little sick and tired of all of the anonymous "buttsecks" trolls on here. It seems to me that these PC using trolls seem obsessed with it. Do you see mac users talking incessantly about it? No, because mac users come from all walks of life and most of them are grown up people living on their own instead of little trolls living in their mother's basements obsessed with anal rape and apple users. Grow up already for crying out loud. I'm neither gay or a supporter of rights other than "human" rights for all but we should treat all people with respect regardless of how we feel about their way of life or political views.
If you count tablets and phones linux is on its way to becoming the most popular OS.
If you count iPhone, tablets and iPod Touches in addition to OS X then linux still have a long way to go. Most supporters of Android only country iPhones versus Android phones since including iPod Touches and iPads changes the dynamic significantly.
Rob Enderle of "SCO's gonna win!" fame.
Also, Apple's "Insert iProduct Here" will fail.
He also predicted that HD DVD would beat out Blu-ray just before Warner Brothers announced that they were going Blu-ray exclusive. Rob was on the payroll of Toshiba as a "consultant".
Yeah, but once you get to the point where (s)he's intelligently 'designing' (more like modifying) bacteria to be more resistant to our attempts to keep ourselves alive, you've definitely crossed the line into malevolence.
I think you are missing the point. The Christians believe that creation was perfect and that original sin created the corruption of creation. That corruption would include bacteria that mutates into harmful bacteria. Our digestive system contains a lot of bacteria which is beneficial to our bodies but even that bacteria can become harmful if it gets into the water supply. Disease along with death is seen as a side effect on the fall of man.
.NET has no business being on iOS
Then how do you recommend making one application whose business logic runs on Windows Phone 7 and iOS, or one video game whose game logic runs on both Xbox 360 and iOS?
Simple, don't bother with a Windows Phone 7 port.
I mentioned Xbox 360 too. What alternative to XNA Game Studio, App Hub, and Xbox Live Indie Games do you recommend?
Do a cost benefit analysis of whether it is worth developing for both platforms or choose the platform that will bring you the most income if you cannot afford to have two development streams. Xbox live is big but it is also really crowded so you might get lost in the noise.
The .NET framework is my bread and butter in the business world but if I was developing mobile apps and/or games, I would probably concentrate my development on iOS if the app/game was not online centric. If you have an app that relies on network services then you can write those on .NET if you want and just write the client UI using the best framework for each platform that you choose to target. My motto is to use the best tool for the job. You cannot get stuck on thinking that everything has to be on one codebase especially if it is highly network dependent.
Objective C is not a framework.
You are right, the iOS SDK has frameworks in it which are based on the frameworks in OS X.
Anonymous Coward wrote:
.NET has no business being on iOS
Then how do you recommend making one application whose business logic runs on Windows Phone 7 and iOS, or one video game whose game logic runs on both Xbox 360 and iOS? There's an old technique of splitting an application into a front-end and a back-end, allowing different presentation modules (input, graphics, etc.) for different platforms to share the same application logic. It has been called "I/O abstraction", "model-view-controller", or "multitier architecture", according to whatever fad is in season. But this that works only if all platforms share a language in which to write the application logic. All Windows Phone 7 applications and all Xbox 360 Indie Games must be written in a language that compiles to verifiably type-safe IL, which rules out standard C++ and Objective-C.
Simple, don't bother with a Windows Phone 7 port. If MSFT cannot be bothered to support standard C++ for the core logic engine of games or apps then they have to be willing to not have apps ported to their platform. If they want to be a player then they have to be willing to compromise. Even Apple supports standard C++ in combination with Objective C.
If someone were intelligently designing bacteria, then it would be a lot easier...
Many a fundies head would explode, as this would simultaneously prove that there is a creator and that she's malevolent.
You are assuming that creation exists as it was intended. Many Christians believe that man's fall from grace also caused the corruption of creation around him. For example, with the right genes turned on, humanity could live forever because the signal to induce Telomere shortening would never trigger and you would see virtually unlimited cell repair and regeneration. The reason why we grow old and die is because the telomeres eventually wears out and your cells stop dividing. Google for "immortal cells" and you will find stories of cultures of cancer cells that can live indefinitely.
I laughed so hard I almost lost my milk.
So you are an Anonymous Cow?
Anonymous has no leadership or ranks so they can't have any of what you mention.
People like you keep saying that but unless if you actually are a member of anonymous then you cannot appeal to authority on the matter. Time and time again we see the same bullshit about it being "decentralized" and yet this group seems to be able to issue ultimatums and even videos with the same production values. You cannot have that amount of consistency or claims to authority on whether anonymous was or was not responsible for a specific attack without a leadership.
Stop being a such a prole and grow a pair. Think for yourself.
The end user does not give a rats arse about the source code, it's availability or what license it is under.
The point of free software licenses is to ensure the end user has access to the source code. So that if the end user does give a rat's ass he can actually do something to examine and improve the code, if only for his own use and edification.
I.e., it's all about the end user.
It's when someone realized that there were users in the middle doing things to the code that they might not want to give to the end user, and that they had every right not to, that it all got weird.
That might be the point of the end user but not the BSD. It can actually be a disservice to the end user if you include the source code in the same package as the binary because that means that they are downloading something that they do not actually need or want. You are confusing end users with interested third parties who can also be end users of the product. However, to assume that end users have any interest in examining code let alone assuming that they have the capability to improve the code just show how out of touch supporters of GPL are. End users are typically not developers and to assume that they are means that you really don't give a rat's arse about serving the average end user. Get this through your head already. USERS!=Programmers. Programmers can also "USE" the software but they are different groups.
Your confusion over users versus contributors is symptomatic of why GPL software is often hard to use and poorly documented.
The BSD also offers the freedom to take that source, use it and incorporate it into a larger closed source product which implements the same standard as the original project.
Or arbitrarily change or extend it so there's no or flawed interoperability between the closed and open version.
Wouldn't that defeat the whole purpose of a "standard"? What possible reasons would someone have to take working code and break it?
Or withhold bug fixes as a competitive advantage over the open version. The BSD license is great if everyone plays nice, but if someone wants to fuck you over you are all lubed up. If you really, really mean that you want nothing from them then choosing the BSD is fine, good for you. But if you start throwing hissy fits over asshattery when you specifically chose a license that allows it over one that doesn't, well you don't get much sympathy from me.
BSD is like a commune where everyone contributes to the codebase to improve the product for everyone and nobody is forced to contribute everything they make whereas GPL is like communism where you are forced to contribute to the project all changes that you make if you publish a binary. BSD relies on trust and the belief in the good will of other people whereas GPL is built on an inherent distrust of other people and attempts to thwart any possible competition by removing the ability for a competitor to have an advantage.
Most BSD project seem to be alive and well so your assumption that they collapse and die because people don't contribute back fixes appears to be false rhetoric.
Finally, I noticed that you seem to use a lot of curse words and other anti-social phrases. I suggest that you work on your attitude problem before it gets you in trouble.
But one major point of free software is that end user and distributor need not be mutually exclusive. An end user can help his neighbor by also becoming a distributor.
This is precisely the wrong headed thinking which makes so much GPL'ed software so damn hard to use and in some cases to setup and install. Stop confusing the end users with distributors or interested third parties wanting to look at the code or contribute to the code base. In 99.9% of the cases there is no overlap.
Regardless, whether the license applies or not, the average joe probably is not going to bother looking at the license and just assume that gratis mean freely distributable. You would have a hard time suing some average person for not distributing the source to their friend and if you did then you would end up looking like a first class asshole.
BSD license is more free, but does not preserve the freedoms.
Choice of license should depend on your goals. If one of them is philosophy, so be it. If one of them is business, so be it. I always pick the license that I feel best for a project.
It is more free but it does not preserve the freedoms? Who's freedoms? Stop it with the doublespeak/orwellian newspeak. Neither the BSD or GPL have anything to do with the end user. The end user does not give a rats arse about the source code, it's availability or what license it is under. The only people interested are third parties looking for an opportunity to contribute to the codebase and both licenses offer that freedom to those "developers". The BSD also offers the freedom to take that source, use it and incorporate it into a larger closed source product which implements the same standard as the original project.
if you want to push a particular ideology represented by the GNU foundation then you would choose the GPL but if you are interested in pushing forward an open standard that can be implemented and integrated by anyone then you would choose the BSD. Part of the reason why TCP/IP became the standard for the internet is because the stack was release under the BSD license which meant that closed source software vendors could implement the same stack on their platform quickly without fear of viral licenses or contamination.
My understanding was that what was being logged was not the users' locations but rather that of the nearest cell tower or hotspot.
Your understanding is flawed. It wasn't logging the nearest cell tower or wifi. It was, based on location, downloading to the phone a list of nearby cell towers and wifi networks (from a crowdsourced database run by Apple) so that when the user used an app that requested the location of the phone, this cache could be used to quickly generate a rough estimate and speed up the GPS location. This is a very useful optimization for most of us and the fact that it allowed people to generate a very rough log of our locations over time was simply an unintended side effect.
In order to get that data a third party would have to either steal your phone or steal your iPhone backups from your computer. Either way, you would have bigger problems than a log file with your locations.