dvswede
Mar 26, 11:48 AM
I'm curious to see what Lion will bring. While the current OS looks great I would like to see a user interface update. The only thing higher on the list then that is a iTunes break up into more manageable pieces. iTunes was the reason I stayed away from apple for several years. I didn't like it's look/performance/stability and bulk. I still don't even if I have accepted it now. It's the one program that seem to crash more then adobe SW (ok not more then but still).
daneoni
Aug 27, 04:33 PM
PS I thought the PB G5 next Tuesday thing was quite funny - precisely because it has been done to death, first dead straight (remember how excited people got for so many years), and now because it's a useful reminder not to take our speculations too seriously...
Another person who grasps it.
Another person who grasps it.
ehoui
Apr 27, 06:14 PM
Not kosher.
He is still Jr., no matter how much he protests.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_do_you_name_a_Jr_vs_II_vs_III
No, his (or her) name is what figures on the birth certificate no matter how much you protest.
He is still Jr., no matter how much he protests.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_do_you_name_a_Jr_vs_II_vs_III
No, his (or her) name is what figures on the birth certificate no matter how much you protest.
bassfingers
Apr 6, 03:15 PM
What bothers me is people think because an iPad sells more it is superior, unless you made the iPad or work at Apple I don't see how that makes sense. Also most people on here have never even played with a XOOM.
I own both an iPad2 (my wife's technically) and my XOOM. I had an iPad1 since launch until I sold it for a XOOM. For me, Apps are lacking on XOOM but it's made up for with the true tablet OS and excellent first party apps.
Find me a better GMail/Email, Maps, Browser on the iPad and other stuff you will actually use most often and I'll sell my XOOM. Since I've had my XOOM, I haven't touched the iPad2. Everytime I pick it up I miss using the XOOM.
did you feel dorky typing XOOM so many times. I would, because its dorky. It's the same reasons that everything in "Xenon: Girl of the 21st Century" was dorky
I own both an iPad2 (my wife's technically) and my XOOM. I had an iPad1 since launch until I sold it for a XOOM. For me, Apps are lacking on XOOM but it's made up for with the true tablet OS and excellent first party apps.
Find me a better GMail/Email, Maps, Browser on the iPad and other stuff you will actually use most often and I'll sell my XOOM. Since I've had my XOOM, I haven't touched the iPad2. Everytime I pick it up I miss using the XOOM.
did you feel dorky typing XOOM so many times. I would, because its dorky. It's the same reasons that everything in "Xenon: Girl of the 21st Century" was dorky
nickspohn
Apr 25, 04:08 PM
If you notice, Congress has been conspicuously absent since sending off a letter to Steven P. Jobs.
Actually they haven't.
Actually they haven't.
hyperpasta
Nov 28, 06:27 PM
And I don't understand why they should...Can somebody explain it?
The rationale is that iPods are used only for stolen music (which they aren't) and this will help offset the losses (which it won't).
The rationale is that iPods are used only for stolen music (which they aren't) and this will help offset the losses (which it won't).
Multimedia
Aug 27, 11:33 PM
Core 2 Duo is here. Looks like Toshiba is first out of the gate with Core 2 Duo laptops:Toshiba Qosmio G35-AV660 - AVPC Laptop (http://www.toshibadirect.com:80/td/b2c/pdet.to?poid=347885&coid=-30600&seg=HHO)
Wow! And only $3499 :rolleyes: I think a lot of us here would have a problem with the 10.1 pounds part. I agree the 17" 1920 x 1200 would be wonderful. I like all the features - esp if we could have an HD-DVD SuperMultiDrive and dual HDs. But the battery life of 2.5 hours leaves a lot to be desired. I guess you can't have it all without losing something in the process - like reasonable weight, battery life and price. :p
Wow! And only $3499 :rolleyes: I think a lot of us here would have a problem with the 10.1 pounds part. I agree the 17" 1920 x 1200 would be wonderful. I like all the features - esp if we could have an HD-DVD SuperMultiDrive and dual HDs. But the battery life of 2.5 hours leaves a lot to be desired. I guess you can't have it all without losing something in the process - like reasonable weight, battery life and price. :p
marksman
Apr 25, 04:38 PM
Prove it.
The burden of proof is not on him or Apple and you can't prove a negative.
The burden of proof would be on those bringing the lawsuit or people like yourself to prove apple is doing something with this data.
The burden of proof is not on him or Apple and you can't prove a negative.
The burden of proof would be on those bringing the lawsuit or people like yourself to prove apple is doing something with this data.
gnasher729
Aug 7, 12:03 PM
Admittedly trademark law isn't my specialty, but I suspect Apple has a trademark on the word "Mac," and adding a generic word like "Pro" to it does not seem like something you could claim any originality with. Especially since it's based on their trademarked word in the first place. Is there something I'm missing?
Oh, and a computer and computer store aren't exactly the same thing. How are you going to claim consumer confusion?
David :cool:
Apple has actually filed for the trademark "Mac Pro" _before_ this guy filed.
Oh, and a computer and computer store aren't exactly the same thing. How are you going to claim consumer confusion?
David :cool:
Apple has actually filed for the trademark "Mac Pro" _before_ this guy filed.
wpotere
Apr 27, 09:49 AM
Did he release a different form of the document today?
To catch you up... There are two versions of the form, the long and short. The long form is the one that you are used to seeing and the short is an abbreviated version that is just a as legal. Many states are using the short now including Hawaii. If he is holding a clearance (which he is), he will have had a background check and these documents would have been submitted. Basically he was cleared with no problems. This is just people raising hell of something stupid.
To catch you up... There are two versions of the form, the long and short. The long form is the one that you are used to seeing and the short is an abbreviated version that is just a as legal. Many states are using the short now including Hawaii. If he is holding a clearance (which he is), he will have had a background check and these documents would have been submitted. Basically he was cleared with no problems. This is just people raising hell of something stupid.
dethmaShine
Apr 20, 12:29 PM
I'd say even the icon grid claim is reaching. The pictures shown all show the Android application drawer. The actual home screen on Galaxy S devices, what shows up after unlocking, is not the icon grid with a dock. You have to dig into the phone to get to the grid of icons, which frankly again has been shown to be a pretty standard phone UI. Older Palm/Sony models had the "icon grid" UIs in their phones also. :
http://www.mobiledia.com/reviews/sonyericsson/t610/images/front.jpg
http://www.mobileincanada.com/images/unlock/att-palm-treo-600.jpg
Let's face it, the "icon grid" has been a UI for quite a while now :
http://www.computerhope.com/jargon/p/progman.jpg
http://i55.tinypic.com/jzzc53.png
http://www.guidebookgallery.org/pics/gui/system/managers/filemanager/cde15solaris9.png
And all of them had a dock too? And the page change notifier and similar styled icons?
People fail to understand that Apple isn't suing for grid layout. They are suing for the entire phone which looks just like an iPhone. Simple.
http://www.mobiledia.com/reviews/sonyericsson/t610/images/front.jpg
http://www.mobileincanada.com/images/unlock/att-palm-treo-600.jpg
Let's face it, the "icon grid" has been a UI for quite a while now :
http://www.computerhope.com/jargon/p/progman.jpg
http://i55.tinypic.com/jzzc53.png
http://www.guidebookgallery.org/pics/gui/system/managers/filemanager/cde15solaris9.png
And all of them had a dock too? And the page change notifier and similar styled icons?
People fail to understand that Apple isn't suing for grid layout. They are suing for the entire phone which looks just like an iPhone. Simple.
appleguy123
Feb 28, 08:43 PM
No because heterosexuality is the default way the brain works
Isn't it all hormonal mishaps in the womb? Does your God control that? If so, he is predisposing people to sin, and isn't that unfair that not all are exposed to that disposition?
Isn't it all hormonal mishaps in the womb? Does your God control that? If so, he is predisposing people to sin, and isn't that unfair that not all are exposed to that disposition?
M87
Mar 26, 01:54 PM
Mt. Fuji. A hat tip to Japan.
The use of the Mt. Fuji desktop picture in Lion actually pre-dates the disaster in Japan. Just a very cool coincidence.
The use of the Mt. Fuji desktop picture in Lion actually pre-dates the disaster in Japan. Just a very cool coincidence.
SPUY767
Nov 28, 10:12 PM
Actually, they do. They also got paid on every blank tape sold when cassettes were big. I think it is crazy for everyone to think that the music industry is greedy when it getting squeezed out of all of their revenue streams. So, Apple makes hundreds of millions off of their back on the itunes site, and a billion off of iPod sales, and they cannot share in the wealth?
It doesn't cost the consumer any more, why wouldn't you want the people who actually make the music you are listening to get compensated?
This debate is stale. People want something for nothing.
Just so you know, flame bait is almost always ignored. So don't bother.
It doesn't cost the consumer any more, why wouldn't you want the people who actually make the music you are listening to get compensated?
This debate is stale. People want something for nothing.
Just so you know, flame bait is almost always ignored. So don't bother.
rovex
Apr 11, 02:30 PM
Does Arn write every single article on this forum?
Astro7x
Apr 7, 02:54 PM
It's easy. The average person isn't watching blu-rays on a 27 inch or less screen. They get them for their big 50-60 inch TVs. And the sales of Macs are rising despite the lack. True professionals do what is needed to get the job done. Including buying a stand alone drive and 3rd party software if the simple menus in DVD Studio Pro are not enough
I disagree. I would argue that the reason people are not watching Blurays on their computers is because they CAN'T watch them on a computer. Blowing up a regular DVD to full screen on an Apple 27 inch cinema display looks horrible, and the alternative is a highly compressed H264 that looks amazing in comparison. I guarantee that if every Mac shipped with a Bluray drive, I'd have more clients requesting Bluray discs. Clients seem to love DVDs because they are dummy proof. Bluray? The smart ones will have to wait to watch it until they get home where they can put it on their PS3 or something. The others will stick it in their MacBook and then send me an E-mail saying that the DVD they received doesn't work.
Apple has to see financial benefits in not including Bluray in their computers. The professionals will add a drive to their MacPros so they can burn them. But consumers? Apple would no doubt take somewhat of a hit in profit for every Bluray drive that goes into a Mac. They'd also rather sell the HD media through the iTunes Store and make a profit there too. I'll admit it, one of the reasons I haven't switched completely over to buying Bluray Discs is because I can't watch them on my Laptop.
I disagree. I would argue that the reason people are not watching Blurays on their computers is because they CAN'T watch them on a computer. Blowing up a regular DVD to full screen on an Apple 27 inch cinema display looks horrible, and the alternative is a highly compressed H264 that looks amazing in comparison. I guarantee that if every Mac shipped with a Bluray drive, I'd have more clients requesting Bluray discs. Clients seem to love DVDs because they are dummy proof. Bluray? The smart ones will have to wait to watch it until they get home where they can put it on their PS3 or something. The others will stick it in their MacBook and then send me an E-mail saying that the DVD they received doesn't work.
Apple has to see financial benefits in not including Bluray in their computers. The professionals will add a drive to their MacPros so they can burn them. But consumers? Apple would no doubt take somewhat of a hit in profit for every Bluray drive that goes into a Mac. They'd also rather sell the HD media through the iTunes Store and make a profit there too. I'll admit it, one of the reasons I haven't switched completely over to buying Bluray Discs is because I can't watch them on my Laptop.
janstett
Sep 15, 08:07 AM
The server/desktop division with Windows - as with OS X - is one of marketing, not software. Windows "Workstation" and Windows "Server" use the same codebase.
True (today anyway; in the NT era they were indeed separate platforms though. Which brings me to my next point..)
No, that is not true, in fact it couldn't be more untrue. Now, the 95 family (95/98/ME) was a totally different codebase. But with the NT family (NT/2000/XP) the client and the server were identical, even identical in distributed code. In fact there was a big scandal years ago where someone discovered the registry setting where you could turn NT Workstation into NT Server. Back then all that was different was the number of outbound IP connections and possibly the number of CPUs supported. All they were trying to do with Workstation was prevent you from using it as a server (thus the outbound IP limit) and at some point they didn't give you full-blown IIS on Workstation. That's it.
True (today anyway; in the NT era they were indeed separate platforms though. Which brings me to my next point..)
No, that is not true, in fact it couldn't be more untrue. Now, the 95 family (95/98/ME) was a totally different codebase. But with the NT family (NT/2000/XP) the client and the server were identical, even identical in distributed code. In fact there was a big scandal years ago where someone discovered the registry setting where you could turn NT Workstation into NT Server. Back then all that was different was the number of outbound IP connections and possibly the number of CPUs supported. All they were trying to do with Workstation was prevent you from using it as a server (thus the outbound IP limit) and at some point they didn't give you full-blown IIS on Workstation. That's it.
guet
Aug 12, 06:28 AM
I've never paid for a phone up til now (as is the case with most UK residents I'd assume) so it would be an impressive feat if Apple can persuade people in this type of marketplace to actually put their hands in their pockets for a phone.
I'd pay a couple of hundred pounds for an iPod, so I'd definitely pay that for an iPod which happened to be a phone, pda, gps combo. Millions of iPod/pda users are the market for this kind of device, so it's not the entire phone market, but a good slice of it.
I'd pay a couple of hundred pounds for an iPod, so I'd definitely pay that for an iPod which happened to be a phone, pda, gps combo. Millions of iPod/pda users are the market for this kind of device, so it's not the entire phone market, but a good slice of it.
BaldiMac
Apr 19, 03:20 PM
You're wrong. Apple is losing marketshare for over 2 years now. Just because they are selling MORE iPhones doesn't mean they are gaining marketshare. The market grows much faster than the iPhone sales. Have a look at Nokia: In Q4/10 Nokia sold almost 7 million more smartphones but they lost about 10% marketshare.
http://www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=985912
http://www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=1372013
iPhone Worldwide smartphone market share
Q1 2008 5.3%
Q1 2009 10.8%
Q1 2010 15.4%
Q1 2011 ???
How have they been losing market share for two years now?
In Q1/11 Apple lost about 2% marketshare despite the fact that they sold about 2.5 million more iPhones. Just read the latest GfK numbers (needs registered account), it's all in there. NDP numbers for Q1/11 will be released next week if you trust them more.
2.5 million more? Apple has likely sold more than double then number of iPhones in q1 2011 than q1 2010 (8.75 million).
http://www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=985912
http://www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=1372013
iPhone Worldwide smartphone market share
Q1 2008 5.3%
Q1 2009 10.8%
Q1 2010 15.4%
Q1 2011 ???
How have they been losing market share for two years now?
In Q1/11 Apple lost about 2% marketshare despite the fact that they sold about 2.5 million more iPhones. Just read the latest GfK numbers (needs registered account), it's all in there. NDP numbers for Q1/11 will be released next week if you trust them more.
2.5 million more? Apple has likely sold more than double then number of iPhones in q1 2011 than q1 2010 (8.75 million).
shamino
Jul 20, 05:50 PM
What? Apple*differentiates the XServes by having them 1U thick and rackmountable. One buys a rackmount server not because it's faster but because it's smaller and fits in a rack.
...
and ECC memory
and dual GigE network ports
and serial-port management capability
and Mac OS X server preloaded
and no bundled video hardware
The processor and hard drive can be identical to a G5 or Mac Pro, and neither will cut into the other's business. An Xserve makes for a lousy desktop, and a G5 tower is overpriced and not as good when used as a cluster node.
...
and ECC memory
and dual GigE network ports
and serial-port management capability
and Mac OS X server preloaded
and no bundled video hardware
The processor and hard drive can be identical to a G5 or Mac Pro, and neither will cut into the other's business. An Xserve makes for a lousy desktop, and a G5 tower is overpriced and not as good when used as a cluster node.
skunk
Feb 28, 06:33 PM
I acknowledge that I misspoke. Opinions like this should be checked. Carry on.Got me on "ignore", have you? :p
Reach9
Apr 11, 03:47 PM
No I am not kidding. You seem to be a spec whore. If those are the best phones in the market why do multiple iPhone and Blackberry devices outsell the best android phone ALWAYS?
People keep wanting to point to these android spec whore of the month models, but they don't offer a superior experience... It is just silly.
Like I said,t he iPhone 4 is stil the best smartphone out there.
The thunderbolt doesn't even come close to outselling the iPhone just on Verizon.
I seem to be a spec whore? That's a degrading word, do you rinse your dirty mouth? or I guess your vocabulary is too limited to use other words?
But no i'm not "spec-centralized", i'm not talking about outselling. But if you want to talk about outselling.. The Thunderbolt is outselling the iPhone 4 on Verizon: http://iphone.tmcnet.com/topics/iphone/articles/160082-htc-thunderbolt-outselling-iphone-4-verizon-wireless.htm
But i could care less what outsells. i'm talking about a user experience as a smartphone, and the iPhone does not deliver, where as Android OS does.
"Like I said, the iPhone 4 is still the best smartphone out there" -- That is your opinion, and i frankly disagree. There are much better smartphones out there.
Can you explain why you think the iPhone 4 is the best smartphone out there?
Currently, the best combination looks like Android OS phone + iPod Touch.
It sounds like you're a true fanboy!
So a 50" SD tv is better than a 42" High Def tv?
Wow, way to generalize. We're talking about phones. There's a huge difference between a 4" and a 3.5". Personally, Apple should have increased the screen size and then increased the resolution.
People keep wanting to point to these android spec whore of the month models, but they don't offer a superior experience... It is just silly.
Like I said,t he iPhone 4 is stil the best smartphone out there.
The thunderbolt doesn't even come close to outselling the iPhone just on Verizon.
I seem to be a spec whore? That's a degrading word, do you rinse your dirty mouth? or I guess your vocabulary is too limited to use other words?
But no i'm not "spec-centralized", i'm not talking about outselling. But if you want to talk about outselling.. The Thunderbolt is outselling the iPhone 4 on Verizon: http://iphone.tmcnet.com/topics/iphone/articles/160082-htc-thunderbolt-outselling-iphone-4-verizon-wireless.htm
But i could care less what outsells. i'm talking about a user experience as a smartphone, and the iPhone does not deliver, where as Android OS does.
"Like I said, the iPhone 4 is still the best smartphone out there" -- That is your opinion, and i frankly disagree. There are much better smartphones out there.
Can you explain why you think the iPhone 4 is the best smartphone out there?
Currently, the best combination looks like Android OS phone + iPod Touch.
It sounds like you're a true fanboy!
So a 50" SD tv is better than a 42" High Def tv?
Wow, way to generalize. We're talking about phones. There's a huge difference between a 4" and a 3.5". Personally, Apple should have increased the screen size and then increased the resolution.
twoodcc
Aug 12, 09:04 PM
I don't really care if you count the Prologues as full releases or not. The fact remains...
GT1 + GT2 + GT3 + GT4 = 46M
...not 57M like you originally, and incorrectly, said.
but you do care. you are pointing out that you care by what you just typed. if you count the prologues, you get over 57M sold.
You brought up sales, not me. And last I checked, objectively, 100 is more than 57, regardless of how you subjectively look at it.
i disagree. let's bring math into the equation, since you seem to have missed it.
100,000,000/15 = 6,666,667.
57,000,000/8 = 7,125,000.
so GT has sold more copies per game.
No, the only thing that adds to is a stat point on the back of the box. I mean, hooray, someone's 87 CRX is in a racing game. YAY!! :rolleyes:
That is the problem with GT these days. Too much fluff, and lacking in the racing. I mean, whatever, they can make whatever kind of game they want. If they want to fill the game with 1000 cars, 800 of which most people never touch, they can do that. To me, though, they are losing what made the series great years ago.
well again this is your opinion. we all have one. i personally think that if someone is into cars, they will care about their car. not everyone can afford the cars in the game, but it might be nice to see that car that you can afford and have in real life in the game. i mean, the game is meant for people into cars.
NO WAY!!! I never knew that. :rolleyes:
just pointing out the facts. are you doing any different?
Sure, but a "Guinness Record" for it? Again, to much fluff.
they have records for everything. like how much cheese you can eat, or whatever. that's what Guinness Records are
No, it is a concept car that Citro�n paraded around at car shows. Lots of concept cars get built with the fake intention of going into production. But you know what? Almost none of them do. This Citro�n is no different.
but the intention of the car was for the game. how do you not see that? specifically for the game. in fact, it's named GT after the game
My point is, he was trying to use GT's high sales as a quantifier of the series greatness. Then, when I showed 2 examples of other racing game series with higher sales, he said they were different types of racing games, and that they don't count. Which is understandable, because they are not the same type of game. But then, ultimately, as I said before, if you don't count those other types of racing games, you're really only comparing GT to Forza, since that is the only other similar game.
But what does that prove? A game series that has been out for almost 13 years has sold more than a similar type of game series that has only been out for a little over 5 years. Big shock there. I'll be the first to admit that Forza isn't even remotely close to as big of a sales hit as the GT series. But, like I've said before, liking a game is a subjective thing, and everyone is entitled to their own choices. But sales are an objective thing, that has no relevance to somethings greatness.
how does sales have no relevance if something is great? so iPhone sales show nothing to how good it is? or iPod sales mean nothing to how well it is? of course it does. you make games to sell. if they don't sell, you stop making games. and then there wouldn't be this thread, b/c there would be no GT5.
GT1 + GT2 + GT3 + GT4 = 46M
...not 57M like you originally, and incorrectly, said.
but you do care. you are pointing out that you care by what you just typed. if you count the prologues, you get over 57M sold.
You brought up sales, not me. And last I checked, objectively, 100 is more than 57, regardless of how you subjectively look at it.
i disagree. let's bring math into the equation, since you seem to have missed it.
100,000,000/15 = 6,666,667.
57,000,000/8 = 7,125,000.
so GT has sold more copies per game.
No, the only thing that adds to is a stat point on the back of the box. I mean, hooray, someone's 87 CRX is in a racing game. YAY!! :rolleyes:
That is the problem with GT these days. Too much fluff, and lacking in the racing. I mean, whatever, they can make whatever kind of game they want. If they want to fill the game with 1000 cars, 800 of which most people never touch, they can do that. To me, though, they are losing what made the series great years ago.
well again this is your opinion. we all have one. i personally think that if someone is into cars, they will care about their car. not everyone can afford the cars in the game, but it might be nice to see that car that you can afford and have in real life in the game. i mean, the game is meant for people into cars.
NO WAY!!! I never knew that. :rolleyes:
just pointing out the facts. are you doing any different?
Sure, but a "Guinness Record" for it? Again, to much fluff.
they have records for everything. like how much cheese you can eat, or whatever. that's what Guinness Records are
No, it is a concept car that Citro�n paraded around at car shows. Lots of concept cars get built with the fake intention of going into production. But you know what? Almost none of them do. This Citro�n is no different.
but the intention of the car was for the game. how do you not see that? specifically for the game. in fact, it's named GT after the game
My point is, he was trying to use GT's high sales as a quantifier of the series greatness. Then, when I showed 2 examples of other racing game series with higher sales, he said they were different types of racing games, and that they don't count. Which is understandable, because they are not the same type of game. But then, ultimately, as I said before, if you don't count those other types of racing games, you're really only comparing GT to Forza, since that is the only other similar game.
But what does that prove? A game series that has been out for almost 13 years has sold more than a similar type of game series that has only been out for a little over 5 years. Big shock there. I'll be the first to admit that Forza isn't even remotely close to as big of a sales hit as the GT series. But, like I've said before, liking a game is a subjective thing, and everyone is entitled to their own choices. But sales are an objective thing, that has no relevance to somethings greatness.
how does sales have no relevance if something is great? so iPhone sales show nothing to how good it is? or iPod sales mean nothing to how well it is? of course it does. you make games to sell. if they don't sell, you stop making games. and then there wouldn't be this thread, b/c there would be no GT5.
jbellanca
Apr 27, 10:13 AM
If locations are recorded AND time/date stamp - then how much time you spend in each location is tracked inherently. If you "log in" at one time here and then another 20 minutes later - there's a history of time spent. Maybe not foolproof... but to say that no information is there isn't accurate.
Not true if what people are saying is true about every location only has one entry in the DB. The second time you hit the same tower, the old date/time stamp gets updated to the new one, effectively erasing the old one. This practice would leave gaps in the d/t stamp, invalidating whatever data you're trying to deduce about time spent at a location. (i.e., If I go from location A > B > C > D, then the next day revisit B & C, but don't get close to A & D, B & C will update with the new d/t stamp, and using your logic, it would look like I was never at B & C the first time, and just at location A a very long time.)
Not true if what people are saying is true about every location only has one entry in the DB. The second time you hit the same tower, the old date/time stamp gets updated to the new one, effectively erasing the old one. This practice would leave gaps in the d/t stamp, invalidating whatever data you're trying to deduce about time spent at a location. (i.e., If I go from location A > B > C > D, then the next day revisit B & C, but don't get close to A & D, B & C will update with the new d/t stamp, and using your logic, it would look like I was never at B & C the first time, and just at location A a very long time.)
