You’re going to wanna pause your life for two and half minutes. I’m not entirely sure what’s going on here, but it doesn’t matter. The one dude is fighting the other dude who turns out to be a shapshifting shadow? Oh man, it’s like a Nyquil-induced dream. [Geekologie
TiPb Answers: No, you don’t need to kill all the apps in your multitasking dock
One of the most frequent questions we’re getting these days is how to close all apps at once — basically how to force quit or kill every app from the new multitasking/fast app switcher dock Apple introduced in iOS 4 for iPhone and iPod touch and iOS 4.2 for iPad.
The short answer is you don’t need to. Really. If you’ve been worried about it, relax. It’s all good.
For the long answer, read on after the break!
Multitasking is more of a marketing terms these days than a technical one. Don’t think of your iPhone as a Windows or Mac OS X machine because it’s not. It isn’t Windows Mobile or even Android either. iOS doesn’t work that way. It doesn’t (most of the time) leave a bunch of rogue processes running in the background that have to be force-quit.
iOS manages all that for you. Most applications, when you exit them, save their state and “go to sleepâ€. So if you were playing a game or looking at Settings and then hit the home button or switch to another app, it keeps track of where you were in the game or what page you were on in Settings, then stops the app. When you tap the icon to launch the game or Settings again, it reads the state and returns you to the same place in the app. It only seems like it was multitasking — it wasn’t. If you haven’t used an app in a long time, iOS might not even keep the saved state (you’ll notice the app re-launched and shows you a splash screen instead of going back to the last place you left it.)
This means, for most apps, you never — not ever — need to “delete†them or close them from the multitasking dock. You might feel a desire to, even an obsession to. But you really don’t need to. Really. (Breath out!)
The only exceptions are:
- Streaming audio like Pandora. This can keep playing in the background but if you pause or turn off the music, it ends. No need to force quit these apps either. (Just check to make sure volume isn’t off, otherwise you might as well pause the music…)
- VoIP apps like Skype. These can keep running in the background and Skype especially can drain your battery. You can close Skype or other VoIP apps if you aren’t actually waiting for a call.
- Turn-by-turn navigation like TomTom. These can stay in the background and give you location and voice instructions and if you don’t need it anymore you can quit it to spare your battery the aGPS hit
- Task completion, like finishing uploading a picture to Facebook or downloading your Twitter stream. These will automatically close when the activity is finished. Even if the activity doesn’t finish they’ll close after a short period of time anyway. So again, unless you really want to stop what they’re doing there’s not need to close them.
There will be rare — rare — occasions when a specific app, even an Apple app like Mail, stops working properly and a force-quit can get it to restart and behave itself. Once an a while your iPhone or iPad might get really sluggish and closing any big, recently played games might help.
But when it comes to closing ALL apps, ALL the time, just remember:
You don’t ever — never as in not ever — have to close ALL the apps in your multitasking, fast app switcher dock. It’s a sniper rifle, not a nuke. So just relax and enjoy your apps and let iOS do the heavy lifting for you.
TiPb Answers: No, you don’t need to kill all the apps in your multitasking dock is a story by TiPb. This feed is sponsored by The iPhone Blog Store.
TiPb - The #1 iPhone, iPad, and iPod touch Blog
The REAL Death Of The Music Industry
In January, Bain & Company produced the following chart as part of their report on “Publishing in the Digital Age†(PDF):

Then on Tuesday, someone posted it on Flickr. Subsequently, Peter Kafka of Wall Street Journal's MediaMemo noticed it and passed it along to Jay Yarow, who made it Business Insider’s Chart of the Day on Wednesday, citing Kafka and the Flickr post. On Thursday, the excellent John Gruber at Daring Fireball linked to it and between those two postings the chart garnered a fair bit of attention, including from the likes of apparent digital music expert Bob Lefsetz (“First in Music Analysisâ€). No one seems to have tracked it back to the original source  nor noticed what happened to catch my eye straight away:
This chart sucks.
What’s Wrong With It
Oh, Bain – I hope no one has hired you for your expert “analysis†in this field:
- The chart uses raw revenue numbers, not adjusted for inflation or population.
- The chart is labeled “Global Music Turnover†but the data is actually US only. 1
- The chart says “Bain Analysis†but it’s very unclear that they did any analysis, since anyone paying the RIAA $25 can login and immediately see virtually the same chart, albeit formatted slightly differently.
- They fail to clarify how & if they distribute the RIAA's 16 sometimes vague categories amongst the 4 they use.
The Right Chart

All discussion herein is for US recorded music as covered by the RIAA. The above chart is adjusted for inflation & population – for full details, see below.
So let’s correct the inaccurate conclusions one might reasonably draw from the misleading Bain chart:
Wrong: The music industry is down around 40% from its peak in 1999
Correct: The music industry is down 64% from its peak.
Wrong: At least the music industry is almost 4 times better off than in 1973.
Correct: The music industry is actually down 45% from where it was in 1973.
Wrong: The CD era was the aberration. (Mr. Gruber’s reasonable take)
Correct: The CD peak was only 13% better than the vinyl peak, not over 250% better as the Bain chart implies.
The overall conclusion is that the music industry is actually doing much worse than the Bain chart implies:
10 years ago the average American spent almost 3 times as much on recorded music products as they do today.
26 years ago they spent almost twice as much as they do today.
What Happened?
Turns out that, somewhat unsurprisingly, the recording industry makes almost all their money from full-length albums:

Equally unsurprising, no one is buying full albums any more:

That’s just over 1 album per person per year now, and only 0.25 downloaded albums per year. Here Mr. Gruber’s guess is more on target, though current numbers are still substantially below pre-CD numbers. In addition to piracy and the general lack of interest in buying albums vs singles (see below), it’s also possible that consumers' ability to convert CD to digital versus having to rebuy vinyl albums on CD accounts for some of the disparity as well.
What Does The Future Hold?
Let’s dig deeper into those precious few newer sources of revenue, all of which were at zero in 2003:

Downloaded albums & singles have grown nicely, but we’ve already established that is not nearly enough to offset the loss of the physical equivalents.
Mobile, which includes “Master Ringtunes, Ringbacks, Music Videos, Full Length Downloads, and Other Mobileâ€, hit its peak in 2007 and has actually been in decline the past 2 years.  Looks like the death of the ringtone - and possibly the birth of the iPhone?
Subscriptions – presumably Rhapsody, Zune Pass, and the like — have also drifted downward the past 2 years.
To reiterate what I was very surprised to find: two of the big new areas, mobile and subscriptions, appear to both already be in decline.
That only leaves internet & satellite radio – Pandora, etc — and others that pay via SoundExchange. It had a good uptick since 2007, but that’s when they negotiated royalty rates for online broadcasters. Even if they maintain some solid growth, it still adds up to a pittance.
Looks like the smaller and shrinking recorded music industry is here to stay.
A Few Additional Charts
Digital really does appear to have brought about the era of the single:

For what it's worth, here is the inflation adjusted (but not population adjusted) version of the revenue chart:
Finally, since I couldn’t be sure what was and wasn’t included in the Bain chart, here’s my version of the raw unadjusted revenue numbers:

The Gory Details
- The population data I used comes from http://www.census.gov/popest/
- The inflation data I used comes from the CPI-U at http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost?cu
- I used 2011 dollars (January 2011, the latest available) because I feel present day dollars provide a better visceral understanding of the sums involved than using some other arbitrary date.
- Here’s how I grouped the RIAA categories:
- 8-Track: Includes “8-Track†& “Other Tapes†(described as “reel-to-reel and quadraphonicâ€)
- Vinyl: Includes “LP/EP†& “Vinyl Singleâ€
- Cassettes: Includes “Cassettes†& “Cassette Singleâ€
- CD: Includes “CDâ€, “CD Singleâ€, “DVD Audioâ€, & “SACDâ€
- Videos: Includes “Music Videoâ€
- Digital: Includes “Download Singleâ€, “Download Albumâ€, “Kioskâ€, “Download Music Videoâ€, “Mobileâ€, “Subscriptionâ€, & “Digital Performance Royalties†(described as SoundExchange royalties)
1. The RIAA at http://www.riaa.com/shipmentfaq.php: “This database includes year-end shipment statistics for the recorded music industry in the United States going back to 1973â€
Join the conversation about this story »
The IBM Exceptional Web Experience Conference – 16-19 May 2011 – Call for Abstracts
The conference registration is now open and, perhaps more importantly, the chance to submit an abstract for the event is also upon us.
Business Impact Program
Track 1: Customer Case Studies and Industry Solutions
- Detailed presentations of client solutions,including Project Goals and Analysis,Industry Specific Approaches,Implementation and Governance Techniques, Best Practices.
- Proven Strategies to Build the Vision and Value of an Exceptional Web Experience
- Building a Portal Delivery Roadmap
- Paths to Success
- How to Successfully Justify and Deploy Portal and Social
- Software in Your Organization
- The Real Scoop on Understanding the Portal Competitive Landscape.
- You are What You Market: Leveraging New Rules of Marketing
- Getting Smart with Retail Portals to Address the Accelerated Shift in Buyer Behavior
- Delivering Your Portal Solutions to Mobile Audiences: Best Practices
- User Experience Optimization Initiative: Understanding and Applying Web Analytics
- Getting Started with IBM WebSphere Portal and IBM Web Content Management
- WebSphere Portal 7
- Technical Overview and Strategy
- Leveraging Portal NOW to Deliver Exceptional Web Experiences
- IBM Forms Technical Deep Dive
- What’s New in Lotus Quickr ?
- Extending your Portal to Mobile Devices
- IBM Mashup Center Overview
- Exceptional Web Experience in the Cloud – How to Use IBM WebSphere Portal
- IBM Web Content Management
- Forms and Mashups in the Cloud.
- Improving the Online Experience: Building Next Generation Web sites
- Using Adobe FLEX to Deliver IBM
- WebSphere Portal and Collaboration Services
- Developing Web Applications using IBM WebSphere Portlet Factory, IBM Rational® Application Developer and IBM Lotus Widget Factory
- Powering Exceptional Web Experiences Using Industry Toolboxes
- Leveraging WebSphere Commerce and IBM Web Content Management
- Deliver Operational and Real-time Business Intelligence with Cognos® Business Intelligence
- IBM Forms Technical Deep Dive.
- Managing the Portal Deployment Project: Best Practices, Effective Portal Governance
- High Availability Designs and Implementation with WebSphere Portal, Virtualizing Portals, Successfully Managing Your WebSphere Portal, Virtualizing Portals
- Successfully Managing Your IBM Web Content Management Solution; Hands On Lab
- Administrating WebSphere Portal.
*Note* The submission form requires a Lotus Greenhouse account, so please visit here if you don't have one.
The closing date for abstracts is two weeks away - Friday 4 March - so strike while the iron is hot.
Wanted: Enterprise Web Application Architect
Outrageous cuts
PAUL KRUGMAN'S columns tend so often toward scathing criticism of Republicans that it's easy to discount the outrage and dismiss it. It would be a shame if that's the reaction to his writing today, which couldn't be more on point. To wit:
The whole budget debate, then, is a sham. House Republicans, in particular, are literally stealing food from the mouths of babes — nutritional aid to pregnant women and very young children is one of the items on their cutting block — so they can pose, falsely, as deficit hawks.
American government spending has grown across a range of categories—certainly, defence spending has increased as a share of the economy—but the big, looming problem for American solvency is health spending. The Congressional Budget Office's analyses could not be more clear about this. The long-term growth in spending, the stuff that pushes up spending as a share of the economy to unprecedented levels, the stuff that raises deficits and debt as a share of the economy to eye-popping percentages, is in the health portion of the budget. It is, overwhelmingly, Medicare and Medicaid. If members of Congress are unaware of this fact, then they have not picked up a CBO budget analysis, which suggests that they're woefully uninformed on a crucial issue and should not be making any impactful decisions about government outlays.
But of course, legislators are making impactful decisions about government outlays. They're hacking away at non-defence discretionary spending with reckless abandon. A colleague of mine worked up some interesting numbers on non-defence discretionary spending the other day, and I found the data very revealing. Have a look:
![]() |
Here's a fun fact: non-defence discretionary spending was equal to 3.6% of GDP in 1963. It was also equal to 3.6% of GDP in 2008. It is not behind the increase in government spending as a share of the economy over that time period. It has not made government any less affordable. It is not projected to rise substantially in the future. This is not to suggest that there is no waste in this portion of the government. Without question, there is. This portion of the budget should be subject to close scrutiny, to reform, and perhaps to some cuts (though whether net cuts are justified is far from clear). To pretend that one can balance the budget with cuts focused on this portion of the budget, or that major cuts to this portion of the budget are in any way desirable, is madness. And yet this is what Republicans are doing. Mr Krugman notes that cuts so far have affected programmes that support food budgets of poor Americans. I've pointed out that proposed cuts would reduce spending on job re-training, despite the country's serious long-term unemployment problem. There's more besides:
With tensions rising, House Republicans pushed through a third long night, hoping to win passage late Friday of more than $60 billion in immediate spending cuts that would severely affect agencies in the second half of this fiscal year.
The leadership put the brakes on deep additional cuts, but a school reform program important to President Barack Obama would be decimated by a $336 million reallocation of funds approved by 249-179. The National Endowment of the Arts narrowly lost an additional $22.5 million. And in a blow to the president, Democrats failed to restore $131 million for the Securities and Exchange Commission, facing new responsibilities under Wall Street reforms enacted in the last Congress.
That's right: Democrats were unable to undo cuts to the budget of the commission charged with overseeing behaviour in the financial sector, the responsibilities of which were just overhauled in response to a financial meltdown that very nearly produced an economic depression. And if Republicans are unable to make these cuts law, they're prepared to shut down the government over it.
This is not responsible policymaking. This is not fiscal discipline. This is not a careful, cost-benefit-based analysis of the government's spending priorities. This is a joke. And it's a cruel one.
President Obama isn't out there leading the charge to address long-term fiscal issues in a responsible way, it's true. His budget cuts also focus on non-defence, discretionary spending. The lack of leadership there is disappointing. But his budget doesn't, for the most part, gut valuable programmes in the name of fiscal responsibility. And they absolutely don't excuse this reckless, dangerous behaviour on the part of Congressional Republicans.
The Mystery of the Missing Moon Trees
15 years after NASA astronomer David Williams started searching for them, hundreds of trees grown from space-faring seeds are still missing.
The “moon trees,†whose seeds circled the moon 34 times in Apollo 14 astronaut Stuart Roosa’s pocket, were welcomed back to Earth with great fanfare in 1971. One was planted in Washington Square in Philadelphia as part of the 1975 bicentennial celebrations. Another took root at the White House. Several found homes at state capitals and space-related sites around the country. Then-president Gerald Ford called the trees “living symbol[s] of our spectacular human and scientific achievements.â€
And then, mysteriously, everyone seemed to forget about them.
“The careful records weren’t kept, or if they were kept they weren’t maintained,†Williams said. Williams, whose job includes archiving data from the Apollo missions, hadn’t even heard of the moon trees until a third grade teacher e-mailed him in 1996 to ask about a tree at the Camp Koch Girl Scout Camp in Cannelton, Indiana.
“No one around here had ever heard of it,†Williams said. “This is such a neat story, and no one seems to know about it.â€
Williams has made it his mission to find them. For the past 15 years, he has kept a record on the web of every known tree’s location. When he started in 1996, he only knew where 22 trees were found. Now, that number has climbed to 80.
But the climb is slow. Mostly, Williams heard of new trees when a hiker or a park visitor found one and e-mailed him about it. The e-mails are ever fewer and farther between, he says.
“It’s been sort of a trickle,†he said. “Most of the easy ones, the low-lying fruit had already been gathered.â€
Although most of the trees are long-lived species expected to last centuries, some have started to die off. According to Williams’ most recent tree count, 21 of the 80 known trees are dead, including the Loblolly pine outside the White House, five sycamores and two pines outside the U.S. Space and Rocket Center in Huntsville, Alabama, and one New Orleans pine that was damaged in Hurricane Katrina.
“It’s kind of sad, to see them going,†Williams said.
The trees’ poor health has nothing to do with their journey to space, Williams says.
“No one knew for sure whether being exposed to weightlessness or radiation would do something to the seeds,†he said. “They grew control trees right next to each other to see if they grew differently. But they didn’t find anything.â€
The healthy trees have given rise to a crop of half-moon trees, trees grown from the seeds of a moon tree.
“There’s a lot of second generation moon trees being planted now,†Williams said. “That’s getting to the point where I can’t keep up with it.â€
You can even buy half-moon seeds online and plant one in your own yard. Williams’ yard hosts a second generation moon tree, a gift from the National Arboretum.
Although Williams will keep looking, there’s no way to know when he’s found them all, he says. But at least the trees won’t be forgotten again.
“At least now there’s a permanent home for it,†he said. “It can’t be lost now. At least all the information that comes in, we have that.â€
Update: If you think you’ve found a moon tree, you can contact Williams at dave.williams@nasa.gov. Check the Moon Trees website to see if your tree has been reported before.
Image: 1) The plaque labeling the moon tree at NASA’s Goddard Spaceflight Center, where Williams works. 2) NASA Goddard’s moon sycamore. (Courtesy Jay Friedlander.)
See Also:
- What To Buy for the Space Explorer Who Has Everything
- NASA Needs You: 6 Ways to Help an Astronomer
- Lost in Space: 8 Weird Pieces of Space Junk
- Invertebrate Astronauts Make Space History











