conradzoo
Sep 12, 07:27 AM
The Netherlands store is down too. :o
Just a broken link though. No Black screen.
Just a broken link though. No Black screen.
GoKyu
Apr 12, 07:24 AM
Do you really think MS will ever do that?
As stupid as they are, probably not. They're happy with having the most market share, why should they bother changing anything?
But, when it's as easy to get a virus as downloading a banner ad from a website that you visit ( sometimes even legitimate ones) using IE with ActiveX enabled, then *maybe* a stronger security model is called for.
These days, if you're running Windows and don't have at least a good antivirus, antispyware and (can't hurt) firewall, you're almost assured of getting infected somehow. I see it all the time at work - we have people coming in paying hundreds to have us remove viruses and to install a new antivirus program, because they didn't know the old one expired.
If Microsoft was smart, they'd even *consider* doing this - I hate to say it, but look at Mac users - even though we're not immune to potential viruses in the future, how long has OS X been around, and how much malware is out there to infect it? Maybe 5-10 programs? UNIX just has that stronger security model...
As stupid as they are, probably not. They're happy with having the most market share, why should they bother changing anything?
But, when it's as easy to get a virus as downloading a banner ad from a website that you visit ( sometimes even legitimate ones) using IE with ActiveX enabled, then *maybe* a stronger security model is called for.
These days, if you're running Windows and don't have at least a good antivirus, antispyware and (can't hurt) firewall, you're almost assured of getting infected somehow. I see it all the time at work - we have people coming in paying hundreds to have us remove viruses and to install a new antivirus program, because they didn't know the old one expired.
If Microsoft was smart, they'd even *consider* doing this - I hate to say it, but look at Mac users - even though we're not immune to potential viruses in the future, how long has OS X been around, and how much malware is out there to infect it? Maybe 5-10 programs? UNIX just has that stronger security model...
wlh99
Apr 28, 09:13 AM
Your minutes and seconds are thus never reset, so your "timer" is never reset (this is completely a seperate issue from NSTimer, hence why I say you probably don't understand the scope of NSTimer. It has no knowledge of these variables and thus doesn't reset them when you invalidate myTimer or newTimer).
That has been pointed out. The OP is stuck thinking the timer is broken, when it works exactly as it should. I think the OP thinks that those variables are part of the timer. He also first thought "self" was the timer. I asked if/where he was resetting the seconds, and if he wanted a reset function or not. For all we know, he wants a start stop timer that doesn't reset. That would be a normal implementation.
Also, could you please post a screenshot of your Interface Builder associations ? (under File's Owner, the tab in Inspector with all the Outlets and Actions), because I can't quite figure out what buttons are tied to what actions.
That would be very helpful. Also, explain how you want the program to act as the user uses it.
You also still have 2 timers. Why do you believe you need both ? Have you tried simplifying the code to using only 1 ?
He was told elsewhere that he could not reuse a timer. I think he is still stuck on the concept (not necessarily the definition) of a pointer, and of the life-cycle of an object. I'm not sure he grasps that in the posted samples, the NSTimer was not being reused.
None of these are trick questions, It's me trying to understand what you think this code should do vs what it's actually doing. Now, if you don't answer my questions, I can't really help you here short of writing the code for you, which does not help you learn (I have a good idea how to make the code I wrote last night do what you want to do very quickly, but I doubt you can afford me as a consultant at my exorbitant rates!).
I have some code to post to help the OP. But for not, I'm about to get a parking ticket, so I have to leave. But I will post it today.
That has been pointed out. The OP is stuck thinking the timer is broken, when it works exactly as it should. I think the OP thinks that those variables are part of the timer. He also first thought "self" was the timer. I asked if/where he was resetting the seconds, and if he wanted a reset function or not. For all we know, he wants a start stop timer that doesn't reset. That would be a normal implementation.
Also, could you please post a screenshot of your Interface Builder associations ? (under File's Owner, the tab in Inspector with all the Outlets and Actions), because I can't quite figure out what buttons are tied to what actions.
That would be very helpful. Also, explain how you want the program to act as the user uses it.
You also still have 2 timers. Why do you believe you need both ? Have you tried simplifying the code to using only 1 ?
He was told elsewhere that he could not reuse a timer. I think he is still stuck on the concept (not necessarily the definition) of a pointer, and of the life-cycle of an object. I'm not sure he grasps that in the posted samples, the NSTimer was not being reused.
None of these are trick questions, It's me trying to understand what you think this code should do vs what it's actually doing. Now, if you don't answer my questions, I can't really help you here short of writing the code for you, which does not help you learn (I have a good idea how to make the code I wrote last night do what you want to do very quickly, but I doubt you can afford me as a consultant at my exorbitant rates!).
I have some code to post to help the OP. But for not, I'm about to get a parking ticket, so I have to leave. But I will post it today.
NebulaClash
May 4, 08:46 AM
That one thing that I don't see is Google sponsored Android commercials... they are not promoting their own product like MS did with Windows and are leaving each hardware manufacturer to make up their own image. All of this gives the average consumer a confusing, scattered message of the Android OS.
That's a good point. We really don't see many ads from Google in general.
This is speculation, but I remember those stories last summer about how Android is a temporary thing for Google but Chrome is their future. This gets shot down hard any time it gets mentioned around here, but I can certainly see this as a possibility. One thing Google is famous for is starting something only to abandon it once they decide to focus in other areas. And Chrome is at the heart of their corporate mission -- getting people to stay online in the cloud where they can be monetized. Android also gets the ad revenue, so it might indeed stick around for practical reasons, but the app model is the very model Google hates for it gets people offline and perhaps using some service other than what Google provides. With Chrome, Google would have full control. With Android it's a free-for-all.
So perhaps this is why Google doesn't bother advertising Android that much. It's nice to have, but it's not considered the future at Google.
That's a good point. We really don't see many ads from Google in general.
This is speculation, but I remember those stories last summer about how Android is a temporary thing for Google but Chrome is their future. This gets shot down hard any time it gets mentioned around here, but I can certainly see this as a possibility. One thing Google is famous for is starting something only to abandon it once they decide to focus in other areas. And Chrome is at the heart of their corporate mission -- getting people to stay online in the cloud where they can be monetized. Android also gets the ad revenue, so it might indeed stick around for practical reasons, but the app model is the very model Google hates for it gets people offline and perhaps using some service other than what Google provides. With Chrome, Google would have full control. With Android it's a free-for-all.
So perhaps this is why Google doesn't bother advertising Android that much. It's nice to have, but it's not considered the future at Google.
lbro
Apr 22, 06:28 PM
I think everybody should be able to see how many positives and negatives specific posters have given. e.g. I gave a few +1s today and no -1s so somewhere on my profile or under my username it should say 3 +1s given, 0 -1s given or something like that.
sartinsauce
Oct 17, 09:30 AM
It's VHS vs. BETAMAX all over again. Hopefully this time, the superior technology will prevail.
You know, I was going to suggest that, but I figured it would be over the heads of most of the folks in this forum. Needless to say, we're both grandpa's (grandma's) around here.
Similar characterstics to that format war. Betamax (Blu-Ray) has superior image quality, but VHS (HD DVD) is cheaper to produce. Ultimately, production costs may be the deciding factor in this war. Backward compatibility with (SD) DVD is a nice added bonus, if the manufacturers put decent upconverters into the boxes. What's up with Sony and it's effing production line anyway? Delays, delays, delays. They're full of it these days.
On the way in to work this morning, I was thinking that HD DVD is about to win this war. If PS3 tanks, Blu-Ray may be lost forever.
You know, I was going to suggest that, but I figured it would be over the heads of most of the folks in this forum. Needless to say, we're both grandpa's (grandma's) around here.
Similar characterstics to that format war. Betamax (Blu-Ray) has superior image quality, but VHS (HD DVD) is cheaper to produce. Ultimately, production costs may be the deciding factor in this war. Backward compatibility with (SD) DVD is a nice added bonus, if the manufacturers put decent upconverters into the boxes. What's up with Sony and it's effing production line anyway? Delays, delays, delays. They're full of it these days.
On the way in to work this morning, I was thinking that HD DVD is about to win this war. If PS3 tanks, Blu-Ray may be lost forever.
i0Nic
Sep 12, 02:53 AM
Sydney 3am Sept 13.
Transporteur
Apr 11, 08:54 AM
Meet my new desk mascot.
http://twitpic.com/show/thumb/4hmpd9.jpg
It even makes Angry Bird sounds!!!
Nice! Meet mine; :D
http://twitpic.com/show/thumb/4hmpd9.jpg
It even makes Angry Bird sounds!!!
Nice! Meet mine; :D
SkippyThorson
Sep 28, 12:05 PM
Is this the iHouse prototype? :p
I personally like it. It is simple, and I'll admit, I thought Steve would go lavish. I love the touch with the veggie garden. Tomatoes and spices galore, I say. It sounds like he's going to retire there, and that he's really going for the "retreat" feel.
Applause, even if it means taking down a 1920's mansion. Not everything can be saved forever. It'll exist in memory. What's the point of saving old buildings that won't be used? So they can be cleaned and saved for no one? For people to look at once and leave? Better use of the land. It had its time, and now it's passed.
Make way for Jobso.
I personally like it. It is simple, and I'll admit, I thought Steve would go lavish. I love the touch with the veggie garden. Tomatoes and spices galore, I say. It sounds like he's going to retire there, and that he's really going for the "retreat" feel.
Applause, even if it means taking down a 1920's mansion. Not everything can be saved forever. It'll exist in memory. What's the point of saving old buildings that won't be used? So they can be cleaned and saved for no one? For people to look at once and leave? Better use of the land. It had its time, and now it's passed.
Make way for Jobso.
FrankBlack
Jan 12, 07:22 PM
While I also have some level of disappointment over the lack of any new Mac hardware, or even a progress report on 10.5, I suspect there was a reason for it. I think the reason may very well have been to emphasize Apple's move from being just a computer and iPod maker, to a maker of high-end consumer electronic products. The iPhone (assuming that they get to keep this name) is probably just the first of these products.
tdhurst
Jan 12, 09:08 PM
Thats a loaded demand since you already agreed with my later statement that they need to learn how to vet online sources like they do print sources. I can list off any number of magazines or whatnot that would do such things if given the chance, though. It isn't like gizmodo invented pranking, guys.
If given a chance? What does that mean?
You think if Wired had done this they wouldn't have been banned?
If given a chance? What does that mean?
You think if Wired had done this they wouldn't have been banned?
MagnusVonMagnum
Apr 29, 10:34 PM
There's a huge difference between merging in concepts of the UI, user-friendly software distribution, media access and what you describe.
It is very unlikely that Apple's engineering and marketing would destroy what they've worked to build for so long, IMHO. How are you so certain that they'll be bringing all the bad stuff along with the good stuff? Seriously - do you really think that Apple's talent are as utterly foolish that you make them out to be?
Is there? They're already controlling what can and cannot be sold on the iOS platform (and it is an entire platform now with full-fledged computers in the form of the iPad). They've proven themselves beyond contempt by insisting that in-app subscriptions be the same or lower on the App store than direct, despite the fact that they demand 1/3 of all the selling price. They've added an 'App' store for OSX proper and have the same 30% "grab" for everything on there. They're advertising and bragging about bringing iOS features back to OSX. I'm just doing simple math here. You can make 1+1 = 1 if you say it's a bigger one, but in my world, 2 is still the more likely answer.
And you are the ones using the words "foolish". I think it's quite possibly a business-savvy solution to ensuring profits stay high into the future. What you or I may want in OSX is irrelevant to both Apple and Steve Jobs. Steve has essentially said that consumers don't know what's best for them and that it takes a visionary to move forward. We know Steve's 'vision' is smaller/thinner/more mobile at almost any cost. So I'm not saying it will happen like that, but that it's looking more likely every day. Only time will tell for sure. But I know if it does happen, I'll no longer have an interest in OSX. I don't want Apple deciding for me what I can or cannot buy or watching developers get 1/3 their gross taken from them (same % as a typical injury lawyer BTW. You don't get paid until they get paid FIRST and your bills 2nd and you last; in this case it would be taxes instead of bills). You can think it's good/fair/right. I don't agree and I don't want Apple telling me I have to use Safari because they don't want Firefox or Chrome competing with them.
No, it'll happen whether we like it or not. Because the industry is going to the iPad like dumbed down devices for every day use, and in 10-15 years those devices will be fast enough for all of us to do almost everything on them.
I don't know about that. There will always be a market for faster/more powerful (i.e. most people may drive a Ford Focus or Chevy Impala or Toyota Corrola and hybrids may capture larger and larger market penetration in the future, but that doesn't mean there isn't a market for the WRX, Mustang, Corvette, etc. even if it shrinks over time) and so even if Apple AND Microsoft bail out of traditional computing, that just means someone else will likely take over. They can't make Linux go away, for example. And if people didn't BUY it, the lines would stop. Newton didn't exactly go over so well the first time around....
It is very unlikely that Apple's engineering and marketing would destroy what they've worked to build for so long, IMHO. How are you so certain that they'll be bringing all the bad stuff along with the good stuff? Seriously - do you really think that Apple's talent are as utterly foolish that you make them out to be?
Is there? They're already controlling what can and cannot be sold on the iOS platform (and it is an entire platform now with full-fledged computers in the form of the iPad). They've proven themselves beyond contempt by insisting that in-app subscriptions be the same or lower on the App store than direct, despite the fact that they demand 1/3 of all the selling price. They've added an 'App' store for OSX proper and have the same 30% "grab" for everything on there. They're advertising and bragging about bringing iOS features back to OSX. I'm just doing simple math here. You can make 1+1 = 1 if you say it's a bigger one, but in my world, 2 is still the more likely answer.
And you are the ones using the words "foolish". I think it's quite possibly a business-savvy solution to ensuring profits stay high into the future. What you or I may want in OSX is irrelevant to both Apple and Steve Jobs. Steve has essentially said that consumers don't know what's best for them and that it takes a visionary to move forward. We know Steve's 'vision' is smaller/thinner/more mobile at almost any cost. So I'm not saying it will happen like that, but that it's looking more likely every day. Only time will tell for sure. But I know if it does happen, I'll no longer have an interest in OSX. I don't want Apple deciding for me what I can or cannot buy or watching developers get 1/3 their gross taken from them (same % as a typical injury lawyer BTW. You don't get paid until they get paid FIRST and your bills 2nd and you last; in this case it would be taxes instead of bills). You can think it's good/fair/right. I don't agree and I don't want Apple telling me I have to use Safari because they don't want Firefox or Chrome competing with them.
No, it'll happen whether we like it or not. Because the industry is going to the iPad like dumbed down devices for every day use, and in 10-15 years those devices will be fast enough for all of us to do almost everything on them.
I don't know about that. There will always be a market for faster/more powerful (i.e. most people may drive a Ford Focus or Chevy Impala or Toyota Corrola and hybrids may capture larger and larger market penetration in the future, but that doesn't mean there isn't a market for the WRX, Mustang, Corvette, etc. even if it shrinks over time) and so even if Apple AND Microsoft bail out of traditional computing, that just means someone else will likely take over. They can't make Linux go away, for example. And if people didn't BUY it, the lines would stop. Newton didn't exactly go over so well the first time around....
maclaptop
Apr 29, 08:22 PM
Agree that Lion scrolling makes more sense now that iOS is so popular. But the odd "slider" tab controller really didn't make sense to me.
It was animation for animation's sake.
I concur, gratuitous animation, ever so silly.
It's this type of look and feel that gets old fast.
It was animation for animation's sake.
I concur, gratuitous animation, ever so silly.
It's this type of look and feel that gets old fast.
Nekbeth
Apr 27, 08:39 PM
.h
#import <UIKit/UIKit.h>
@interface ATimerViewController : UIViewController {
Atomic Bomb
After Atomic Bombing
Hiroshima amp; Nagasaki
the day the atomic bomb
the atomic bombs dropped
#import <UIKit/UIKit.h>
@interface ATimerViewController : UIViewController {
anjinha
Apr 21, 11:10 AM
All you'll do is make people paranoid. Who were those two bastards who voted down rdowns' post?
I'm trying to vote it up but it's not working!!
EDIT: Nevermind, it worked now.
I'm trying to vote it up but it's not working!!
EDIT: Nevermind, it worked now.
GFLPraxis
Apr 13, 12:13 PM
The secret service might get lucky and stop a terrorist organisation before they do any harm, but they can do nothing to prevent a nutter getting on a plane if he doesn't have any record. It's up to the airport security to limit the weapons available to him on the plane, it's the best they can do.
And it's up to everyone to decide what the 'best balance' is between privacy and safety. One thing is certain - the TSA (or any other airport authorities around the world) are always wrong: searches like this are wrong/if a weapon slips through and is used in a hijacking they're wrong.
Let me give you a REAL scenario. I used to use my laptop backpack to carry my lunch to work and I was at the airport heading out of town. What I didn't know is that one of my butter knives had slid down under the lining of the backpack. Of course I went in security and was pulled to the side where I was professionally patted down. They then pulled me off to the side to further inspect the bag. I told them the story and they allowed me to slip it in an envelope to mail it home.
1. It worked as they did catch a potential weapon.
2. They were profesional about it the entire time (Boston TSA).
3. If you cooperate with them it is generally no big deal.
People that are making this difficult simply like to complain for the sake of complaining. Take the bus....
Put a big, thick, security door between the cockpit and the passengers that can take a stronger blast than the plane's hull.
Problem solved; the risk of a man with a knife on a plane is identical to that same man on a public train or bus.
No ridiculous pat-downs and feeling up of children needed. Allow profiling and leave the metal detectors in place (similar security to our local courthouse) to prevent casual idiots, and have the security door to minimize damage from an organized attempt (if they can't hijack the plane, and can only kill the people on board, it's not worth the trouble; they can just go blow up a bus), and you've got a pretty good balance of security.
And it's up to everyone to decide what the 'best balance' is between privacy and safety. One thing is certain - the TSA (or any other airport authorities around the world) are always wrong: searches like this are wrong/if a weapon slips through and is used in a hijacking they're wrong.
Let me give you a REAL scenario. I used to use my laptop backpack to carry my lunch to work and I was at the airport heading out of town. What I didn't know is that one of my butter knives had slid down under the lining of the backpack. Of course I went in security and was pulled to the side where I was professionally patted down. They then pulled me off to the side to further inspect the bag. I told them the story and they allowed me to slip it in an envelope to mail it home.
1. It worked as they did catch a potential weapon.
2. They were profesional about it the entire time (Boston TSA).
3. If you cooperate with them it is generally no big deal.
People that are making this difficult simply like to complain for the sake of complaining. Take the bus....
Put a big, thick, security door between the cockpit and the passengers that can take a stronger blast than the plane's hull.
Problem solved; the risk of a man with a knife on a plane is identical to that same man on a public train or bus.
No ridiculous pat-downs and feeling up of children needed. Allow profiling and leave the metal detectors in place (similar security to our local courthouse) to prevent casual idiots, and have the security door to minimize damage from an organized attempt (if they can't hijack the plane, and can only kill the people on board, it's not worth the trouble; they can just go blow up a bus), and you've got a pretty good balance of security.
Macky-Mac
May 6, 10:50 AM
just what we need! more government protecting the citizenry from itself.
you would prefer unlicensed doctors?
you would prefer unlicensed doctors?
citizenzen
May 5, 12:25 PM
Oh wait, you may not even have the chance to ask, because now you're dead. He shot you because he felt like it, and there was nothing you could do to stop him.
Thanks for making my point.
The proliferation of guns in America makes it easier for people to end my life with a simple pull of the trigger.
Fewer guns would mean that fewer people would have that capability.
Thanks for making my point.
The proliferation of guns in America makes it easier for people to end my life with a simple pull of the trigger.
Fewer guns would mean that fewer people would have that capability.
Lord Blackadder
May 6, 11:02 PM
Me too. I've shot guns and was once shot at, and live with someone who's shot guns and is disfigured by being shot pointblank. Both of us are for gun control.
I'm for gun control as well, but the phrase is so broad as to be almost meaningless. Guns need to be regulated at all times. But the level and manner of regulation are very vexed questions.
I think the notion that fewer guns means less gun crime is true in the absolute sense, but far from the whole story - nor is it linear process.
Guns use to be a everyday needed practical aspect of life (like cars still are today). They no longer are.
Guns have never been a practical everyday tool for the vast majority of humanity. However, a lack of practical utility is not in itself a good reason to ban, criminalize, or otherwise restrict legal access to something. Nor is the fact that something is dangerous by itself grounds for bans or criminalization. We are surrounded by dangerous things every day. Seeking to manage risk is far more effective than a policy of trying to simply legislate it away.
I'm for gun control as well, but the phrase is so broad as to be almost meaningless. Guns need to be regulated at all times. But the level and manner of regulation are very vexed questions.
I think the notion that fewer guns means less gun crime is true in the absolute sense, but far from the whole story - nor is it linear process.
Guns use to be a everyday needed practical aspect of life (like cars still are today). They no longer are.
Guns have never been a practical everyday tool for the vast majority of humanity. However, a lack of practical utility is not in itself a good reason to ban, criminalize, or otherwise restrict legal access to something. Nor is the fact that something is dangerous by itself grounds for bans or criminalization. We are surrounded by dangerous things every day. Seeking to manage risk is far more effective than a policy of trying to simply legislate it away.
ctdonath
Sep 30, 12:42 PM
I guess you are still in the lets all commute to work and congest the highways and burn all the electricity and gas we can boat.
Some jobs are not conducive to working at/from home.
And I'd imagine that includes being the CEO of a multi-billion-dollar company.
Some jobs are not conducive to working at/from home.
And I'd imagine that includes being the CEO of a multi-billion-dollar company.
pondosinatra
Sep 30, 09:26 AM
He sure loves pocket doors...
glocke12
May 4, 07:53 PM
I, on the other hand, am very anti-gun.
However, even I got a chuckle out of the bumper that read, Guns kill people, like spoons made Rosie O'Donnell fat.
But then I thought about it ... spoons are eating utensils ... perhaps we should call guns killing utensils.
Are you truly anti-gun or have you just not been exposed to them so that you understand how fun it is:
1) Use a shotgun to shoot clay targets;
2) Shoot a rifle, pistol or revolver and realize how much fun it is to shoot a gun and hit your paper target, bowling pin or tin can;
There has been a person or two that when I met them claimed they were very anti-gun, yet I was eventually able to get them out to shoot some of mine and they not only enjoyed themselves, but one of them actually took up skeet shooting as a hobby.
However, even I got a chuckle out of the bumper that read, Guns kill people, like spoons made Rosie O'Donnell fat.
But then I thought about it ... spoons are eating utensils ... perhaps we should call guns killing utensils.
Are you truly anti-gun or have you just not been exposed to them so that you understand how fun it is:
1) Use a shotgun to shoot clay targets;
2) Shoot a rifle, pistol or revolver and realize how much fun it is to shoot a gun and hit your paper target, bowling pin or tin can;
There has been a person or two that when I met them claimed they were very anti-gun, yet I was eventually able to get them out to shoot some of mine and they not only enjoyed themselves, but one of them actually took up skeet shooting as a hobby.
Stridder44
Apr 5, 03:18 PM
An app that brings all the things I hate together. Lovely. I know advertising is a necessary evil but an app that just displays ads? Biggest WTF of the year. I mean really, who the hell could this be marketed to? People that just enjoy looking at tiny, crappy advertisements? No one is that boring or unproductive.
hob
Jan 9, 04:14 PM
Sorry. I put my foot in it. Twice. Please accept my deepest apologies. I really didn't mean to ruin this for anyone. Sorry.
No comments:
Post a Comment