MagicBoy
Mar 24, 08:08 PM
Windows has been downhill since DOS.
Pardon? Want to try that again?
Pardon? Want to try that again?
wlh99
Apr 27, 11:34 AM
I see where you going wlh99, and don't worry.. my full intention is to learn, not to get code from all of you. Many people in this thread underestimate my knowledge of objective C (and I understand why, I got lost with the pointers). I have 2 1/2 months since I started development and had 0 idea of the language or programming (I was a Pastry Chef actually :D, which is the name of my first app).
Believe me when I tell you that I know what's going on with my code. I'm aware that If you release an object that it doesn't exist you'll get an exception every time.
Making it work is a lot less important than knowing how to do it, for future work.
Back to the Code, let me go give it try.. b-back
UPDATE**
Ok, it doesn't crash now but timer still won't restart. I'm going to create another timer object (not pointer, I'll use the same pointer). I get this idea that I can't reuse or reset the same timer over again (invalidating and releasing it only pauses the timer). Wish me luck :)
Good luck.
Post your echoIt: method. If you are displaying elapsed seconds or something, the code to calculate and display that might be your issue.
Believe me when I tell you that I know what's going on with my code. I'm aware that If you release an object that it doesn't exist you'll get an exception every time.
Making it work is a lot less important than knowing how to do it, for future work.
Back to the Code, let me go give it try.. b-back
UPDATE**
Ok, it doesn't crash now but timer still won't restart. I'm going to create another timer object (not pointer, I'll use the same pointer). I get this idea that I can't reuse or reset the same timer over again (invalidating and releasing it only pauses the timer). Wish me luck :)
Good luck.
Post your echoIt: method. If you are displaying elapsed seconds or something, the code to calculate and display that might be your issue.
skinned66
Apr 16, 02:56 AM
And by that what do you mean. iPhones had little impact on phones like the BB Curve
Let us not compare Apples to turds.
Let us not compare Apples to turds.
fun173
May 3, 01:51 PM
This sucks. I don't want to have to pay Verizon an extra $20 a month on top of an already expensive phone bill to do this crap. Will this affect using PDAnet on a jail broken iPhone?
Mac.World
Apr 17, 05:55 AM
You missed out his suicide which was clearly a direct consequence of how he was treated, they killed him. He could (just) be alive today, but he's not, because of what happened. If any of you think that's "irrelevant" you frankly sicken me.
His life and what he did was not irrelevant. I'm sure a movie or book could be done on his life's story. Teaching kids to look more at a person because of their sexual orientation, rather than their contributions, is irrelevant.
His life and what he did was not irrelevant. I'm sure a movie or book could be done on his life's story. Teaching kids to look more at a person because of their sexual orientation, rather than their contributions, is irrelevant.
bousozoku
Jan 12, 12:13 AM
Steve Jobs has always been a bit smug. In fact, his emotions are rarely reserved but then, that goes for almost anyone running a technology company.
Have you seen Scott McNealy, Bruce Chizen, Larry Ellison, or Bill Gates? Introverts rarely run companies.
Have you seen Scott McNealy, Bruce Chizen, Larry Ellison, or Bill Gates? Introverts rarely run companies.
eawmp1
May 4, 05:54 PM
Sorry, but whether I have guns in my house with my kids is not anyones business but my own.
But when you have guns in your house with my kids it's your pediatrician's job to ask. Whether you choose to answer is your choice.
But when you have guns in your house with my kids it's your pediatrician's job to ask. Whether you choose to answer is your choice.
twoodcc
Jan 12, 12:19 AM
Steve Jobs has earned the right to be smug, you however, have not.
ha, that was pretty good. and true really...
they didn't release iwork and ilife probably b/c of Amazon putting it up on their website early
ha, that was pretty good. and true really...
they didn't release iwork and ilife probably b/c of Amazon putting it up on their website early
DeathChill
May 3, 10:07 PM
I think there's something magical and revolutionary about getting kidnapped by aliens and overpowered by machines. You just don't see that stuff happening too often in life, and we need to enjoy it when it happens.
Agreed. I really am upset that they leave out my favourite part though: rectal probing. Android commercials need more rectal probing.
Agreed. I really am upset that they leave out my favourite part though: rectal probing. Android commercials need more rectal probing.
MacFan26
Aug 10, 04:49 PM
w00t. I'll be buying a 23" real soon at the edu price. I'm excited! I was hoping they'd add built in iSight or the ability to use Front Row with it, but oh well, It'll be sweet to use with my powerbook. I doubt they'd update them soon, seems like they would have just released new ones with the Mac Pro if they were going to do that.
asxtb
Sep 12, 07:40 AM
In reality the whole 'Showtime' theme is really just to introduce a new movie staring Steve. :eek:
Markleshark
Sep 12, 08:49 AM
Um, Disney owns a ton of companies that don't make cartoons.
See, I thougt iToons was quite clever...
See, I thougt iToons was quite clever...
ChrisA
Sep 26, 11:52 AM
Ignore me if you wish, but I'm pretty sad about not getting the machine promised by the rumour mill. I'm happy for y'all with your updated photo software, but wouldn't you have liked it to be true that we'd get a nice new C2D MBP to use it on?
a C2D MBP would give you what? Maybe a 20% speed bump. I doubt you'd notice except if you used a stop watch. For photographers and Videographers I doubt C2D would bing even a 20% boost as their main bottleneck is the speed of the disk.
Try this experiment: Bring up Activity Monitor and see if the CPU is as 100% if it is not a faster CPU will do nothing for you. On a Mac the CPU is at 100% mostly when transcoding or redering, those tasks will go faster after the speed bump
My gues is that the code re-work inside Aperture will speed things up MUCH more than a C2D could.
a C2D MBP would give you what? Maybe a 20% speed bump. I doubt you'd notice except if you used a stop watch. For photographers and Videographers I doubt C2D would bing even a 20% boost as their main bottleneck is the speed of the disk.
Try this experiment: Bring up Activity Monitor and see if the CPU is as 100% if it is not a faster CPU will do nothing for you. On a Mac the CPU is at 100% mostly when transcoding or redering, those tasks will go faster after the speed bump
My gues is that the code re-work inside Aperture will speed things up MUCH more than a C2D could.
Muadib
Oct 3, 10:32 AM
V. L. C.
don't tell me you haven't use this magnificient software? (on mac, linux and win32)
don't tell me you haven't use this magnificient software? (on mac, linux and win32)
airforce1
May 2, 12:00 PM
Nothing is being removed they are changing the cache limit. And do you really think Apple is tracking 120+ million users....
unless you where asleep, every single device was tracked, whether or not Apple themselves collected the info is like asking if the CIA eavesdrops on every single US citizen, answer is no, but the history of the devices unique ID, locations can help connect via remote desktop and collect political views, which was what Apple is really been questioned about by Congress,
Who ever claims they have nothing to hide is full of BS, its not that you have anything to hide, access to the Unique Device ID can also help the perpetrator remotely use the device, internet, access bank and other private information with out the users knowledge, and they paid allot for the device unlike some of the free Social networking services who took advantages of bugs in the past until it was proven intentional to fish info too,
So until you accomplices prove what exactly was the purpose behind this with hardware and transitional data readings no one can say Apple is innocent, as it is they are due in court over year now and just mentioned today that they will respond to this, Maybe Steve was not sick after all and had a ball listening to Gates or Microsoft, or wall street taking the hike along with them.
unless you where asleep, every single device was tracked, whether or not Apple themselves collected the info is like asking if the CIA eavesdrops on every single US citizen, answer is no, but the history of the devices unique ID, locations can help connect via remote desktop and collect political views, which was what Apple is really been questioned about by Congress,
Who ever claims they have nothing to hide is full of BS, its not that you have anything to hide, access to the Unique Device ID can also help the perpetrator remotely use the device, internet, access bank and other private information with out the users knowledge, and they paid allot for the device unlike some of the free Social networking services who took advantages of bugs in the past until it was proven intentional to fish info too,
So until you accomplices prove what exactly was the purpose behind this with hardware and transitional data readings no one can say Apple is innocent, as it is they are due in court over year now and just mentioned today that they will respond to this, Maybe Steve was not sick after all and had a ball listening to Gates or Microsoft, or wall street taking the hike along with them.
geiger167
Sep 12, 06:43 AM
the distribution rights are totally different for movies.
when a tv show comes out in the us the uk channels buy the rights from the us companies and this often means we don't get the shows in the UK for ages. and they don't come to ITunes in uk as it would be for apple to negotiate this with the uk tv company like channel 4.
some films are released internationally at the same time and so are the DVDs thus there is no reason why these films can't be released on an ITMS in the US, UK and wherever else the DVD would be released worldwide on the same date.
my cousin's an itunes lawyer working nr regents street store in london so she was explaining about tv shows to me....i'll try find out about the probs with movies if indeed the ITMS is released today and not in the UK.
sound reasonable?
Yes understand what you are saying but movie distrubution outside USA is only likely to make the situation worse than the current TV show problems. For example a film distrubuted in America will very likely be distrubuted outside by a different Studio, making any foreign rights to show the movie even more complex. Also dvds generally are released much earlier in US than in europe so a movie available in US say tomorrow on a hypothecical US itunes may not be available to release for download for months on a EURO itunes even if there are no problems with the already mentions foreign distrubution rights. The only reason I complain about this situation is I am perfectly free to import region 1 dvds into the UK to watch for my own personal use (which I have done for many years) so why cant I download a movie or show from Itunes, what exactly is the difference using this example ? Also annoying is that in the UK 10 meg internet lines are now very common (and likely to increase in speed in the next 12 months) so the structure is there already for a download service to succeed (also in most EURO contires like Sweden who have led the way with internet connection speeds for years)
I'm still like a crack whore waiting for a fix anticipating the news though lol
when a tv show comes out in the us the uk channels buy the rights from the us companies and this often means we don't get the shows in the UK for ages. and they don't come to ITunes in uk as it would be for apple to negotiate this with the uk tv company like channel 4.
some films are released internationally at the same time and so are the DVDs thus there is no reason why these films can't be released on an ITMS in the US, UK and wherever else the DVD would be released worldwide on the same date.
my cousin's an itunes lawyer working nr regents street store in london so she was explaining about tv shows to me....i'll try find out about the probs with movies if indeed the ITMS is released today and not in the UK.
sound reasonable?
Yes understand what you are saying but movie distrubution outside USA is only likely to make the situation worse than the current TV show problems. For example a film distrubuted in America will very likely be distrubuted outside by a different Studio, making any foreign rights to show the movie even more complex. Also dvds generally are released much earlier in US than in europe so a movie available in US say tomorrow on a hypothecical US itunes may not be available to release for download for months on a EURO itunes even if there are no problems with the already mentions foreign distrubution rights. The only reason I complain about this situation is I am perfectly free to import region 1 dvds into the UK to watch for my own personal use (which I have done for many years) so why cant I download a movie or show from Itunes, what exactly is the difference using this example ? Also annoying is that in the UK 10 meg internet lines are now very common (and likely to increase in speed in the next 12 months) so the structure is there already for a download service to succeed (also in most EURO contires like Sweden who have led the way with internet connection speeds for years)
I'm still like a crack whore waiting for a fix anticipating the news though lol
snberk103
Apr 13, 12:03 PM
I would prefer the cheaper and more effective way; profiling.
Also, you can't say security has been working well-- look at the number of incidences of things going through security accidentally via negligence (knives, guns, etc)-- while there's no official numbers, the anecdotal evidence is quite moving.
Actually, there is documented evidence (which I'm not going to look up, because it supports your contention). The TSA does publish numbers (though buried deep in their reports) on the number of times undercover agents are able to slip weapons through security on training/testing runs. The number is quite high, if you look at it in a "Sky is falling way". But that is the incomplete picture.
Suppose, just for argument's sake, you actually have a 50/50 chance of slipping something through security. Is that "good enough" to mount an operation? Consider that there are at least a dozen people involved, to support just one operative. You can try to separate them into cells - but that doesn't mean that they are entirely hidden... it just gives them time to try to escape while their links are followed. Plus, there is a lot of money involved.
Do you risk those 12 people, plus a large chunk of scarce resources, on a venture that only has a 50/50 chance of getting something onto the plane. (we haven't even considered that most bombs on planes lately have not gone off properly, eg. shoe bomber and underwear bomber)... or that if the intent is to forcibly take over the plane there might be sky marshall - or just a plane load of passengers who are not going to sit idly by.
So you try and reduce that risk by making the plan more "fool proof" and sophisticated - but this adds complexity ...and complex things/plans breakdown and require more resources and more people. More people means adding people with doubts, and the chances of leaking. Plus more resources, which brings attention to the operation. And as you add more people and resources, the "downside" to being caught gets bigger, so you try to reduce that risk by making it even more "foolproof".
If you are one of the 12+ people supporting the operative, and you have a 50/50 chance of being caught and spending a very long and nasty session in jail - even before you get your day in court - and you have no chance of the "ultimate reward" .... don't you think you might start having doubts, and talking to people? Sometimes the wrong people?
I don't buy for a minute all of the stories of traffic cops stopping a car for a routine check and finding "bad things" that were going to be used. The intelligence services have, imho, a pretty good idea of what is happening in these groups, and use these innocent looking traffic stops (and other coincidental discoveries) so that their undercover agents aren't suspected.
That is the value, imo, of the security checks. The barriers are are high enough to get the "bad" operations big and cumbersome, and to make the plans too complex to escape notice by the authorities. It's the planning and organization of getting past the security checks that the authorities are looking for. Once that "bad thing" is in the airport, the authorities have already lost most of the game. Then the security screening is just a last ditch attempt to catch something.
The real danger is the single lone-wolf person with a grudge, who hasn't planned in advance, and doesn't really care if they get caught. They have a 50/50 chance of getting through because the only security layer at that point is the security checkpoint. The intelligence services will not have picked them up, nor will the no-fly list incidentally.
.... all of this is just mho, of course..... read the later john lecarre though, for more chilling details....
Also, you can't say security has been working well-- look at the number of incidences of things going through security accidentally via negligence (knives, guns, etc)-- while there's no official numbers, the anecdotal evidence is quite moving.
Actually, there is documented evidence (which I'm not going to look up, because it supports your contention). The TSA does publish numbers (though buried deep in their reports) on the number of times undercover agents are able to slip weapons through security on training/testing runs. The number is quite high, if you look at it in a "Sky is falling way". But that is the incomplete picture.
Suppose, just for argument's sake, you actually have a 50/50 chance of slipping something through security. Is that "good enough" to mount an operation? Consider that there are at least a dozen people involved, to support just one operative. You can try to separate them into cells - but that doesn't mean that they are entirely hidden... it just gives them time to try to escape while their links are followed. Plus, there is a lot of money involved.
Do you risk those 12 people, plus a large chunk of scarce resources, on a venture that only has a 50/50 chance of getting something onto the plane. (we haven't even considered that most bombs on planes lately have not gone off properly, eg. shoe bomber and underwear bomber)... or that if the intent is to forcibly take over the plane there might be sky marshall - or just a plane load of passengers who are not going to sit idly by.
So you try and reduce that risk by making the plan more "fool proof" and sophisticated - but this adds complexity ...and complex things/plans breakdown and require more resources and more people. More people means adding people with doubts, and the chances of leaking. Plus more resources, which brings attention to the operation. And as you add more people and resources, the "downside" to being caught gets bigger, so you try to reduce that risk by making it even more "foolproof".
If you are one of the 12+ people supporting the operative, and you have a 50/50 chance of being caught and spending a very long and nasty session in jail - even before you get your day in court - and you have no chance of the "ultimate reward" .... don't you think you might start having doubts, and talking to people? Sometimes the wrong people?
I don't buy for a minute all of the stories of traffic cops stopping a car for a routine check and finding "bad things" that were going to be used. The intelligence services have, imho, a pretty good idea of what is happening in these groups, and use these innocent looking traffic stops (and other coincidental discoveries) so that their undercover agents aren't suspected.
That is the value, imo, of the security checks. The barriers are are high enough to get the "bad" operations big and cumbersome, and to make the plans too complex to escape notice by the authorities. It's the planning and organization of getting past the security checks that the authorities are looking for. Once that "bad thing" is in the airport, the authorities have already lost most of the game. Then the security screening is just a last ditch attempt to catch something.
The real danger is the single lone-wolf person with a grudge, who hasn't planned in advance, and doesn't really care if they get caught. They have a 50/50 chance of getting through because the only security layer at that point is the security checkpoint. The intelligence services will not have picked them up, nor will the no-fly list incidentally.
.... all of this is just mho, of course..... read the later john lecarre though, for more chilling details....
aristobrat
Oct 6, 06:32 PM
I think the biggest problem is when Apple had the chance to change the game by not doing subizided cost they instead give in and just make it worse by forcing a much larger than average subsudize on there phone ($400 vs $250).
Unlock phones puts the network and the phone separete.
I'm not sure why you think Apple's original iPhone sales model was changing the game.
The customer paid the full price of the iPhone, the iPhone was still locked to a specific carrier, and the carrier agreed to pay Apple monthly for every iPhone customer they had.
On top of that, AT&T created a special, cheaper data plan to lure customers in, as the full-priced phone was very off-putting to some.
Sounds like the original iPhone ended up costing AT&T more than the subsidy on the iPhone 3G/3GS did.
And why did Apple change its original sales model? Because they weren't selling nearly as fast as Apple had hoped.
I agree with you that being able to buy any phone and have it work on any network would be awesome. Logistically, I just don't ever see it happening.
Unlock phones puts the network and the phone separete.
I'm not sure why you think Apple's original iPhone sales model was changing the game.
The customer paid the full price of the iPhone, the iPhone was still locked to a specific carrier, and the carrier agreed to pay Apple monthly for every iPhone customer they had.
On top of that, AT&T created a special, cheaper data plan to lure customers in, as the full-priced phone was very off-putting to some.
Sounds like the original iPhone ended up costing AT&T more than the subsidy on the iPhone 3G/3GS did.
And why did Apple change its original sales model? Because they weren't selling nearly as fast as Apple had hoped.
I agree with you that being able to buy any phone and have it work on any network would be awesome. Logistically, I just don't ever see it happening.
ctdonath
Sep 29, 09:07 AM
Thats not apart of what a home should be. Homes are for eating, sleeping, loving, and relaxing. A screening room is for... Well, none of those.
Nicely put. I follow the "no TV in the bedroom" rule for similar reasons (that room is for two things); will now extend the rule accordingly and start planning for the next house with suitable layout.
Nicely put. I follow the "no TV in the bedroom" rule for similar reasons (that room is for two things); will now extend the rule accordingly and start planning for the next house with suitable layout.
Ironduke
Apr 15, 02:35 PM
If its Metal wifi & 3G would suck
notabadname
Apr 16, 12:24 PM
It's hard to know what features Apple wouldn't have included in the latest gen of a product if it hadn't been for competition. Maybe iPad 2 wouldn't have had the improved GPU if it had zero competing products.
One thing I'm certain of, iOS would still not have had personal hot spot if it hadn't been for the competition from Android.
This argument is flawed IMO, because, even in a vacuum of competition, Apple is going to advance the product line each year for the purpose of upgrading customers. The business model doesn't work, even in the absence of competition, to allow a product line to become static. To think that Apple wouldn't add features, make it faster, sleeker, lighter, etc is flawed. Even with no competition, there would have been an iPad 2. They are all about selling products, every year. And a lot of that consumer base is in existing customers - they've gotta keep us reinvesting in the product. And it would have to have significant improvements for people like me to trade version 1 for it.
One thing I'm certain of, iOS would still not have had personal hot spot if it hadn't been for the competition from Android.
This argument is flawed IMO, because, even in a vacuum of competition, Apple is going to advance the product line each year for the purpose of upgrading customers. The business model doesn't work, even in the absence of competition, to allow a product line to become static. To think that Apple wouldn't add features, make it faster, sleeker, lighter, etc is flawed. Even with no competition, there would have been an iPad 2. They are all about selling products, every year. And a lot of that consumer base is in existing customers - they've gotta keep us reinvesting in the product. And it would have to have significant improvements for people like me to trade version 1 for it.
twoodcc
May 17, 10:48 AM
Sure did, all 5 of my rigs have a passkey now.
ok good
ok good
slb
Oct 29, 01:53 AM
Emagic already had the security dongle in place when Apple bought Logic from them. Apple just made it white and put their logo on it.
Emagic's employees are now Apple employees.
Again with the physical example fallacy. We're talking about information here. It has no intrinsic value. This means that if I steal it, you still have it.
This, too, is a tired argument. Of course it has intrinsic value; it's called "intellectual property." My example was meant to illustrate how ridiculous it is to expect Apple to just trust people to run out and buy a Mac just because they pirated OS X, as though you'd let people drive a Lamborghini on the honor system.
When you pirate digital information, you're still stealing indirectly by depriving the author of payment. In other words, you're stealing revenues owed to them, especially if you do it off a P2P network where your shared files are distributed to others and spread the piracy. Just because computers provide a method of perfect duplication of a product doesn't magically mean you have the right to freeload it and not pay someone for their work.
I'm so tired of these sorts of Slashdot-esque positions on piracy and intellectual property.
Emagic's employees are now Apple employees.
Again with the physical example fallacy. We're talking about information here. It has no intrinsic value. This means that if I steal it, you still have it.
This, too, is a tired argument. Of course it has intrinsic value; it's called "intellectual property." My example was meant to illustrate how ridiculous it is to expect Apple to just trust people to run out and buy a Mac just because they pirated OS X, as though you'd let people drive a Lamborghini on the honor system.
When you pirate digital information, you're still stealing indirectly by depriving the author of payment. In other words, you're stealing revenues owed to them, especially if you do it off a P2P network where your shared files are distributed to others and spread the piracy. Just because computers provide a method of perfect duplication of a product doesn't magically mean you have the right to freeload it and not pay someone for their work.
I'm so tired of these sorts of Slashdot-esque positions on piracy and intellectual property.
darkwing
Mar 23, 11:00 AM
This is awesome, rt! And I was seriously just about to head over to paypal to send my $5, too. :P
Keep us posted! And MAKE SURE you keep details logs (even if it's on paper) of the date/times you notice these things. Also, you need to make sure that you take a picture of the house with the blue glow as well!
Keep us posted! And MAKE SURE you keep details logs (even if it's on paper) of the date/times you notice these things. Also, you need to make sure that you take a picture of the house with the blue glow as well!
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét