dukebound85
Jan 10, 09:35 PM
Wow- imagine if someone had the button pressing capability of shifting to Steve's next slide during his keynote. He's building suspense, toying with us, and bam. Revealed. On to next slide, hold, next slide, finally A/V guy turns projector off.
No SDK for you! 1 year!
i would be a tad upset
No SDK for you! 1 year!
i would be a tad upset
Calidude
Apr 16, 04:46 PM
Conflict? The only conflict I see is your ilk trying to ignore the facts of life. Some people are gay. Deal with it, it's not hurting anyone.
People being gay and then teaching children gay history are 2 different things. I'm afraid that one is an affront that should not be tolerated by any good parent. I'd advise those parents to just pull their kids out of the public school system, which they should have never put their kid into in the first place.
People being gay and then teaching children gay history are 2 different things. I'm afraid that one is an affront that should not be tolerated by any good parent. I'd advise those parents to just pull their kids out of the public school system, which they should have never put their kid into in the first place.
Jaymes
Jan 15, 01:46 PM
Okay, MWSF 2007 was all about the iPhone, and anyone interested in Macs had to go somewhere else to find entertainment ...
Hmm, I'm interested in Macs, and I thought the new MacBook Air looked pretty cool. Maybe I was just seeing things weird out of my glass eye.
Hmm, I'm interested in Macs, and I thought the new MacBook Air looked pretty cool. Maybe I was just seeing things weird out of my glass eye.
york2600
Oct 28, 07:49 PM
Whenever I hear the OSS crowd scream "Software should be FREE!" I translate that to mean "I refuse to pay someone for their work, thus I will STEAL it"!
A) It's not the OSS community that's trying to crack Apple's DRM. Lets get that straight. These people have nothing to do with that community. These guys are just pirates using the source that is out there.
B) If anyone is trying to get software without paying anyone for it, that would be corporate America. Do you really think Apple could have created OS X on their own. Let us remember the HUGE amount of code in OS X that isn't Apple's and the open standards the have leveraged. Right off the bat we have the Mach kernel project, Apache, and Samba and Webkit (KHTML). Apple's gotten tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of free programming hours from top programmers. They've packaged it together with an amazing API and a slick GUI and made it easy. That's something the OSS community still can't get close to. In return Apple has given a limited amount back. They release source in their own license (as they have a right to), which limits the ability of other projects to incorporate that code. In the end for all this free work they have to deal with a few crackers out there, but really, that's worth it when you look at what they got.
A) It's not the OSS community that's trying to crack Apple's DRM. Lets get that straight. These people have nothing to do with that community. These guys are just pirates using the source that is out there.
B) If anyone is trying to get software without paying anyone for it, that would be corporate America. Do you really think Apple could have created OS X on their own. Let us remember the HUGE amount of code in OS X that isn't Apple's and the open standards the have leveraged. Right off the bat we have the Mach kernel project, Apache, and Samba and Webkit (KHTML). Apple's gotten tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of free programming hours from top programmers. They've packaged it together with an amazing API and a slick GUI and made it easy. That's something the OSS community still can't get close to. In return Apple has given a limited amount back. They release source in their own license (as they have a right to), which limits the ability of other projects to incorporate that code. In the end for all this free work they have to deal with a few crackers out there, but really, that's worth it when you look at what they got.
ericschmerick
Sep 28, 12:25 PM
Aperture runs fine on my MBP 15" 2.0ghz. I have 2GB of ram, and I've definitely noticed that it'll use almost all of it. After 1 hr or so of working with images, I've seen it using 1.5GB+ of ram. So I suspect if you're running it with 1GB, you're missing out on some level of performance.
I agree, the rotate/straighten tool sucks hard. I've found that it's really hard to move the mouse precisely enough, and the click buttons on each side go up/down by 1 degree! Too much for each step.
I think the thing I love more than anything is not having an intermediate format. Working directly with RAW, and just leaving everything in that format until I'm ready to output, is terrific. I'm not a huge photoshopper, so once an image is sharpened, straightened, and levels adjusted, I'm usually done. So I'm not outputting a TIFF and bouncing into PS much. That might make a big difference in how you think about the value of aperture. I can't even imagine managing a whole separate collection of TIFFs, like I used to, now that I'm working directly with RAW.
The actual RAW "conversion" (if it can still be called that) and adjustment process, for me, is about the same speed than C1 or PS was. I have iView Pro as well with well over 10,000 images in databases, and it's terrific, but I'm not using it any more.
EE
http://www.essersinchina.com/
I agree, the rotate/straighten tool sucks hard. I've found that it's really hard to move the mouse precisely enough, and the click buttons on each side go up/down by 1 degree! Too much for each step.
I think the thing I love more than anything is not having an intermediate format. Working directly with RAW, and just leaving everything in that format until I'm ready to output, is terrific. I'm not a huge photoshopper, so once an image is sharpened, straightened, and levels adjusted, I'm usually done. So I'm not outputting a TIFF and bouncing into PS much. That might make a big difference in how you think about the value of aperture. I can't even imagine managing a whole separate collection of TIFFs, like I used to, now that I'm working directly with RAW.
The actual RAW "conversion" (if it can still be called that) and adjustment process, for me, is about the same speed than C1 or PS was. I have iView Pro as well with well over 10,000 images in databases, and it's terrific, but I'm not using it any more.
EE
http://www.essersinchina.com/
Kapangas
Apr 25, 01:48 PM
Did anyone else notice the apparent lack of a search icon next to the homescreen page indicator?
It does kinda remind me of this: http://www.macrumors.com/2011/04/19/video-of-64-gb-white-iphone-4-running-old-test-ios-4-build-with-expose/
This was proven to be an older build of iOS4 though, so I'm not sure what to make out of it. :/
I noticed it too! Maybe it's true and they're testing that new multitasking for iOS 5? :confused:
It does kinda remind me of this: http://www.macrumors.com/2011/04/19/video-of-64-gb-white-iphone-4-running-old-test-ios-4-build-with-expose/
This was proven to be an older build of iOS4 though, so I'm not sure what to make out of it. :/
I noticed it too! Maybe it's true and they're testing that new multitasking for iOS 5? :confused:
TheUndertow
Apr 25, 12:42 PM
I would LOL if it stood for iPhone 4S(print).
Counterfit
Aug 8, 12:03 AM
You can't fill up your tank by engine braking in an internal combustion motor. ;) :(
Edge100
Oct 20, 02:22 PM
Oh, I dunno, perhaps acquire some more companies? You know, like TiVo - with its valuable IP - for an easy $400 million. Or pump it into R&D. Or a stake in Nintendo or Sony. Or acquire the EMI Music Group (for $1 billion) as a buffer against the other RIAA members pressuring for an increase in the iTunes Store pricing. Or finally pay off Apple Records once and for all. Those are several things Apple could do* with that $10 billion that could be more useful than artificially boosting the stock by paying out an expensive dividend to grumpy shareholders.
Heck, maybe they could go all-solar on the Apple campus like what Google is doing.
*My personal favorite idea would be for Apple to acquire Atari dirt-cheap. This would give Apple a large library of classic titles that could be ported to the iPod, not to mention giving Apple a brand that could be used to pump out OS X "compatible" computers geared towards gamers in order to boost gaming on OS X overall and a means at gunning after Dell-owned Alienware and Dell's own XPS line.
I whole-heartedly agree with this.
Apple should be buying up companies, but only those that can give it some actual edge in competitive markets.
I'll give you three examples:
1) Adobe, for obvious reasons. This probably wont happen, but just imagine if it did!
2) EMI Music Group. This would be HUGE, but I'm not sure Apple has the cash. It might not even be legal, given the Apple (Computer) vs. Apple (Corps...the Beatles) stuff. What's even more odd is that EMI OWNS the master recordings of the Beatles.
3) Digidesign. This is the most likely, and probably the best bet for Apple. In case people don't know, Digidesign makes ProTools software and hardware. ProTools is the Photoshop of the audio production world; EVERYONE uses it. Apple already owns Emagic, which made Logic. The purchase of Digidesign would be a massive coup for Apple, and make it the undisputed champ of the pro audio world. And if you think this is a relatively small market, you're wrong. Nearly every movie is recorded/mixed in ProTools (with some people using either Nuendo or Digital Performer). I would LOVE to see Apple buy Digidesign, kill ProTools on Windows, and make a truly top-notch audio solution.
Forget about paying dividends; people are making enough money on Apple stock. Apple needs to think about how to turn its $10 billion in cash into $50 billion in cash. And the way to do that is to grow. Buy up companies!!!
Heck, maybe they could go all-solar on the Apple campus like what Google is doing.
*My personal favorite idea would be for Apple to acquire Atari dirt-cheap. This would give Apple a large library of classic titles that could be ported to the iPod, not to mention giving Apple a brand that could be used to pump out OS X "compatible" computers geared towards gamers in order to boost gaming on OS X overall and a means at gunning after Dell-owned Alienware and Dell's own XPS line.
I whole-heartedly agree with this.
Apple should be buying up companies, but only those that can give it some actual edge in competitive markets.
I'll give you three examples:
1) Adobe, for obvious reasons. This probably wont happen, but just imagine if it did!
2) EMI Music Group. This would be HUGE, but I'm not sure Apple has the cash. It might not even be legal, given the Apple (Computer) vs. Apple (Corps...the Beatles) stuff. What's even more odd is that EMI OWNS the master recordings of the Beatles.
3) Digidesign. This is the most likely, and probably the best bet for Apple. In case people don't know, Digidesign makes ProTools software and hardware. ProTools is the Photoshop of the audio production world; EVERYONE uses it. Apple already owns Emagic, which made Logic. The purchase of Digidesign would be a massive coup for Apple, and make it the undisputed champ of the pro audio world. And if you think this is a relatively small market, you're wrong. Nearly every movie is recorded/mixed in ProTools (with some people using either Nuendo or Digital Performer). I would LOVE to see Apple buy Digidesign, kill ProTools on Windows, and make a truly top-notch audio solution.
Forget about paying dividends; people are making enough money on Apple stock. Apple needs to think about how to turn its $10 billion in cash into $50 billion in cash. And the way to do that is to grow. Buy up companies!!!
Belly-laughs
Oct 11, 05:39 AM
�
I don't know about the specs or prices, but new and better iPods could kill Zune in it's first season, before m$ completes the lineup with more players and devices.
It may kill the first iteration of the Zune, but MS has stated it�s a multiple years effort � they acknowledge it�s going to be hard to beat the iPod bastion, and if at all possible it will take time. But, I suspect Apple have plenty of different prototypes in their labs, ready to be launched to complement new market demands.
I don't know about the specs or prices, but new and better iPods could kill Zune in it's first season, before m$ completes the lineup with more players and devices.
It may kill the first iteration of the Zune, but MS has stated it�s a multiple years effort � they acknowledge it�s going to be hard to beat the iPod bastion, and if at all possible it will take time. But, I suspect Apple have plenty of different prototypes in their labs, ready to be launched to complement new market demands.
Ommid
Apr 25, 01:11 PM
Define ftw? :apple:
For the win...
For the win...
kdarling
Oct 6, 11:35 PM
Seriously, what is it with verizon?! They didn't want they iphone b/c it came with features out the box that Apple wasn't going to cripple so verizon could charge their premiums for it..
Well if Verizon hadn't been so crazy to try to corn hole Apple over the features of the iPhone and cause Apple to walk from the discussions, it would be a nearly bankrupt AT&T with their nose pressed against the glass saying that the iPhone sucks...
You might want to read articles like this one (http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/07/01/29/verizon_passed_on_exclusive_5_year_iphone_deal.html).
It was Apple that wanted extra control and money. And they didn't walk away for a very lonnng time. They spent a year, off and on, trying to get Verizon to agree to their terms.
There was no animosity. No fights. None of the fantasy drama you read about on fanboy sites.
Verizon almost certainly never even saw an iPhone. (Even ATT didn't until months later.) Perhaps if they had, things could've turned out differently.
Well if Verizon hadn't been so crazy to try to corn hole Apple over the features of the iPhone and cause Apple to walk from the discussions, it would be a nearly bankrupt AT&T with their nose pressed against the glass saying that the iPhone sucks...
You might want to read articles like this one (http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/07/01/29/verizon_passed_on_exclusive_5_year_iphone_deal.html).
It was Apple that wanted extra control and money. And they didn't walk away for a very lonnng time. They spent a year, off and on, trying to get Verizon to agree to their terms.
There was no animosity. No fights. None of the fantasy drama you read about on fanboy sites.
Verizon almost certainly never even saw an iPhone. (Even ATT didn't until months later.) Perhaps if they had, things could've turned out differently.
Adidas Addict
Apr 25, 01:36 PM
I don't understand people who think the next iPhone should be called 4S (and some think 4GS, wth?)
I think the reason why Apple called the current generation iPhone 4 because it's the 4th iPhone. Just because they tacked on an 'S' at the end of 3G doesn't mean the next should be 4S.
And even if they DID call it the 4S, the iPhone after that would be iPhone 6, not 5...
Don't you agree?
If it keeps the same design/form factor it will be named the 4*/4** if it's a totally new design it will be iPhone 5.
I think the reason why Apple called the current generation iPhone 4 because it's the 4th iPhone. Just because they tacked on an 'S' at the end of 3G doesn't mean the next should be 4S.
And even if they DID call it the 4S, the iPhone after that would be iPhone 6, not 5...
Don't you agree?
If it keeps the same design/form factor it will be named the 4*/4** if it's a totally new design it will be iPhone 5.
Eidorian
Nov 16, 07:58 PM
It's quite simple. AMD bought ATI. If Apple wants to use ATI GPUs in their computer, then I guess they have to talk to AMD now (at least for pricing, orders, etc).That sounds much more likely.
roadbloc
Apr 6, 06:09 PM
How can we compare a Dev Preview to something that doesn't even exist yet? :rolleyes:
door4
Sep 12, 08:30 AM
Is this new?
http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/wo/2.RSLID?mco=34809CF6&nplm=TH578LL%2FA
http://store.apple.com/Catalog/US/Images/th578lla_alt.jpg
It's recent.. The sys displays the Ipod menu on the TV for "media center" style browsing
http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/wo/2.RSLID?mco=34809CF6&nplm=TH578LL%2FA
http://store.apple.com/Catalog/US/Images/th578lla_alt.jpg
It's recent.. The sys displays the Ipod menu on the TV for "media center" style browsing
iBug2
Apr 30, 10:04 PM
Me and most everyone I know owns a truck..
Weird, I don't know anyone who owns a truck. But that's irrelevant anyway. You can't really think that there are as many trucks as there are automobiles around. :)
Weird, I don't know anyone who owns a truck. But that's irrelevant anyway. You can't really think that there are as many trucks as there are automobiles around. :)
arn
Sep 12, 12:19 AM
If it's just Disney, then there's not much point. The reason iTMS succeeded from the start was that it was simple and it had the largest library from which you could purchase single songs. If the iTunes Movie store starts with just Disney movies, then it's dead in the water. Let's just hope that ThinkSecret is wrong again, as usual.
It's not just thinksecret that's reporting this.
It's not just thinksecret that's reporting this.
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....
ghostlyorb
Apr 16, 07:03 AM
I feel like Apple will be in the lead for quite sometime!
KnightWRX
Apr 28, 09:42 AM
So, please don't take everything I typed and generalize it, because it's not for everyone.
I do understand where Dejo, Balamw and the others are coming from though. And frankly, they are probably better suited to help you than I am. I don't have a lot of experience with Objective-C and Cocoa, not like they do, having mostly come into it recently.
Back to the code, here is a photo of my connections (ignore canceBigtimer). What you say is true I don't know how NSTimer works entirely , just some parts, I realize that and it is one of the reason I postpone my timer for a future update (need to study it).
I have two timers, because, like I said.. I don't have full knowledge of timers. I know now that 1 timer is enough, even if I use two timers and start them at the same time, the log only shows 1 loop and the countdown in separate labels show e.g. 59 in one and 58 in another and so on.
Ok, how about we work on making 1 timer work then ? The code you posted is very complicated and I don't think it has to be this complicated. Going 1 timer would simplify this.
I see your Start Button is associated to 3 actions. Is this really what you want ? Let's simplify this. As an exercise, make 1 method, call it startTimer (like I did) and have only that action associated with your start button. From there, you can call the other methods yourself as needed.
Once you have modified the code in this way, post again what you have in full, what it is doing and what you think it should be doing. We'll go from there.
You mention my two global variables, It makes sense that the timer does not stop because the variables are outside the method that creates the timer. is that whats going on?
No, the variables are "fine" where they are. They would be better positionned in the @interface block and declared as instance variables, but implementation scope globals work too.
What you need to do however is reset those if you want your timer to start back at 0. Somewhere in your "stop/reset" code, there needs to be an initialization of those back to 0 :
seconds = 0;
minutes = 0;
If your Cancel button is what should reset it, then this should be right now in newActionTimer. But ideally, we'll get rid of that function when you simplify the code down to 1 timer.
Look at my NSLog outputs in my screenshot earlier. There's 3 methods there. updateLabel, cancelTimer, startTimer. This should have given you a big indication of how not complicated you should have made this.
If you want 3 buttons, start, reset, stop, you'd technically need 4 methods, as follows :
-(IBAction) startTimer: (id) sender;
-(IBAction) stopTimer: (id) sender;
-(IBAction) resetTimer: (id) sender;
-(void) updateLabel;
One to update the label as needed, one to start the timer, one to stop it and one to reset it.
Also, NSTimer is not your timer. The timer is what you are creating with ATimerViewController. You need to grasp this. NSTimer simply calls methods, in this case, it should be update label. That's about all it should be doing. Both the stop and reset methods should release the NSTimer object instance. startTimer should always create a new one. However, reset should be the one to set back seconds/minutes to 0.
I do understand where Dejo, Balamw and the others are coming from though. And frankly, they are probably better suited to help you than I am. I don't have a lot of experience with Objective-C and Cocoa, not like they do, having mostly come into it recently.
Back to the code, here is a photo of my connections (ignore canceBigtimer). What you say is true I don't know how NSTimer works entirely , just some parts, I realize that and it is one of the reason I postpone my timer for a future update (need to study it).
I have two timers, because, like I said.. I don't have full knowledge of timers. I know now that 1 timer is enough, even if I use two timers and start them at the same time, the log only shows 1 loop and the countdown in separate labels show e.g. 59 in one and 58 in another and so on.
Ok, how about we work on making 1 timer work then ? The code you posted is very complicated and I don't think it has to be this complicated. Going 1 timer would simplify this.
I see your Start Button is associated to 3 actions. Is this really what you want ? Let's simplify this. As an exercise, make 1 method, call it startTimer (like I did) and have only that action associated with your start button. From there, you can call the other methods yourself as needed.
Once you have modified the code in this way, post again what you have in full, what it is doing and what you think it should be doing. We'll go from there.
You mention my two global variables, It makes sense that the timer does not stop because the variables are outside the method that creates the timer. is that whats going on?
No, the variables are "fine" where they are. They would be better positionned in the @interface block and declared as instance variables, but implementation scope globals work too.
What you need to do however is reset those if you want your timer to start back at 0. Somewhere in your "stop/reset" code, there needs to be an initialization of those back to 0 :
seconds = 0;
minutes = 0;
If your Cancel button is what should reset it, then this should be right now in newActionTimer. But ideally, we'll get rid of that function when you simplify the code down to 1 timer.
Look at my NSLog outputs in my screenshot earlier. There's 3 methods there. updateLabel, cancelTimer, startTimer. This should have given you a big indication of how not complicated you should have made this.
If you want 3 buttons, start, reset, stop, you'd technically need 4 methods, as follows :
-(IBAction) startTimer: (id) sender;
-(IBAction) stopTimer: (id) sender;
-(IBAction) resetTimer: (id) sender;
-(void) updateLabel;
One to update the label as needed, one to start the timer, one to stop it and one to reset it.
Also, NSTimer is not your timer. The timer is what you are creating with ATimerViewController. You need to grasp this. NSTimer simply calls methods, in this case, it should be update label. That's about all it should be doing. Both the stop and reset methods should release the NSTimer object instance. startTimer should always create a new one. However, reset should be the one to set back seconds/minutes to 0.
Aperture
Apr 4, 03:20 PM
In your car (Drive SLOW) take your computer (while the 360 is connected) and go up and down the street(s) recording where the signal drops off and the 360 disconnects. Then I would try to make SURE it is the house you think it is. Oh & perhaps you could post a screenshot of your street(s) from google earth, (just a picture, we dont need the address) so we can see where you are getting the strongest signals/etc. (see below for example)
Here is what I mean:
http://www.kevinschaefer.net/googlearth.jpg
Here is what I mean:
http://www.kevinschaefer.net/googlearth.jpg
Kenya
Oct 3, 01:10 PM
There should have been an option for MacBook Pro chip/case/features update. I would have voted for that one.
Clive At Five
Oct 3, 01:44 PM
Steve Jobs says "iRetire" and walks off.
hahahahahahahahah!
That's classic!
-Clive
hahahahahahahahah!
That's classic!
-Clive
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder