wlh99
Apr 27, 02:44 PM
Target is the object that the message is going to execute isn't it. For example, if it's self, that means that those parameters are for the timer object you just created. Please correct me if I'm wrong, I'm not trying to challenge your knowledge, just to learn as I go.
If you see my code before, I'm using NSDate for my timePicker. One favor, I'm not answering more quiz questions, I get your point.. I still need to learn more fundamentals.. I get it, just please contribute with the thread to find solutions or not.. (there are many Professional Forums).
If this were a "Professional Forum" I would just give you an answer. I want to know what you do and do not know, so I can help you learn it. So please don't take the questions as condescending, they will help us help you.
Think of objects as people, so to speak. Not only is the NSTimer an object, but so is your viewcontroller. So are the buttons. These objects know how to do things. These things they know how to do are methods. A message is an instruction for an object to do something.
cancelIt: is a method in your viewcontroller object, as are all the methods we have discussed. Then self would refer to the viewcontroller, not the timer. Self would refer to the timer if you had access to apples code that implemets the timer and you were modifiying that.
So a target is the object you are sending a message to. The message is the name of the method you want the object to execute.
[aTimer invalidate]; // tells the timer pointed to by aTimer to execute the invalidate method
When you press a button, a message is sent. The target and method are chosen when you make the connection in Interface Builder. In your case, the target is your viewcontroller, and the method is one of the start or cancel methods.
I asked the question becasue it is fundamental to what an NSTimer is/does.
An NSTimer sends a message to an object at regular intervals.
In your case, the NSTimer is telling your viewcontroller to execute the echoIt: every second. The important part is that your viewcontroller is an object, echoIt: is something your viewcontroller is doing (not the timer). You only have one viewcontroller, so anything it stores (for example seconds) will persit for any NSTimer you create.
Now look at the NSTimer documentation:
firing order chevy 350. Chevy 350 Firing Order; Chevy 350 Firing Order. Benjamins. Mar 31, 06:14 PM. I completely agree, but let#39;s be
firing order chevy 350. vortec
Chevy 350 Firing Order
The firing order for your
Chevrolet 350 Firing Order.
chevy 350 firing order -
firing order chevy 350. Chevrolet 350 Timing Marks; Chevrolet 350 Timing Marks. faustfire. Sep 13, 12:54 PM
Chevrolet 350 Firing Order.
firing order: 1–4–2–6–3–5
firing order chevy 350.
with your firing order for
firing order chevy 350. 350-Engine-Timing; 350 Chevy; 350-Engine-Timing; 350 Chevy. Multimedia. Aug 27, 04:03 PM
1993 chevy 350 firing order
firing order chevy 350. SBC Small Block Chevy Aluminum; SBC Small Block Chevy Aluminum. macfan881. Aug 6, 08:24 PM. I#39;m hoping for a major bombshell of an
Recent firing order chevy 350
in the firing order shown.
HO and 351 firing order
Re: 80 chevy 350 not getting
If you see my code before, I'm using NSDate for my timePicker. One favor, I'm not answering more quiz questions, I get your point.. I still need to learn more fundamentals.. I get it, just please contribute with the thread to find solutions or not.. (there are many Professional Forums).
If this were a "Professional Forum" I would just give you an answer. I want to know what you do and do not know, so I can help you learn it. So please don't take the questions as condescending, they will help us help you.
Think of objects as people, so to speak. Not only is the NSTimer an object, but so is your viewcontroller. So are the buttons. These objects know how to do things. These things they know how to do are methods. A message is an instruction for an object to do something.
cancelIt: is a method in your viewcontroller object, as are all the methods we have discussed. Then self would refer to the viewcontroller, not the timer. Self would refer to the timer if you had access to apples code that implemets the timer and you were modifiying that.
So a target is the object you are sending a message to. The message is the name of the method you want the object to execute.
[aTimer invalidate]; // tells the timer pointed to by aTimer to execute the invalidate method
When you press a button, a message is sent. The target and method are chosen when you make the connection in Interface Builder. In your case, the target is your viewcontroller, and the method is one of the start or cancel methods.
I asked the question becasue it is fundamental to what an NSTimer is/does.
An NSTimer sends a message to an object at regular intervals.
In your case, the NSTimer is telling your viewcontroller to execute the echoIt: every second. The important part is that your viewcontroller is an object, echoIt: is something your viewcontroller is doing (not the timer). You only have one viewcontroller, so anything it stores (for example seconds) will persit for any NSTimer you create.
Now look at the NSTimer documentation:
Winni
Mar 9, 06:39 AM
[QUOTE=Melrose;12072103They didn't make the first portable music player with the iPod - but they refined what was there, gave it a good interface[/QUOTE]
The Click Wheel interface was/is an abomination and exactly the opposite of a "good" interface. It's a horrible mess. The only usable iPod is the iPod Touch.
The Click Wheel interface was/is an abomination and exactly the opposite of a "good" interface. It's a horrible mess. The only usable iPod is the iPod Touch.
eric_n_dfw
Oct 28, 06:00 PM
APPLE, DO NOT MAKE THE SAME MISTAKE AGAIN!!!
Apple made a big mistake not licensing Mac OS 22 years ago allowing clones. Otherwise Mac OS X would be now the mainstream operating system.
Now history repeats. Apple has now the oppotunity to take over and beat Windows. But for that it is absolutely essential to allow Mac OS X to run on ANY PC out there.
Why does Apple make the same mistake?
Even more, if Apple would open Mac OS X completely including Aqua and give it for free as Linux, then Windows would be history in a few months!!!
Apple, are you listening?
I'd love to be able to legally install OS X on a Dell or build-it-myself PC, even it it wasn't $0, but Apple would tank in no time as they make the lion's share of their money selling hardware. Especially when Dell's can sell this cheap: Is one MacBook Pro C2D worth two Dells? (http://blog.dealnews.com/?p=75)
And, from the look AAPL stock prices lately, I'd say they are doing just fine making their current "same mistake" right now.
Apple made a big mistake not licensing Mac OS 22 years ago allowing clones. Otherwise Mac OS X would be now the mainstream operating system.
Now history repeats. Apple has now the oppotunity to take over and beat Windows. But for that it is absolutely essential to allow Mac OS X to run on ANY PC out there.
Why does Apple make the same mistake?
Even more, if Apple would open Mac OS X completely including Aqua and give it for free as Linux, then Windows would be history in a few months!!!
Apple, are you listening?
I'd love to be able to legally install OS X on a Dell or build-it-myself PC, even it it wasn't $0, but Apple would tank in no time as they make the lion's share of their money selling hardware. Especially when Dell's can sell this cheap: Is one MacBook Pro C2D worth two Dells? (http://blog.dealnews.com/?p=75)
And, from the look AAPL stock prices lately, I'd say they are doing just fine making their current "same mistake" right now.
xUKHCx
Jan 5, 11:55 AM
Cool i prefer to see the introduction gives it the wow factor rather than the mild excitment of reading the keynote.
snebes
Dec 13, 11:57 AM
Is this the same Verizon LTE network that takes about 2 minutes to handshake between the LTE and 3G network?
Yeah, that isn't happening.
Yeah, that isn't happening.
Rodimus Prime
Apr 11, 12:52 PM
only if W8 had a 32bit flavor. Otherwise, no. Apple prefers one flavor. At any rate, Apples motivation is to sell hardware so the push to update is always there. MS only cares about software.
umm my computer from 2004 could run Windows 8 (slowly but it could) because it does have a 64 bit processor in it. I also believe W8 is going to be 64 bit only. W7 was the last 32 bit OS.
umm my computer from 2004 could run Windows 8 (slowly but it could) because it does have a 64 bit processor in it. I also believe W8 is going to be 64 bit only. W7 was the last 32 bit OS.
JDOG_
Oct 17, 08:55 AM
Ick. This whole format war is nasty, but I guess I never understood why Apple decided to support blu-ray over HD-DVD. Seemed like they did it just to go against what Microsoft had chosen. The and the whole Steve wanting crippled hardware for another (his other) company's benefit over computer users...the whole situation stinks.
As a consumer I'm trying as hard as possible to sit this one out. :mad:
As a consumer I'm trying as hard as possible to sit this one out. :mad:
twoodcc
Oct 10, 05:44 PM
well i hope it's true. i'll believe it when i see it though
macFanDave
Aug 1, 11:55 AM
Denmark, Norway and Sweden are just about the happiest countries in the world. Taking the iTMS away from them ought to knock them down a few pegs!
GQB
Apr 16, 12:05 AM
Yes and Palm smartphones and Blackberries never existed before the iPhone.
Name anything that did not build upon previous knowledge.
The 'Apple hasn't invented anything' meme is such nonsense.
Making things usable and desired is probably the biggest invention possible.
And by that what do you mean. iPhones had little impact on phones like the BB Curve
Yeah... And how's that Curve doing?
Name anything that did not build upon previous knowledge.
The 'Apple hasn't invented anything' meme is such nonsense.
Making things usable and desired is probably the biggest invention possible.
And by that what do you mean. iPhones had little impact on phones like the BB Curve
Yeah... And how's that Curve doing?
tvguru
Sep 12, 08:45 AM
I reckon Wool-on-gong (spelt Wollongong) is waaay easier to say than Okanagan or Saskatchewan. And yes, I say Saskatchewan properly.
Those are easier for me because I grew up with them. I can't even say the name of my street right in this country. :P Terowi, like what's that?
Anyways I degrees, this update better be for all stores since they are all down otherwise it'll be the first of a few disappointments of the evening.
Yes there will be disappointments we always shoot to high and feel cheated.
Those are easier for me because I grew up with them. I can't even say the name of my street right in this country. :P Terowi, like what's that?
Anyways I degrees, this update better be for all stores since they are all down otherwise it'll be the first of a few disappointments of the evening.
Yes there will be disappointments we always shoot to high and feel cheated.
Belly-laughs
Oct 3, 01:35 PM
I�m guessing we�ll see iTV coupled with iPod Hi-Fi wireless + iPod Hi-Fi mini satellites.
arn
Apr 27, 03:58 AM
Perhaps a little quick on the draw here but it isn't working for me. The boxes have gone but the actual voting buttons still take me back to the forum index page.
I have cleared my cache and logged out and back in again.
What version of IE are you on?
arn
I have cleared my cache and logged out and back in again.
What version of IE are you on?
arn
Machead III
Sep 12, 04:18 AM
would be but were on BST (GMT+1) matey.
t1me sux.
t1me sux.
Bistroengine
Apr 5, 06:04 PM
Yeah, I get it: Apple's iAd venture is doing really badly so they created this app to try to drum up some new business.
This app is vital if I want to be successful or wealthy? Huh?:confused:
hahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.........
Whoever spends their time looking at adverts is a lost cause and has no life. Seriously I think this is the most ridiculous thing apple has come up with.
Unfortunately, Clukas's quote above is a perfect example of how the majority of the board is reacting to this post. 'Lost cause', 'loser', 'moron', 'has no life' are all insults I've seen all over this posting. Incredibly immature and unnecessary if you ask me.
This app is vital if I want to be successful or wealthy? Huh?:confused:
hahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.........
Whoever spends their time looking at adverts is a lost cause and has no life. Seriously I think this is the most ridiculous thing apple has come up with.
Unfortunately, Clukas's quote above is a perfect example of how the majority of the board is reacting to this post. 'Lost cause', 'loser', 'moron', 'has no life' are all insults I've seen all over this posting. Incredibly immature and unnecessary if you ask me.
broken_keyboard
Sep 8, 09:18 AM
I felt embarrased for him, bobbing his head up and down swearing in front of that audience! I bet Steve was out back laughing his ass off. :)
SevenInchScrew
Apr 9, 01:12 PM
Nah. Native PDF support (import and export) was supposed to be a feature of Windows Vista but was pulled at the last minute because of Adobe's lawsuit threat. Apparently, Microsoft and Adobe have worked it out.
Ahh, I didn't realize it was intended that long ago. Now that it is an open standard, though, Adobe shouldn't really have much say in it now, right?
Ahh, I didn't realize it was intended that long ago. Now that it is an open standard, though, Adobe shouldn't really have much say in it now, right?
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....
arn
Oct 2, 04:32 PM
I'm surprised how many people are interpreting this wrong.
The point of this is that Amazon can go to this new company and license Fairplay-compatable DRM. That way they can sell movies/music on their website (Unbox) and sell it with DRM that is iPod/iTV/iTunes Compatible.
This could mean, for example, Napster could be iTunes/iPod compatible.
Or Vongo (unlimited movie downloads $9.95/month) could be iPod compatible.
Personally, I'm not sure how long it will go. Either Apple will shut them down (if legally capable) or simply start licensing Fairplay themselves and cut out the middleman (which could be an inadvertant positive result of this effort)
OR
[edit: as pointed out below, this is probably not possible]
Microsoft licenses it so Zune can play iTunes Music/Movie store content. That could be a huge boost for Zune.
arn
The point of this is that Amazon can go to this new company and license Fairplay-compatable DRM. That way they can sell movies/music on their website (Unbox) and sell it with DRM that is iPod/iTV/iTunes Compatible.
This could mean, for example, Napster could be iTunes/iPod compatible.
Or Vongo (unlimited movie downloads $9.95/month) could be iPod compatible.
Personally, I'm not sure how long it will go. Either Apple will shut them down (if legally capable) or simply start licensing Fairplay themselves and cut out the middleman (which could be an inadvertant positive result of this effort)
OR
[edit: as pointed out below, this is probably not possible]
Microsoft licenses it so Zune can play iTunes Music/Movie store content. That could be a huge boost for Zune.
arn
Cartoonkid
Oct 6, 12:38 PM
It was a good message until they stated "Before you pick a phone, pick a network." That would be valid in an iPhone-less world. They would still be selling us phones based on a spinning CGI rendering of a phone's outer shell. "Look! A plastic candy bar! You like candy, don't you? Then you'll love our rectangular phone! Brand new features like rounded edges and three colors!"
Apple changed the game. The device should now be the focus. The service should be an afterthought in the background.
+1
I had absolutely no issues with Verizon for over two years, but I ditched them in June to get an iPhone, rather than settle for a Crackberry.
And maybe it's because I live in SoCal, but apparently I'm one of the fortunate few (at least by the sounds of all the grumblings on MR) to have had no problems with AT&T. Admittedly, I don't make a ton of calls, but in the past 3 1/2 months, I've never had a single dropped call.
If Verizon started carrying the iPhone, the only thing that would make me leave AT&T is price.
Apple changed the game. The device should now be the focus. The service should be an afterthought in the background.
+1
I had absolutely no issues with Verizon for over two years, but I ditched them in June to get an iPhone, rather than settle for a Crackberry.
And maybe it's because I live in SoCal, but apparently I'm one of the fortunate few (at least by the sounds of all the grumblings on MR) to have had no problems with AT&T. Admittedly, I don't make a ton of calls, but in the past 3 1/2 months, I've never had a single dropped call.
If Verizon started carrying the iPhone, the only thing that would make me leave AT&T is price.
arn
Apr 22, 04:30 PM
Working on the IE issues.
arn
arn
pete0302
Jan 15, 02:02 PM
I am a Powerbook G4 user, and ready for a new computer. I was hoping that they would update the MacBook Pro, because I would definately buy one, but that doesn't look like thats going to happen anytime soon... ::mad:
Glideslope
Apr 25, 01:23 PM
Why are you so adamant that they will use 4S instead of 5?
-The 3GS had an identical appearance to the 3G, but with upgraded internals, hence the S.
-A 3.7" iPhone would not have an identical appearance to the iPhone 4 by virtue of the screen size alone, so there would be no reason to simply add an S.
-3G is a feature description, adding an S might make some sense there as it could also be considered a "feature description". 4 is a revision number, why would they add an S to that? 4.5 or 5 would make more sense.
-The iPhone 4 and iOS 4 were launched in the same time frame, it makes sense for the numbers on each to match up. What's next? iPhone 5 and iOS 5 of course. I don't know why they'd stray from matching revision numbers so quickly after finally achieving them.
-If they plan on calling the phone after this 6, why would they skip 5, which sounds like a bigger upgrade than 4S?
As far as I'm concerned, 4S is the least likely name possible for the next iPhone. iPhone 5, 4G (LTE), 4.5 (very unlikely), and plain "iPhone" all have a much greater chance than 4S (with 5 being the most likely). I just spent way to much time on this minor issue though.
The phone will be the 4s. The start of production of the CDMA phone in Aug 2010 threw everything off kilter.
The 4s will be a 4 with the 3.7 screen, and a A5 chip. That is it. Period.
The 5 will be out in 2012 with Qualcomms 2nd gen Dual Band Chip which will be ready early 2012. It will will be a complete redesign with LTE. My money is on some type of new chassis with a new hybrid aluminum. The back glass will be gone for sure.
Apple will then produce 1 World iPhone. 5,6,7,8,9.... all Global Phones. :apple:
-The 3GS had an identical appearance to the 3G, but with upgraded internals, hence the S.
-A 3.7" iPhone would not have an identical appearance to the iPhone 4 by virtue of the screen size alone, so there would be no reason to simply add an S.
-3G is a feature description, adding an S might make some sense there as it could also be considered a "feature description". 4 is a revision number, why would they add an S to that? 4.5 or 5 would make more sense.
-The iPhone 4 and iOS 4 were launched in the same time frame, it makes sense for the numbers on each to match up. What's next? iPhone 5 and iOS 5 of course. I don't know why they'd stray from matching revision numbers so quickly after finally achieving them.
-If they plan on calling the phone after this 6, why would they skip 5, which sounds like a bigger upgrade than 4S?
As far as I'm concerned, 4S is the least likely name possible for the next iPhone. iPhone 5, 4G (LTE), 4.5 (very unlikely), and plain "iPhone" all have a much greater chance than 4S (with 5 being the most likely). I just spent way to much time on this minor issue though.
The phone will be the 4s. The start of production of the CDMA phone in Aug 2010 threw everything off kilter.
The 4s will be a 4 with the 3.7 screen, and a A5 chip. That is it. Period.
The 5 will be out in 2012 with Qualcomms 2nd gen Dual Band Chip which will be ready early 2012. It will will be a complete redesign with LTE. My money is on some type of new chassis with a new hybrid aluminum. The back glass will be gone for sure.
Apple will then produce 1 World iPhone. 5,6,7,8,9.... all Global Phones. :apple:
usarioclave
Oct 4, 03:35 AM
A friend of a friend was told that they should wait until march for that shiny new iPod. Take it for what it is, an unsubstantiated rumor.
No comments:
Post a Comment