leekohler
Mar 4, 03:05 PM
Really? You don't believe in that whole 'teach a man to fish' crap?
I suppose you also think the solution to African starvation is sending them bags of rice, corn, wheat w/out teaching them to plant some?
The conservative side does not seem believe in the "teach a man to fish" crap. They talk about it, but rarely practice it. For them it's more like this, "Go learn to fish, and if you can't afford the education, too bad."
I suppose you also think the solution to African starvation is sending them bags of rice, corn, wheat w/out teaching them to plant some?
The conservative side does not seem believe in the "teach a man to fish" crap. They talk about it, but rarely practice it. For them it's more like this, "Go learn to fish, and if you can't afford the education, too bad."
MBHockey
Apr 29, 04:40 PM
wow, slow day??
theman5725
Nov 16, 02:59 PM
Apple just switched to Intel. Why would they go to AMD already?
ImAlwaysRight
Sep 12, 12:20 AM
More goodies, more disappointment. Woo-hoo! Bring it on.
wlh99
Apr 28, 10:08 AM
By the way, what's with 3rd person reference? the OP? you can call me Nekbeth or Chrystian, it's a lot more polite. Maybe you guys have a way to refer to someone , I don't know.
I appologize for that. I didn't recall your name. I was replying to KnightWRX, so I took a shorcut (original poster).
I won't do that any further.
I through together a simple program that I think does exactly as you want. It is a Mac version, but the different there is trival, and instead of a picker, it is a text field the user enters a time into for the timer duration. You will need to change the NSTextFields into UITextFields.
The bulk of the code is exactly what I posted before, but I modified the EchoIt method to work with an NSDate. I implemeted it in the appDelegate, and you are using your viewController. That doesn't change the code any, and your way is more correct.
I can email you the whole project as a zip if you want. It is about 2.5 meg. Just PM me your email address.
//
// timertestAppDelegate.m
// timertest
//
// Created by Warren Holybee on 4/27/11.
// Copyright 2011 Warren Holybee. All rights reserved.
//
#import "timertestAppDelegate.h"
@implementation timertestAppDelegate
@synthesize window, timeTextField, elapsedTimeTextField, timeLeftTextField;
- (void)applicationDidFinishLaunching:(NSNotification *)aNotification {
// Insert code here to initialize your application
}
-(IBAction)startButton:(id) sender {
// myTimer is declared in header file ...
if (myTimer!=nil) { // if the pointer already points to a timer, you don't want to
//create a second one without stoping and destroying the first
[myTimer invalidate];
[myTimer release];
[startDate release];
}
// Now that we know myTimer doesn't point to a timer already..
startDate = [[NSDate date] retain]; // remember what time this timer is created and started
// so we can calculate elapsed time later
NSTimeInterval myTimeInterval = 0.1; // How often the timer fires.
myTimer = [NSTimer scheduledTimerWithTimeInterval:myTimeInterval target:self selector:@selector(echoIt)
userInfo:nil repeats:YES];
[myTimer retain];
}
-(IBAction)cancelIt:(id) sender {
[myTimer invalidate];
[myTimer release]; // This timer is now gone, and you won't reuse it.
myTimer = nil;
}
-(void)echoIt {
NSDate *now = [[NSDate date] retain]; // Get the current time
NSTimeInterval elapsedTime = [now timeIntervalSinceDate:startDate]; // compare the current time to
[now release]; // our remembered time
NSLog(@"Elapsed Time = %.1f",elapsedTime); // log it and display it in a textField
[elapsedTimeTextField setStringValue:[NSString stringWithFormat:@"%.1f",elapsedTime]];
float timeValue = [timeTextField floatValue]; // timeValueTextField is where a user
// enters the countdown length
float timeLeft = timeValue - elapsedTime; // Calculate How much time is left.
NSLog(@"Time Left = %.1f",timeLeft); // log it and display it
[timeLeftTextField setStringValue:[NSString stringWithFormat:@"%.1f",timeLeft]];
if (timeLeft < 0) { // if the time is up, send "cancelIt:"
[self cancelIt:self]; // message to ourself.
}
}
@end
*edit:
If you like, later tonight I can show you how to do this as you first tried, by incrementing a seconds variable. Or wait for KnightWRX. My concern is accuracy of the timer. It might be off by several seconds after running an hour. That might not be an issue for your application, but you should be aware of it.
I appologize for that. I didn't recall your name. I was replying to KnightWRX, so I took a shorcut (original poster).
I won't do that any further.
I through together a simple program that I think does exactly as you want. It is a Mac version, but the different there is trival, and instead of a picker, it is a text field the user enters a time into for the timer duration. You will need to change the NSTextFields into UITextFields.
The bulk of the code is exactly what I posted before, but I modified the EchoIt method to work with an NSDate. I implemeted it in the appDelegate, and you are using your viewController. That doesn't change the code any, and your way is more correct.
I can email you the whole project as a zip if you want. It is about 2.5 meg. Just PM me your email address.
//
// timertestAppDelegate.m
// timertest
//
// Created by Warren Holybee on 4/27/11.
// Copyright 2011 Warren Holybee. All rights reserved.
//
#import "timertestAppDelegate.h"
@implementation timertestAppDelegate
@synthesize window, timeTextField, elapsedTimeTextField, timeLeftTextField;
- (void)applicationDidFinishLaunching:(NSNotification *)aNotification {
// Insert code here to initialize your application
}
-(IBAction)startButton:(id) sender {
// myTimer is declared in header file ...
if (myTimer!=nil) { // if the pointer already points to a timer, you don't want to
//create a second one without stoping and destroying the first
[myTimer invalidate];
[myTimer release];
[startDate release];
}
// Now that we know myTimer doesn't point to a timer already..
startDate = [[NSDate date] retain]; // remember what time this timer is created and started
// so we can calculate elapsed time later
NSTimeInterval myTimeInterval = 0.1; // How often the timer fires.
myTimer = [NSTimer scheduledTimerWithTimeInterval:myTimeInterval target:self selector:@selector(echoIt)
userInfo:nil repeats:YES];
[myTimer retain];
}
-(IBAction)cancelIt:(id) sender {
[myTimer invalidate];
[myTimer release]; // This timer is now gone, and you won't reuse it.
myTimer = nil;
}
-(void)echoIt {
NSDate *now = [[NSDate date] retain]; // Get the current time
NSTimeInterval elapsedTime = [now timeIntervalSinceDate:startDate]; // compare the current time to
[now release]; // our remembered time
NSLog(@"Elapsed Time = %.1f",elapsedTime); // log it and display it in a textField
[elapsedTimeTextField setStringValue:[NSString stringWithFormat:@"%.1f",elapsedTime]];
float timeValue = [timeTextField floatValue]; // timeValueTextField is where a user
// enters the countdown length
float timeLeft = timeValue - elapsedTime; // Calculate How much time is left.
NSLog(@"Time Left = %.1f",timeLeft); // log it and display it
[timeLeftTextField setStringValue:[NSString stringWithFormat:@"%.1f",timeLeft]];
if (timeLeft < 0) { // if the time is up, send "cancelIt:"
[self cancelIt:self]; // message to ourself.
}
}
@end
*edit:
If you like, later tonight I can show you how to do this as you first tried, by incrementing a seconds variable. Or wait for KnightWRX. My concern is accuracy of the timer. It might be off by several seconds after running an hour. That might not be an issue for your application, but you should be aware of it.
.gif "Friends Orkut Scrap Book,")
Surely
Apr 5, 09:10 PM
Okay, I've changed my mind....I downloaded this app, and now it's my most favorite app ever.:D
;)
;)
Mackilroy
Mar 21, 01:15 AM
Wow � that's insane. Hope you find it, man.
sammich
Apr 21, 10:56 AM
This was one of those 'always asked for but always denied for good reasons' features that everyone's been asking for. I guess now we get to find out if those fears come to light.
One thing though: we can't 'unvote'? I'm not familiar with other site's implementations so I'm not sure how it's done.
One thing though: we can't 'unvote'? I'm not familiar with other site's implementations so I'm not sure how it's done.
Gatesbasher
Mar 24, 08:13 PM
Pardon? Want to try that again?
I can't speak for him, but DOS was tolerable. No iteration of Windows has been. That's probably what he meant.
I can't speak for him, but DOS was tolerable. No iteration of Windows has been. That's probably what he meant.
djransom
Mar 17, 12:24 PM
With my flame suit on, i say this...
I might have done the same thing as the OP.
Regarding the kid, well, its probably a part time job for him. Furthermore, how much can BestBuy possibly be paying him? He could probably earn more if he worked else where. :)
Truth be told alot of people in this thread would've. People are quick to say what they will and won't do AFTER the situation, but had the opportunity presented not many would've passed on it.
I might have done the same thing as the OP.
Regarding the kid, well, its probably a part time job for him. Furthermore, how much can BestBuy possibly be paying him? He could probably earn more if he worked else where. :)
Truth be told alot of people in this thread would've. People are quick to say what they will and won't do AFTER the situation, but had the opportunity presented not many would've passed on it.
iSee
Jan 14, 01:03 PM
These are my predictions:
Macbook Nano:
12" Multitouch Screen
32gb Solid-state hard disk
3G mobile connectivity for wireless internet access
8 hour battery
Simply a tablet (eg. Macbook cut in half); Apple Style
Mac OS X leopard Multi-touch Edition
That's just what I was thinking (except no 3G--that would require getting a mobile operator involved. *maybe* as an option).
I think it will be based on the iPhone/Touch version of OS X, so no optical drive, period. Software is installed through iTunes (yeah, you are expected to have another Mac). However, media will synch wirelessly, AppleTV-style.
I'm also thinking the screen might be a little smaller. It's going to be light enough to hold and hand to someone else with one hand, even for pretty small people. Also, it *will* be called MacBook Air (sorry--I'm predicting, not saying what I *want* to see).
Macbook Nano:
12" Multitouch Screen
32gb Solid-state hard disk
3G mobile connectivity for wireless internet access
8 hour battery
Simply a tablet (eg. Macbook cut in half); Apple Style
Mac OS X leopard Multi-touch Edition
That's just what I was thinking (except no 3G--that would require getting a mobile operator involved. *maybe* as an option).
I think it will be based on the iPhone/Touch version of OS X, so no optical drive, period. Software is installed through iTunes (yeah, you are expected to have another Mac). However, media will synch wirelessly, AppleTV-style.
I'm also thinking the screen might be a little smaller. It's going to be light enough to hold and hand to someone else with one hand, even for pretty small people. Also, it *will* be called MacBook Air (sorry--I'm predicting, not saying what I *want* to see).
doctoree
Apr 15, 03:20 PM
Honestly, I dig the look of it but I have my doubts about the sharp edges. I can almost promise you that the photos are faked but I'm seeing that most of us already know that. I can see the body being aluminum- isn't the Droid aluminum? There would definitely need to be a place for the antenna- black plastic or something.
I'm hoping for something different this time. My 3G has held up well except for a broken ear speaker, but I'd like to see them push it a little as far as design. Every time I see an EVO 4G- I look at it longingly.
Haha, "pushing" the design. Thats very tempting, many companies do just that. Fortunately Apple DOESNT!
I'm hoping for something different this time. My 3G has held up well except for a broken ear speaker, but I'd like to see them push it a little as far as design. Every time I see an EVO 4G- I look at it longingly.
Haha, "pushing" the design. Thats very tempting, many companies do just that. Fortunately Apple DOESNT!
Chundles
Sep 12, 03:02 AM
I believe that an airport extreme, or 802.11g is plenty fast to stream High-def Video
It's not. You need wireless USB for that. 802.11g would need a sizeable buffer and then it's not technically streaming.
It's not. You need wireless USB for that. 802.11g would need a sizeable buffer and then it's not technically streaming.
DoFoT9
Aug 15, 12:20 AM
well only 1 465 gtx. the other was just another 9800 GT. but when i run 3 of them in the same computer, one of them overheats - to 104C! but if i take one out, then it runs fine
104c wow! :eek: might need to get a bit more air movement in there hey!
104c wow! :eek: might need to get a bit more air movement in there hey!
Stella
Aug 1, 01:15 PM
I'm really tired of hearing this. First of all, people are not forced to buy from the iTMS, CDs still exist.
Second, the songs can be played on a Mac computer with iTunes, a Windows computer with iTunes, iPods. They can also be burned to an audio CD which can be played on millions of devices.
How is that "iPod-only"?! :confused:
To use on other devices requires you to have to go through a lot of unnecessary and time consuming hoops.
DRM should be unified - one DRM standard for ALL devices.
Second, the songs can be played on a Mac computer with iTunes, a Windows computer with iTunes, iPods. They can also be burned to an audio CD which can be played on millions of devices.
How is that "iPod-only"?! :confused:
To use on other devices requires you to have to go through a lot of unnecessary and time consuming hoops.
DRM should be unified - one DRM standard for ALL devices.
quentoncassidy
Dec 10, 07:02 PM
As mentioned, the spawning is terrible. IMO worse than in MW2 (which seemed hard to believe at first)
They shouldn't spawn anywhere near me. I hate spawning near the enemies too and die within 5 seconds of spawning. Personally, I'd rather wait 5-10 seconds for a spawning point to open up instead of dying right away.
They shouldn't spawn anywhere near me. I hate spawning near the enemies too and die within 5 seconds of spawning. Personally, I'd rather wait 5-10 seconds for a spawning point to open up instead of dying right away.
samiwas
Mar 4, 03:57 PM
Minimum wages = unemployment, lower growth
child labor laws = limits free will and opportunities for youngsters
max hours per week = limits free will, opportunity for higher personal revenue
workplace safety = bureaucracy, red tape, lower growth
Holy effin' Shizzle batman! You don't believe this. Come on. Fo' reals? I mean really...come on. I know it, and you know it...you're trolling. There is no way you actually believe that stuff.
Minimum wages = employer must pay at the very least a human wage...not a slave wage. If the employer cannot afford to pay people fairly, their business should fail. Isn't that what the free market is all about? You produce or you fail?
Child Labor Laws = really??? Limits free will?? Opportunities for youngsters? Do you really think that if child labor laws were done away with in this country that some warehouse wouldn't have the 6-year-old kid of some nearly-homeless family out running a meat slicer for $4 a day? Do you REALLY think that kind of thing wouldn't happen? And that something like that is an opportunity for that 6-year-old? You are truly a piece of work. Oh right, I keep forgetting...you're a troll.
Max hours per week does not limit free will. An employer is certainly allowed to let an employee work 100 hours a week if they so want to. I know because I've done it on many occasions. I had a 140-hour week a while back. It's perfectly legal. But you have to PAY OVERTIME. If you want to exploit your workers, you pay them for it. You have the free will to work them overtime, they have the free will to accept that overtime, and then you pay them for it. Don't like it, don't do it...free will, baby.
Workplace safety should not be required? Bwaahahaha. Now, I most certainly do not follow most safety rules in my line of work, because a lot of them are pretty silly. But to do away with required safety procedures for many occupations is just an amazing concept. That you actually believe that employers will willingly pay more if they are not required to in order to keep their employees safe is one of the more laughable things ever.
Don't be naive. The goals are the same, more wealth, health, prosperity, and safety for all. Conservatives simply disagree with your methods. They realize that a hand-out is NEVER the same as a hand-up, and that wealth earned is not generally earned at the expense of others, but rather to their benefit.
So being paid overtime for working crazy hours is a HAND OUT? Really?
Cutting wages and pay requirements and removing safety requirements means more wealth and safety for ALL? OK. Hold on, let me comprehend that. Wait, I can't because it's the stupidest thing ever uttered.
Yes. it has been decided. He's a <censored>swell guy</censored>. There is no one who actually thinks like this.
*edit - while I meant what I said, it's not worth getting banned over.
child labor laws = limits free will and opportunities for youngsters
max hours per week = limits free will, opportunity for higher personal revenue
workplace safety = bureaucracy, red tape, lower growth
Holy effin' Shizzle batman! You don't believe this. Come on. Fo' reals? I mean really...come on. I know it, and you know it...you're trolling. There is no way you actually believe that stuff.
Minimum wages = employer must pay at the very least a human wage...not a slave wage. If the employer cannot afford to pay people fairly, their business should fail. Isn't that what the free market is all about? You produce or you fail?
Child Labor Laws = really??? Limits free will?? Opportunities for youngsters? Do you really think that if child labor laws were done away with in this country that some warehouse wouldn't have the 6-year-old kid of some nearly-homeless family out running a meat slicer for $4 a day? Do you REALLY think that kind of thing wouldn't happen? And that something like that is an opportunity for that 6-year-old? You are truly a piece of work. Oh right, I keep forgetting...you're a troll.
Max hours per week does not limit free will. An employer is certainly allowed to let an employee work 100 hours a week if they so want to. I know because I've done it on many occasions. I had a 140-hour week a while back. It's perfectly legal. But you have to PAY OVERTIME. If you want to exploit your workers, you pay them for it. You have the free will to work them overtime, they have the free will to accept that overtime, and then you pay them for it. Don't like it, don't do it...free will, baby.
Workplace safety should not be required? Bwaahahaha. Now, I most certainly do not follow most safety rules in my line of work, because a lot of them are pretty silly. But to do away with required safety procedures for many occupations is just an amazing concept. That you actually believe that employers will willingly pay more if they are not required to in order to keep their employees safe is one of the more laughable things ever.
Don't be naive. The goals are the same, more wealth, health, prosperity, and safety for all. Conservatives simply disagree with your methods. They realize that a hand-out is NEVER the same as a hand-up, and that wealth earned is not generally earned at the expense of others, but rather to their benefit.
So being paid overtime for working crazy hours is a HAND OUT? Really?
Cutting wages and pay requirements and removing safety requirements means more wealth and safety for ALL? OK. Hold on, let me comprehend that. Wait, I can't because it's the stupidest thing ever uttered.
Yes. it has been decided. He's a <censored>swell guy</censored>. There is no one who actually thinks like this.
*edit - while I meant what I said, it's not worth getting banned over.
aross99
Jan 11, 10:32 PM
At first, I got a chuckle when I read this on their site. Turning off a wall of display is one thing, but what they did to the presenters (especially Motorolla) is inexcusable. They took it way to far...
To be honest with you, I can't believe they blogged about it afterwards..
To be honest with you, I can't believe they blogged about it afterwards..
shen
Oct 19, 04:50 PM
I'm sure you could -- go ahead, try me. :)
With each and every release of a new OS (going back beyond Windows), Microsoft has made hyperbolic claims about how good it was going to be. As anyone who's followed this for a while knows, Microsoft's claims rarely live up to reality. The fact is, a lot of people never even bothered to get onto the XP bandwagon. Do you think they're going to be excited about Vista? Unfortunately for Microsoft, their "good enough" philosophy also works for a lot of their customers. They're used to not being motivated by newer and theoretically better. As you admit, the first version of Vista is going to be a dog, just as the first versions of 95, 98 and XP were. People do learn that the risks can outweigh the benefits. My attitude detector reports that hardly anybody cares about Vista.
All that being said, Microsoft will sell a zillion copies of Vista. Most of those will be through the OEM pipeline. The OEMs will buy it because they don't have a choice. This is how each and every version of Windows has become a "success." It's Microsoft's dirty little secret.
vista has zero buzz. i have been in this industry for a little too long, and generally a new win OS creates three specific attitudes in people:
1) the gamers/geeks "this will be the greatest thing ever! have you seen all the cool (insert useless feature here) and can you imagine what games will be able to do on this thing?!?"
2) the average person "i don't know, they say it won't crash, and last week i lost everything when (insert virus name here) hit me and this one is supposed to be better about that stuff."
3) the IT department "we will not be installing any of this platform until it has been tested for compatibility and security for our environment. maybe a year."
so far on Vista, the gamers have made a few "maybe it will be good" comments. the average joe hasn't said word one. the IT depts i know all have said they won't touch it with a 10 meter cattle prod.
but we have a 4th user, the MS diehard who is running the beta and RC stuff and keep trying to work up enthusiasm. and nobody cares.
but as you point out, they WILL sell million of copies. all OEM. if they didn't have their OEM channel so locked down with anti-competative measures, they would have perished after that dog release of windows ME......
With each and every release of a new OS (going back beyond Windows), Microsoft has made hyperbolic claims about how good it was going to be. As anyone who's followed this for a while knows, Microsoft's claims rarely live up to reality. The fact is, a lot of people never even bothered to get onto the XP bandwagon. Do you think they're going to be excited about Vista? Unfortunately for Microsoft, their "good enough" philosophy also works for a lot of their customers. They're used to not being motivated by newer and theoretically better. As you admit, the first version of Vista is going to be a dog, just as the first versions of 95, 98 and XP were. People do learn that the risks can outweigh the benefits. My attitude detector reports that hardly anybody cares about Vista.
All that being said, Microsoft will sell a zillion copies of Vista. Most of those will be through the OEM pipeline. The OEMs will buy it because they don't have a choice. This is how each and every version of Windows has become a "success." It's Microsoft's dirty little secret.
vista has zero buzz. i have been in this industry for a little too long, and generally a new win OS creates three specific attitudes in people:
1) the gamers/geeks "this will be the greatest thing ever! have you seen all the cool (insert useless feature here) and can you imagine what games will be able to do on this thing?!?"
2) the average person "i don't know, they say it won't crash, and last week i lost everything when (insert virus name here) hit me and this one is supposed to be better about that stuff."
3) the IT department "we will not be installing any of this platform until it has been tested for compatibility and security for our environment. maybe a year."
so far on Vista, the gamers have made a few "maybe it will be good" comments. the average joe hasn't said word one. the IT depts i know all have said they won't touch it with a 10 meter cattle prod.
but we have a 4th user, the MS diehard who is running the beta and RC stuff and keep trying to work up enthusiasm. and nobody cares.
but as you point out, they WILL sell million of copies. all OEM. if they didn't have their OEM channel so locked down with anti-competative measures, they would have perished after that dog release of windows ME......
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.
MacFan1957
Jul 21, 11:22 AM
LOL. Grow up. You sound paranoid: Everyone is out to get Apple.
The Antenna issue is real. It was bought about because enough people were having issues not due to some kind of grand conspiracy.
What, the only person talking about a "conspiracy" here is you!
The number of people having this issues was and is tiny BUT they were making a LOT of noise about it. Apple had to *defend* themselves and they did a good job! It didn't shut up the "haters" because what they want is for Apple to say "Yep the bloggers and forum posters where right and we were wrong!"
Apple addressed the issue with a smart mix of PR and facts!
The Antenna issue is real. It was bought about because enough people were having issues not due to some kind of grand conspiracy.
What, the only person talking about a "conspiracy" here is you!
The number of people having this issues was and is tiny BUT they were making a LOT of noise about it. Apple had to *defend* themselves and they did a good job! It didn't shut up the "haters" because what they want is for Apple to say "Yep the bloggers and forum posters where right and we were wrong!"
Apple addressed the issue with a smart mix of PR and facts!
Nicolasdec
Jan 9, 05:33 PM
same hear
dethmaShine
Apr 16, 02:31 PM
While I agree with you overall, I think there have been plenty of features that NeXT-Apple has teased, but not ultimately delivered on. "Home on the iPod" is one and "resolution independence" is another, I'm sure there are more but these are two that might actually have mattered to me.
B
I think 'Home on iPod' might be coming in iOS 5.
But yes, Resolution Independence did matter to me a lot. But somewhere, I feel that it might not be the best thing available; but still Mac OS X has better capabilities of displaying content than windows (incl. windows 7) although I really think win8 will be a game changer in this regard; they have had tones of time, now.
B
I think 'Home on iPod' might be coming in iOS 5.
But yes, Resolution Independence did matter to me a lot. But somewhere, I feel that it might not be the best thing available; but still Mac OS X has better capabilities of displaying content than windows (incl. windows 7) although I really think win8 will be a game changer in this regard; they have had tones of time, now.
Forever
Sep 12, 07:51 AM
What time does it start GMT?