iMikeT
Sep 12, 04:05 AM
All I can say is that five weeks from now we will see iTunes 8.0 along with a "true" iPod Video.
Chrispy
Sep 25, 01:17 PM
I�m loving the amout of sarcasm in this thread� I was afraid it would not be picked up. This is a good update to the software and free is even better.
I do, however, think people are just tired of waiting for new macbook pros. Apple really does need to get on that update if they are going to justify charging $1999+ for the notebook.
I do, however, think people are just tired of waiting for new macbook pros. Apple really does need to get on that update if they are going to justify charging $1999+ for the notebook.
marksman
May 3, 03:35 PM
Contract terms require "consideration" from both parties to be legally binding. Consideration is something you provide to the other party (i.e., money from you, data services from your carrier).
What consideration are the carriers offering you for tethering? You're already paying $X for Y GB of data used on your phone. It doesn't matter to the carrier if your Netflix app is using it, or your tethering app is sending the data to your laptop. Nothing changes on their end, they just send the data that you've already paid for to your phone, and your phone handles the rest.
You're right, it is black and white. It's a scam aimed at exploiting consumers like yourself who don't know any better, with an illegal contract term. I hope this goes to court soon, before the carriers in Canada (where I am) try to pull the same BS.
They are offering you more bandwidth to use a higher bandwidth service like tethering.
The consideration is very clear. Thanks for quoting the premise for contract law, but claiming there is no consideration there is ridiculous.
People who tether use more bandwidth, so the cost associated with their usage is more expensive. The carriers can either charge those people for tethering or they can raise the price for EVERYONE.
They choose to charge the people who tether. It is a perfectly reasonable choice on their part.
Hey a cable line comes into my house with all the channels on it. I can just jimmy off a filter and get all the channels without paying any more. They are already delivering it to my house, why can't I just get all of them since they are there anyways and I am paying for cable right?
You are not paying for tethering unless you are paying for tethering. The math is simple. People who tether use more bandwidth. Wireless providers set their data prices based on AVERAGE usage. Tethering makes the average usage go up, so the revenue to cover those costs has to come from somewhere.
So they can either charge EVERYONE more or charge the people who tether more.. Again they choose the later.
What consideration are the carriers offering you for tethering? You're already paying $X for Y GB of data used on your phone. It doesn't matter to the carrier if your Netflix app is using it, or your tethering app is sending the data to your laptop. Nothing changes on their end, they just send the data that you've already paid for to your phone, and your phone handles the rest.
You're right, it is black and white. It's a scam aimed at exploiting consumers like yourself who don't know any better, with an illegal contract term. I hope this goes to court soon, before the carriers in Canada (where I am) try to pull the same BS.
They are offering you more bandwidth to use a higher bandwidth service like tethering.
The consideration is very clear. Thanks for quoting the premise for contract law, but claiming there is no consideration there is ridiculous.
People who tether use more bandwidth, so the cost associated with their usage is more expensive. The carriers can either charge those people for tethering or they can raise the price for EVERYONE.
They choose to charge the people who tether. It is a perfectly reasonable choice on their part.
Hey a cable line comes into my house with all the channels on it. I can just jimmy off a filter and get all the channels without paying any more. They are already delivering it to my house, why can't I just get all of them since they are there anyways and I am paying for cable right?
You are not paying for tethering unless you are paying for tethering. The math is simple. People who tether use more bandwidth. Wireless providers set their data prices based on AVERAGE usage. Tethering makes the average usage go up, so the revenue to cover those costs has to come from somewhere.
So they can either charge EVERYONE more or charge the people who tether more.. Again they choose the later.
storage
Oct 10, 06:09 PM
Wireless YouTubePod! ;)
akm3
Sep 29, 12:18 AM
WTH? Whoever wrote this clearly doesn't have any idea about what has been going on in architecture in, oh, the past 150 years. I met Peter Bohlin last year and we got to talking about his design strategies. He's been doing similar work throughout his career, even before BCJ (then Bohlin Powell) was founded in 1965. Check out Japanese architecture from the past 1,500 years.
As an architecture major and architectural history minor I find this comment to be Jobs-worship. Thinking that nobody else could come up with the concept of a simple and sophisticated design is just asinine.
My rant aside, I love the floor plan and can't wait to see some elevations/perspectives. Go BCJ!
Also, on a side note, BCJ is the firm that designed Bill Gates' house...
Bill Gates copying Steve AGAIN, just earlier than usual this time... (!) (<-- That's a sarcasm mark)
As an architecture major and architectural history minor I find this comment to be Jobs-worship. Thinking that nobody else could come up with the concept of a simple and sophisticated design is just asinine.
My rant aside, I love the floor plan and can't wait to see some elevations/perspectives. Go BCJ!
Also, on a side note, BCJ is the firm that designed Bill Gates' house...
Bill Gates copying Steve AGAIN, just earlier than usual this time... (!) (<-- That's a sarcasm mark)
wenger2k
Oct 20, 12:09 PM
I believe Apple always in reality wanted to go with AT&T - I think they talked to both companies so they could create a form of competition to get what they wanted out of the deal. So why did they want AT&T - it was really simple it was that AT&T used GSM and UMTS that allowed them to make a single device that they could then roll out to a large part of the rest of the world with out a lot of reengineering. This has turned out to be a good decision for them.
If you're so sure this has been such a great thing for AT&T look at their stock price vs apple's and verizon for that matter during this time. While it has represented a huge amount of revenue for AT&T it has also increased their cost by orders of magnitude. Its also forced them to upgrade substantial parts of their network far ahead of plan which has also come at significant unplanned expense. They're currently rolling out the 850mhz and the 7.2gb HSPA overlay framework at least a year ahead of their original plans - all of this is reportedly because essentially Apple made them.
The majority of AT&T's network issues are likely caused by the massive increase in bandwidth consumption which can almost all be attributed to the iPhone. Had Verizon gotten the iphone they'd be in a similar situation.
As for CDMA iPhones, Apple has already announced that they'll be offering the iphone with Bell Canada and its been widely reported that they will offer iPhones with both China Unicom and China Mobile which will force the creation of a CDMA/EVDO iPhone so the technical barrier to entry for Verizon no longer exists. Reality of course is that Verizon represents a big enough customer that creation of a CDMA hardware version would be a minimal barrier if Apple didn't continue to see more benefit from the prime vendor relationship that they have with AT&T than they would get by breaking out and offering the product with Verizon. My guess is that if the volume of complaints about AT&T's network don't start going down soon Apple will be forced to expand to other carriers.
If you're so sure this has been such a great thing for AT&T look at their stock price vs apple's and verizon for that matter during this time. While it has represented a huge amount of revenue for AT&T it has also increased their cost by orders of magnitude. Its also forced them to upgrade substantial parts of their network far ahead of plan which has also come at significant unplanned expense. They're currently rolling out the 850mhz and the 7.2gb HSPA overlay framework at least a year ahead of their original plans - all of this is reportedly because essentially Apple made them.
The majority of AT&T's network issues are likely caused by the massive increase in bandwidth consumption which can almost all be attributed to the iPhone. Had Verizon gotten the iphone they'd be in a similar situation.
As for CDMA iPhones, Apple has already announced that they'll be offering the iphone with Bell Canada and its been widely reported that they will offer iPhones with both China Unicom and China Mobile which will force the creation of a CDMA/EVDO iPhone so the technical barrier to entry for Verizon no longer exists. Reality of course is that Verizon represents a big enough customer that creation of a CDMA hardware version would be a minimal barrier if Apple didn't continue to see more benefit from the prime vendor relationship that they have with AT&T than they would get by breaking out and offering the product with Verizon. My guess is that if the volume of complaints about AT&T's network don't start going down soon Apple will be forced to expand to other carriers.
maclaptop
Apr 10, 12:00 AM
I believe Windows 8 will actually be Windows 6.2.
As an Apple user, I'm thrilled that I'm not afflicted with the need to put down Windows in order to boost my ego.
As an Apple user, I'm thrilled that I'm not afflicted with the need to put down Windows in order to boost my ego.
mrsir2009
Mar 6, 11:51 AM
Interesting points here...
Apple also purposely leaves out things in their devices (iPad, iPhone) so that they can make tons of money off it, release a new device with all the features they left out and make a ton of money off that too...
Apple also purposely leaves out things in their devices (iPad, iPhone) so that they can make tons of money off it, release a new device with all the features they left out and make a ton of money off that too...
Flowbee
Jan 12, 10:40 PM
Yes
Seriously, that is such a slippery slope argument it isn't funny. Blaming some pranksters for the end of big expos is silly.
That's not what I was saying at all. It's hard to tell if you're actually reading the posts you're responding to.
Seriously, that is such a slippery slope argument it isn't funny. Blaming some pranksters for the end of big expos is silly.
That's not what I was saying at all. It's hard to tell if you're actually reading the posts you're responding to.
rroach3753
Sep 28, 12:00 PM
If I touch it on the southwest corner will it not work? ;)
swarmster
Jan 9, 05:33 PM
Everyone please be careful opening Quicktime (to do an "open url..." as MacRumors recommends)! If you have it set to load the 'content guide' on startup, there's a spoiler image waiting for you.
(Yeah, I know, I should have disabled it a long time ago.)
(Yeah, I know, I should have disabled it a long time ago.)
Lord Blackadder
Aug 10, 01:10 PM
There's nothing really sinister about it. It's just harder to measure and to this point, there's been no point in trying to measure it in comparison to cars.
I understand that they have to be measured differently, but doesn't it make sense that they be compared apples-to-apples (if possible) to the vehicles they are intended to replace?
Most people do ignore it to a large extent, because they say "heck, if it costs me $1 to go 40 miles on electric vs. $2.85 to go 40 miles on gasoline, then that *must* be more efficient in some way". And they are probably right. Economics do tend to line up with efficiency (or government policy).
That is true, but as you pointed out later "green", "efficient", "alternative[to oil imports]" are not all the same thing. Perhaps they are more green but less efficient, or less efficient but more green. Just being more efficient in terms of bang for buck is not necessarily also good from an environmental or alternative energy standpoint. But you are right that the end cost per mile is going to weigh heavily when it comes to consumer acceptance of new types of autos.
I think it's great that European car manufacturers have invested heavily in finding ways to make more fuel efficient cars. And they have their governments to thank for that by making sure that diesel is given a tax advantage vs. gasoline. About 15 years ago, Europe recognized the potential for efficiency in diesels to ultimately outweigh the environmental downside. It was a short-term risk that paid off and now that they have shifted the balance, Europe is tightening their diesel emissions standards to match the US. Once that happens, I'm sure there will a huge market for TDIs in the US and we'll have a nice competitive landscape for driving-up fuel efficiency with diesels vs. gasoline hybrids vs. extended range electrics.
I would argue that Europe's switch to diesels did not involve quite the environmental tradeoff you imply - in the 70s we in the US were driving cars with huge gasoline engines, and to this day diesel regulation for trucks in this country is pretty minimal. Our emissions were probably world-leading then - partially due to the fact that we had the most cars on the roads by far. The problem lies (in my heavily biased opinion) in ignorance. People see smoke coming off diesel exhausts and assume they are dirtier than gasoline engines. But particulate pollution is not necessarily worse, just different. People are not educated about the differerence between gasoline engine pollution and diesel engine pollution. Not to mention the fact that diesel engines don't puff black smoke like they did in the 70s. I'm not arguing that diesels are necessarily cleaner, but they are arguably no worse than gasoline engines and are certainly more efficient.
Whether or not it's "greener" depends upon your definition of green. If you're worried about smog and air quality, then you might make different decisions than if you are worried about carbon dioxide and global warming. Those decisions may also be driven by where you live and where the electricity comes from.
A lot of people in the US (and I assume around the world) are also concerned about energy independence. For those people, using coal to power an electric car is more attractive than using foreign diesel. Any cleaner? Probably not, but probably not much dirtier and certainly cheaper. Our government realizes that we can always make power plants cleaner in the future through regulation, just as Europe realized they could make diesels cleaner in the future through regulation. Steven Chu is no dummy.
It's a fair point. Given the choice, I would prioritize moving to domestic fuel sources in the short term over a massive "go green" (over all alse) campaign.
Which is why we will need new metrics that actually make sense for comparing gasoline to pure electric, perhaps localized to account for the source of power in your area. For example, when I lived in Chicago, the electric was 90% nuclear. It's doesn't get any cleaner than that from an air quality / greenhouse gas standpoint. However, if you're on the east coast, it's probably closer to 60% coal.
I agree completely. The transition needs to be made as transparent as possible. People need to know the source, efficiency and cleanliness of their power source so that they can make informed choices.
I think you're smart enough to know that it's more efficient, but you're not willing to cede that for the sake of your argument, but I encourage you to embrace the idea that we should have extended range electrics *and* clean diesels *and* gasoline hybrids. There's more than one way to skin a cat.
I'm not trying to sound stubborn, I simply have not come accross the numbers anywhere. I don't get paid to do this research, ya know. I do it while hiding from the boss. ;)
I've seen that propaganda FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) before. It doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Let's consider that the power grid can handle every household running an air conditioner on a hot summer day. That's approximately 2000-3500 watts per household per hour during daytime peak load (on top of everything else on the grid.) Now let's consider that a Volt (or equivalent) has a 16kw battery that charges in 8 hours. That's 200 watts per hour, starting in the evening, or the equivalent of (4) 50 watt light bulbs. This is not exactly grid-overwhelming load.
I'm no math whiz (or electrician), but wouldn't 200 watts/hr * 8 hours = 1.6kw, rather than 16kw? I thought you'd need 2kw/hr * 8hrs to charge a 16kw battery.
It's not that I don't think people have looked into this stuff, it's just that I myself have no information on just how much energy the Volt uses and how much the grid can provide. In the short term, plugin hybrids are few in number and I don't see it being an issue. But it's something we need to work out in the medium/long term.
Or, some would argue that the biggest thing that Americans have trouble with are a few people telling them what the majority should or shouldn't do - which is, as it seems, the definition of "Communism", but I wouldn't go so far as to say that. :)
Communism means nothing in this country, because we've been so brainwashed by Cold War/right-wing rhetoric that, like "freedom", the term has been stolen for propaganda purposes until the original meanings have become lost in a massive sea of BS. I was using it for it's hyperbole value. :D
Most people do indeed realize that they can get better mileage with a smaller car and could "get by" with a much smaller vehicle. They choose not to and that is their prerogative. If the majority wants to vote for representatives who will make laws that increase fuel mileage standards, which in turn require automakers to sell more small cars - or find ways to make them more efficient - that is also their prerogative. (And, in case you haven't noticed, in the last major US election, voters did indeed vote for a party that is increasing CAFE standards.)
Well, that's the nature of democracy. But it's not so much a question of the fact that people realize a smaller car is more efficient, but a question of whether people really care about efficiency. I have recently lived in Nevada and Alaska, two states whose residents are addicted to burning fuel. Seemingly everyone has a pickup, RV and four-wheelers. Burning fuel is not just part of the daily transportation routine - it's a lifestyle.
CAFE standardsAnd if it's important to you, you should do your part and ride a bike to work or buy a TDI, or lobby your congressman for reduced emissions requirements, or stand up on a soap box and preach about the advantages of advanced clean diesel technology. All good stuff.
I walk to work. I used to commute 34 miles a day (total), and while I never minded it, I felt pretty liberated being able to ditch the car for my daily commute. Four years of walking and I don't want to go back. I love cars and motorsport, and I don't consider myself an environmentalist, but I got to the point where I realized that I was driving a lot more than necessary. That realization came when I moved out of a suburb (where you have to drive to get anywhere) and into first a small town and then a biggish city. In both cases it became possible to walk almost everywhere I needed to go. A tank of fuel lasted over a month (or longer) rather than a week from my highway-commuting days. And I lost weight as I hauled by fat backside around on foot. ;)
I won't be in the market for another car for a few years, and my current car (a Subaru) is not very fuel efficient - but then again it has literally not been driven more than half a dozen times in the last six months. When the time comes to replace it I'll be looking for something affordable (ruling out the Volt) but efficiency will be high on the priority list, followed by green-ness.
I wonder if all of you people who are proposing a diesel/diesel hybrid are Europeans, because in America, diesel is looked at as smelly and messy - it's what the trucks with black smoke use.
<snip>
As far as the Chevy Volt goes, I just don't like the name... but the price is right assuming they can get it into the high $20,000's rather quickly.
I'm an American, and yes I've seen the trucks with black smoke. We just need to discard that preconception. This isn't 1973 anymore. We also need to tighten up emissions regualtion on trucks.
The Volt is a practical car by all acoioutns, but it costs way too much. The battery is the primary contributing factor, I've heard that it costs somewhere between $8-15k by itself. Hopefully after GM has been producing such batteries for a few years the cost will drop substantially.
I understand that they have to be measured differently, but doesn't it make sense that they be compared apples-to-apples (if possible) to the vehicles they are intended to replace?
Most people do ignore it to a large extent, because they say "heck, if it costs me $1 to go 40 miles on electric vs. $2.85 to go 40 miles on gasoline, then that *must* be more efficient in some way". And they are probably right. Economics do tend to line up with efficiency (or government policy).
That is true, but as you pointed out later "green", "efficient", "alternative[to oil imports]" are not all the same thing. Perhaps they are more green but less efficient, or less efficient but more green. Just being more efficient in terms of bang for buck is not necessarily also good from an environmental or alternative energy standpoint. But you are right that the end cost per mile is going to weigh heavily when it comes to consumer acceptance of new types of autos.
I think it's great that European car manufacturers have invested heavily in finding ways to make more fuel efficient cars. And they have their governments to thank for that by making sure that diesel is given a tax advantage vs. gasoline. About 15 years ago, Europe recognized the potential for efficiency in diesels to ultimately outweigh the environmental downside. It was a short-term risk that paid off and now that they have shifted the balance, Europe is tightening their diesel emissions standards to match the US. Once that happens, I'm sure there will a huge market for TDIs in the US and we'll have a nice competitive landscape for driving-up fuel efficiency with diesels vs. gasoline hybrids vs. extended range electrics.
I would argue that Europe's switch to diesels did not involve quite the environmental tradeoff you imply - in the 70s we in the US were driving cars with huge gasoline engines, and to this day diesel regulation for trucks in this country is pretty minimal. Our emissions were probably world-leading then - partially due to the fact that we had the most cars on the roads by far. The problem lies (in my heavily biased opinion) in ignorance. People see smoke coming off diesel exhausts and assume they are dirtier than gasoline engines. But particulate pollution is not necessarily worse, just different. People are not educated about the differerence between gasoline engine pollution and diesel engine pollution. Not to mention the fact that diesel engines don't puff black smoke like they did in the 70s. I'm not arguing that diesels are necessarily cleaner, but they are arguably no worse than gasoline engines and are certainly more efficient.
Whether or not it's "greener" depends upon your definition of green. If you're worried about smog and air quality, then you might make different decisions than if you are worried about carbon dioxide and global warming. Those decisions may also be driven by where you live and where the electricity comes from.
A lot of people in the US (and I assume around the world) are also concerned about energy independence. For those people, using coal to power an electric car is more attractive than using foreign diesel. Any cleaner? Probably not, but probably not much dirtier and certainly cheaper. Our government realizes that we can always make power plants cleaner in the future through regulation, just as Europe realized they could make diesels cleaner in the future through regulation. Steven Chu is no dummy.
It's a fair point. Given the choice, I would prioritize moving to domestic fuel sources in the short term over a massive "go green" (over all alse) campaign.
Which is why we will need new metrics that actually make sense for comparing gasoline to pure electric, perhaps localized to account for the source of power in your area. For example, when I lived in Chicago, the electric was 90% nuclear. It's doesn't get any cleaner than that from an air quality / greenhouse gas standpoint. However, if you're on the east coast, it's probably closer to 60% coal.
I agree completely. The transition needs to be made as transparent as possible. People need to know the source, efficiency and cleanliness of their power source so that they can make informed choices.
I think you're smart enough to know that it's more efficient, but you're not willing to cede that for the sake of your argument, but I encourage you to embrace the idea that we should have extended range electrics *and* clean diesels *and* gasoline hybrids. There's more than one way to skin a cat.
I'm not trying to sound stubborn, I simply have not come accross the numbers anywhere. I don't get paid to do this research, ya know. I do it while hiding from the boss. ;)
I've seen that propaganda FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) before. It doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Let's consider that the power grid can handle every household running an air conditioner on a hot summer day. That's approximately 2000-3500 watts per household per hour during daytime peak load (on top of everything else on the grid.) Now let's consider that a Volt (or equivalent) has a 16kw battery that charges in 8 hours. That's 200 watts per hour, starting in the evening, or the equivalent of (4) 50 watt light bulbs. This is not exactly grid-overwhelming load.
I'm no math whiz (or electrician), but wouldn't 200 watts/hr * 8 hours = 1.6kw, rather than 16kw? I thought you'd need 2kw/hr * 8hrs to charge a 16kw battery.
It's not that I don't think people have looked into this stuff, it's just that I myself have no information on just how much energy the Volt uses and how much the grid can provide. In the short term, plugin hybrids are few in number and I don't see it being an issue. But it's something we need to work out in the medium/long term.
Or, some would argue that the biggest thing that Americans have trouble with are a few people telling them what the majority should or shouldn't do - which is, as it seems, the definition of "Communism", but I wouldn't go so far as to say that. :)
Communism means nothing in this country, because we've been so brainwashed by Cold War/right-wing rhetoric that, like "freedom", the term has been stolen for propaganda purposes until the original meanings have become lost in a massive sea of BS. I was using it for it's hyperbole value. :D
Most people do indeed realize that they can get better mileage with a smaller car and could "get by" with a much smaller vehicle. They choose not to and that is their prerogative. If the majority wants to vote for representatives who will make laws that increase fuel mileage standards, which in turn require automakers to sell more small cars - or find ways to make them more efficient - that is also their prerogative. (And, in case you haven't noticed, in the last major US election, voters did indeed vote for a party that is increasing CAFE standards.)
Well, that's the nature of democracy. But it's not so much a question of the fact that people realize a smaller car is more efficient, but a question of whether people really care about efficiency. I have recently lived in Nevada and Alaska, two states whose residents are addicted to burning fuel. Seemingly everyone has a pickup, RV and four-wheelers. Burning fuel is not just part of the daily transportation routine - it's a lifestyle.
CAFE standardsAnd if it's important to you, you should do your part and ride a bike to work or buy a TDI, or lobby your congressman for reduced emissions requirements, or stand up on a soap box and preach about the advantages of advanced clean diesel technology. All good stuff.
I walk to work. I used to commute 34 miles a day (total), and while I never minded it, I felt pretty liberated being able to ditch the car for my daily commute. Four years of walking and I don't want to go back. I love cars and motorsport, and I don't consider myself an environmentalist, but I got to the point where I realized that I was driving a lot more than necessary. That realization came when I moved out of a suburb (where you have to drive to get anywhere) and into first a small town and then a biggish city. In both cases it became possible to walk almost everywhere I needed to go. A tank of fuel lasted over a month (or longer) rather than a week from my highway-commuting days. And I lost weight as I hauled by fat backside around on foot. ;)
I won't be in the market for another car for a few years, and my current car (a Subaru) is not very fuel efficient - but then again it has literally not been driven more than half a dozen times in the last six months. When the time comes to replace it I'll be looking for something affordable (ruling out the Volt) but efficiency will be high on the priority list, followed by green-ness.
I wonder if all of you people who are proposing a diesel/diesel hybrid are Europeans, because in America, diesel is looked at as smelly and messy - it's what the trucks with black smoke use.
<snip>
As far as the Chevy Volt goes, I just don't like the name... but the price is right assuming they can get it into the high $20,000's rather quickly.
I'm an American, and yes I've seen the trucks with black smoke. We just need to discard that preconception. This isn't 1973 anymore. We also need to tighten up emissions regualtion on trucks.
The Volt is a practical car by all acoioutns, but it costs way too much. The battery is the primary contributing factor, I've heard that it costs somewhere between $8-15k by itself. Hopefully after GM has been producing such batteries for a few years the cost will drop substantially.
wlh99
Apr 26, 07:41 PM
...
wlh99, I'll step back when ever I want to, this is a public Forum and people are here to discuss and learn new stuff.
Any way.. if you guys can't help me, just go to another thread.
I'm more than happy to help, which is why I asked what you meant by "ON" and "OFF" and what exactly you want to do. Because I don't know. Timers are not "ON" or "OFF" so I need to know what you mean.
I was referring to the "if" statement, not the comment. How and where do you declare myTimer and newTimer? Where are they assigned a value? Post that code. My assumption was (possibly incorrect) that they were assigned as the return value from when you created the timers.
In which case, they are pointers. If you declared them as a primitive type and assigned them a value not related to the timer objects, then they are not pointers. If that is the case, I am even more confused as to what you want the program to do.
Post your code, and let us know what you are trying to accomplish.
wlh99, I'll step back when ever I want to, this is a public Forum and people are here to discuss and learn new stuff.
Any way.. if you guys can't help me, just go to another thread.
I'm more than happy to help, which is why I asked what you meant by "ON" and "OFF" and what exactly you want to do. Because I don't know. Timers are not "ON" or "OFF" so I need to know what you mean.
I was referring to the "if" statement, not the comment. How and where do you declare myTimer and newTimer? Where are they assigned a value? Post that code. My assumption was (possibly incorrect) that they were assigned as the return value from when you created the timers.
In which case, they are pointers. If you declared them as a primitive type and assigned them a value not related to the timer objects, then they are not pointers. If that is the case, I am even more confused as to what you want the program to do.
Post your code, and let us know what you are trying to accomplish.
a17inchFuture
Sep 12, 02:34 AM
So what do people think the resolution will be, for the movies? They better be more than the current tv shows and videos.
And honestly, I'd be upset if they only had higher resolution for movies, without upgrading the tv shows' as well.
EDIT: also, anyone notice the convenient home release date of disney's The Wild, as tomorrow? I would be tempted to check the quality out with a CG flick, especially one I haven't seen, that coincidentally stars the vocal talent of Eddie Izzard.
And honestly, I'd be upset if they only had higher resolution for movies, without upgrading the tv shows' as well.
EDIT: also, anyone notice the convenient home release date of disney's The Wild, as tomorrow? I would be tempted to check the quality out with a CG flick, especially one I haven't seen, that coincidentally stars the vocal talent of Eddie Izzard.
minnesotamacman
Oct 18, 05:47 PM
It has been said here already, but Apple is smart to back both. I have a feeliing that HD DVD is going to win out in the end. Sure Sony is going to Blu Ray everyone, but not many people over 30 are going to get a PS3...
NewSc2
Oct 3, 01:08 PM
I think Macbook Pros will be updated at MWSF. Also, doubt the true video iPod will be out by then... all the designs being thrown around look too high-tech for now, and issues with scratches on the touch screen will have to be taken care of as well. I'd say more like Holiday 2007 for that~
MacRumors
Oct 10, 04:22 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)
Engadget claims that Apple is ready to announce their rumored video/wireless iPod (http://www.engadget.com/2006/10/10/apple-about-to-announce-wireless-video-ipod/) in the "very near future," which the site takes to mean before the end of the year. According to the report, the much-hyped widescreen iPod would contain wireless connectivity, however which specific technology would be used was not detailed.
Meanwhile, ThinkSecret has gone back (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/09/20060916223336.shtml) and forth (http://notes.thinksecret.com/secretnotes/0609secretnote2.shtml) on the possibility of the device coming before the new year. While quoting "reliable" sources, Endgadet has repeatedly been off the mark with their Apple phone rumors, which may give insight into how good the site's sources are at Apple (claims of the iPhone in August (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/07/20060729213347.shtml), fake 'iChat Mobile' pics (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/08/20060802215346.shtml)).
Engadget claims that Apple is ready to announce their rumored video/wireless iPod (http://www.engadget.com/2006/10/10/apple-about-to-announce-wireless-video-ipod/) in the "very near future," which the site takes to mean before the end of the year. According to the report, the much-hyped widescreen iPod would contain wireless connectivity, however which specific technology would be used was not detailed.
Meanwhile, ThinkSecret has gone back (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/09/20060916223336.shtml) and forth (http://notes.thinksecret.com/secretnotes/0609secretnote2.shtml) on the possibility of the device coming before the new year. While quoting "reliable" sources, Endgadet has repeatedly been off the mark with their Apple phone rumors, which may give insight into how good the site's sources are at Apple (claims of the iPhone in August (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/07/20060729213347.shtml), fake 'iChat Mobile' pics (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/08/20060802215346.shtml)).
Rodimus Prime
Aug 8, 12:26 AM
You can't charge your batteries that way either, at least nowhere near full. ;)
Regenerative braking is a small supplement at best. Yes, every bit helps, but currently the best diesel cars meet or exceed hybrid fuel economy and their carbon footprint is arguably no worse.
My opinion is that parallel hybrids are a technological dead end in the long term. Series hybrids might be part of the long term plan for stretching our fossil fuels but even those are not a -solution- to the problem. The solution is going to be either (in order of probability) biodiesel, hydrogen-powered cars or full electrics backed by a totally renewable power generation infrastructure.]
I would argue that hybrids are a long term solution.More so plug in hybrids I think are a longer term solution. It allows people to charge for their daily stuff at home. Then for longer trips you have an on board generator of some type to continue to charge the batteries.
So if that best diseal was a hybrid it would have even a longer range and better gas mileage.
Regenerative braking is a small supplement at best. Yes, every bit helps, but currently the best diesel cars meet or exceed hybrid fuel economy and their carbon footprint is arguably no worse.
My opinion is that parallel hybrids are a technological dead end in the long term. Series hybrids might be part of the long term plan for stretching our fossil fuels but even those are not a -solution- to the problem. The solution is going to be either (in order of probability) biodiesel, hydrogen-powered cars or full electrics backed by a totally renewable power generation infrastructure.]
I would argue that hybrids are a long term solution.More so plug in hybrids I think are a longer term solution. It allows people to charge for their daily stuff at home. Then for longer trips you have an on board generator of some type to continue to charge the batteries.
So if that best diseal was a hybrid it would have even a longer range and better gas mileage.
aafuss1
Nov 16, 07:35 PM
Yes Dad. :D
Ladies and Gentlemen of Macrumours, this is from Digitimes, they still owe me a G5 iBook from 2005.
Digitimes = wrong, always wrong.
I agree DigiTimes is very inaccurate with Apple rumors, but probably not the same for other companies-eg. Sony or Samsung.
Ladies and Gentlemen of Macrumours, this is from Digitimes, they still owe me a G5 iBook from 2005.
Digitimes = wrong, always wrong.
I agree DigiTimes is very inaccurate with Apple rumors, but probably not the same for other companies-eg. Sony or Samsung.
conradzoo
Sep 12, 07:27 AM
The Netherlands store is down too. :o
Just a broken link though. No Black screen.
Just a broken link though. No Black screen.
Glideslope
Apr 25, 03:59 PM
Is it just me, or does the back of the iPhone look like the iPod touch (like recent rumours claimed)?
By the way, it would be moronic for Apple to use 4s instead of 5. They used 3Gs simply because you can't have an iPhone 3G and then a successor named iPhone 3.
Just you. :apple:
By the way, it would be moronic for Apple to use 4s instead of 5. They used 3Gs simply because you can't have an iPhone 3G and then a successor named iPhone 3.
Just you. :apple:
azz0r
Mar 17, 04:27 PM
Haters going to hate.
Congrats.
The dude ain't going to get fired.
Congrats.
The dude ain't going to get fired.
this is funah
Sep 12, 08:13 AM
i just hope that iTunes 7 has better video handling... the video podcasts tend to overload the CPU, making me just open them in QT
ThaDoggg
Apr 23, 10:07 PM
How about establishing a "thanks" button? If we feel the post merits a thank you as it's really helpful we hit that.
No comments:
Post a Comment