hulugu
May 5, 01:24 PM
Any law that tells a physician what they can and can't ask a patient, or who they must treat despite their own personal views - is stupid.
I agree.
Manga Dragon Ball AF - Page 2
dragon ball af vegeta. vegeta
Talk:Dragon Ball AF,
more...
dragon ball af vegeta. Dragonball Af Ssj 10: zwei.jpg; Dragonball Af Ssj 10: zwei.jpg. slinger1968. Nov 2, 06:28 PM. I#39;m back where I was to begin with,
dragon ball af vegeta.
more...
photos amp; videos
Dragon Ball Z Af Vegeta.
more...
dragon ball af vegeta. Dragonball AF Goku Vegeta; Dragonball AF Goku Vegeta. dethmaShine. Apr 12, 10:14 AM. TB isn#39;t redundant right now,
(2).jpg - 4shared.com - photo](http://dc149.4shared.com/img/NZvaAN40/s7/2_dragon_ball_af_vegeta_goku_b.jpg "2 dragon ball af vegeta, goku, brolly, gohan fusionados super saiyan 10 [resolucion de escritorio](2)(2).jpg - 4shared.com - photo")
2 dragon ball af vegeta, goku, brolly, gohan fusionados super saiyan 10 [resolucion de escritorio](2)(2).jpg - 4shared.com - photo
more...
Super Saiyan 100 - Dragon Ball
Gotenks Dragon Ball AF by
more...
Dragon Ball Gt Vegeta.
Dragon Ball AF Vegeta
more...
Dragon Ball Af Wallpapers.
Vegeta SSJ5
more...
Vegeta Dragon Ball Af
Dragon Ball AF - Gohan, Goku,
dragon ball af vegeta. Dark Angel Vegeta; Dark Angel Vegeta. sebisworld. Jul 24, 03:39 PM. I own two mice, a Logitech MX 1000 and the Mighty Mouse that came
I agree.
NAG
Jan 12, 03:08 PM
Equating destruction of physical property to turning off tv sets is a stretch. Such hyperbole just makes more of the drama that they want. Why do you think they did this? They're attention whores.
troop231
Apr 15, 08:09 PM
Heh, just because it looks fake doesn't mean we should rule out the fact that it COULD be a prototype. :D
Hellhammer
Apr 21, 10:39 AM
I was just about to ask what the heck these arrows are. This has been requested many times though, so lets see how it works.
more...
JoeG4
Mar 14, 04:42 AM
Seconded, there are those of us that prefer not to fry our wrists/nads every time we decide to work/play crysis. :D
That, and for some reason looking inside a tower gets me all giddy in a way that powerful laptop hardware doesn't. Case in point: I have a quad i7 laptop that absolutely spanks my desktop, and I love using it, but I still get a huge kick out of popping the G5 open and checking out the massive heatsinks and all that. :D
That, and it's nice to have multiple drives/monitors/whatever without a bunch of bricks and cables all over the *@#% table.
That, and for some reason looking inside a tower gets me all giddy in a way that powerful laptop hardware doesn't. Case in point: I have a quad i7 laptop that absolutely spanks my desktop, and I love using it, but I still get a huge kick out of popping the G5 open and checking out the massive heatsinks and all that. :D
That, and it's nice to have multiple drives/monitors/whatever without a bunch of bricks and cables all over the *@#% table.
LastLine
Sep 12, 07:54 AM
Fully agree! If this is an update to globally release movies and tv shows all I have to say is FINALLY
If it's not... Apple are letting down anyone outside America once again with another America-centered update :/
Yeah, it's a real bad business model really in that sense,.
If it's not... Apple are letting down anyone outside America once again with another America-centered update :/
Yeah, it's a real bad business model really in that sense,.
more...
mdntcallr
Oct 10, 11:58 PM
At this point, ill believe it when it happens
DoFoT9
Aug 11, 07:27 PM
i'm tellin ya, there's something about starting with the number 4.
but it got too hot, and i had to turn it down to 3.98 ghz. not quite 4. hopefully it'll stay at that though
i prefer the number 9 to be honest :p 9ghz! phoar!
what temps are they running at? had you considered water cooling?
but it got too hot, and i had to turn it down to 3.98 ghz. not quite 4. hopefully it'll stay at that though
i prefer the number 9 to be honest :p 9ghz! phoar!
what temps are they running at? had you considered water cooling?
more...
longofest
Oct 10, 05:22 PM
6g?
Nope... we're thinking this will be a totally different iPod product, separate from the normal iPod or the nano or the shuffle.
Nope... we're thinking this will be a totally different iPod product, separate from the normal iPod or the nano or the shuffle.
demallien
Oct 4, 02:11 AM
I actually work as a programmer for a DRM provider. Here's what our legal wonks have told us with regards to the DCMA:
1) If we want our player to be able to read files protected by a competitor's DRM, we are entitled to do so. This means that if we had a new iPod-killing mp3 player, we would be legally within our rights to reverse engineer iTunes to crack the DRM, and then re-implement the same algorithm in our own player (it would have to be cleanroom reverse engineering of course, but that's for IP reasons, not the DCMA)
2) However, our player must not give the user more rights than the original player. So, we can't provide an option to rip to mp3 for example. All we can really offer is another player, or, at the absolute limit, a convertor that removes FairPlay DRM, and replaces it with ours (or another provider's). The new DRM should provide exactly the same restrictions on copying/transferring of files as the original. The legal eagles tell us that this last bit is really a bit too grey at the moment to be safe, so we would be better off restricting ourselves to just a player.
This of course makes liars of all those people that spread FUD about the DCMA and DRM in general. All DRM is crackable, and the provisions in the DCMA make it legal to do so, if the reason for doing so does not infringe fair-use....
1) If we want our player to be able to read files protected by a competitor's DRM, we are entitled to do so. This means that if we had a new iPod-killing mp3 player, we would be legally within our rights to reverse engineer iTunes to crack the DRM, and then re-implement the same algorithm in our own player (it would have to be cleanroom reverse engineering of course, but that's for IP reasons, not the DCMA)
2) However, our player must not give the user more rights than the original player. So, we can't provide an option to rip to mp3 for example. All we can really offer is another player, or, at the absolute limit, a convertor that removes FairPlay DRM, and replaces it with ours (or another provider's). The new DRM should provide exactly the same restrictions on copying/transferring of files as the original. The legal eagles tell us that this last bit is really a bit too grey at the moment to be safe, so we would be better off restricting ourselves to just a player.
This of course makes liars of all those people that spread FUD about the DCMA and DRM in general. All DRM is crackable, and the provisions in the DCMA make it legal to do so, if the reason for doing so does not infringe fair-use....
more...
KnightWRX
Apr 28, 09:42 AM
So, please don't take everything I typed and generalize it, because it's not for everyone.
I do understand where Dejo, Balamw and the others are coming from though. And frankly, they are probably better suited to help you than I am. I don't have a lot of experience with Objective-C and Cocoa, not like they do, having mostly come into it recently.
Back to the code, here is a photo of my connections (ignore canceBigtimer). What you say is true I don't know how NSTimer works entirely , just some parts, I realize that and it is one of the reason I postpone my timer for a future update (need to study it).
I have two timers, because, like I said.. I don't have full knowledge of timers. I know now that 1 timer is enough, even if I use two timers and start them at the same time, the log only shows 1 loop and the countdown in separate labels show e.g. 59 in one and 58 in another and so on.
Ok, how about we work on making 1 timer work then ? The code you posted is very complicated and I don't think it has to be this complicated. Going 1 timer would simplify this.
I see your Start Button is associated to 3 actions. Is this really what you want ? Let's simplify this. As an exercise, make 1 method, call it startTimer (like I did) and have only that action associated with your start button. From there, you can call the other methods yourself as needed.
Once you have modified the code in this way, post again what you have in full, what it is doing and what you think it should be doing. We'll go from there.
You mention my two global variables, It makes sense that the timer does not stop because the variables are outside the method that creates the timer. is that whats going on?
No, the variables are "fine" where they are. They would be better positionned in the @interface block and declared as instance variables, but implementation scope globals work too.
What you need to do however is reset those if you want your timer to start back at 0. Somewhere in your "stop/reset" code, there needs to be an initialization of those back to 0 :
seconds = 0;
minutes = 0;
If your Cancel button is what should reset it, then this should be right now in newActionTimer. But ideally, we'll get rid of that function when you simplify the code down to 1 timer.
Look at my NSLog outputs in my screenshot earlier. There's 3 methods there. updateLabel, cancelTimer, startTimer. This should have given you a big indication of how not complicated you should have made this.
If you want 3 buttons, start, reset, stop, you'd technically need 4 methods, as follows :
-(IBAction) startTimer: (id) sender;
-(IBAction) stopTimer: (id) sender;
-(IBAction) resetTimer: (id) sender;
-(void) updateLabel;
One to update the label as needed, one to start the timer, one to stop it and one to reset it.
Also, NSTimer is not your timer. The timer is what you are creating with ATimerViewController. You need to grasp this. NSTimer simply calls methods, in this case, it should be update label. That's about all it should be doing. Both the stop and reset methods should release the NSTimer object instance. startTimer should always create a new one. However, reset should be the one to set back seconds/minutes to 0.
I do understand where Dejo, Balamw and the others are coming from though. And frankly, they are probably better suited to help you than I am. I don't have a lot of experience with Objective-C and Cocoa, not like they do, having mostly come into it recently.
Back to the code, here is a photo of my connections (ignore canceBigtimer). What you say is true I don't know how NSTimer works entirely , just some parts, I realize that and it is one of the reason I postpone my timer for a future update (need to study it).
I have two timers, because, like I said.. I don't have full knowledge of timers. I know now that 1 timer is enough, even if I use two timers and start them at the same time, the log only shows 1 loop and the countdown in separate labels show e.g. 59 in one and 58 in another and so on.
Ok, how about we work on making 1 timer work then ? The code you posted is very complicated and I don't think it has to be this complicated. Going 1 timer would simplify this.
I see your Start Button is associated to 3 actions. Is this really what you want ? Let's simplify this. As an exercise, make 1 method, call it startTimer (like I did) and have only that action associated with your start button. From there, you can call the other methods yourself as needed.
Once you have modified the code in this way, post again what you have in full, what it is doing and what you think it should be doing. We'll go from there.
You mention my two global variables, It makes sense that the timer does not stop because the variables are outside the method that creates the timer. is that whats going on?
No, the variables are "fine" where they are. They would be better positionned in the @interface block and declared as instance variables, but implementation scope globals work too.
What you need to do however is reset those if you want your timer to start back at 0. Somewhere in your "stop/reset" code, there needs to be an initialization of those back to 0 :
seconds = 0;
minutes = 0;
If your Cancel button is what should reset it, then this should be right now in newActionTimer. But ideally, we'll get rid of that function when you simplify the code down to 1 timer.
Look at my NSLog outputs in my screenshot earlier. There's 3 methods there. updateLabel, cancelTimer, startTimer. This should have given you a big indication of how not complicated you should have made this.
If you want 3 buttons, start, reset, stop, you'd technically need 4 methods, as follows :
-(IBAction) startTimer: (id) sender;
-(IBAction) stopTimer: (id) sender;
-(IBAction) resetTimer: (id) sender;
-(void) updateLabel;
One to update the label as needed, one to start the timer, one to stop it and one to reset it.
Also, NSTimer is not your timer. The timer is what you are creating with ATimerViewController. You need to grasp this. NSTimer simply calls methods, in this case, it should be update label. That's about all it should be doing. Both the stop and reset methods should release the NSTimer object instance. startTimer should always create a new one. However, reset should be the one to set back seconds/minutes to 0.
thejadedmonkey
Oct 11, 01:21 AM
I'm sure I'll get snarkey comments, but here goes: If I can't check my email on it, I'm not interested.
I've got a couple iPods and a shuffle. They play music, and that's great, but I want something that gets MY information to me. When that happens, they've got me sold.
That's really funny.. I was just wishing my iPod (3G) could sync my email from outlook for reading on-the-go.
I've got a couple iPods and a shuffle. They play music, and that's great, but I want something that gets MY information to me. When that happens, they've got me sold.
That's really funny.. I was just wishing my iPod (3G) could sync my email from outlook for reading on-the-go.
more...
MagnusVonMagnum
Apr 29, 10:34 PM
There's a huge difference between merging in concepts of the UI, user-friendly software distribution, media access and what you describe.
It is very unlikely that Apple's engineering and marketing would destroy what they've worked to build for so long, IMHO. How are you so certain that they'll be bringing all the bad stuff along with the good stuff? Seriously - do you really think that Apple's talent are as utterly foolish that you make them out to be?
Is there? They're already controlling what can and cannot be sold on the iOS platform (and it is an entire platform now with full-fledged computers in the form of the iPad). They've proven themselves beyond contempt by insisting that in-app subscriptions be the same or lower on the App store than direct, despite the fact that they demand 1/3 of all the selling price. They've added an 'App' store for OSX proper and have the same 30% "grab" for everything on there. They're advertising and bragging about bringing iOS features back to OSX. I'm just doing simple math here. You can make 1+1 = 1 if you say it's a bigger one, but in my world, 2 is still the more likely answer.
And you are the ones using the words "foolish". I think it's quite possibly a business-savvy solution to ensuring profits stay high into the future. What you or I may want in OSX is irrelevant to both Apple and Steve Jobs. Steve has essentially said that consumers don't know what's best for them and that it takes a visionary to move forward. We know Steve's 'vision' is smaller/thinner/more mobile at almost any cost. So I'm not saying it will happen like that, but that it's looking more likely every day. Only time will tell for sure. But I know if it does happen, I'll no longer have an interest in OSX. I don't want Apple deciding for me what I can or cannot buy or watching developers get 1/3 their gross taken from them (same % as a typical injury lawyer BTW. You don't get paid until they get paid FIRST and your bills 2nd and you last; in this case it would be taxes instead of bills). You can think it's good/fair/right. I don't agree and I don't want Apple telling me I have to use Safari because they don't want Firefox or Chrome competing with them.
No, it'll happen whether we like it or not. Because the industry is going to the iPad like dumbed down devices for every day use, and in 10-15 years those devices will be fast enough for all of us to do almost everything on them.
I don't know about that. There will always be a market for faster/more powerful (i.e. most people may drive a Ford Focus or Chevy Impala or Toyota Corrola and hybrids may capture larger and larger market penetration in the future, but that doesn't mean there isn't a market for the WRX, Mustang, Corvette, etc. even if it shrinks over time) and so even if Apple AND Microsoft bail out of traditional computing, that just means someone else will likely take over. They can't make Linux go away, for example. And if people didn't BUY it, the lines would stop. Newton didn't exactly go over so well the first time around....
It is very unlikely that Apple's engineering and marketing would destroy what they've worked to build for so long, IMHO. How are you so certain that they'll be bringing all the bad stuff along with the good stuff? Seriously - do you really think that Apple's talent are as utterly foolish that you make them out to be?
Is there? They're already controlling what can and cannot be sold on the iOS platform (and it is an entire platform now with full-fledged computers in the form of the iPad). They've proven themselves beyond contempt by insisting that in-app subscriptions be the same or lower on the App store than direct, despite the fact that they demand 1/3 of all the selling price. They've added an 'App' store for OSX proper and have the same 30% "grab" for everything on there. They're advertising and bragging about bringing iOS features back to OSX. I'm just doing simple math here. You can make 1+1 = 1 if you say it's a bigger one, but in my world, 2 is still the more likely answer.
And you are the ones using the words "foolish". I think it's quite possibly a business-savvy solution to ensuring profits stay high into the future. What you or I may want in OSX is irrelevant to both Apple and Steve Jobs. Steve has essentially said that consumers don't know what's best for them and that it takes a visionary to move forward. We know Steve's 'vision' is smaller/thinner/more mobile at almost any cost. So I'm not saying it will happen like that, but that it's looking more likely every day. Only time will tell for sure. But I know if it does happen, I'll no longer have an interest in OSX. I don't want Apple deciding for me what I can or cannot buy or watching developers get 1/3 their gross taken from them (same % as a typical injury lawyer BTW. You don't get paid until they get paid FIRST and your bills 2nd and you last; in this case it would be taxes instead of bills). You can think it's good/fair/right. I don't agree and I don't want Apple telling me I have to use Safari because they don't want Firefox or Chrome competing with them.
No, it'll happen whether we like it or not. Because the industry is going to the iPad like dumbed down devices for every day use, and in 10-15 years those devices will be fast enough for all of us to do almost everything on them.
I don't know about that. There will always be a market for faster/more powerful (i.e. most people may drive a Ford Focus or Chevy Impala or Toyota Corrola and hybrids may capture larger and larger market penetration in the future, but that doesn't mean there isn't a market for the WRX, Mustang, Corvette, etc. even if it shrinks over time) and so even if Apple AND Microsoft bail out of traditional computing, that just means someone else will likely take over. They can't make Linux go away, for example. And if people didn't BUY it, the lines would stop. Newton didn't exactly go over so well the first time around....
jinxednuance
Mar 9, 11:18 PM
Why is Apple the only tech company that makes unique products? All the other big ones seem to just drop in behind Apple after they invent something... Examples:
�Phones that are designed to simply compete with the iPhone.
�Pretty much every non-Apple tablet.
�iMac lookalikes.
�I've even seem some unibody copy cats...
Why don't they try and come up with something of their own instead of trying to "make a better Apple product"? Its annoying... :mad:
That's a bit of a superficial hypothesis you got. The majority of computers in the world are still Microsoft based. Perhaps businesses are switching to Apple but for now, the world is not at all run by Apple. Not even close. Once Steve controls the market like Bill and becomes half as rich as he is, we may consider talking. You need more experience in life son, as one person said, turn off your Apple product and look outside your window, there's life that doesn't breath Apple.
�Phones that are designed to simply compete with the iPhone.
�Pretty much every non-Apple tablet.
�iMac lookalikes.
�I've even seem some unibody copy cats...
Why don't they try and come up with something of their own instead of trying to "make a better Apple product"? Its annoying... :mad:
That's a bit of a superficial hypothesis you got. The majority of computers in the world are still Microsoft based. Perhaps businesses are switching to Apple but for now, the world is not at all run by Apple. Not even close. Once Steve controls the market like Bill and becomes half as rich as he is, we may consider talking. You need more experience in life son, as one person said, turn off your Apple product and look outside your window, there's life that doesn't breath Apple.
more...
Chris204
Jan 10, 03:38 PM
I bet they won't be getting press passes again next year to CES.
balamw
Oct 2, 04:46 PM
perhaps true... but depends on how it works. if it's just tied to an email address, if they can encode that same email address into the files, it would probably work. Alternatively, it could also mean that someone could come out with a non-iTunes media player that doesn't validate against a server.
Maybe they should just work with Rockbox and make a third party firmware that opens up the iPod to a new open DRM and forget Fairplay compatibility...
(Note, like the Airport Express, the iTV may be an easier nut to crack than iPod+iTunes).
B
Maybe they should just work with Rockbox and make a third party firmware that opens up the iPod to a new open DRM and forget Fairplay compatibility...
(Note, like the Airport Express, the iTV may be an easier nut to crack than iPod+iTunes).
B
more...
Scarlet Fever
Jan 8, 08:55 PM
What I want;
-updated ACDs. They're getting on a bit. I predict the 20" display will go at least 1080 HD, iSight and IR in all models, faster response time, contrast, etc.
-MBP updates. Penryn sounds good at the moment. 2GB RAM standard, updated HDDs, maybe 17" LED display?
-Big Mac Mini update. It could turn into the headless iMac we all want so bad. I'm not hedging any bets on this, though. If it is updated, it'll at least go SR
-MacBook Nano; ULV dual core intel chip at 1.2GHz, 802.11n, BT, up to 2GB RAM (one stick), external optical drive, 11.1" LED display. US$1499
-iTunes 7.6 brings movie rentals, games for iPhone/iPod Touch
-updated ACDs. They're getting on a bit. I predict the 20" display will go at least 1080 HD, iSight and IR in all models, faster response time, contrast, etc.
-MBP updates. Penryn sounds good at the moment. 2GB RAM standard, updated HDDs, maybe 17" LED display?
-Big Mac Mini update. It could turn into the headless iMac we all want so bad. I'm not hedging any bets on this, though. If it is updated, it'll at least go SR
-MacBook Nano; ULV dual core intel chip at 1.2GHz, 802.11n, BT, up to 2GB RAM (one stick), external optical drive, 11.1" LED display. US$1499
-iTunes 7.6 brings movie rentals, games for iPhone/iPod Touch
The Phazer
May 3, 03:02 PM
Users can of course work around carrier restrictions with methods known as "sideloading" that allow users to install apps through unapproved sources, but most casual users are undoubtedly sticking to mainstream, authorized marketplaces such as the Android Market for their needs.
Hmm, I find this highly doubtful to be honest. Aside from anyone who's bought a locked down Android phone that doesn't allow sideloading, I would expect that nearly everyone uses it.
Phazer
Hmm, I find this highly doubtful to be honest. Aside from anyone who's bought a locked down Android phone that doesn't allow sideloading, I would expect that nearly everyone uses it.
Phazer
wrlsmarc
Jul 21, 12:09 PM
The attention paid to this by the press is way overblown and, in my opinion, borders on irresponsible reporting to sell clicks and pages. I have an iPhone 4 and 3GS. Have done side by side comparisons of signal quality and the ability to maintain calls in low signal areas. The iPhone 4 beats my 3GS every call.
Yes I can touch the lower left hand side of the phone and cause signal loss. However, it is also an area that is so small, I can easily avoid. I also use a bumper occasionally. With the bumper, I can't make the signal do much. I do prefer to have a naked iPhone and have no concerns carrying and using it that way.
I for one am very happy with the iPhone 4. It is fast, really fast. It does not drop calls where my 3GS did. The battery life is far superior to any smartphone I have owned. I download a variety of applications without fear. I play my music or Pandora when I work out. I use Facetime.....
Apple has a right to defend themselves. If you look at their choice of antenna design, they placed the antenna as far away from the head as possible. That makes me happy. I am also pleased with SAR values relative to other smartphones.
I guess this makes me a fanboy. But I join the majority that say this is a great phone.
Yes I can touch the lower left hand side of the phone and cause signal loss. However, it is also an area that is so small, I can easily avoid. I also use a bumper occasionally. With the bumper, I can't make the signal do much. I do prefer to have a naked iPhone and have no concerns carrying and using it that way.
I for one am very happy with the iPhone 4. It is fast, really fast. It does not drop calls where my 3GS did. The battery life is far superior to any smartphone I have owned. I download a variety of applications without fear. I play my music or Pandora when I work out. I use Facetime.....
Apple has a right to defend themselves. If you look at their choice of antenna design, they placed the antenna as far away from the head as possible. That makes me happy. I am also pleased with SAR values relative to other smartphones.
I guess this makes me a fanboy. But I join the majority that say this is a great phone.
mikegtown
Apr 15, 12:35 PM
Regardless of the validity, I personally think the chances are very high for a unibody type iPhone, it only makes sense. Apple did a unibody macbook (plastic). Its Apple, everything standardizes and is consistent, otherwise Steve's head will explode.
DeSnousa
Sep 12, 07:20 AM
Can't wait :D
The Australian store is claiming that the store is busy or to check my connection :confused:
The Australian store is claiming that the store is busy or to check my connection :confused:
balamw
Apr 27, 07:04 PM
My sources.. well, my main sources is the Apple documentation (all of it), then theres books and all the same stuff than most developers learn from. And.. no I haven't read all of the books, nor watch every video but I will.
Again with the lack of specificity. :rolleyes:
Being specific is a huge part of learning how to program, because computers only do what you tell them to do. (As you should have learned just by living through this thread).
It's not essential to read every page of every book, but certain books are good at explaining particular concepts. Others, less so.
Telling us specifically which resources got you in this mess, can help us point you at the relevant portions of the resources you already have at your disposal. It also can help us the next newbie who doesn't know a method from an object instance, by pointing them to different resources to avoid your mistakes.
For example, if we know you have access to Kochan's book we could be more specific and say: "Go back and re-read Chapter 3 on "Classes, Objects and Methods"" instead of a more generic "step back and learn the fundamentals".
No, self refers to the instance of the object that is executing the currently running code.
Which Nekbeth might actually know if they took the time to learn something about objects, for example from said Chapter 3 in Kochan. For me, it remains the best description of objects I have read.
B
Again with the lack of specificity. :rolleyes:
Being specific is a huge part of learning how to program, because computers only do what you tell them to do. (As you should have learned just by living through this thread).
It's not essential to read every page of every book, but certain books are good at explaining particular concepts. Others, less so.
Telling us specifically which resources got you in this mess, can help us point you at the relevant portions of the resources you already have at your disposal. It also can help us the next newbie who doesn't know a method from an object instance, by pointing them to different resources to avoid your mistakes.
For example, if we know you have access to Kochan's book we could be more specific and say: "Go back and re-read Chapter 3 on "Classes, Objects and Methods"" instead of a more generic "step back and learn the fundamentals".
No, self refers to the instance of the object that is executing the currently running code.
Which Nekbeth might actually know if they took the time to learn something about objects, for example from said Chapter 3 in Kochan. For me, it remains the best description of objects I have read.
B
daneoni
Mar 17, 05:50 PM
It's probably the lines fed to them by retail employees at point of purchase. This is actually cheaper yet better than the iPhone because *insert random pro here*
Beric
Oct 6, 03:34 PM
Verizon has the best service, AT&T has the best phones.
You win and lose either way.
You win and lose either way.
No comments:
Post a Comment