I genuinely appreciate the enthusiasm of the many people who port *NIX code to work in Darwin/OS X. And, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
However, FreeCraft has got to be one of the ugliest games I've seen to date (and I've seen a lot of them in arcades, on consoles, and on computers over the past 30 years).
I'm sure the reason is due in part to how X Window is used for the graphics. Another part of the problem may be the game's general design. I've never played the thing (my knee-jerk analysis is based on the screenshots from the SourceForge site noted in the topic) so I can't comment on its playability.
Given that this is a game that was developed for free use, and that it is made to work on more than two operating systems (such as Windows or Mac OS), this is an impressive feat. However, I hope somebody is working on making it less hideous. Part of a game's magic is its appearance, but then, I know that I'm pretty spoiled now in the age of hyperrealistic first-person shooters and precision graphics.
Was this game created as an OSS alternative to WarCraft, or was it on the scene prior?
Wait until next week, when the Macworld Expo trade show begins. Next Tuesday is the Keynote address by the Apple CEO, that showmaster himself, Steve Jobs. It's possible that a new Power Mac G4 box will be announced then, which may influence your decision.
OTOH, the current line of hardware is still very robust (albeit lacking badly in system bus, if you ask me) and may be found at cheaper prices as any new hardware is made available.
Generally, the most savvy Macintosh users don't buy anything during the months before the January and July trade shows, but Apple also introduces new product outside of the trade show more often as well.
Re:Details gimme details.
on
Making the iPod
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Funny that you say that "the guts of the iPod aren't special" considering how much inaccurate flak Apple gets when it comes to their hardware.
The iPod is proof yet again that, wherever possible for the best, least expensive product, Apple avoids its old way of using proprietary components and uses ordinary tech and good industrial design to make extraordinary creative product.
They're not perfect in this--note the Apple Display Connector, a variant on the DVI connector except it also provides electrical power in addition to digital display data and USB signals. It's a nice connector because you only use one cable for their digital displays (no separate power or USB cables), however, it works only with Power Mac desktops and PowerBook G4s (with adapter). You can get it to work with a PC, but I think that's too much work.
Innovation doesn't always require new technology. Sometimes it only requires a repackaging of existing tech with an efficient twist. Apple's key to the iPod's success is the use of the FireWire interface for very speedy data transfer as well as using it to recharge the device, and the integration of its iTunes software to make song transfer seemless.
Note that even iTunes itself is taken from a previous Mac MP3 player product from Casady and Greene.
Don't be a troll--we're all out of Troll Treats here.
A Macintosh is not overpriced, although I'm sure that this fact continues to pass in and out of your mind no matter how many people post it. Buying a typical Mac means simply paying for good, integrated, hardy equipment upfront and avoiding most common installation and config woes, rather than trying to build your PC Jaguar from Ford parts.
Sure, building your own box is part of the appeal, but not everyone wants to be a hax0r, OK? Many people just want something that works, and Macintosh systems have this over PC workstations in spades because they aren't an integrated unit.
When you stock up your PC with the best parts, you chuck out enough cash to buy a good Mac, with some cash left for hardware. I use Macs, but have my own (sweet) PC game box that I built, so it's not that I don't understand this concept. If I wanted a better game box, I'd spend another $1000 on the PC. I could just add a better video card for maybe $200 to the Mac to bring it to better power.
A used Macintosh of, say, 3 years, can run Mac OS X. Consider a Power Macintosh G3 Blue-and-White. Works great, can be overclocked, uses the same parts as a typical PC, and can be found cheaply. Can't do this well on the Windows side, although Linux will run on 3-yr old PC hardware well. However...this was the point of the topic: Linux doesn't work as well as the commercial OS offerings.
Having both options leaves me with the pleasant problem of buying Jedi Outcast for my PC now, waiting a couple more months for the Mac OS X version, or just getting both for my home network.
When it comes to popular software (especially games), a Linux user's options are nearly zero, sad to say. And I've tried Linux as well with marginal success. It's just hard to justify it for the home (unless you need a server).
One could suggest Darwin, which is the BSD/Mach core OS of Mac OS X. It's been ported to x86, so one would not have to chuck their investment.
However, Darwin is even less mature than Linux from a desktop standpoint, and the user would be stuck with an X interface there as well. It helps to note this stuff, however.
I agree--nice as OS X is (I use it continually), most folks can't just go buy a new box when they feel like it. Still, if a person tired of Windows but needed UNIX flexibility, Mac OS X would be the most logical (and generally economical in terms of time spent using vs. hacking) way to go.
Yep. I've noted the trend, too. Ironically, IE5.2 for Mac OS X isn't recognized by many sites that handle its Windows counterpart.
That's when I load up OmniWeb, which has an option in its preferences to proclaim itself as any popular Windows or Mac browser type, and can be customized as well.
This doesn't guarantee that OmniWeb will actually be compatible with the site, but at least it lets you in the door.
This is a nasty issue. Computers of all types need standards to communicate. While the W3C community has a standard, it's the effect of the mostly self-crafted and barely compatible coding of one company, Microsoft, that undoes that, and creates disharmony and incompatibility.
When my wife and I are online shopping and run into an incompatible site, we vote with our browser. If the business doesn't understand or care that the world does not revolve around Windows, fuck 'em. We take our money to a site that does. I may have to fight incompatibility at work, but I don't have to live with it at home.
Still, I now have to fight with getting my online banking to work in any Mac browser. I had to get my PC game box up to make a simple transaction. My PC box is for fragging chix, not for fragging checks!
It's not that Apple is trying to stop news from getting out. It WILL get out. But this is mostly a matter of marketing and revenue in terms of news control. Apple loses cash when "blog journalists" go in on press passes. They also have, as you said, info that's not yet for press--pressed.
I think it's mostly getting people to pay what they should pay. It does have to do with news control. Hey, it's their company. They will reap the rewards and wrath of the users looking for news.
Linda Florentino apparently is a difficult actress to work with. I have this on general hearsay from the 'net, so take that as you will. Either she has a prima donna attitude, or does not like to work in sequels. (Note her lack of appearance in any Kevin Smith movies after "Dogma", or MIB2.)
A third option escapes me, but--who knows--she may simply want to spend more time with her family.
Thanks for clarifying. I did read the article, but I misstated what was there.
I should have said that Microsoft's MBU head indicated that Apple had not made the Hebrew implementation a "top-tier" implementation, so they would not either.
Again, it's good business sense not to go out of your way to support something that the OS would not handle. That's also a good tech decision--OS X is not OS 9, and trying to hack it will make a bad time for everyone. I'm pleased at the logic of MS's response, since this IS Microsoft we're talking about here--a company that is rarely slowed by most kinds of coding ethics. The MBU is a notable exception to this, I think.
Otherwise, Microsoft would have to cater to other languages with smaller populations as well. Logically, if Apple doesn't provide support, adding support in the MS product doesn't make sense, either.
I'm betting that there's a larger clientele than Hebrew out there. It's an artificial language, and is growing pretty fast, based on some stats (yes, yes, I know--lies, damned lies, and statistics).
Klingon. It's not widespread as Esperanto, but much hotter.
I bet the Cut/Copy/Paste commands in Klingonnase would be more proactive...like...
To add on to your most excellent point, Microsoft could, but so far hasn't had an epiphany about the current state of OS affairs. It's no longer an OS war. They won, for the most part. That, however, doesn't mean that the other operating systems have lost. Microsoft is still playing the OS war game when everyone else has laid that ball down long ago and simply decided to just choose a game they prefer to play, metaphorically speaking.
If you are not running a version of Windows, you are almost certainly running some form of UNIX, whether it be a clone (Linux), a BSD or variant (FreeBSD, Mac OS X, Darwin), or a straight-shooter UNIX (IRIX, Solaris, AIX, et al.)
Microsoft could service ALL of these if they moved to a UNIX dev model. That would solve so many issues for them in terms of competition with others, code development (one code for almost all), and security (MS code, written in compliance with other UNIXes, would inherit the OS's security plan).
But NOOOOoooo.
Linux isn't a failure. It's just on its way of looking for its niche. I think it's got a solid future as a cheap, efficient server OS, although it can handle a desktop. Mac OS X is UNIX for the masses on a desktop, but works great as a server. Can't speak for other UNIX, but they obviously have their places and work fine.
Only MS doesn't speak our (UNIX) language. Sic semper stultus.
Re:Be Careful--Warranty-Voiding Stuff
on
Inside the eMac
·
· Score: 2
I'm not elite. I'm just experienced. The AST isn't much more than an Apple A+. I'm a writer, so I make much ado in writing in case someone didn't know.
Right...we don't get very dirty doing repairs. I leave my tights and cape at home. It's a job, but I'm proud of that little bit of stuff.
And kudos to you for having an insight in the general computing industry that few people, particularly people such as Dvorak and many IT professionals lack.
The Macintosh brand is a stable brand, but Dvorak does raise an interesting point. Since Apple is one of the few companies that seem to be able to reinvent itself, perhaps they should consider reinventing the Macintosh in another brand name that's more in line with the product's diversity (it's a business computer, it's a graphics box, it's a recreation box, it's a floor wax, dessert topping and more, et al.) I can see that a name change, even if Apple never changed the basic design, may make a better market pitch to IT professionals whose name sours on the word "Mac."
Usually Dvorak doesn't have a clue. He might have one here, although he's generally wrong in his basic point of the article.
In the office, I have to have my needs met by a slurry of browsers.
IE (which does have a different code base than its PC counterpart--remember that IE6 in Windows is an embedded component of the OS, unlike the Mac version) is the most compatible with most Internet pages, but also the most annoying. Go to the wrong page, and you're in pop-up hell. The new font smoothing makes it a little more palatable, however. You can't use anything but IE if you hit pages that are loaded with JavaScript, complex style sheets, or ActiveX controls. Java support appears generally OK--better than in the OS 9 versions, but still lacking somehow. This browser works on corporate pages where all others fail, and is the only one that handles Apple's WebObjects properly.
OmniWeb is my browser of general choice. The current 5 beta has matured well with standards compliance and compatibility, and allows pop-up control. It may still choke on pages obviously created only for Windows users in mind. It's font smoothing is the best of the lot. The beta isn't always stable for some pages, such as CNN.
Netscape 6 is used when neither IE or OmniWeb are working properly.
Re:Be Careful--Warranty-Voiding Stuff
on
Inside the eMac
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Of course, I'd be a better AST if I used "eMac" and not "iMac" throughout my diatribe above.
Same thoughts apply, but with one serious addition: The eMac has a CRT, full of very high-voltage parts that could end your life quite painfully and permanently. Definitely DON'T open an eMac (or anything with a CRT) unless you are experienced.
Hell, I'M experienced, and I still would fork these over to another lackey--er--professional.
Be Careful--Warranty-Voiding Stuff
on
Inside the eMac
·
· Score: 3, Informative
It's a nice thing that someone else wanted the rest of us to see the innards of the new iMac. It's really ingenious how Apple stuffed everything in the hemisphere. I like the use of old tech terms, like "Faraday shield."
I am an Apple Service Technician...part of a very few group of people who are authorized to take apart and reassemble Apple products without voiding its warranty. As such, this topic is of no news to me since I have access to confidential service manuals that tell me how to properly take apart the things.
The flat-panel iMac has a panel at its base to install additional RAM, but that is all that Apple expects users to disassemble. If you disassemble your iMac in this manner, do NOT expect an Apple repair service to consider it under warranty should you need to have it repaired. iMacs are cheap, but not THAT cheap.
The iMac is more like the classic Macs of old that Apple did not expect you to open anymore than you would crack open your toaster to repair it. (Other Macs, like the desktop Power Macs, don't have this problem--upgrades are as OK as on a typical PC. Add as many hard drives and RAM and PCI cards as you need, or even add a new processor [OK, that's a warranty void, but who cares?])
No--the props are based for an adult's hand. They have the same size and proportions you would expect. They aren't like the oversized saber toys with the telescoping blades.
The one I have is the Defiance model, which superficially looks like Anakin Skywalker's Jedi saber, the one that Luke first receives from Ben Kenobi. It weighs about 2 pounds, and hurts if you attach it the wrong way to your belt and have it swing the wrong way into your crotch.
Parks makes the replicas to look faintly like versions used in the movies. They are typically aircraft aluminum, and are very, very tough and scratch resistant. Some are designed for a blade, others just hang on your belt and make people ask if it works.
The item I have is based on Luke's first/the Graflex design. It serves its purpose well enough for the costume during the occasional con or costume party. If you want a "lightsaber" of your own, Jeff does a good job.
Lucasfilm generally does not chase down anyone who avoids the use of trademarked names and likenesses or is otherwise obviously capitalizing on his vast empire. Otherwise, people who make costume templates and accessories, especially the stormtrooper stuff and droid parts, would be sued immediately.
In 1994, the buzzword was "multimedia." In 1998, the buzzwords all involved the Internet. In 1999, the buzz was all about UNIX and Linux. In 2000, Apple announced Mac OS X, which was a pun on the point that the new OS would run a form of BSD UNIX and that this was version 10, as in the Roman numeral. (There may have been an OS named "OS 10" elsewhere that could've led to trademark suits, too.) The new interface was named "Aqua."
Microsoft, working on its "Whistler" OS successor, later announced that it would slap on a Fisher-Pricey interface on its Whistler OS and name the interface "Luna." Later, they would announce that the new OS would be named Windows XP.
The industry names their products with respectively confusing names thereafter.
I think we can blame Microsoft on helping to muddy the waters once again on this one to confuse things mostly with OS X and other UNIXes.
Re:Perhaps OSS Zealots shouldn't piss off Blizzard
on
Warcraft III Gone Gold
·
· Score: 2
I know exactly what I'm talking about. There IS right and there is wrong. And wrong is adapting someone else's work for your personal use, even if you're not making cash from it.
I think that a Linux port of anything isn't a big deal. Activision did it with a Civ game. The problem may be simple market share. In which case, write some letters, make some praise, and ask for a game. But don't spam them, or just generally be an asshole.
Blizzard's games are given value from THEIR online service, not bnetd. Also, Blizzard has to defend any infraction of their copyrights or intellectual property--however vague they may be to you.
I didn't say anything about being quiet when protesting. I meant that you don't need to be complete l33t booger-eating, I'll-steal-this-shit-because-I-won't-get-caught, rage-against-everything, under-30, experienced ASSHOLE.
NO ONE likes an asshole, and companies like Blizzard may just throw a big middle finger to any asinine protest, as opposed to one that's assertive and not aggressive.
Why in fuck does everyone on Slashdot want to get into a fistfight situation? Well, I guess I show my age.
Neither protesting or praising should compromise principles. If you think otherwise, you didn't read my post.
Blizzard? Doing something wrong? The courts don't think so yet. Their fans don't seem to think so. Maybe we should convince the lawmakers that DMCA is wrong, rather than beating up on a business that can give a rat's ass about how YOU feel.
Slashdot Mirror
I genuinely appreciate the enthusiasm of the many people who port *NIX code to work in Darwin/OS X. And, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
However, FreeCraft has got to be one of the ugliest games I've seen to date (and I've seen a lot of them in arcades, on consoles, and on computers over the past 30 years).
I'm sure the reason is due in part to how X Window is used for the graphics. Another part of the problem may be the game's general design. I've never played the thing (my knee-jerk analysis is based on the screenshots from the SourceForge site noted in the topic) so I can't comment on its playability.
Given that this is a game that was developed for free use, and that it is made to work on more than two operating systems (such as Windows or Mac OS), this is an impressive feat. However, I hope somebody is working on making it less hideous. Part of a game's magic is its appearance, but then, I know that I'm pretty spoiled now in the age of hyperrealistic first-person shooters and precision graphics.
Was this game created as an OSS alternative to WarCraft, or was it on the scene prior?
Wait until next week, when the Macworld Expo trade show begins. Next Tuesday is the Keynote address by the Apple CEO, that showmaster himself, Steve Jobs. It's possible that a new Power Mac G4 box will be announced then, which may influence your decision.
OTOH, the current line of hardware is still very robust (albeit lacking badly in system bus, if you ask me) and may be found at cheaper prices as any new hardware is made available.
Generally, the most savvy Macintosh users don't buy anything during the months before the January and July trade shows, but Apple also introduces new product outside of the trade show more often as well.
Funny that you say that "the guts of the iPod aren't special" considering how much inaccurate flak Apple gets when it comes to their hardware.
The iPod is proof yet again that, wherever possible for the best, least expensive product, Apple avoids its old way of using proprietary components and uses ordinary tech and good industrial design to make extraordinary creative product.
They're not perfect in this--note the Apple Display Connector, a variant on the DVI connector except it also provides electrical power in addition to digital display data and USB signals. It's a nice connector because you only use one cable for their digital displays (no separate power or USB cables), however, it works only with Power Mac desktops and PowerBook G4s (with adapter). You can get it to work with a PC, but I think that's too much work.
Innovation doesn't always require new technology. Sometimes it only requires a repackaging of existing tech with an efficient twist. Apple's key to the iPod's success is the use of the FireWire interface for very speedy data transfer as well as using it to recharge the device, and the integration of its iTunes software to make song transfer seemless.
Note that even iTunes itself is taken from a previous Mac MP3 player product from Casady and Greene.
Don't be a troll--we're all out of Troll Treats here.
A Macintosh is not overpriced, although I'm sure that this fact continues to pass in and out of your mind no matter how many people post it. Buying a typical Mac means simply paying for good, integrated, hardy equipment upfront and avoiding most common installation and config woes, rather than trying to build your PC Jaguar from Ford parts.
Sure, building your own box is part of the appeal, but not everyone wants to be a hax0r, OK? Many people just want something that works, and Macintosh systems have this over PC workstations in spades because they aren't an integrated unit.
When you stock up your PC with the best parts, you chuck out enough cash to buy a good Mac, with some cash left for hardware. I use Macs, but have my own (sweet) PC game box that I built, so it's not that I don't understand this concept. If I wanted a better game box, I'd spend another $1000 on the PC. I could just add a better video card for maybe $200 to the Mac to bring it to better power.
A used Macintosh of, say, 3 years, can run Mac OS X. Consider a Power Macintosh G3 Blue-and-White. Works great, can be overclocked, uses the same parts as a typical PC, and can be found cheaply. Can't do this well on the Windows side, although Linux will run on 3-yr old PC hardware well. However...this was the point of the topic: Linux doesn't work as well as the commercial OS offerings.
Having both options leaves me with the pleasant problem of buying Jedi Outcast for my PC now, waiting a couple more months for the Mac OS X version, or just getting both for my home network.
When it comes to popular software (especially games), a Linux user's options are nearly zero, sad to say. And I've tried Linux as well with marginal success. It's just hard to justify it for the home (unless you need a server).
One could suggest Darwin, which is the BSD/Mach core OS of Mac OS X. It's been ported to x86, so one would not have to chuck their investment.
However, Darwin is even less mature than Linux from a desktop standpoint, and the user would be stuck with an X interface there as well. It helps to note this stuff, however.
I agree--nice as OS X is (I use it continually), most folks can't just go buy a new box when they feel like it. Still, if a person tired of Windows but needed UNIX flexibility, Mac OS X would be the most logical (and generally economical in terms of time spent using vs. hacking) way to go.
Yep. I've noted the trend, too. Ironically, IE5.2 for Mac OS X isn't recognized by many sites that handle its Windows counterpart.
That's when I load up OmniWeb, which has an option in its preferences to proclaim itself as any popular Windows or Mac browser type, and can be customized as well.
This doesn't guarantee that OmniWeb will actually be compatible with the site, but at least it lets you in the door.
This is a nasty issue. Computers of all types need standards to communicate. While the W3C community has a standard, it's the effect of the mostly self-crafted and barely compatible coding of one company, Microsoft, that undoes that, and creates disharmony and incompatibility.
When my wife and I are online shopping and run into an incompatible site, we vote with our browser. If the business doesn't understand or care that the world does not revolve around Windows, fuck 'em. We take our money to a site that does. I may have to fight incompatibility at work, but I don't have to live with it at home.
Still, I now have to fight with getting my online banking to work in any Mac browser. I had to get my PC game box up to make a simple transaction. My PC box is for fragging chix, not for fragging checks!
Very funny! This definitely requires a poster version. Your site (like tubes) ROCK!! :)
It's not that Apple is trying to stop news from getting out. It WILL get out. But this is mostly a matter of marketing and revenue in terms of news control. Apple loses cash when "blog journalists" go in on press passes. They also have, as you said, info that's not yet for press--pressed.
I think it's mostly getting people to pay what they should pay. It does have to do with news control. Hey, it's their company. They will reap the rewards and wrath of the users looking for news.
I'd rather have something more esoteric.
Like grafting Walt Disney's face on a Lego and "freezing" it. Or maybe just a Mickey-on-Ice.
(Yeah..it's urban legend, but it's still amusing.)
Linda Florentino apparently is a difficult actress to work with. I have this on general hearsay from the 'net, so take that as you will. Either she has a prima donna attitude, or does not like to work in sequels. (Note her lack of appearance in any Kevin Smith movies after "Dogma", or MIB2.)
A third option escapes me, but--who knows--she may simply want to spend more time with her family.
I liked the sig...saw it on some other chat site. I believe it comes from a movie, but don't know which one.
;)
P.S.: Don't mind the ACs (tokhe straav) who have no honor and no name in a true Klingon's eyes!
Reminds me of the 20 Comments of Klingon Programmers that circulate. Maybe that's what MS needs to fix their problems.
Thanks for clarifying. I did read the article, but I misstated what was there.
I should have said that Microsoft's MBU head indicated that Apple had not made the Hebrew implementation a "top-tier" implementation, so they would not either.
Again, it's good business sense not to go out of your way to support something that the OS would not handle. That's also a good tech decision--OS X is not OS 9, and trying to hack it will make a bad time for everyone. I'm pleased at the logic of MS's response, since this IS Microsoft we're talking about here--a company that is rarely slowed by most kinds of coding ethics. The MBU is a notable exception to this, I think.
Otherwise, Microsoft would have to cater to other languages with smaller populations as well. Logically, if Apple doesn't provide support, adding support in the MS product doesn't make sense, either.
I'm betting that there's a larger clientele than Hebrew out there. It's an artificial language, and is growing pretty fast, based on some stats (yes, yes, I know--lies, damned lies, and statistics).
Klingon. It's not widespread as Esperanto, but much hotter.
I bet the Cut/Copy/Paste commands in Klingonnase would be more proactive...like...
SLASH/CLONE/SMASH
To add on to your most excellent point, Microsoft could, but so far hasn't had an epiphany about the current state of OS affairs. It's no longer an OS war. They won, for the most part. That, however, doesn't mean that the other operating systems have lost. Microsoft is still playing the OS war game when everyone else has laid that ball down long ago and simply decided to just choose a game they prefer to play, metaphorically speaking.
If you are not running a version of Windows, you are almost certainly running some form of UNIX, whether it be a clone (Linux), a BSD or variant (FreeBSD, Mac OS X, Darwin), or a straight-shooter UNIX (IRIX, Solaris, AIX, et al.)
Microsoft could service ALL of these if they moved to a UNIX dev model. That would solve so many issues for them in terms of competition with others, code development (one code for almost all), and security (MS code, written in compliance with other UNIXes, would inherit the OS's security plan).
But NOOOOoooo.
Linux isn't a failure. It's just on its way of looking for its niche. I think it's got a solid future as a cheap, efficient server OS, although it can handle a desktop. Mac OS X is UNIX for the masses on a desktop, but works great as a server. Can't speak for other UNIX, but they obviously have their places and work fine.
Only MS doesn't speak our (UNIX) language. Sic semper stultus.
I'm not elite. I'm just experienced. The AST isn't much more than an Apple A+. I'm a writer, so I make much ado in writing in case someone didn't know.
Right...we don't get very dirty doing repairs. I leave my tights and cape at home. It's a job, but I'm proud of that little bit of stuff.
And kudos to you for having an insight in the general computing industry that few people, particularly people such as Dvorak and many IT professionals lack.
The Macintosh brand is a stable brand, but Dvorak does raise an interesting point. Since Apple is one of the few companies that seem to be able to reinvent itself, perhaps they should consider reinventing the Macintosh in another brand name that's more in line with the product's diversity (it's a business computer, it's a graphics box, it's a recreation box, it's a floor wax, dessert topping and more, et al.) I can see that a name change, even if Apple never changed the basic design, may make a better market pitch to IT professionals whose name sours on the word "Mac."
Usually Dvorak doesn't have a clue. He might have one here, although he's generally wrong in his basic point of the article.
In the office, I have to have my needs met by a slurry of browsers.
IE (which does have a different code base than its PC counterpart--remember that IE6 in Windows is an embedded component of the OS, unlike the Mac version) is the most compatible with most Internet pages, but also the most annoying. Go to the wrong page, and you're in pop-up hell. The new font smoothing makes it a little more palatable, however. You can't use anything but IE if you hit pages that are loaded with JavaScript, complex style sheets, or ActiveX controls. Java support appears generally OK--better than in the OS 9 versions, but still lacking somehow. This browser works on corporate pages where all others fail, and is the only one that handles Apple's WebObjects properly.
OmniWeb is my browser of general choice. The current 5 beta has matured well with standards compliance and compatibility, and allows pop-up control. It may still choke on pages obviously created only for Windows users in mind. It's font smoothing is the best of the lot. The beta isn't always stable for some pages, such as CNN.
Netscape 6 is used when neither IE or OmniWeb are working properly.
Perhaps "Irradiated" might fit now, too.
Of course, I'd be a better AST if I used "eMac" and not "iMac" throughout my diatribe above.
Same thoughts apply, but with one serious addition: The eMac has a CRT, full of very high-voltage parts that could end your life quite painfully and permanently. Definitely DON'T open an eMac (or anything with a CRT) unless you are experienced.
Hell, I'M experienced, and I still would fork these over to another lackey--er--professional.
It's a nice thing that someone else wanted the rest of us to see the innards of the new iMac. It's really ingenious how Apple stuffed everything in the hemisphere. I like the use of old tech terms, like "Faraday shield."
I am an Apple Service Technician...part of a very few group of people who are authorized to take apart and reassemble Apple products without voiding its warranty. As such, this topic is of no news to me since I have access to confidential service manuals that tell me how to properly take apart the things.
The flat-panel iMac has a panel at its base to install additional RAM, but that is all that Apple expects users to disassemble. If you disassemble your iMac in this manner, do NOT expect an Apple repair service to consider it under warranty should you need to have it repaired. iMacs are cheap, but not THAT cheap.
The iMac is more like the classic Macs of old that Apple did not expect you to open anymore than you would crack open your toaster to repair it. (Other Macs, like the desktop Power Macs, don't have this problem--upgrades are as OK as on a typical PC. Add as many hard drives and RAM and PCI cards as you need, or even add a new processor [OK, that's a warranty void, but who cares?])
In other words, don't try this stuff at home!
No--the props are based for an adult's hand. They have the same size and proportions you would expect. They aren't like the oversized saber toys with the telescoping blades.
The one I have is the Defiance model, which superficially looks like Anakin Skywalker's Jedi saber, the one that Luke first receives from Ben Kenobi. It weighs about 2 pounds, and hurts if you attach it the wrong way to your belt and have it swing the wrong way into your crotch.
::sigh:: I really need to get out more often.
I can't count the number of times that someone has taken the thing, stuck it up to their eye, pressed the bogus buttons and asked if it worked.
If only the mind tricks really worked.
Parks makes the replicas to look faintly like versions used in the movies. They are typically aircraft aluminum, and are very, very tough and scratch resistant. Some are designed for a blade, others just hang on your belt and make people ask if it works.
The item I have is based on Luke's first/the Graflex design. It serves its purpose well enough for the costume during the occasional con or costume party. If you want a "lightsaber" of your own, Jeff does a good job.
Lucasfilm generally does not chase down anyone who avoids the use of trademarked names and likenesses or is otherwise obviously capitalizing on his vast empire. Otherwise, people who make costume templates and accessories, especially the stormtrooper stuff and droid parts, would be sued immediately.
In 1994, the buzzword was "multimedia."
In 1998, the buzzwords all involved the Internet.
In 1999, the buzz was all about UNIX and Linux.
In 2000, Apple announced Mac OS X, which was a pun on the point that the new OS would run a form of BSD UNIX and that this was version 10, as in the Roman numeral. (There may have been an OS named "OS 10" elsewhere that could've led to trademark suits, too.) The new interface was named "Aqua."
Microsoft, working on its "Whistler" OS successor, later announced that it would slap on a Fisher-Pricey interface on its Whistler OS and name the interface "Luna." Later, they would announce that the new OS would be named Windows XP.
The industry names their products with respectively confusing names thereafter.
I think we can blame Microsoft on helping to muddy the waters once again on this one to confuse things mostly with OS X and other UNIXes.
I know exactly what I'm talking about. There IS right and there is wrong. And wrong is adapting someone else's work for your personal use, even if you're not making cash from it.
I think that a Linux port of anything isn't a big deal. Activision did it with a Civ game. The problem may be simple market share. In which case, write some letters, make some praise, and ask for a game. But don't spam them, or just generally be an asshole.
Blizzard's games are given value from THEIR online service, not bnetd. Also, Blizzard has to defend any infraction of their copyrights or intellectual property--however vague they may be to you.
I didn't say anything about being quiet when protesting. I meant that you don't need to be complete l33t booger-eating, I'll-steal-this-shit-because-I-won't-get-caught, rage-against-everything, under-30, experienced ASSHOLE.
NO ONE likes an asshole, and companies like Blizzard may just throw a big middle finger to any asinine protest, as opposed to one that's assertive and not aggressive.
Why in fuck does everyone on Slashdot want to get into a fistfight situation? Well, I guess I show my age.
Neither protesting or praising should compromise principles. If you think otherwise, you didn't read my post.
Blizzard? Doing something wrong? The courts don't think so yet. Their fans don't seem to think so. Maybe we should convince the lawmakers that DMCA is wrong, rather than beating up on a business that can give a rat's ass about how YOU feel.