King's Quest III get's my vote for best adventure game ever. Sigh! What ever did happen to the adventure game genre?
Incidentally, The Black Cauldron didn't have a text-based parse. You hit a key on your keyboard, or joystick, as I played it, and selected one of three options, "Do", "Use", or "Look."
All three of those click-and-drag techniques work in Mac OS, including Mac OS X, and including the Mac OS X terminal. And, might I add, this is much better than the brain dead selection Microsoft Office introduced, where whole-word selection is on by default. I've turned it off in Word, etc., because it drives me insane, but it doesn't appear possible to turn it off on IE in Windows. Aargh!
I already knew my cats could play Adventure. Whenever they walk across the keyboard (usually, to draw my attention away from Slashdot), they type "XYZZY."
No, you can just request the HTTP HEAD, which will give you the modification date, among other data. Also, HTTP GET supports a syntax that basically says, "GET file if modified since..." That's basically the request your web browser makes, and how caching in your browser works.
It's apparently common for companies to knowingly put unenforceable clauses into standard contracts in order to scare uninformed employees into behaving as if they were enforceable.
I've always had a feeling that's the case, and when I read your comment, it made me think that there should be a law that basically invalidates an entire contract if it has two many unenforceable clauses in it. The idea is to prevent this sort of abuse that comes from trying to "slip in" clauses that many employees would not realize are not legal.
After I thought of that, I remember the agreement that I, just yesterday, had to re-sign (after the subsidiary came under closer control of the parent company), and there was a clause saying that if any clause is deemed unenforceable, the rest of the contract is still valid. Which makes me think that perhaps, my idea had occurred to others.
On a side note, I wonder, am I violating any part of the confidentiality agreement by discussing the confidentiality agreement? First rule of work club is, don't talk about work club.
You're probably correct on that, which points us to something very important: Don't even use your employers equipment to work on open source, personal, or contract work for another, because you might get bitten.
Incidentally, I just had to re-sign a confidentiality agreement with my employer. I felt fairly comfortable with signing it, even though I have been an occasional open source contributer and work on several personal projects. The language seemed to make it clear that the company only claims ownership of "inventions" developed during working hours or with their equipment. Let's hope I'm right! In the meantime, I better check to see if Georgia has similar laws as California.
You're going to look awfully silly with that big ol' 40GB Maxtor hard drive on your hip as you go jogging. And I'll bet you'll feel silly, too, when you realize that the Maxtor can't play music on its own.
Sun has a 24.1" LCD display, which offers the same resolution of the new Apple display, though about $1000 more (from what I've read from other sources). Still, I drool over the Apple display.
This really does look neat, but I see two problems with it. First, it won't provide the tactile feedback of a real keyboard, so I imagine it would be easy to type between "keys." Second, notice how far away the "keyboard" is away from the Palm; I think the little screen would be difficult to read from that distance (at least it would be for a poor myopic fool like me!)
As a fellow Atlanta, I noticed that, too. My first reaction was, "Wow! We got mentioned by a scientist! Neato!" Then I thought, "How silly, like we need an example of what a 'populated area' is?" Then I thought, why not use Boston as an example. That's also a "populated area." Then, reality hit me like said asteroid: Mr. Williams was kissing up to CNN.
Clever, but of course, this difference is that when you click the "agree" button, you have had an opportunity to read the agreement, even though the majority of us probably do not. When someone at Microsoft signs for your certified letter, they have not yet had a chance to read the contract you contained within the envelope.
Now, I'm not saying I agree with Microsoft, I'm just playing devil's advocate. Which one might think is one in the same.
For what ever reason, that reminds me of something that truly bothers me about some video games (including Pod Racer *): Lens flares. To me, a video game should make us feel like we are there, not like we are watching a film of somebody else who was there. And, in my experience, the lens of the human eye does not generate lens flares. If lens flares are added to video games to make them seem more realistic, they have actually done the opposite.
Mod me down for "off-topic," but this is funny, so what the heck!
No More Tech Talk! In 1993 MacWeek reported that Apple was developing three computers code named Piltdown Man, Carl Sagan, and Cold Fusion. Upon reading this tidbit of information, the real Carl Sagan fired off a very sober letter to MacWEEK, stressing that his "endorsement was not for sale." Sagan's letter appeared in the January 10, 1994 issue of MacWEEK and elicited howls of derision from the Macintosh community. Most people wondered why Sagan was complaining. It has been suggested that what upset Sagan the most was being grouped with two discredited scientific discoveries/hoaxes, Piltdown Man and Cold Fusion. In deference to the noted star-gazer, Apple changed the Carl Sagan code name to BHA. Things were beginning to return to normal when Sagan learned that BHA supposedly stood for Butt-head Astronomer. He put pressure on Apple's lawyers, who insisted the project engineers come up with a new code. They settled on LAW, which stands for Lawyers Are Wimps. Nonetheless, in the third week of April, 1994, Sagan sued Apple in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles, charging it with defamation of character. He sought unspecified damages, probably hoping to reap "billions and billions" of dollars. Fortunately for Apple, Judge J. Baird dismissed the suit, opining that "One does not seriously attack the expertise of a scientist using the undefined phrase 'butt-head.' "
Excerpt from The Mac Bathroom Reader by Owen W. Linzmayer.
Cringely says that Porsche buyers would continue buying Porsche's, and the Belchfire 400 sales would come from Corvette and Viper owners; that is, he intends to claim, Porsche owners would remain loyal. But while making that argument, he completely ignores the fact that Corvette and Viper owners are also extremely loyal. He uses loyalty as an argument, but then throws it out the window when it suits him.
So, do I point this out solely to nitpick? No, not solely. I do so because he uses this example to argue that, due to loyalty, Apple would not lose hardware sales to Intel boxes running OS X. He points out the loyalty will keep buyers from jumping ship, be the ship Porsche or Apple, but then in the same paragraph, admits that loyalty has its limits. His analogy is flawed, so it does not make a credible argument.
I'm not split hairs here; the question of lost hardware sales has to be the biggest issue standing in the way of Mac OS X on Intel. If Cringely is going to argue for it, he has to convincingly allay those fears, and he has not done so.
There are other flaws in the cars-to-computers analogy, such as the fact that a large reason Porsche owners (or Corvette owners, or, especially, Viper owners) buy the cars they do is because they are expensive; the high price symbolizes success and exclusivity. But, these, and other arguments, have been made before, so I will not delve into them here. Though it is ironic that despite the fact that this argument has so often been criticized, that Cringely decides to bring it up again, if only to present it will fresh new holes.
I honestly don't understand what we need to be afraid of. You're telling me we should be frightened by Microsoft releasing bug-free software? Why is that so frightening? (Comical in its unlikelihood, perhaps, but not frightening).
And, incidentally, I'm a Mac user, so I'm at least as rabidly anti-Microsoft as the Linux crowd.
What I find interesting about your post, and probably the majority of those here, is that you are saying there is no need to attempt to prove or disprove this. This closed mindedness is disturbing.
First off, I agree that this probably is a hoax, but I do think that "what if this is true?" is a profoundly important question to ask. Yes, of course the thing is a hoax, because it would be in violation of the laws of thermodynamics...my God, and that's precisely the reason this is such a profound question. Aside from the implications that "free energy" would have, that we were wrong about this law would shake up the science community in ways like never before.
Please note that I am playing devil's advocate here, and I expect this device to be proven a hoax. But let's go ahead and get in there and prove it. That in itself should be fun (though possibly very trivial).
Most likely, we'll find that it is not true, but the device warrants looking if for no other reason than to figure out how it pulled off the hoax. I doubt the Slashdot editors have done so.
Slashdot Mirror
Incidentally, The Black Cauldron didn't have a text-based parse. You hit a key on your keyboard, or joystick, as I played it, and selected one of three options, "Do", "Use", or "Look."
One more reason I prefer to use a Mac.
Sure, that's what the cat told you. Face it, your cat was a playa', and it caught up to him. May he rest in peace.
Okay, so it's not purr-fect, but it's still pretty cool.
I already knew my cats could play Adventure. Whenever they walk across the keyboard (usually, to draw my attention away from Slashdot), they type "XYZZY."
No, you can just request the HTTP HEAD, which will give you the modification date, among other data. Also, HTTP GET supports a syntax that basically says, "GET file if modified since..." That's basically the request your web browser makes, and how caching in your browser works.
Well, jobs.osdn.com is no longer up, but the page does offer links to five other sites that may be useful.
I've always had a feeling that's the case, and when I read your comment, it made me think that there should be a law that basically invalidates an entire contract if it has two many unenforceable clauses in it. The idea is to prevent this sort of abuse that comes from trying to "slip in" clauses that many employees would not realize are not legal.
After I thought of that, I remember the agreement that I, just yesterday, had to re-sign (after the subsidiary came under closer control of the parent company), and there was a clause saying that if any clause is deemed unenforceable, the rest of the contract is still valid. Which makes me think that perhaps, my idea had occurred to others.
On a side note, I wonder, am I violating any part of the confidentiality agreement by discussing the confidentiality agreement? First rule of work club is, don't talk about work club.
You're probably correct on that, which points us to something very important: Don't even use your employers equipment to work on open source, personal, or contract work for another, because you might get bitten. Incidentally, I just had to re-sign a confidentiality agreement with my employer. I felt fairly comfortable with signing it, even though I have been an occasional open source contributer and work on several personal projects. The language seemed to make it clear that the company only claims ownership of "inventions" developed during working hours or with their equipment. Let's hope I'm right! In the meantime, I better check to see if Georgia has similar laws as California.
You're going to look awfully silly with that big ol' 40GB Maxtor hard drive on your hip as you go jogging. And I'll bet you'll feel silly, too, when you realize that the Maxtor can't play music on its own.
Sun has a 24.1" LCD display, which offers the same resolution of the new Apple display, though about $1000 more (from what I've read from other sources). Still, I drool over the Apple display.
This really does look neat, but I see two problems with it. First, it won't provide the tactile feedback of a real keyboard, so I imagine it would be easy to type between "keys." Second, notice how far away the "keyboard" is away from the Palm; I think the little screen would be difficult to read from that distance (at least it would be for a poor myopic fool like me!)
As a fellow Atlanta, I noticed that, too. My first reaction was, "Wow! We got mentioned by a scientist! Neato!" Then I thought, "How silly, like we need an example of what a 'populated area' is?" Then I thought, why not use Boston as an example. That's also a "populated area." Then, reality hit me like said asteroid: Mr. Williams was kissing up to CNN.
Now, that could almost have been funny had you not resorted to calling the poster an "idiot." And perhaps with a different signature.
Now, I'm not saying I agree with Microsoft, I'm just playing devil's advocate. Which one might think is one in the same.
No wait. Please don't stop. We really do want to hear what you have to say. At least I do!
Lucas may have had freedom from people's expectations with the original Star Wars, but Peter Jackson most certainly did not with Lord of the Rings.
* See, I'm not entirely off topic!
Wait a minute...if you you do that, you can't run Windows, right? Are you sure it's not a good idea?
I really had been sleeping my life away!
So, do I point this out solely to nitpick? No, not solely. I do so because he uses this example to argue that, due to loyalty, Apple would not lose hardware sales to Intel boxes running OS X. He points out the loyalty will keep buyers from jumping ship, be the ship Porsche or Apple, but then in the same paragraph, admits that loyalty has its limits. His analogy is flawed, so it does not make a credible argument.
I'm not split hairs here; the question of lost hardware sales has to be the biggest issue standing in the way of Mac OS X on Intel. If Cringely is going to argue for it, he has to convincingly allay those fears, and he has not done so.
There are other flaws in the cars-to-computers analogy, such as the fact that a large reason Porsche owners (or Corvette owners, or, especially, Viper owners) buy the cars they do is because they are expensive; the high price symbolizes success and exclusivity. But, these, and other arguments, have been made before, so I will not delve into them here. Though it is ironic that despite the fact that this argument has so often been criticized, that Cringely decides to bring it up again, if only to present it will fresh new holes.
And, incidentally, I'm a Mac user, so I'm at least as rabidly anti-Microsoft as the Linux crowd.
What I find interesting about your post, and probably the majority of those here, is that you are saying there is no need to attempt to prove or disprove this. This closed mindedness is disturbing.
Please note that I am playing devil's advocate here, and I expect this device to be proven a hoax. But let's go ahead and get in there and prove it. That in itself should be fun (though possibly very trivial).
Most likely, we'll find that it is not true, but the device warrants looking if for no other reason than to figure out how it pulled off the hoax. I doubt the Slashdot editors have done so.