It is ridiculous to debate the existence of evolution today.
Somehow I doubt that will stop you from doing it anyway.
We see it all around us, with bacteria and such becoming resistant to antibiotics. The fossil record supports it, genetics supports it, as does virtually every other realm of science.
Congradulations. You slayed a strawman by lumping several different empirical datasets that record several different kinds of changes in several different kinds of organisms into one very vague term, "evolution". Empiricaly all one can probably grasp from that is that things change, but I suppose that doesn't stop you from reaching for so much more.
In some bacteria, generations can be measured in seconds, or less. Within a few generations - a few seconds - they can evolve to become resistant or immune to antibiotics or certain bacteriophages.
Bacteria have many mechanisms to support change, mostly from incorprating or jumping genes more than random "mutation", but that isn't important now. The poster is pointing out the statistical probability of the random production of the building blocks of life. Since it is not alive, it does not take advantage of the intelligent (although not entirely controlled) gene splicing that Bacteria and viruses use to propegate changes.
Life on Earth is said to have began around 4, to some estimates as far back as 5, billion years ago.
Again, I think you jumped off the mark early and throught your post. He's talking about the mechanisms that existed to create life, not change it.
As per 2, couldn't it also be said that it only takes one gene to create a functional allele from a nonfunctional one?
Here is another example of over-reaching pseudo-science. This is not a symetrical relation between a one-away allele and a functional allele. Assuming that a non-functioning allele is one gene away from functioning, the probability of out of all the random gene changes that it occurs is astronomicaly low. However, the likely hood out of all the possible changes of making a change in a functioning alelle to render it non-functioning actually pretty high.
But taking away a gene doesn't always destroy a nonfunctional allele. It sometimes makes a variation, a mutation, that works. And that is how evolution works.
I've not seen any flying pigs over Chernobyl, super-humans, or new species for that matter. As was brought to my attention long ago on Slashdot, there have never been any observed beneficial random mutations. Subjecting thousands on thousands of grasshoppers to radiation never once produced a beneficial mutation. Changes occur, and mutations occur, but only when they occur along certain natural laws do they produce a limited beneficial result. Check out the "Observed Speciation" page and with some luck you'll find out what the common thread is.
Now, lets end this with my favorite non-sequiter...
Also, your whole post can be discredited based upon the fact that you know not what abiogenesis means. Abiogenesis is the spontaneous formation of life from a primordial soup. Not evolution. Abiogenesis is not factual, but it holds a great deal more credence than creationism, or any other theory for that matter. But evolution, sir, is an empirical fact.
Yet the person you are disagreeing with (as far as I can tell) was talking about the [p]robability versus chance of creating functional proteins. . Sounds like he understood quite well.
The Musical episode was immensely entertaining and original.
I remember Xena beating them to it.
Re:Building a mosix cluster
on
OpenMosix
·
· Score: 2
1) By default, it does not auto-migrate
Hmmm, maybe that is why it all of a sudden started working when I re-installed it. Anyway, I highly recomend MosixView [www.mosixview.com] for Mosix Administration. It is a effective but simple way to monitor and adjust your cluster.
2) Migration only occurrs after a certain load average is maintained
I believe that is what Prof Amnon is using for developing U-Mosix. From the home www.mosix.org page...
"U-MOSIX provides even load distribution using several of the algorithms of K-MOSIX. U-MOSIX is better tuned for cluster and GRID computing, including the ability to handle large number of short processes, run in heterogeneous clusters, with different versions of Unix such as FreeBSD, Linux and Solaris."
For those of us that don't want to wait for U-Mosix for grid-computing (also known as cluster queueing) I suggest Sun's Open Sourced Grid Ware Engine. It comes complete with a Beowulf Cluster built in.
3) Network usage for migration was very heavy over Fast Ethernet.
Actually, we haven't noticed much of a load at all.
Btw, we are a commercial cluster;)
Hey Moshe! Its OpenMosix + XFS
on
OpenMosix
·
· Score: 2
I found out the news yesterday, and I've already applied your patch + XFS. We've ran this on 1.5.2 and we haven't had too many problems with this setup.
Coding wise the conflicts seemed trivial (and many times redundant). To minimize potential conflicts we don't use MFS and we don't use the debugger.
The only difficulty came when we started using Mosix 1.5.2, we had some issues where we get intermittent periods of "Too many open files" when a node goes down. Somehow we've avoided them for the past month, we think this may have more to do with AutoFS.
I'm wondering if you would like the diff from this? I'm also interested in helping with the DSM development and socket migration. I may be slow on the uptake but where can I start and help out?
A variety of things, and your milage may vary
on
OpenMosix
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
We run Mosix, and have had jobs fail. If a node goes down that is running a process two things can (and have) happened. The process dies, or it restarts on another node. What determins this? I have no idea. I can only speak from observation.
It is suggested in the documentation that you have a large swap space on your disk to handle nodes going down. Perhaps with a cached copy of a process it will live on.
In any case, its not scientific but I thought I'd throw that in.
It may be relatively recent technology, but I wonder if this will happen or not.
Mosix does a pretty good job of balancing processing time, but won't split tasks that require shared memory, sockets, and is not fine grained enough to put threads on different machines. It also requires a simular kernel to run on all of the machines. But I run it now because it is the closest we have. I think it may catch on.
For distributed disk sharing, the closest we could find was Coda, although it has a few disadvantages also. You can't have very large volumes, its difficult to configure, it takes painfuly earned experience to use efficiently.
Mosix has its MFS, which gives everyone a shot at everyone's disk drive. This is an interesting possibility also, however it is not configurable. You can't lay the volumes down where you want them to be. It could be used.
But then, we could partitian available disk space to large network raids with network devices. GFS I believe works along this principle. Lower layered than Coda, but without the caching that I think lets the system work efficiently over the network.
I guess the funny thing is that I use and consider them them inspite of the challenges. Kind of like Linux in the 1.2.13 days. Ahh the good ol' days when "Hey we finaly got X working" would bring a round of congradulations from lab. "Oh no, the mouse doesn't work" would only mean we'd be happy to fumble around for another few hours with faith that it would eventually work, if we changed something somewhere.
Hey wait a minute. You know, maybe linux isn't dead like some have said. Maybe there is still software frontier to cover and being covered that we can download/compile and enjoy....
(Although I have yet to get a workable EROS kernel doing anything useful...)
Don't worry, I could tell this was different than Rock in that it grabs the latest upstream versions from their sites. Rock had to repackage their stuff.
I guess I was reacting more to the people who complained about source based distros, becuase they were too ignorant to understand why they were so usefull and desired. They were seriously acting like bunch of wannabe managers deciding the course of a product they have done little to understand and less to contribute.
Thats where I mentioned Rock. A successful distro that has a reputation of being very solid and reliable becuase it is sourced based. I'm sure Sorceror adds much to the concept, of these spells look like what I think they are.
I once had a slashdot sig to the effect of "Slashdot is not news for geeks, its a battleground for wannabe managers." Again I'm seeing the tendancy for people to offer their opinions as if they were managing a project.
What these people are doing is pretty cool. Its something that I've been hoping would come out for a while (actually it has, at rocklinux.org and has been mentioned on slashdot as much as two years ago.) Back in the days of StampedeLinux I found out first hand the benefits of a hand-optomized compilation. It easily ran at 20% faster speeds than anything else for desktop use.
Now that the optomizations of yesteryear found in egcs and pgcc are done pretty well in in gcc 3.0, I wonder why I still run packages for an i386 on my Athlon. Rock linux is by far the most real-man linux out there, and is the most stable and unbreakable. If Sorcerer is only a bit more managable I'll have to try it out too.
Sometimes when someone points stuff out like this its considered trolling. Sometimes its insightful. We'll see how this plays out...
In my observation Stable really means "All the developers have moved on to the next latest and greatest so this won't change much. But we'll fix it anyway".
Your right, this is very extreme moderation abuse. Someone is either an admin and applying censorship, or they are someone who's hacked the moderation system big time.
I've talked to some of these guys and we all got moderated within one minute of each other, with a total of more tha 30 moderation points used. That is some intense scripting.
Also you're not *forced* to use IE at all anyways.
He didn't say "forced" from what I read. Your either intentionaly twisting his argument into what you wish he was saying or do entrenched in your own opinion to notice the subtleties.
And if you want to rehash the debate if a default installation illicitely breads monopolies I invite you to take it up with the current Judge overseeing the Microsoft case where they were ruled as using one monopoly to gain another *by* enforcing onto OEMs the choice of user installation.
Actually, due to very restrictive laws placed on major automobile manufacterors, it *may* (note the emphasis on may) be economicaly justified to destroy them. In the depression, while everyone was starving large piles of oranges were lit on fire becuase it was more expensive to ship them than to burn them.
And the Corbin Sparrow is my personal favorite. I had a co-worker that owned one, and they are very nice. And profitable from what I have heard.
Isn't it funny how often things that Americans call impossible are implemented successfully by other countries.
Nice try but no-one said it wasn't possible especialy Americans. You could add New York Subway, Chicago L-train, etc as successful mass transit systems. And they are in the USA.
Historicaly, and economicaly they simply aren't viable below certain population densities. And remember I am not against mass transit, I use it myself even when a 20 minute commute becomes and hour and a half. I am against people who raise it as a false flag.
Get Facts, get them straight, and please come again...
Being a user of Mass Transit however I can assure you that the reason it isn't more widely used is twofold.
1) A personal car is a personal freedom. People will not give that up. This isn't a dependency created by the hedging of mass transit, its a dependancy on "I want to leave for Aunt Maude's on Saturday or Sunday and not make any stops on the way".
2) Mass Transit doesn't work in urban Sprawl. If Aunt Maude is in Talamazoo Ohio, its doubtful we would econimicaly get meaningful service between there and Columbus.
Recently (1992) a small town in Southern California called "San Diego" was honored for creating a mass transit system that was sooo economical that it recouperated 70-80% of its costs.
I wonder what that means in a free market system, where it costs more to ride the bus than it costs to put money in my car and drive to work. Now granted I don't use the buses in San Diego.
However, I am a major supporter of Mass Transit. Especially for the purposes of commuting daily routines. I agree with your evidence that they were maligned, but that is on grounds entirely different than electrical personal trasportation vehicles.
An interesting limit shows up in research over the past few decades. With all the increased conjestion, the average commute time is still about a half an hour. Why hasn't it gone up? Well becuase people seem to take action at about that point.
That to me suggests a tolerated limit of transportation time. On a bus, a half an hour's journey is litteraly 4-5 miles. Maybe 15 miles if you are lucky enough to be on an express route. That means that you need quite some density before Mass transit is tolerable in America. I support the new "Smart Development" happening in many cities where density is increased in waves starting from a town center, rather than continuing sprawl. That is really the key factor in making a mass transit system work.
However, that kills peoples desire for Land. Oh well, you can't have it all unless you live in New Mexico.
In any case, we were talking about Electical Vehicles which do not suffer from the problems of Mass transit, and have no identifiable signs of malicious tampering from Big Oil, etc...
The U.S. auto industry and the U.S. oil industry are so tight that work has been slowed or delayed for decades on all-electric cars.
This makes a good story for movies in need of a bad buy but I've not seen any reason to believe it. As a matter of fact, no one in the industry (except the water injected carburator guy thats been in urban lore since the 40's), has ever accused big oil of maligning or hedging their work.
Its time to get out of fantasy land and into real life. Theres to many problems that need solving to get worked up over movie plots.
While this fuel-cell uses borax derivatives, I would be willing to bet money that any production fuel-cell based vehicles deployed in the U.S. use hydrocarbon-based cells
Its possible that this is a notion of the past. However, hydrocarbon fuel cells are non-puluting to California standards. So, I have no problem with it. After all, the energy has to come from somewhere no matter what transport agent is used.
First I find that everyone just knows "I had a candle light dinner with Ashley Judd on Film" Wil Wheton is a reader. Now some Anonymous Coward knows a millionaire in the news for being the next space tourist religiously reads slashdot.
I must be on the B list. No, make that the R list.
Chase HQ? I loved that game. Tapper? Bring it on! How about Crisis Mountain, Burger Time, Lode Runner (with its 256 levels), and GhostBusters? I play those games for hours in my apple][e emulator.
Paper Boy was awesome, but it doesn't translate well to nintendo for the same reason HardDrivn' doesn't. Too much of the game play is the interface.
How about Spy Hunter? Available on Shockwave.com!
No but I get your point. Neither of them suck, any more than 1950's cars are better or worse than cars in the 1990's.
Slashdot Mirror
It is ridiculous to debate the existence of evolution today.
Somehow I doubt that will stop you from doing it anyway.
We see it all around us, with bacteria and such becoming resistant to antibiotics. The fossil record supports it, genetics supports it, as does virtually every other realm of science.
Congradulations. You slayed a strawman by lumping several different empirical datasets that record several different kinds of changes in several different kinds of organisms into one very vague term, "evolution". Empiricaly all one can probably grasp from that is that things change, but I suppose that doesn't stop you from reaching for so much more.
In some bacteria, generations can be measured in seconds, or less. Within a few generations - a few seconds - they can evolve to become resistant or immune to antibiotics or certain bacteriophages.
Bacteria have many mechanisms to support change, mostly from incorprating or jumping genes more than random "mutation", but that isn't important now. The poster is pointing out the statistical probability of the random production of the building blocks of life. Since it is not alive, it does not take advantage of the intelligent (although not entirely controlled) gene splicing that Bacteria and viruses use to propegate changes.
Life on Earth is said to have began around 4, to some estimates as far back as 5, billion years ago.
Again, I think you jumped off the mark early and throught your post. He's talking about the mechanisms that existed to create life, not change it.
As per 2, couldn't it also be said that it only takes one gene to create a functional allele from a nonfunctional one?
Here is another example of over-reaching pseudo-science. This is not a symetrical relation between a one-away allele and a functional allele. Assuming that a non-functioning allele is one gene away from functioning, the probability of out of all the random gene changes that it occurs is astronomicaly low. However, the likely hood out of all the possible changes of making a change in a functioning alelle to render it non-functioning actually pretty high.
But taking away a gene doesn't always destroy a nonfunctional allele. It sometimes makes a variation, a mutation, that works. And that is how evolution works.
I've not seen any flying pigs over Chernobyl, super-humans, or new species for that matter. As was brought to my attention long ago on Slashdot, there have never been any observed beneficial random mutations. Subjecting thousands on thousands of grasshoppers to radiation never once produced a beneficial mutation. Changes occur, and mutations occur, but only when they occur along certain natural laws do they produce a limited beneficial result. Check out the "Observed Speciation" page and with some luck you'll find out what the common thread is.
Now, lets end this with my favorite non-sequiter...
Also, your whole post can be discredited based upon the fact that you know not what abiogenesis means. Abiogenesis is the spontaneous formation of life from a primordial soup. Not evolution. Abiogenesis is not factual, but it holds a great deal more credence than creationism, or any other theory for that matter. But evolution, sir, is an empirical fact.
Yet the person you are disagreeing with (as far as I can tell) was talking about the [p]robability versus chance of creating functional proteins. . Sounds like he understood quite well.
Even ruby slippers?
http://flightgear.org/Downloads/world-scenery.html
Flightgear is available (GPL) for windows and Linux. You can in fact put whatever pictures you want on the topography.
I believe MS FlightSimulator 2000 (and older) have world maps you can fly around in.
http://www.fourmilab.ch/homeplanet/homeplanet.html
The Musical episode was immensely entertaining and original.
I remember Xena beating them to it.
1) By default, it does not auto-migrate
;)
Hmmm, maybe that is why it all of a sudden started working when I re-installed it. Anyway, I highly recomend MosixView [www.mosixview.com] for Mosix Administration. It is a effective but simple way to monitor and adjust your cluster.
2) Migration only occurrs after a certain load average is maintained
I believe that is what Prof Amnon is using for developing U-Mosix. From the home www.mosix.org page...
"U-MOSIX provides even load distribution using several of the algorithms of K-MOSIX. U-MOSIX is better tuned for cluster and GRID computing, including the ability to handle large number of short processes, run in heterogeneous clusters, with different versions of Unix such as FreeBSD, Linux and Solaris."
For those of us that don't want to wait for U-Mosix for grid-computing (also known as cluster queueing) I suggest Sun's Open Sourced Grid Ware Engine. It comes complete with a Beowulf Cluster built in.
3) Network usage for migration was very heavy over Fast Ethernet.
Actually, we haven't noticed much of a load at all.
Btw, we are a commercial cluster
I found out the news yesterday, and I've already applied your patch + XFS. We've ran this on 1.5.2 and we haven't had too many problems with this setup.
Coding wise the conflicts seemed trivial (and many times redundant). To minimize potential conflicts we don't use MFS and we don't use the debugger.
The only difficulty came when we started using Mosix 1.5.2, we had some issues where we get intermittent periods of "Too many open files" when a node goes down. Somehow we've avoided them for the past month, we think this may have more to do with AutoFS.
I'm wondering if you would like the diff from this? I'm also interested in helping with the DSM development and socket migration. I may be slow on the uptake but where can I start and help out?
We run Mosix, and have had jobs fail. If a node goes down that is running a process two things can (and have) happened. The process dies, or it restarts on another node. What determins this? I have no idea. I can only speak from observation.
It is suggested in the documentation that you have a large swap space on your disk to handle nodes going down. Perhaps with a cached copy of a process it will live on.
In any case, its not scientific but I thought I'd throw that in.
It may be relatively recent technology, but I wonder if this will happen or not.
Mosix does a pretty good job of balancing processing time, but won't split tasks that require shared memory, sockets, and is not fine grained enough to put threads on different machines. It also requires a simular kernel to run on all of the machines. But I run it now because it is the closest we have. I think it may catch on.
For distributed disk sharing, the closest we could find was Coda, although it has a few disadvantages also. You can't have very large volumes, its difficult to configure, it takes painfuly earned experience to use efficiently.
Mosix has its MFS, which gives everyone a shot at everyone's disk drive. This is an interesting possibility also, however it is not configurable. You can't lay the volumes down where you want them to be. It could be used.
But then, we could partitian available disk space to large network raids with network devices. GFS I believe works along this principle. Lower layered than Coda, but without the caching that I think lets the system work efficiently over the network.
I guess the funny thing is that I use and consider them them inspite of the challenges. Kind of like Linux in the 1.2.13 days. Ahh the good ol' days when "Hey we finaly got X working" would bring a round of congradulations from lab. "Oh no, the mouse doesn't work" would only mean we'd be happy to fumble around for another few hours with faith that it would eventually work, if we changed something somewhere.
Hey wait a minute. You know, maybe linux isn't dead like some have said. Maybe there is still software frontier to cover and being covered that we can download/compile and enjoy....
(Although I have yet to get a workable EROS kernel doing anything useful...)
Don't worry, I could tell this was different than Rock in that it grabs the latest upstream versions from their sites. Rock had to repackage their stuff.
I guess I was reacting more to the people who complained about source based distros, becuase they were too ignorant to understand why they were so usefull and desired. They were seriously acting like bunch of wannabe managers deciding the course of a product they have done little to understand and less to contribute.
Thats where I mentioned Rock. A successful distro that has a reputation of being very solid and reliable becuase it is sourced based. I'm sure Sorceror adds much to the concept, of these spells look like what I think they are.
I once had a slashdot sig to the effect of "Slashdot is not news for geeks, its a battleground for wannabe managers." Again I'm seeing the tendancy for people to offer their opinions as if they were managing a project.
What these people are doing is pretty cool. Its something that I've been hoping would come out for a while (actually it has, at rocklinux.org and has been mentioned on slashdot as much as two years ago.) Back in the days of StampedeLinux I found out first hand the benefits of a hand-optomized compilation. It easily ran at 20% faster speeds than anything else for desktop use.
Now that the optomizations of yesteryear found in egcs and pgcc are done pretty well in in gcc 3.0, I wonder why I still run packages for an i386 on my Athlon. Rock linux is by far the most real-man linux out there, and is the most stable and unbreakable. If Sorcerer is only a bit more managable I'll have to try it out too.
Sometimes when someone points stuff out like this its considered trolling. Sometimes its insightful. We'll see how this plays out...
In my observation Stable really means "All the developers have moved on to the next latest and greatest so this won't change much. But we'll fix it anyway".
Your right, this is very extreme moderation abuse. Someone is either an admin and applying censorship, or they are someone who's hacked the moderation system big time.
I've talked to some of these guys and we all got moderated within one minute of each other, with a total of more tha 30 moderation points used. That is some intense scripting.
I'm not interested in word games either. Make it into a crossword puzzle and maybe I'll do it on my next plane trip.
I've already my opinion on the matter, if you have disagreement say so. If you need clarification ask.
I fail to see relavance. Sorry.
Get facts, get them straight, then please come again.
Of all secrecy, I was on a tour of the harbor when we passed the covered dock for this thing. Of course they told us exactly what it was on the tour.
Also you're not *forced* to use IE at all anyways.
He didn't say "forced" from what I read. Your either intentionaly twisting his argument into what you wish he was saying or do entrenched in your own opinion to notice the subtleties.
And if you want to rehash the debate if a default installation illicitely breads monopolies I invite you to take it up with the current Judge overseeing the Microsoft case where they were ruled as using one monopoly to gain another *by* enforcing onto OEMs the choice of user installation.
Actually, due to very restrictive laws placed on major automobile manufacterors, it *may* (note the emphasis on may) be economicaly justified to destroy them. In the depression, while everyone was starving large piles of oranges were lit on fire becuase it was more expensive to ship them than to burn them.
And the Corbin Sparrow is my personal favorite. I had a co-worker that owned one, and they are very nice. And profitable from what I have heard.
Isn't it funny how often things that Americans call impossible are implemented successfully by other countries.
Nice try but no-one said it wasn't possible especialy Americans. You could add New York Subway, Chicago L-train, etc as successful mass transit systems. And they are in the USA.
Historicaly, and economicaly they simply aren't viable below certain population densities. And remember I am not against mass transit, I use it myself even when a 20 minute commute becomes and hour and a half. I am against people who raise it as a false flag.
Get Facts, get them straight, and please come again...
Being a user of Mass Transit however I can assure you that the reason it isn't more widely used is twofold.
1) A personal car is a personal freedom. People will not give that up. This isn't a dependency created by the hedging of mass transit, its a dependancy on "I want to leave for Aunt Maude's on Saturday or Sunday and not make any stops on the way".
2) Mass Transit doesn't work in urban Sprawl. If Aunt Maude is in Talamazoo Ohio, its doubtful we would econimicaly get meaningful service between there and Columbus.
Recently (1992) a small town in Southern California called "San Diego" was honored for creating a mass transit system that was sooo economical that it recouperated 70-80% of its costs.
I wonder what that means in a free market system, where it costs more to ride the bus than it costs to put money in my car and drive to work. Now granted I don't use the buses in San Diego.
However, I am a major supporter of Mass Transit. Especially for the purposes of commuting daily routines. I agree with your evidence that they were maligned, but that is on grounds entirely different than electrical personal trasportation vehicles.
An interesting limit shows up in research over the past few decades. With all the increased conjestion, the average commute time is still about a half an hour. Why hasn't it gone up? Well becuase people seem to take action at about that point.
That to me suggests a tolerated limit of transportation time. On a bus, a half an hour's journey is litteraly 4-5 miles. Maybe 15 miles if you are lucky enough to be on an express route. That means that you need quite some density before Mass transit is tolerable in America. I support the new "Smart Development" happening in many cities where density is increased in waves starting from a town center, rather than continuing sprawl. That is really the key factor in making a mass transit system work.
However, that kills peoples desire for Land. Oh well, you can't have it all unless you live in New Mexico.
In any case, we were talking about Electical Vehicles which do not suffer from the problems of Mass transit, and have no identifiable signs of malicious tampering from Big Oil, etc...
Keen sence of poetry and pose, with pervasive points.
Not crude or random like today's trolls, MEEPT was a troll of a more civilized era.
The U.S. auto industry and the U.S. oil industry are so tight that work has been slowed or delayed for decades on all-electric cars.
This makes a good story for movies in need of a bad buy but I've not seen any reason to believe it. As a matter of fact, no one in the industry (except the water injected carburator guy thats been in urban lore since the 40's), has ever accused big oil of maligning or hedging their work.
Its time to get out of fantasy land and into real life. Theres to many problems that need solving to get worked up over movie plots.
While this fuel-cell uses borax derivatives, I would be willing to bet money that any production fuel-cell based vehicles deployed in the U.S. use hydrocarbon-based cells
Its possible that this is a notion of the past. However, hydrocarbon fuel cells are non-puluting to California standards. So, I have no problem with it. After all, the energy has to come from somewhere no matter what transport agent is used.
First I find that everyone just knows "I had a candle light dinner with Ashley Judd on Film" Wil Wheton is a reader. Now some Anonymous Coward knows a millionaire in the news for being the next space tourist religiously reads slashdot.
I must be on the B list. No, make that the R list.
Chase HQ? I loved that game. Tapper? Bring it on! How about Crisis Mountain, Burger Time, Lode Runner (with its 256 levels), and GhostBusters? I play those games for hours in my apple][e emulator.
Paper Boy was awesome, but it doesn't translate well to nintendo for the same reason HardDrivn' doesn't. Too much of the game play is the interface.
How about Spy Hunter? Available on Shockwave.com!
No but I get your point. Neither of them suck, any more than 1950's cars are better or worse than cars in the 1990's.
Theres always someone trying to look highbrow by calling something "sub-par"