Yes. Many have. Off the top of my head, the following platforms are emulated on the GBA:
Gameboy (oddly) NES Sega Master System PC Engine Spectrum Atari 2600
As for MAME, a direct port is pretty unlikely, as, based on the existing population of emulators (and my own experiences), it's necessary to write in pure ARM assembler to achieve reasonable frame rates, as it has a measily 16mhz ARM7TDMI in it.
Anyway, you can go here for links to various GBA emulators.
just because it's leans right does not mean that the facts sighted in the article are somehow made up
You're absolutely right. The facts the author cited are, I'm sure, quite accurate. But, I can't tell if he is really presenting all the facts, or is just stacking the deck in order to present only his view of the issue. Not only that, but many of his examples don't even provide enough information to make an informed judgement. Take this quote as an example:
the Canadian supreme court recently turned down an appeal by a Christian minister convicted of inciting hatred against Muslims. An Ontario appellate court had found that the minister did not intentionally incite hatred, but was properly convicted for being willfully blind to the effects of his actions.
Does he tell me what the minister said? Does he explain *why* the government was wrong? No. What if the minister said "all Muslims are terrorists and should go to hell and die". Sounds like hate speech to me, and it fits right in with the situation above... he may not have been deliberately trying to incite hateful acts, but he certainly said something hateful. And how is this different from someone who teaches children that the holocaust never happened?
Basically, while Bernstein may be making some good points, they're lost in a sea of vacuous statements and general fear mongering, which is meant to pander to the religious right who, apparently, fear that a "secular state religion" is somehow threatening their way of life.
So, no, I'm not saying Bernstein is lying. I'm just saying he's biased, and he's guilty of doing what many a biased reporter does: reporting the facts in such a way as to support HIS view of the situation. ie, he's made his conclusion, and now he's searching for evidence, rather than the other way around.
So, in order to compensate for this, provide *more than one reference*. Or pick one that's less biased. That way, I, as a reader, can synthesize a more balanced view, as opposed to just swallowing whole what the right-wing media tells me.
Geez, the least you could do is cite a reasonably fair, unbiased article. That one is so right-leaning, I was worried I was going to fall off my chair.
True, assuming multiple grays are being used to differentiate (spatially related) things, but that didn't appear to be the case in the screenshot I saw. Then again, I might have missed something...
Noooo... a deficit is when you spend more than you take in. Budget deficits are the prime contributor to the national debt. Basically, Bush has decided to mortgage the future of the next couple generations of Americans for what he hopes is short-term economic gain. If you think that's a good idea... well, let's just say I hope you never run a business.
Incidentally, if you'd read the article, you'd note that even the President said that the spike in GDP growth is unlikely to be sustained, nor has the growth in the GDP been followed up by growth in the number of jobs in the US, which is a far more important factor in long-term economic growth. After all, people without jobs can't spend money, and hence can't drive the economy.
Basically, to claim that the US economy is "the best it's been in 20 years" is a HUGE overstatement, not to mention a misrepresentation of the facts, as growth in the GDP is NOT the only indicator regarding economic health (which is why the feds haven't moved the prime interest rate at all).
Funny, since, as I recall, there was NO DEFICIT when Clinton left (there was *debt*, but there was no deficit... remember those record surpluses during the latter Clinton years?). That's right, the budget was in the *black*. And then Bush went spending crazy while, at the same time, cutting taxes, and voila, *massive* deficit again.
So, either you're confusing "deficit" with "debt", or you don't know what the fsck you're talking about.
Hmm... yes, but my guess (and correct me if I'm wrong) is that these images are stitched together in the UI by pulling out segments from a backend database and putting them together on the client-side. Thus, they don't qualify as a single, > 1 Gigapixel image... technically. IOW, it's not like they're panning across a > 1 Gigapixel JPEG.:)
What's with the various shades of gray in the interface [osnews.com]? Doesn't that make it difficult for color blind folks to use the software?
Umm... you do realize that color blindness involves... yes, color. As in, not grays? So, no, various shades of gray don't affect people with color blindness. Now, if the windows were various shades of red and green, it's a different story.
One last nit to pick. What's with the various styles of icons? Some are 3D-ish some are just plane 2D, etc.
Bah... if you want inconsistent user experience, look at Windows. If I run three different versions of MS Office ('97, 2k, 2003), I get three different widget sets. And this is ignoring the various media players, etc, that use custom widgets.
Frankly, IMHO, the "ooh, X has different widget sets" crowd are really overstating the importance of this kind of consistency. Now, having the same general paradigms (windows, menus, scrollbars, buttons, etc, that all behave the same way) and a general consistency in layout (file, edit, view menus, etc), that is important (for example, I hate how Athena works). However, actual visual consistency is not nearly so vital, at least in my experience with newbies.
*snicker* This is a troll, right? Seriously... it's gotta be. I mean, the economy is far from rocking (the US dollar is *seriously* tanking, and the federal deficit is skyrocketing), and Iraq is no where near a free, democratic state, and doesn't look like it'll be one any time soon. Moreover, the US will likely have an occupation force there for years (lest a civil war spark in the subsequent power vacuum).
In fact, I think Bush *knows* he's in deep shit. There's a reason he passed his massive prescription drug plan (boosting the deficit even higher, BTW)... to effective buy off his key voting block (older conservatives), while at the same time appeasing pharmaceutical firms (a gov't-run drug plan could stem the tide of cheaper drugs crossing the US-Canada border, effectively assisting an industry which gouges consumers while foisting the burden on the populace... clever, eh?).
I have to admit, though... you demonstracted an interesting effect, here on Slashdot: complain about being modded down, and you'll get modded up. It's like an odd form of Karma-whoring... I gotta try that some time.
Who said I had to do any research? I wasn't the one who made a decidedly inflammatory statement without ANY evidence to back it up (which you kindly provided, although the last two sources seem rather biased). All I ask is that, if you're going to make a statement like that, BACK IT UP. It's not that hard.
Incidentally, my response to your post is that, yes, while Canada, in theory, doesn't protect property rights, the US, also in theory, protects the right to free speech, thus proving yet again that theory is very much divoced from reality.
LOL! If you're going to make a ridiculous statement like that, the least you can do is back it up. Hell, I live in Canada, and, frankly, I think that, these days, our government has a better grasp on the concept of humans rights than the US.
Thanks! That was actually quite interesting... However, do note that that $5.00 Federal Access Charge is *not* federal tax, and does not end up in the government coffers. See here. So, the direct tax is actually $3.29 per month which, while still a lot, is nowhere near 2/3rds of the bill. Although, as you say, there may be hidden taxes in there.
since the central claim of gun control proponents has been that if you make it easier for people to own guns, the crime rate will go UP
Uhh... huh? Anti-gun folks (well, at least the ones I know) don't want guns because *guns kill people*. It's as simple as that, really. Look, suppose the presence of guns doesn't decrease crime, as you suggest. Then why have them in society at all? The dangers they pose aren't worth it, as they provide no measureable benefit to society, while at the same time, many many people each year are killed in gun-related incidences.
Now, either refute me with something besides your big keyboard or run along.
I wasn't trying to refute anything... in fact, I made absolutely no statement regarding the legality of the US's actions (re-read my post if you don't believe me). Frankly, I'm just trying to ask some interesting questions.
I do know what powers are within the law and what are not.
And you're completely missing my point.:) So, I will state it very succinctly: Do you feel it's okay for the state to perform certain actions just because the law says it's legal (or, more to the point, doesn't say it's NOT legal)? For example, there are provisions in the PATRIOT act for holding citizens indefinitely... do you think it's okay for the US to exercise those rights, simply because it's codified in the law?
Basically, from my point of view, the US was founded based on certain beliefs regarding human rights, etc. BUT, based on my understanding of the situation in Guantanimo Bay, it seems to me that the US government is behaving in a manner which is in direct contradiction with those values. Of course, you may disagree with me on this, but this is just my impression of the situation.
I don't care if the phone companies are trying to get around regulation. And I don't care that a variety of other products have large amounts of tax on them. You still haven't backed up your very specific assertion that government regulation is responsible for 2/3rds of your phone bill. PROVE IT! Don't just go throwing numbers around... that's how bullshit like "1 joint == 6 cigarettes" (or was it 12?) or "you need 8 glasses of water a day" got started; by people making up numbers and stating them as fact. It's bad when the media does it, it's bad when the so called "experts" to do it, and it's just as bad when you do it.
So, if you have evidence, great, I'd love to see it. Seriously. This isn't meant to be an attack on you or your beliefs regarding government regulation. But provide *evidence*. Either that, or quit throwing around made-up numbers and stating them as fact in order to back up your own personal beliefs.
And how does that make it okay to force it on a nation who hasn't even been asked what they want? At least the American colonies *chose* their cultural revolution...
Hey, just OOC, let's say you're right and these guys are "unlawful combatants" and thus don't fall under the GC. That automatically means the US can and *should* treat them in any way they see fit? So, you feel that the "'cuz I can" excuse is good enough for the US? It doesn't disturb you that your government is perfectly willing to imprison people for extended periods without trial, etc? Doesn't this abuse of power concern you? Oh, well yeah, they aren't getting shot on the battlefield. That's true... but how does that make extended imprisonment without representation any more okay? Believe it or not, human rights are NOT relative...
Man, *finally* someone said this. Are you American? Because I have a hard time believing that... if the (US) media is to be believed, the whole of the US is hell bent on installing democratic regimes in every country on earth, whether or not it's a good idea. Just look at Iraq. I'm not convinced that they're culturally prepared for democracy just yet, but that won't stop the US from forcing it down their throats...
I believe he was suggesting that the man should be jailed because he advocates people setting themselves on fire. Now, I personally don't think this is a reason to jail someone (if people follow his lead, so be it), but don't confuse what the grandparent was saying with your own personal beliefs.
If I pulled off all the govenment add-on fees off my bill, and the hidden ones that show up as part of the monthly basic fee (passed on costs), my bill could be about 1/3 the current price.
Prove it. Seriously, for all these conspiracy theories I keep reading, for once, I want you to prove it. Yes, government taxes on phone service incur some overhead on bills, and, no, it's probably not inconsiderable. But to imply that the government is responsible for *2/3rds* of your phone bill requires just a *little* proof, don't ya thing?
When will this industry ever learn that there's no such thing as a magic bullet? Let's see, just off the top of my head, there was OOP, not to mention Extreme Programming, and now the apparent holy grail of security, "Trusted Computing".
Well, guess what, writing high quality software is hard. Writing high quality, secure software is *really* hard. And there's nothing that will change that.
And you'd be wrong. If you make a copy of something and then give that copy to me, you are distributing copies of the work. However, if I borrow a CD from you and then personally make a copy, *you* aren't distributing anything. No, really, you're not.
Since you're not going to believe me (you seem quite stubborn), I'll give you an example. A video rental store can not be charged for distribution when one of it's customers copies a video cassette they rented. Right? Why? Because, they aren't *distributing* anything. Now, you'll say "ya, but copying tapes is illegal!" and my response is, yes, copying *tapes* is illegal, but copying CDs is very much legal, thanks to the Canadian Copyright Act.
So quit splitting hairs. I know you'd don't want to admit you're wrong, but, really, you are.
As if any decent protocol would send your password over the wire in any form during the authentication phase. Why would they? It's an obvious protocol flaw, and since both parties share a secret, so it's fairly straight forward to authenticate each other using some other mechanism (eg, challenge-response).
Slashdot Mirror
Yes. Many have. Off the top of my head, the following platforms are emulated on the GBA:
Gameboy (oddly)
NES
Sega Master System
PC Engine
Spectrum
Atari 2600
As for MAME, a direct port is pretty unlikely, as, based on the existing population of emulators (and my own experiences), it's necessary to write in pure ARM assembler to achieve reasonable frame rates, as it has a measily 16mhz ARM7TDMI in it.
Anyway, you can go here for links to various GBA emulators.
just because it's leans right does not mean that the facts sighted in the article are somehow made up
You're absolutely right. The facts the author cited are, I'm sure, quite accurate. But, I can't tell if he is really presenting all the facts, or is just stacking the deck in order to present only his view of the issue. Not only that, but many of his examples don't even provide enough information to make an informed judgement. Take this quote as an example:
the Canadian supreme court recently turned down an appeal by a Christian minister convicted of inciting hatred against Muslims. An Ontario appellate court had found that the minister did not intentionally incite hatred, but was properly convicted for being willfully blind to the effects of his actions.
Does he tell me what the minister said? Does he explain *why* the government was wrong? No. What if the minister said "all Muslims are terrorists and should go to hell and die". Sounds like hate speech to me, and it fits right in with the situation above... he may not have been deliberately trying to incite hateful acts, but he certainly said something hateful. And how is this different from someone who teaches children that the holocaust never happened?
Basically, while Bernstein may be making some good points, they're lost in a sea of vacuous statements and general fear mongering, which is meant to pander to the religious right who, apparently, fear that a "secular state religion" is somehow threatening their way of life.
So, no, I'm not saying Bernstein is lying. I'm just saying he's biased, and he's guilty of doing what many a biased reporter does: reporting the facts in such a way as to support HIS view of the situation. ie, he's made his conclusion, and now he's searching for evidence, rather than the other way around.
So, in order to compensate for this, provide *more than one reference*. Or pick one that's less biased. That way, I, as a reader, can synthesize a more balanced view, as opposed to just swallowing whole what the right-wing media tells me.
Geez, the least you could do is cite a reasonably fair, unbiased article. That one is so right-leaning, I was worried I was going to fall off my chair.
True, assuming multiple grays are being used to differentiate (spatially related) things, but that didn't appear to be the case in the screenshot I saw. Then again, I might have missed something...
Noooo... a deficit is when you spend more than you take in. Budget deficits are the prime contributor to the national debt. Basically, Bush has decided to mortgage the future of the next couple generations of Americans for what he hopes is short-term economic gain. If you think that's a good idea... well, let's just say I hope you never run a business.
Incidentally, if you'd read the article, you'd note that even the President said that the spike in GDP growth is unlikely to be sustained, nor has the growth in the GDP been followed up by growth in the number of jobs in the US, which is a far more important factor in long-term economic growth. After all, people without jobs can't spend money, and hence can't drive the economy.
Basically, to claim that the US economy is "the best it's been in 20 years" is a HUGE overstatement, not to mention a misrepresentation of the facts, as growth in the GDP is NOT the only indicator regarding economic health (which is why the feds haven't moved the prime interest rate at all).
Funny, since, as I recall, there was NO DEFICIT when Clinton left (there was *debt*, but there was no deficit... remember those record surpluses during the latter Clinton years?). That's right, the budget was in the *black*. And then Bush went spending crazy while, at the same time, cutting taxes, and voila, *massive* deficit again.
So, either you're confusing "deficit" with "debt", or you don't know what the fsck you're talking about.
Wait, HIBT again? Eh, probably...
Hmm... yes, but my guess (and correct me if I'm wrong) is that these images are stitched together in the UI by pulling out segments from a backend database and putting them together on the client-side. Thus, they don't qualify as a single, > 1 Gigapixel image... technically. IOW, it's not like they're panning across a > 1 Gigapixel JPEG. :)
What's with the various shades of gray in the interface [osnews.com]? Doesn't that make it difficult for color blind folks to use the software?
Umm... you do realize that color blindness involves... yes, color. As in, not grays? So, no, various shades of gray don't affect people with color blindness. Now, if the windows were various shades of red and green, it's a different story.
One last nit to pick. What's with the various styles of icons? Some are 3D-ish some are just plane 2D, etc.
Bah... if you want inconsistent user experience, look at Windows. If I run three different versions of MS Office ('97, 2k, 2003), I get three different widget sets. And this is ignoring the various media players, etc, that use custom widgets.
Frankly, IMHO, the "ooh, X has different widget sets" crowd are really overstating the importance of this kind of consistency. Now, having the same general paradigms (windows, menus, scrollbars, buttons, etc, that all behave the same way) and a general consistency in layout (file, edit, view menus, etc), that is important (for example, I hate how Athena works). However, actual visual consistency is not nearly so vital, at least in my experience with newbies.
*snicker* This is a troll, right? Seriously... it's gotta be. I mean, the economy is far from rocking (the US dollar is *seriously* tanking, and the federal deficit is skyrocketing), and Iraq is no where near a free, democratic state, and doesn't look like it'll be one any time soon. Moreover, the US will likely have an occupation force there for years (lest a civil war spark in the subsequent power vacuum).
In fact, I think Bush *knows* he's in deep shit. There's a reason he passed his massive prescription drug plan (boosting the deficit even higher, BTW)... to effective buy off his key voting block (older conservatives), while at the same time appeasing pharmaceutical firms (a gov't-run drug plan could stem the tide of cheaper drugs crossing the US-Canada border, effectively assisting an industry which gouges consumers while foisting the burden on the populace... clever, eh?).
I have to admit, though... you demonstracted an interesting effect, here on Slashdot: complain about being modded down, and you'll get modded up. It's like an odd form of Karma-whoring... I gotta try that some time.
Who said I had to do any research? I wasn't the one who made a decidedly inflammatory statement without ANY evidence to back it up (which you kindly provided, although the last two sources seem rather biased). All I ask is that, if you're going to make a statement like that, BACK IT UP. It's not that hard.
Incidentally, my response to your post is that, yes, while Canada, in theory, doesn't protect property rights, the US, also in theory, protects the right to free speech, thus proving yet again that theory is very much divoced from reality.
LOL! If you're going to make a ridiculous statement like that, the least you can do is back it up. Hell, I live in Canada, and, frankly, I think that, these days, our government has a better grasp on the concept of humans rights than the US.
Thanks! That was actually quite interesting... However, do note that that $5.00 Federal Access Charge is *not* federal tax, and does not end up in the government coffers. See here. So, the direct tax is actually $3.29 per month which, while still a lot, is nowhere near 2/3rds of the bill. Although, as you say, there may be hidden taxes in there.
since the central claim of gun control proponents has been that if you make it easier for people to own guns, the crime rate will go UP
Uhh... huh? Anti-gun folks (well, at least the ones I know) don't want guns because *guns kill people*. It's as simple as that, really. Look, suppose the presence of guns doesn't decrease crime, as you suggest. Then why have them in society at all? The dangers they pose aren't worth it, as they provide no measureable benefit to society, while at the same time, many many people each year are killed in gun-related incidences.
Damn, now that's *truly* insightful.
Now, either refute me with something besides your big keyboard or run along.
:) So, I will state it very succinctly: Do you feel it's okay for the state to perform certain actions just because the law says it's legal (or, more to the point, doesn't say it's NOT legal)? For example, there are provisions in the PATRIOT act for holding citizens indefinitely... do you think it's okay for the US to exercise those rights, simply because it's codified in the law?
I wasn't trying to refute anything... in fact, I made absolutely no statement regarding the legality of the US's actions (re-read my post if you don't believe me). Frankly, I'm just trying to ask some interesting questions.
I do know what powers are within the law and what are not.
And you're completely missing my point.
Basically, from my point of view, the US was founded based on certain beliefs regarding human rights, etc. BUT, based on my understanding of the situation in Guantanimo Bay, it seems to me that the US government is behaving in a manner which is in direct contradiction with those values. Of course, you may disagree with me on this, but this is just my impression of the situation.
I don't care if the phone companies are trying to get around regulation. And I don't care that a variety of other products have large amounts of tax on them. You still haven't backed up your very specific assertion that government regulation is responsible for 2/3rds of your phone bill. PROVE IT! Don't just go throwing numbers around... that's how bullshit like "1 joint == 6 cigarettes" (or was it 12?) or "you need 8 glasses of water a day" got started; by people making up numbers and stating them as fact. It's bad when the media does it, it's bad when the so called "experts" to do it, and it's just as bad when you do it.
So, if you have evidence, great, I'd love to see it. Seriously. This isn't meant to be an attack on you or your beliefs regarding government regulation. But provide *evidence*. Either that, or quit throwing around made-up numbers and stating them as fact in order to back up your own personal beliefs.
And how does that make it okay to force it on a nation who hasn't even been asked what they want? At least the American colonies *chose* their cultural revolution...
Yes, USA is the only country that grants "full" freedoms. However, this is at the whim of the government and the population. Just 40 years ago...
Screw 40 years ago. What about the Dixie Chicks? Seriously... "anti-American" is the new "Communism".
Hey, just OOC, let's say you're right and these guys are "unlawful combatants" and thus don't fall under the GC. That automatically means the US can and *should* treat them in any way they see fit? So, you feel that the "'cuz I can" excuse is good enough for the US? It doesn't disturb you that your government is perfectly willing to imprison people for extended periods without trial, etc? Doesn't this abuse of power concern you? Oh, well yeah, they aren't getting shot on the battlefield. That's true... but how does that make extended imprisonment without representation any more okay? Believe it or not, human rights are NOT relative...
Man, *finally* someone said this. Are you American? Because I have a hard time believing that... if the (US) media is to be believed, the whole of the US is hell bent on installing democratic regimes in every country on earth, whether or not it's a good idea. Just look at Iraq. I'm not convinced that they're culturally prepared for democracy just yet, but that won't stop the US from forcing it down their throats...
I believe he was suggesting that the man should be jailed because he advocates people setting themselves on fire. Now, I personally don't think this is a reason to jail someone (if people follow his lead, so be it), but don't confuse what the grandparent was saying with your own personal beliefs.
If I pulled off all the govenment add-on fees off my bill, and the hidden ones that show up as part of the monthly basic fee (passed on costs), my bill could be about 1/3 the current price.
Prove it. Seriously, for all these conspiracy theories I keep reading, for once, I want you to prove it. Yes, government taxes on phone service incur some overhead on bills, and, no, it's probably not inconsiderable. But to imply that the government is responsible for *2/3rds* of your phone bill requires just a *little* proof, don't ya thing?
When will this industry ever learn that there's no such thing as a magic bullet? Let's see, just off the top of my head, there was OOP, not to mention Extreme Programming, and now the apparent holy grail of security, "Trusted Computing".
Well, guess what, writing high quality software is hard. Writing high quality, secure software is *really* hard. And there's nothing that will change that.
And you'd be wrong. If you make a copy of something and then give that copy to me, you are distributing copies of the work. However, if I borrow a CD from you and then personally make a copy, *you* aren't distributing anything. No, really, you're not.
Since you're not going to believe me (you seem quite stubborn), I'll give you an example. A video rental store can not be charged for distribution when one of it's customers copies a video cassette they rented. Right? Why? Because, they aren't *distributing* anything. Now, you'll say "ya, but copying tapes is illegal!" and my response is, yes, copying *tapes* is illegal, but copying CDs is very much legal, thanks to the Canadian Copyright Act.
So quit splitting hairs. I know you'd don't want to admit you're wrong, but, really, you are.
As if any decent protocol would send your password over the wire in any form during the authentication phase. Why would they? It's an obvious protocol flaw, and since both parties share a secret, so it's fairly straight forward to authenticate each other using some other mechanism (eg, challenge-response).