So, if Hyperion - or anyone - can push out some portable 'Miggy goodness, I'm all in.
I might be wrong, but AFAIK these "new" Amigas AFAIK aren't directly compatible with old Amiga software, and definitely not anything that comes close to hitting the hardware directly. They don't run the 68K, they are (again AFAICT) just custom machines that run a new version of the Amiga OS.
AFAICT they're aimed at the tiny hardcore who never gave up the faith even when it meant moving away from the original Amiga hardware.
But given that any need for "classic" Amiga OS compatibility in a new OS has been rendered irrelevant by the sands of time (any software of industry note likely being well over 15 years old, and having been long migrated-away from) and I doubt the updated AmigaOS is that great by modern standards given that it basically wasn't upgraded for well over a decade and was already getting long in the tooth before then.
Seriously, it was fantastic in its day, but that day was 20+ years ago and a different era. Things have moved on- let it go.
It's just the biggest single market in the world. Nothing important there.
Strawman. I didn't claim that the US market wasn't significant, I said it "wasn't the be all and end all". And your other fallacy lies in assuming that because the US is a major *single* market, the Amiga can't be a success regardless of how much it sells on other markets.
And this depends how one defines a "market". Europe as a whole was- and is- in the same ballpark.
The Amiga did not sell well enough anywhere
The fact that it was manufactured for almost a decade shows that it must have sold "well enough". Actually, it sold significantly better than "well enough", but whatever...
and it died.
Eventually, yes- just like the original PlayStation or NES, which no longer have any mainstream support. By your logic this means that they were flops too.
I'm pretty sure that was exactly my point
Go back and read what you wrote then- you made two distinct points:-
(a) That the Amiga was a supposed flop even in its heyday (transparently wrong and the part that was disagreed with) and
(b) That it's long dead and there's no real purpose to bringing it back now.
Problem is that some idiots tend to get the wrong end of the stick and assume that disagreement with part of their argument means you disagree with all of it. My response was clarification and expansion on this front.
But to be honest, this product is really aimed at the obessive hardcore Amiga fanbase
All three of them
Funny thing is, if the rest of your response hadn't been so trollish in intent, I'd probably have found this a humorous (but reasonable) exaggeration of the current situation.
Yep- you're right. These machines are aimed at (what I assume is) a very tiny proportion of obsessive hobbyists who never let go and are still interested in a "new" Amiga hardware and OS (*). Not remotely mass-market by x86 standards, but obviously enough for some people to figure there's money to be made.
Personally, I don't see the point as the new models are neither fish nor foul. AFAIK the new machines aren't directly hardware compatible with the old Amigas- just the Amiga OS- and the OS itself has probably been long superseded.
As I said, they're niche products aimed at obsessive hobbyists. Actually, IMHO they're more intended to *exploit* such hobbyists... but it's their money.
(*) As opposed to the "retro" Amiga market, which I assume is a somewhat different demographic
I don't really understand why anyone is trying to resurrect a proprietary platform that died out eons ago and that even most geeks didn't buy back during its heyday. [..] Nobody cared about the Amiga back then and even fewer people care now.
Oh Jeez, not this **** again! Look, I know it's hard to believe, but the US market is not the be all and end all, nor is it always reflective of the rest of the world.
Sure, it didn't sell well in Buttf***, Illinois, but the Amiga enjoyed *massive* mainstream success in Europe in the late-80s and early-90s.
That said, though it was amazing and ahead of its time 20-25 years ago, the Amiga is way too long gone to serve any meaningful purpose in bringing back now. Things have long moved on.
But to be honest, this product is really aimed at the obessive hardcore Amiga fanbase, not Joe Public, and that's where it makes business sense (if it does)- a very niche market.
I didn't read the thread myself either; I also found that post via someone else's link. And I don't think that Doctor Bob was a "sock puppet" so much as a somewhat tongue-in-cheek and good-natured troll.
Nope, it's BSD licensed. They can do whatever the hell they want.
Except include code with licenses that guarantee the users fundamental software freedoms.
I know it's easier to cry "freedom" than understand complex issues like licensing but BSD is more free than GPL. You can do most anything as long as you maintain copyright notices. It you disagree with this, you don't have to contribute to it.
Oh great. The scene appears to be being set for yet *another* identikit thread hijack on behalf of the GPL vs. BSD holy war.
Never mind that we've had this discussion countless times before and every possible debating point and issue has been raised and discussed exhaustively a million times. Never mind that the chances of any new insight coming out of the billionth tedious discussion of this long-established subject is next to nothing. Never mind that those involved on both sides feel the need to repeat the same entrenched positions- which mostly come down to personal philosophy and not an incomplete understanding of the issues (which everyone knows full well by now) and will therefore be unlikely to change in the face of the discussion... not that this was the point anyway.
No, the point is that those involved in every one of these pointless rehashes of the exact same to-ing and fro-ing and restatements of the same old facts and arguments on both sides know this damn well, but can't reign in their desire to indulge in the argument yet again.
Does this mean if we settle on a planet going round some other star the city there will be built... on rock and roll?
If so, I suspect that radio communication may prove a problem due to interference from some guy called Marconi playing the mamba. Personally, I don't care who goes to that type of place though.
4) You think that remaking a show that went off the air when Nixon was president is a cool thing that's entirely appropriate.
Er, where exactly does Moofie say or even imply that? (Hint; he/she didn't.)
Point (1) made fun of your knowledge of an old TV show, point (2) made fun of the fact that your leet search skills apparently weren't that leet.
Either that was a blatant attempt to smear Moofie via strawman, or you're the type who assumes that anyone who makes a valid criticism of the manner in which you chose to argue a particular point can be automatically assumed to be taking the opposing position to you, not just on that specific point, but on every area of the topic under discussion.
To be fair, they have to localise it before they can sell it down under. Specifically, every unit has to be turned upside down first. Also, Aussie regulations require the attachment of corks on strings to keep flies away.
Plus, they've decided to rename it as the "Bruce" for the Australian market, to avoid causing confusion.
I'm sad to see they didn't go with the PS Vita Mix model. A game machine that could also make me a smoothie would be a big hit.
They probably ditched it because they're *already* planning for an improved version of the original (like Nintendo did with the DS Lite). Leaked publicity suggests that the Vita "Lite" will be with us soon.
Stop with the Bitcoin Slashvertizements already. No crackpot schemes wanted here.
You really think that this story describing how the value of Bitcoin is extremely volatile and has plumetted to a tiny fraction of its previous value is biased publicity aimed at roping in people who need a way to lose a large amount of money within a very short period of time? That hadn't occurred to me, but thanks for pointing it out.
Ever played FarmVille? No? Give it a try. [It is] essentially free of challenge, all the game requires is clicking on stuff to get rewards
I first came across this worthless type of game around 4 years ago, some time before Farmville, when spam links to something called "MyMiniCity" started appearing on Slashdot.
While it was dressed up as something superficially resembling a cut-down Sim City, it didn't take a genius to quickly figure out that the game had no metric beyond how many people from different IPs visited your page that day (and presumably see their advertising). In other words, your progress in this worthless "game" was only a reflection of how many people you had managed to convince- or con- into visiting your lousy page.
It was clever... on the part of the designers, who figured out a way to rope in easily amused (and not necessarily clever) people into doing their spamming by turning the process into a pseudo-game that pandered to some warped sense of achievement.
Because ultimately all this information has always been available (high school yearbooks, for example have done much the same things as Facebook in the GP's example) the only thing that has changed is the barrier to accessing that information has lowered, with the automation of the collection and correlation of the data.
Thus providing a good example of how a change in quantity (i.e. the speed at which we are able to gather *and* process publicly-available data) fundamentally alters the nature and implications (i.e. the *quality*) of that process. In general, this is why the old rules and expectations about public information and public behaviour- which were arrived at long before computers and such automation came along- should not automatically be applied to the same things done many magnitudes faster than before- at least not without discussion about what society wants.
The slippery slope is a fallacy because A doesn't always lead to B - but A can still greatly increase the probability of B in the future.
I'm not sure that the former was what was implied by the analogy. No-one's guaranteed to fall down if they come across a "slippery slope", but it's implied that it increases the risk significantly.
If they're using a feather, its erotica. If they're using a chicken, its porn.
The way heard that (and where it makes more sense) was "What's the difference between kinky and perverse? Kinky is when you tickle your girlfriend with a feather- perverse is when you use the whole chicken."
I found a vulnerability in a web portal that would shut down an entire line of business for a certain "company," and because of the dynamic you mentioned, it is still unreported to this day.
If it's something that would affect their customers, then it may still be wise to report it *anonymously* and untracably (*) in a way that gives those responsible a chance to correct it but leaves open the possibility of informing those higher up and/or other authorities or news sources if this doesn't happen.
OTOH, if the consequences would primarily be on the business, you have to decide whether it's worth your time and risk.
(*) Clearly this would have been easier for you *before* you were personally involved with the company, though there would still be the risk of them identifying you through (e.g.) weblogs, so you would have had to mitigate that risk, e.g. by waiting long enough that they couldn't reliably associate you with it, etc.
Ask the EFF to write up an internationally-binding contract, in which a company would make a legal commitment not to harass [etc] any security researcher who provides them information in good faith. [..] Any company who signs this is likely to get security assistance. Those who do not sign, could not expect such assistance.
With respect, this is naive and assumes that such companies *want* your assistance. I'm sure that a significant proportion would rather that you STFU about any inconvenient vulnerabilities which would cause them a lot of hassle to fix, probably make them look bad (people do *not* like being made to look incompetent, even when they are) and I suspect, from a legal point-of-view, be all-round more convenient to not (officially) know about.
If you persist in trying to get them to do something about this (regardless of whether or not it would help their customers), they *will* find a way of getting back at you and dissuading others from doing the same thing. To be honest, that would appear to be the most likely explanation in this case, and going by some of the comments posted here, it seems to work.
Of course, such dissuaded responses appear to forget that the people you're really helping are more likely the innocent customers of this company (who have no idea how lousy the company is) as much as the company themselves- who would probably rather you kept quiet. So saying "fuck 'em" and letting the company reap the rewards of their own incompetence misses the point.
The primary aim is to address the problem and get them to fix it. While ideally this would be done in a way that minimises harm to the company/people responsible (as "punishing" them isn't- or shouldn't- be the aim), one *has* to assume that their response may not be positive, and make the #1 priority to protect oneself from a potentially hostile response.
This may not be natural for geek-types who see fixing the problem as most important and think they are doing those involved a "favour"- and being more rational- by being more direct, but it is *not* your job to risk being crucified and smeared by some company whose toes they think you stood on. If that means doing things anonymously and less directly then that has to be the way you do it.
Google are AdamAnt they did nothing wrong
on
IRS Auditing Google
·
· Score: 1
Methinks their goody two shoes nature finally rubbed some corporation the wrong way.
Don't drink, don't smoke, what do you do?
Don't drink, don't smoke, what do you do?
Subtle innuendos follow
Must be large scale multi-billion dollar tax evasion.
/ Obscure? // Hang on, this isn't Fark /// Who cares, slashie slashie
Apple were going to call it "City", but they dictated the title through an iPhone 4S at the press conference.
"So let me announce... [speaks into phone].... City".
[iPhone showing on large screen displays.... "Siri"]
"So, er... yeah. That's what it's called.... Siri.... Umm... I have a rare speech impediment that occasionally makes my t's sound like r's, but Cit... er, *Siri* is so good that it still understands. Yeah, that's it. Siri never makes mistakes!"
"Whatever the f*** it's called, we're sure it'll be a great hit.... thank you! [Under his breath] Damn piece of crap made me look very siri, er... silly. DAMMIT!"
In 2000 I had a Nokia 3310 with voice dialing and probably every phone I had since has that feature but I never felt the urge to use it and I don't know anyone else who does.
I had a 3310 as well (still do!) but I never used that feature, nor even really looked into it for curiosity's sake. (Which I guess I should be kind of ashamed of as an alleged geek).
How did it work? I wouldn't have thought that a mobile phone circa that era would have enough processing power to do anything like that reliably. And it wouldn't be able to do it over the network circa 2000 surely?
Slashdot Mirror
So, if Hyperion - or anyone - can push out some portable 'Miggy goodness, I'm all in.
I might be wrong, but AFAIK these "new" Amigas AFAIK aren't directly compatible with old Amiga software, and definitely not anything that comes close to hitting the hardware directly. They don't run the 68K, they are (again AFAICT) just custom machines that run a new version of the Amiga OS.
AFAICT they're aimed at the tiny hardcore who never gave up the faith even when it meant moving away from the original Amiga hardware.
But given that any need for "classic" Amiga OS compatibility in a new OS has been rendered irrelevant by the sands of time (any software of industry note likely being well over 15 years old, and having been long migrated-away from) and I doubt the updated AmigaOS is that great by modern standards given that it basically wasn't upgraded for well over a decade and was already getting long in the tooth before then.
Seriously, it was fantastic in its day, but that day was 20+ years ago and a different era. Things have moved on- let it go.
I'm going to guess you weren't around in the 80's when the Amiga was huge?
In some ways you still have a US-centric view. *You* mean "huge" in terms of relative video industry importance in the US.
My point was that the Amiga was "huge" in actual *mass market*, pure-numbers, "every teenager in his bedroom and his dog owns one" terms in Europe.
It's just the biggest single market in the world. Nothing important there.
Strawman. I didn't claim that the US market wasn't significant, I said it "wasn't the be all and end all". And your other fallacy lies in assuming that because the US is a major *single* market, the Amiga can't be a success regardless of how much it sells on other markets.
And this depends how one defines a "market". Europe as a whole was- and is- in the same ballpark.
The Amiga did not sell well enough anywhere
The fact that it was manufactured for almost a decade shows that it must have sold "well enough". Actually, it sold significantly better than "well enough", but whatever...
and it died.
Eventually, yes- just like the original PlayStation or NES, which no longer have any mainstream support. By your logic this means that they were flops too.
I'm pretty sure that was exactly my point
Go back and read what you wrote then- you made two distinct points:-
(a) That the Amiga was a supposed flop even in its heyday (transparently wrong and the part that was disagreed with) and
(b) That it's long dead and there's no real purpose to bringing it back now.
Problem is that some idiots tend to get the wrong end of the stick and assume that disagreement with part of their argument means you disagree with all of it. My response was clarification and expansion on this front.
But to be honest, this product is really aimed at the obessive hardcore Amiga fanbase
All three of them
Funny thing is, if the rest of your response hadn't been so trollish in intent, I'd probably have found this a humorous (but reasonable) exaggeration of the current situation.
Yep- you're right. These machines are aimed at (what I assume is) a very tiny proportion of obsessive hobbyists who never let go and are still interested in a "new" Amiga hardware and OS (*). Not remotely mass-market by x86 standards, but obviously enough for some people to figure there's money to be made.
Personally, I don't see the point as the new models are neither fish nor foul. AFAIK the new machines aren't directly hardware compatible with the old Amigas- just the Amiga OS- and the OS itself has probably been long superseded.
As I said, they're niche products aimed at obsessive hobbyists. Actually, IMHO they're more intended to *exploit* such hobbyists... but it's their money.
(*) As opposed to the "retro" Amiga market, which I assume is a somewhat different demographic
I don't really understand why anyone is trying to resurrect a proprietary platform that died out eons ago and that even most geeks didn't buy back during its heyday. [..] Nobody cared about the Amiga back then and even fewer people care now.
Oh Jeez, not this **** again! Look, I know it's hard to believe, but the US market is not the be all and end all, nor is it always reflective of the rest of the world.
Sure, it didn't sell well in Buttf***, Illinois, but the Amiga enjoyed *massive* mainstream success in Europe in the late-80s and early-90s.
That said, though it was amazing and ahead of its time 20-25 years ago, the Amiga is way too long gone to serve any meaningful purpose in bringing back now. Things have long moved on.
But to be honest, this product is really aimed at the obessive hardcore Amiga fanbase, not Joe Public, and that's where it makes business sense (if it does)- a very niche market.
I didn't read the thread myself either; I also found that post via someone else's link. And I don't think that Doctor Bob was a "sock puppet" so much as a somewhat tongue-in-cheek and good-natured troll.
I've been reviewing the source, and IceCream is the best thing ever since sliced bread!
Yeah, that's great and everything, but I wonder what percentage of the *negative* reviews will simply consist of the words
"Shit Sandwich".
Paging Dr. Bob. you have an incoming call
Sad news- chiropractor Doctor Bob was found dead at his Maine home this.... er, no, wrong story...... I meant Doctor Bob turned out to be an imposter.
:-)
I was shocked, *shocked* at the news that Doctor Bob, who I had trusted for so long, wasn't real.
Er, no, wait... actually, I wasn't surprised at all, but I was quite amused anyway.
Nope, it's BSD licensed. They can do whatever the hell they want.
Except include code with licenses that guarantee the users fundamental software freedoms.
I know it's easier to cry "freedom" than understand complex issues like licensing but BSD is more free than GPL. You can do most anything as long as you maintain copyright notices. It you disagree with this, you don't have to contribute to it.
Oh great. The scene appears to be being set for yet *another* identikit thread hijack on behalf of the GPL vs. BSD holy war.
Never mind that we've had this discussion countless times before and every possible debating point and issue has been raised and discussed exhaustively a million times. Never mind that the chances of any new insight coming out of the billionth tedious discussion of this long-established subject is next to nothing. Never mind that those involved on both sides feel the need to repeat the same entrenched positions- which mostly come down to personal philosophy and not an incomplete understanding of the issues (which everyone knows full well by now) and will therefore be unlikely to change in the face of the discussion... not that this was the point anyway.
No, the point is that those involved in every one of these pointless rehashes of the exact same to-ing and fro-ing and restatements of the same old facts and arguments on both sides know this damn well, but can't reign in their desire to indulge in the argument yet again.
Does this mean if we settle on a planet going round some other star the city there will be built... on rock and roll?
If so, I suspect that radio communication may prove a problem due to interference from some guy called Marconi playing the mamba. Personally, I don't care who goes to that type of place though.
4) You think that remaking a show that went off the air when Nixon was president is a cool thing that's entirely appropriate.
Er, where exactly does Moofie say or even imply that? (Hint; he/she didn't.)
Point (1) made fun of your knowledge of an old TV show, point (2) made fun of the fact that your leet search skills apparently weren't that leet.
Either that was a blatant attempt to smear Moofie via strawman, or you're the type who assumes that anyone who makes a valid criticism of the manner in which you chose to argue a particular point can be automatically assumed to be taking the opposing position to you, not just on that specific point, but on every area of the topic under discussion.
I call it the "fuck Australia" rate.
To be fair, they have to localise it before they can sell it down under. Specifically, every unit has to be turned upside down first. Also, Aussie regulations require the attachment of corks on strings to keep flies away.
Plus, they've decided to rename it as the "Bruce" for the Australian market, to avoid causing confusion.
I'm sad to see they didn't go with the PS Vita Mix model. A game machine that could also make me a smoothie would be a big hit.
They probably ditched it because they're *already* planning for an improved version of the original (like Nintendo did with the DS Lite). Leaked publicity suggests that the Vita "Lite" will be with us soon.
Stop with the Bitcoin Slashvertizements already. No crackpot schemes wanted here.
You really think that this story describing how the value of Bitcoin is extremely volatile and has plumetted to a tiny fraction of its previous value is biased publicity aimed at roping in people who need a way to lose a large amount of money within a very short period of time? That hadn't occurred to me, but thanks for pointing it out.
I myself am involved in a scheme that requires me to squander my inheritance and was almost led into believing that Bitcoin would be suitable for this purpose. Thank you for drawing my attention to this.
Ever played FarmVille? No? Give it a try. [It is] essentially free of challenge, all the game requires is clicking on stuff to get rewards
I first came across this worthless type of game around 4 years ago, some time before Farmville, when spam links to something called "MyMiniCity" started appearing on Slashdot.
While it was dressed up as something superficially resembling a cut-down Sim City, it didn't take a genius to quickly figure out that the game had no metric beyond how many people from different IPs visited your page that day (and presumably see their advertising). In other words, your progress in this worthless "game" was only a reflection of how many people you had managed to convince- or con- into visiting your lousy page.
It was clever... on the part of the designers, who figured out a way to rope in easily amused (and not necessarily clever) people into doing their spamming by turning the process into a pseudo-game that pandered to some warped sense of achievement.
Because ultimately all this information has always been available (high school yearbooks, for example have done much the same things as Facebook in the GP's example) the only thing that has changed is the barrier to accessing that information has lowered, with the automation of the collection and correlation of the data.
Thus providing a good example of how a change in quantity (i.e. the speed at which we are able to gather *and* process publicly-available data) fundamentally alters the nature and implications (i.e. the *quality*) of that process. In general, this is why the old rules and expectations about public information and public behaviour- which were arrived at long before computers and such automation came along- should not automatically be applied to the same things done many magnitudes faster than before- at least not without discussion about what society wants.
The slippery slope is a fallacy because A doesn't always lead to B - but A can still greatly increase the probability of B in the future.
I'm not sure that the former was what was implied by the analogy. No-one's guaranteed to fall down if they come across a "slippery slope", but it's implied that it increases the risk significantly.
If they're using a feather, its erotica. If they're using a chicken, its porn.
The way heard that (and where it makes more sense) was "What's the difference between kinky and perverse? Kinky is when you tickle your girlfriend with a feather- perverse is when you use the whole chicken."
I believe that the correct term is "mathsturbation"
Given that Pi never ends, could we also call it "onanonanonanonanism"?
I found a vulnerability in a web portal that would shut down an entire line of business for a certain "company," and because of the dynamic you mentioned, it is still unreported to this day.
If it's something that would affect their customers, then it may still be wise to report it *anonymously* and untracably (*) in a way that gives those responsible a chance to correct it but leaves open the possibility of informing those higher up and/or other authorities or news sources if this doesn't happen.
OTOH, if the consequences would primarily be on the business, you have to decide whether it's worth your time and risk.
(*) Clearly this would have been easier for you *before* you were personally involved with the company, though there would still be the risk of them identifying you through (e.g.) weblogs, so you would have had to mitigate that risk, e.g. by waiting long enough that they couldn't reliably associate you with it, etc.
Ask the EFF to write up an internationally-binding contract, in which a company would make a legal commitment not to harass [etc] any security researcher who provides them information in good faith. [..] Any company who signs this is likely to get security assistance. Those who do not sign, could not expect such assistance.
With respect, this is naive and assumes that such companies *want* your assistance. I'm sure that a significant proportion would rather that you STFU about any inconvenient vulnerabilities which would cause them a lot of hassle to fix, probably make them look bad (people do *not* like being made to look incompetent, even when they are) and I suspect, from a legal point-of-view, be all-round more convenient to not (officially) know about.
If you persist in trying to get them to do something about this (regardless of whether or not it would help their customers), they *will* find a way of getting back at you and dissuading others from doing the same thing. To be honest, that would appear to be the most likely explanation in this case, and going by some of the comments posted here, it seems to work.
Of course, such dissuaded responses appear to forget that the people you're really helping are more likely the innocent customers of this company (who have no idea how lousy the company is) as much as the company themselves- who would probably rather you kept quiet. So saying "fuck 'em" and letting the company reap the rewards of their own incompetence misses the point.
The primary aim is to address the problem and get them to fix it. While ideally this would be done in a way that minimises harm to the company/people responsible (as "punishing" them isn't- or shouldn't- be the aim), one *has* to assume that their response may not be positive, and make the #1 priority to protect oneself from a potentially hostile response.
This may not be natural for geek-types who see fixing the problem as most important and think they are doing those involved a "favour"- and being more rational- by being more direct, but it is *not* your job to risk being crucified and smeared by some company whose toes they think you stood on. If that means doing things anonymously and less directly then that has to be the way you do it.
Methinks their goody two shoes nature finally rubbed some corporation the wrong way.
Don't drink, don't smoke, what do you do?
// Hang on, this isn't Fark
/// Who cares, slashie slashie
Don't drink, don't smoke, what do you do?
Subtle innuendos follow
Must be large scale multi-billion dollar tax evasion.
/ Obscure?
Apple were going to call it "City", but they dictated the title through an iPhone 4S at the press conference.
"So let me announce... [speaks into phone].... City".
[iPhone showing on large screen displays.... "Siri"]
"So, er... yeah. That's what it's called.... Siri.... Umm... I have a rare speech impediment that occasionally makes my t's sound like r's, but Cit... er, *Siri* is so good that it still understands. Yeah, that's it. Siri never makes mistakes!"
"Whatever the f*** it's called, we're sure it'll be a great hit.... thank you! [Under his breath] Damn piece of crap made me look very siri, er... silly. DAMMIT!"
In 2000 I had a Nokia 3310 with voice dialing and probably every phone I had since has that feature but I never felt the urge to use it and I don't know anyone else who does.
I had a 3310 as well (still do!) but I never used that feature, nor even really looked into it for curiosity's sake. (Which I guess I should be kind of ashamed of as an alleged geek).
How did it work? I wouldn't have thought that a mobile phone circa that era would have enough processing power to do anything like that reliably. And it wouldn't be able to do it over the network circa 2000 surely?
We had to imagine games in our minds, and only using black and white.
You had black *and* white? Luxury! We only had black- and sometimes not even that.
..... they won't believe you.
And you try and tell the young people of today that
And initially it was only 1 game, which really isn't a bundle.
You had it lucky. When I were a kid, we got 0 games in our bundles. And we liked it!