BASIC is there... not hard to get it to work. Just runstop a game and when the emu reboots, brings it right up proof here
Even more interestingly, the app is totally hackable (assuming your iPhone is jailbroken). I got Castle Wolfenstein, Ghostbusters, Impossible Mission, all working. Mildly painful, but doable.
I think what happened here was that the BBC found the Digital Journal article, got famously sloppy, and reprinted a dumbed down version.
I agree with everything you've said, except for what I've quoted. It more likely happenend the other way around. The tip-off should have been the first words of the article you link to:
BBC News reports...
Otherwise, nice find and nice post. btw I blame the Digg Hoard... I think they're the ones flooding Slashdot with silly posts.
The point is it's nigh impossible to tell how intelligent a person is by how they act because they could be deceiving you. The things women do to attract men are based in deception (lipstick, for instance, is a deception), so also might their behavior. And the whole fucking ritual has always been stupid... just what is intelligent about mating? How do brilliant women mate differently from average women? I think the whole thing is a male oriented perception, an illusion we are coaxed into by their trappings. Someone who claims to only like smart women is obviously rebelling from the widely held myth that a man will have sex with anything warm to set themselves apart, to say they are more refined (ahem, bullshit), and basically to make an excuse for a lack of confidence that prevents them from going for the gold in most situations. How do I know this? Because I used to say the same crap: "I only like smart girls." Took me years to realize that biology was oh so much more powerful than intellect or free will.
I must be weird then, because stupidity is a *huge* turn off for me. I have met incredibly beautiful women before that pretty much instantly turned me off because they had no freaking brain.
And what about a woman twice as smart as you, crossing her eyes, sticking out her tongue with cleavage showing, painted nails, makeup, heels, etc. the whole nine yards, jiggling all over and acting like a moron with a stupid child's voice? I think you probably like thinking of yourself the way you do, that you are different, but all you're doing is denying what makes you male. You don't know yourself as well as you think you do. So forget that noise, brother. This above all: to thine own self be true.
That's not quite right. Allow me illustrate with an analogy...
attractive:stupid::loved:insane
So, as many troubadors have repeated, the eyes are the windows of the heart. So we start out attracted, which makes us stupid... and this evolves over time into love, which is truly a special kind of mental illness.
Any male, twenty or over and somewhat attractive, who has ever had to spend time around high school girls can tell you that they get just as stupid around guys they think are hot.
uh... thing is, with girls, it's often an act. Women are much better at deception than men, and they're smart enough to know that stupidity is a turn on for guys... so their feigned stupidity fuels our stupidity, which lets them know it's working, and they can be even bolder in their feigned stupidity... it's a vicious feedback loop when it works right.
We'd be wise to consider the words of the great philosopher Steven Wright, who said, "I never really believe what women tell me."
It was still Sun branded hardware, just that the quality had slid due to marketing trying for a profit grab (cheaper components not lasting). But I'd guess the buyers ran Solaris. And their feedback ("hey... this isn't butter! it margerine!") is what killed Sun. Why someone would want Sun hardware just to run linux is beyond me... when you could use cheaper and even more craptastic Dell rackmounts to run linux, and just expect to replace them more often.
Sun's failures have less to do with linux and probably more to do with marketing taking over the company and messing with the expensive, but rock solid, hardware their clients came to trust -- and replacing them with cheaper variants.
How could they really have done this without Linux providing Unix on those cheap hardware replacements?
You are confused. Linux (any flavor) has never met the Single UNIX Standard and, thus, has never been UNIX. Sun has linux offerrings, but the problem wasn't with their flagship OS Solaris, but that their recent hardware was not of the quality of yore... the thing that made Sun great was the combo, Solaris + Sun hardware. It wasn't the cost of the OS (there is a free version after all, OpenSolaris), but that the newer hardware wasn't up to snuff compared to their previous offerings. Linux has never earned that kind of trust that Solaris+Sun hw did... even to this day it's not Linux that's trusted, the trust is in the Linux administrator that keeps tweaking it and fixing it (on the fly) to make it go.
When did this happen? ok, seriously... I've personally never had a problem with any linux variant's stability... however, I'm a loner running a cheeseball server for myself and noone else. I'd suspect when users are scaled up a few exponents is where admins, at least the heavy hitters I know, have come across stability problems with linux. Linux is NOT UNIX, just looks similar... but there were some changes that UNIX admins did not agree with ("Why the fuck did they put that there? What was wrong with where it was?" - that sort of thing). Also, the influx of penquinistas certainly did NOT help linux, as these rebels appeared as "shoot first, fix later" admins that the old school admins could not appreciate. They call linux "broken" because to deploy it they'd have to manually fix a hundred things to regain the stability you had with AIX or Solaris. To understand whether linux is stable now, you have to take into account just how insanely stable AIX and Solaris are first. Linux is not miraculous. Just free.
One of the main problems with AIX is learning AIX.... How the hell do you learn AIX except at an AIX shop? And how do you get into an AIX shop if you don't have experience?
IBM and AIX have no community engagement. It's all golf buddies and three martini lunches with expense accounts.
You're fucking hilarious. I thank you sincerely for the LOL.
AIX is UNIX, so if you know UNIX, you're better than halfway there (I'd suspect!).
And besides the third party training materials (google AIX training),
IBM has training materials
If Sun had been minding the business store and its marketing plan had been sucessful it would not be being eaten by wolves today.
Its marketing plan couldn't be successful... as the plan was "make cheaper hardware, keep prices the same, benefit from larger margins." Marketing pretty much destroyed Sun (it was not, as some zealots rewriting history claim, linux). Had Sun's marketing plan to save money been "lets eliminate the entire marketing dept. and keep everything else the same," Sun might very well have stayed as strong a contender as they ever were.
but ever since the rise of Linux as a viable alternative to Unix, Sun has been floundering about looking for a viable business model.
That wasn't it. Sun's failures have less to do with linux and probably more to do with marketing taking over the company and messing with the expensive, but rock solid, hardware their clients came to trust -- and replacing them with cheaper variants. When they did this they gambled their niche for larger margins, and they lost. The "rise of Linux" wouldn't even make it as a footnote in the story of the fall of Sun. Linux may have been on servers 10 years ago, but these installations were a joke compared to AIX and Solaris installations at the time. Only in the last few years has linux even come within striking distance of AIX and Solaris... and no, Linux has not yet surpassed what serious admins have come to expect from AIX and Solaris afa uptimes, i.e. staying up under heavy crushing loads.
will leave Sun before they get absorbed into Oracle,
Not to defend Oracle, but to put Sun employees at ease, I've seen a few comments by Oracle employees (in other summaries) that say Oracle has a hands off approach to their acquisitions... so, presumably, Oracle won't change Sun, just own it.
The Sun machines would not fail even with loads of well over 100. The linux machines went down as soon as the loads approached 40.
Common testimonials like this are why its hard for me to believe major institutions are abandoning Solaris and AIX in droves in favor of linux. Stability outshines cuttingedge every time.
I can believe what you claim, but only if you have observed this trend in the recent last few years or so. AIX is still maintained by IBM, so I don't understand what you mean by "stagnant." Once upon a time, IBM themselves killed AIX for linux, and there was a revolt. They brought it back very quickly to appease their clients. But that's almost a decade ago now, so all the while linux has been maturing. But how much of the trend is due to upper management drinking the koolaid hype, and how much is due to linux actually maturing? I personally haven't seen AIX uptimes (or Solaris uptimes) on linux yet. The cost savings is undoubtable, but, as is often the case, you get what you pay for... possibly a system that slows to a crawl periodically and needs rebooted (once a week, or whathaveyou) and needs more maintenance, thus more money thrown at it in the form of labor.
I will disclose that I am a three-time ex-Sun employee/contractor who has also seen inside the belly of IBM. Solaris will bury AIX. And you can take *that* to the SAN and store it!
I can appreciate your perspective, but seems to me that AIX is ingrained in a lot of places for the foreseeable future. Remember when IBM pulled AIX c.2001 and replaced it with linux, and the admins in the trenches bitched and moaned? They brought AIX back real quick. IBM has some incredible talent still building AIX, and its still and has been 4ever a solid stable platform. Maybe linux has caught up (ok, its probably caught up), but I doubt AIX admins would seriously consider it an alternative. Solaris is a great OS, but its uptimes were dependant upon Sun hardware just as much, and in recent years Sun's hardware has been getting chincier... and now that Oracle will hold the reigns, I wonder if what you claim is even possible.
This is more like Apple's evil "look-and-feel" lawsuits from the early 90s.
I couldn't disagree more with your assessment of Apple's complaint. Yes, Apple got their ideas from Xerox PARC, and even if Mircrosoft was there, too, I think it's arguable that had Apple not commercialized it, Windows would never have existed. Microsoft has been copying (er, in a cheap knockoff sense) Apple (and other innovators) ever since. Apple's lawsuit was neither evil nor frivolous. Apple perfected Xerox's wheel and made it sooo marketable, Microsoft was able to begin it's true commercial charter, which is namely to copy a successful technology and flood the market with inferior product, usually driving the innovators out of business. If not for Apple, Microsoft would be now releasing DOS seven instead of Windows 7.
I didn't say it was. I was making a comparison between the power wielded by Federal judges and local prosecutors. On the county level, judges are chumps. The prosecutors have the power.
Punishment prior to conviction has become all too common, it's only one tactic in an unscroupulous prosecutor's bag of tricks. They try to make you look guilty by keeping you in jail before trail. They will duplicitously paint you as a flight risk even if you've never been beyond 20 miles from the courthouse. The judge will almost always do as the prosecutor recommends. It's said a sitting federal judge with full contempt powers is the most powerful position in government. But I think a local municiple prosecutor is pretty damn powerful too, considering his sway over local judges before a jury returns a verdict.
Hey, its my metaphor, and you've screwed it up. The "race" in the metaphor is, of course, life. But the "finish line" is not just any death, but natural death, i.e. dying of natural causes.
we? You're are trying to make a distinction where there is none. Suicide is suicide.
There is no valid comparison to murder except in the most trivial sense, namely that someone ends up dead. But that is stupid, and I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you're not seriously advancing such an argument.
Yes, I am advancing that argument. Suicide is a subset of murder. Suicide is when you murder yourself.
"Murder" -- which in this case I'll take as someone murdering someone else more or less at random, or at least who doesn't want to die -- kills someone and cuts short what might have been many years of productive labor.
Your definition is needlessly complex. What have the victim's intentions got to do with it? It's not murder if you kill someone that wants to die?
I define murder as an intentional and premeditated killing. Suicide falls into that category.
Funny how most are not at all ashamed that what you describe is basically how we all started out, in massive pain and confusion, drooling. I know you used to shit your pants twice a day. For years. How is it you were able to rise above that to make it all the way here to slashdot to proclaim that if your aging gets unbearable you'll off yourself? btw, I didn't say that a horrible painful death was necessarily noble. What I was trying to say was that suicide was less noble than whatever nobility natural death holds.
Those who take their own life aren't brave... that's all I'm saying. They should be held to the same standard as someone who runs a race, doesn't like how its going, and quits. Sure, personal choice. But the runner that makes it to the end, even if they are dead last, endears far greater respect.
Well, I'm a strong believer in the Golden Rule. I'm rubber, you're glue... that kind of thing. If I incorrectly detected a maligned attitude toward my post, then I must be in the right place.
Your distinction between suicide in protest and suicide in general is arbitrary.
Suicide for release of suffering has a singular beneficiary. Suicide in protest benefits all but that individual. The distinction is obvious.
I do tend to agree that suicide is an incredibly selfish action, but i also accept the notion that people have a right to be selfish and feel that freedom includes the freedom to quit if you want to.
Hidden in my sarcasm you may have missed that I was not attempting to condemn the man for taking his own life, but only to label those that would (ignorantly) praise him as "brave" for doing so as idiots. Sry for the confusion.
Slashdot Mirror
BASIC is there... not hard to get it to work. Just runstop a game and when the emu reboots, brings it right up
proof here
Even more interestingly, the app is totally hackable (assuming your iPhone is jailbroken). I got Castle Wolfenstein, Ghostbusters, Impossible Mission, all working. Mildly painful, but doable.
I think what happened here was that the BBC found the Digital Journal article, got famously sloppy, and reprinted a dumbed down version.
I agree with everything you've said, except for what I've quoted. It more likely happenend the other way around. The tip-off should have been the first words of the article you link to:
BBC News reports...
Otherwise, nice find and nice post. btw I blame the Digg Hoard... I think they're the ones flooding Slashdot with silly posts.
The point is it's nigh impossible to tell how intelligent a person is by how they act because they could be deceiving you. The things women do to attract men are based in deception (lipstick, for instance, is a deception), so also might their behavior. And the whole fucking ritual has always been stupid... just what is intelligent about mating? How do brilliant women mate differently from average women? I think the whole thing is a male oriented perception, an illusion we are coaxed into by their trappings. Someone who claims to only like smart women is obviously rebelling from the widely held myth that a man will have sex with anything warm to set themselves apart, to say they are more refined (ahem, bullshit), and basically to make an excuse for a lack of confidence that prevents them from going for the gold in most situations. How do I know this? Because I used to say the same crap: "I only like smart girls." Took me years to realize that biology was oh so much more powerful than intellect or free will.
I must be weird then, because stupidity is a *huge* turn off for me. I have met incredibly beautiful women before that pretty much instantly turned me off because they had no freaking brain.
And what about a woman twice as smart as you, crossing her eyes, sticking out her tongue with cleavage showing, painted nails, makeup, heels, etc. the whole nine yards, jiggling all over and acting like a moron with a stupid child's voice? I think you probably like thinking of yourself the way you do, that you are different, but all you're doing is denying what makes you male. You don't know yourself as well as you think you do. So forget that noise, brother. This above all: to thine own self be true.
It's not true love if you recover from it.
That's not quite right. Allow me illustrate with an analogy...
attractive:stupid::loved:insane
So, as many troubadors have repeated, the eyes are the windows of the heart. So we start out attracted, which makes us stupid... and this evolves over time into love, which is truly a special kind of mental illness.
Any male, twenty or over and somewhat attractive, who has ever had to spend time around high school girls can tell you that they get just as stupid around guys they think are hot.
uh... thing is, with girls, it's often an act. Women are much better at deception than men, and they're smart enough to know that stupidity is a turn on for guys... so their feigned stupidity fuels our stupidity, which lets them know it's working, and they can be even bolder in their feigned stupidity... it's a vicious feedback loop when it works right.
We'd be wise to consider the words of the great philosopher Steven Wright, who said, "I never really believe what women tell me."
It was still Sun branded hardware, just that the quality had slid due to marketing trying for a profit grab (cheaper components not lasting). But I'd guess the buyers ran Solaris. And their feedback ("hey... this isn't butter! it margerine!") is what killed Sun. Why someone would want Sun hardware just to run linux is beyond me... when you could use cheaper and even more craptastic Dell rackmounts to run linux, and just expect to replace them more often.
Sun's failures have less to do with linux and probably more to do with marketing taking over the company and messing with the expensive, but rock solid, hardware their clients came to trust -- and replacing them with cheaper variants.
How could they really have done this without Linux providing Unix on those cheap hardware replacements?
You are confused. Linux (any flavor) has never met the Single UNIX Standard and, thus, has never been UNIX. Sun has linux offerrings, but the problem wasn't with their flagship OS Solaris, but that their recent hardware was not of the quality of yore... the thing that made Sun great was the combo, Solaris + Sun hardware. It wasn't the cost of the OS (there is a free version after all, OpenSolaris), but that the newer hardware wasn't up to snuff compared to their previous offerings. Linux has never earned that kind of trust that Solaris+Sun hw did... even to this day it's not Linux that's trusted, the trust is in the Linux administrator that keeps tweaking it and fixing it (on the fly) to make it go.
Because now Linux is pretty stable as well.
When did this happen? ok, seriously... I've personally never had a problem with any linux variant's stability... however, I'm a loner running a cheeseball server for myself and noone else. I'd suspect when users are scaled up a few exponents is where admins, at least the heavy hitters I know, have come across stability problems with linux. Linux is NOT UNIX, just looks similar... but there were some changes that UNIX admins did not agree with ("Why the fuck did they put that there? What was wrong with where it was?" - that sort of thing). Also, the influx of penquinistas certainly did NOT help linux, as these rebels appeared as "shoot first, fix later" admins that the old school admins could not appreciate. They call linux "broken" because to deploy it they'd have to manually fix a hundred things to regain the stability you had with AIX or Solaris. To understand whether linux is stable now, you have to take into account just how insanely stable AIX and Solaris are first. Linux is not miraculous. Just free.
One of the main problems with AIX is learning AIX. ... How the hell do you learn AIX except at an AIX shop? And how do you get into an AIX shop if you don't have experience?
IBM and AIX have no community engagement. It's all golf buddies and three martini lunches with expense accounts.
You're fucking hilarious. I thank you sincerely for the LOL.
AIX is UNIX, so if you know UNIX, you're better than halfway there (I'd suspect!). And besides the third party training materials (google AIX training), IBM has training materials
If Sun had been minding the business store and its marketing plan had been sucessful it would not be being eaten by wolves today.
Its marketing plan couldn't be successful... as the plan was "make cheaper hardware, keep prices the same, benefit from larger margins." Marketing pretty much destroyed Sun (it was not, as some zealots rewriting history claim, linux). Had Sun's marketing plan to save money been "lets eliminate the entire marketing dept. and keep everything else the same," Sun might very well have stayed as strong a contender as they ever were.
but ever since the rise of Linux as a viable alternative to Unix, Sun has been floundering about looking for a viable business model.
That wasn't it. Sun's failures have less to do with linux and probably more to do with marketing taking over the company and messing with the expensive, but rock solid, hardware their clients came to trust -- and replacing them with cheaper variants. When they did this they gambled their niche for larger margins, and they lost. The "rise of Linux" wouldn't even make it as a footnote in the story of the fall of Sun. Linux may have been on servers 10 years ago, but these installations were a joke compared to AIX and Solaris installations at the time. Only in the last few years has linux even come within striking distance of AIX and Solaris... and no, Linux has not yet surpassed what serious admins have come to expect from AIX and Solaris afa uptimes, i.e. staying up under heavy crushing loads.
So IBM first tried to buy SUN
yeah... and IBM wasn't first... Apple was!
will leave Sun before they get absorbed into Oracle,
Not to defend Oracle, but to put Sun employees at ease, I've seen a few comments by Oracle employees (in other summaries) that say Oracle has a hands off approach to their acquisitions... so, presumably, Oracle won't change Sun, just own it.
The Sun machines would not fail even with loads of well over 100. The linux machines went down as soon as the loads approached 40.
Common testimonials like this are why its hard for me to believe major institutions are abandoning Solaris and AIX in droves in favor of linux. Stability outshines cuttingedge every time.
I can believe what you claim, but only if you have observed this trend in the recent last few years or so. AIX is still maintained by IBM, so I don't understand what you mean by "stagnant." Once upon a time, IBM themselves killed AIX for linux, and there was a revolt. They brought it back very quickly to appease their clients. But that's almost a decade ago now, so all the while linux has been maturing. But how much of the trend is due to upper management drinking the koolaid hype, and how much is due to linux actually maturing? I personally haven't seen AIX uptimes (or Solaris uptimes) on linux yet. The cost savings is undoubtable, but, as is often the case, you get what you pay for... possibly a system that slows to a crawl periodically and needs rebooted (once a week, or whathaveyou) and needs more maintenance, thus more money thrown at it in the form of labor.
I will disclose that I am a three-time ex-Sun employee/contractor who has also seen inside the belly of IBM. Solaris will bury AIX. And you can take *that* to the SAN and store it!
I can appreciate your perspective, but seems to me that AIX is ingrained in a lot of places for the foreseeable future. Remember when IBM pulled AIX c.2001 and replaced it with linux, and the admins in the trenches bitched and moaned? They brought AIX back real quick. IBM has some incredible talent still building AIX, and its still and has been 4ever a solid stable platform. Maybe linux has caught up (ok, its probably caught up), but I doubt AIX admins would seriously consider it an alternative. Solaris is a great OS, but its uptimes were dependant upon Sun hardware just as much, and in recent years Sun's hardware has been getting chincier... and now that Oracle will hold the reigns, I wonder if what you claim is even possible.
This is more like Apple's evil "look-and-feel" lawsuits from the early 90s.
I couldn't disagree more with your assessment of Apple's complaint. Yes, Apple got their ideas from Xerox PARC, and even if Mircrosoft was there, too, I think it's arguable that had Apple not commercialized it, Windows would never have existed. Microsoft has been copying (er, in a cheap knockoff sense) Apple (and other innovators) ever since. Apple's lawsuit was neither evil nor frivolous. Apple perfected Xerox's wheel and made it sooo marketable, Microsoft was able to begin it's true commercial charter, which is namely to copy a successful technology and flood the market with inferior product, usually driving the innovators out of business. If not for Apple, Microsoft would be now releasing DOS seven instead of Windows 7.
I didn't say it was. I was making a comparison between the power wielded by Federal judges and local prosecutors. On the county level, judges are chumps. The prosecutors have the power.
Punishment prior to conviction has become all too common, it's only one tactic in an unscroupulous prosecutor's bag of tricks. They try to make you look guilty by keeping you in jail before trail. They will duplicitously paint you as a flight risk even if you've never been beyond 20 miles from the courthouse. The judge will almost always do as the prosecutor recommends. It's said a sitting federal judge with full contempt powers is the most powerful position in government. But I think a local municiple prosecutor is pretty damn powerful too, considering his sway over local judges before a jury returns a verdict.
Hey, its my metaphor, and you've screwed it up. The "race" in the metaphor is, of course, life. But the "finish line" is not just any death, but natural death, i.e. dying of natural causes.
The type of suicide we are talking about here
we? You're are trying to make a distinction where there is none. Suicide is suicide.
There is no valid comparison to murder except in the most trivial sense, namely that someone ends up dead. But that is stupid, and I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you're not seriously advancing such an argument.
Yes, I am advancing that argument. Suicide is a subset of murder. Suicide is when you murder yourself.
"Murder" -- which in this case I'll take as someone murdering someone else more or less at random, or at least who doesn't want to die -- kills someone and cuts short what might have been many years of productive labor.
Your definition is needlessly complex. What have the victim's intentions got to do with it? It's not murder if you kill someone that wants to die?
I define murder as an intentional and premeditated killing. Suicide falls into that category.
Funny how most are not at all ashamed that what you describe is basically how we all started out, in massive pain and confusion, drooling. I know you used to shit your pants twice a day. For years. How is it you were able to rise above that to make it all the way here to slashdot to proclaim that if your aging gets unbearable you'll off yourself? btw, I didn't say that a horrible painful death was necessarily noble. What I was trying to say was that suicide was less noble than whatever nobility natural death holds.
Those who take their own life aren't brave... that's all I'm saying. They should be held to the same standard as someone who runs a race, doesn't like how its going, and quits. Sure, personal choice. But the runner that makes it to the end, even if they are dead last, endears far greater respect.
Well, I'm a strong believer in the Golden Rule. I'm rubber, you're glue... that kind of thing. If I incorrectly detected a maligned attitude toward my post, then I must be in the right place.
Your distinction between suicide in protest and suicide in general is arbitrary.
Suicide for release of suffering has a singular beneficiary. Suicide in protest benefits all but that individual. The distinction is obvious.
I do tend to agree that suicide is an incredibly selfish action, but i also accept the notion that people have a right to be selfish and feel that freedom includes the freedom to quit if you want to.
Hidden in my sarcasm you may have missed that I was not attempting to condemn the man for taking his own life, but only to label those that would (ignorantly) praise him as "brave" for doing so as idiots. Sry for the confusion.