But that's the problem - it isn't a viable profit making approach at the moment. How can looking at one or two banner ads equal $20??
Well, it doesn't equal $20, and I see your point. However, there are a few other things to remember. First, the banner ads don't have to get all the way up to $20, because the cost of duplicating the media (tapes, cds, whatever) is eliminated. Second, free media will likely result in a much larger audience than pay-media would - thus, the reduced price per person is offset partially by a much larger number of people 'paying'.
Despite this, I agree that free-beer'ing all media probably won't work - that's why I gave mp3.com as an example. They combine limited free media with a sales venture in a way which I think both greatly reduces the chances of an artists work being pirated, and yet greatly increases their profits and audience.
Now if only the entire media industry could begin to see this as a viable profit-making marketing approach for larger-scale ventures.
The most effective solution to piracy (and coincidentally, the way to beat any competitor in a capitalist market) is to offer better access to the same product. Glancing at advertising is an easier, cheaper payment than paying for a $15-20 VHS tape, or $15 for a cd, or $20 for a hardcover book...
Just as open-source software is creating a new market model for corporations (RedHat, etc), open-access media has been spawning new marketing models for corporations. So far, however, open-access media ventures are largely based in webpage content rather than extending into traditional media. The established media giants don't grok that freeing their traditional media forms can be beneficial and profitable if done correctly. There are a few companies that are putting this into action - mp3.com comes to mind. However, until the current media giants either wake up to the revolution or get overthrown (by enlightened companies, not by piracy), we will have to continue dealing with a barrage of political noise and interference.
Let's put some support behind this newest baby step - next time you want to watch an action movie, download one legitimately! Piracy only leads to political sympathy for the media giants - the support of legitimate open media will truly revolutionize the industry.
... and how could Bruce Campbell play a character that doesn't hit on every sexy female in sight?
Compare :
"Sidekicks don't kiss!" - Tick
"Hail to the King, baby... " - Ash
Otherwise, it would rock of course. But if I saw the Tick hitting on American Maid, something would just be wrong... let's just stay away from this combo.
Perl poetry is simply an example of how the perl language has been made to flow naturally like spoken languages, as well as demonstrating that "there's more than one way to do it". While writing useful code that reads as a poem is creative and talented, I don't think anyone is preaching this as a good way to code EVERYTHING. Perl is about getting something done and out of the way, not about taking all day to code a simple function so that it reads like a poem.
This is just a creative hobby, not good coding.
Also, I don't think that a perl poem excludes readability as code. Although I don't think the average perl poem is the MOST readable way to do things, if you read it as code rather than as a poem you should be able to get it. Of course, most perl poems toss around extra variables, etc, to add those extra words in, so that would take some figuring out.
I agree that Christians should be thoughtful about their beliefs, rather than pushing statements down people's throats. But at the same time that Christians should be thoughtful of their assumptions and their faith, let's remind the rest of the world to do the same.
Take that 'why?' attitude and apply it to the beliefs of science 'purists' who insist that evolution is the most reasonable belief we can have. Why? In the words of a previous poster, "Because we're here, aren't we?" Yes I'm oversimplifying a LOT, but if you look carefully at arguments on BOTH sides of the issue, you'll see this same idea popping up. Someone who believes in a materialistic universe (deterministic or quantum, whatever) will tend to accept evolution because it's POSSIBLE for it to happen, and they see no more likely option. Those who believe in a spiritual/material world will accept that divine intervention could create the world, because it's POSSIBLE for it to happen, and they see no more likely option!
It seems to me that this whole debate comes down to what you choose to assume about the world - your fundamental beliefs, your FAITH. If you assume that the world is affected only by what we can observe, then the only conclusions you can accept are those that science gives you. If you believe that God can do whatever the heck he wants, then you will conclude otherwise. As for why you choose to believe these things, there are debates going either way but often that's just a lot of talk - the real decision is a matter of what seems 'sensible' to yourself.
If the industry had been more tech-aware and less paranoid, they could have turned the mp3 trend into their own cash cow - not by trying to sell them, but simply by dominating the mp3 scene with their own free distribution of singles. They could have set up their own mp3 web sites, paid for by advertising and by the generated sales. They wouldn't be giving up much more than they already do by playing singles on the radio. They probably would have stopped the illegal mp3 scene from growing so rapidly, since almost everyone looking for mp3's just wants the latest single they heard on the radio anyway.
Now, the mp3 scene is probably too big for them to even catch up with, and they won't release singles for fear of appearing weak on their anti-piracy stance. It'd be great if an intelligent business approach was taken in this area - let's just hope it's not too late.
I just clicked on the link given, and got directly to the article. No login asked, and I've never registered with the NYTimes before so it wasn't some sneaky cookie action.
Could anyone else confirm this? I'd love to get at the NYTimes for 'free', rather than selling them my information.:)
I still don't understand why Half Life HASN'T been ported yet... it's foundation is the Quake2 engine, right? And Q2 has been ported to Linux for HOW long?
I know Valve made a LOT of enhancements to the engine, but I'd really like to know why they couldn't just apply those same changes to the Linux Q2 engine. I really hate having to switch OS's every time I need a TFC break from coding.
If nothing else, let's at least convince Valve to bring TF2 to Linux once it's released.
Just thought I'd mention, Worldforge is a project that's been going for more than a year now and is making terrific progress. It's a fully open source, volunteer driven online RPG system. This includes a server-client protocol allowing for multiple clients and multiple servers, and full customizability for individual servers. They're also developing a full fantasy RPG world, plus a couple of other game worlds using the same technology.
They've got over a dozen people working on the project, including both coders and artists. There's definitely room for more help though. (I'm not directly involved in the project, although I will be as soon as I can find more time.)
The last thing I want to see is IP rights falling into the hands of a NON-DEMOCRATIC committee run by corporate despots who have managed to exploit enough people to 'earn' their coveted rank.
So far, this incident is of interest solely because someone might be trying to take advantage of the situation for their own gain. However, I do not see how this situation in any way indicates that the system is not working. LinuxTECH has registered a trademark in their company (or are they still in the process?), but this is in no way the final word on the matter. If LinuxTECH tried to exploit their apparent ownership of the TM, there's nothing stopping Linus (or a group acting on his permitted behalf) from taking LinuxTECH to court to prove he is the rightful owner of the TM in that country. (See my post on the previous thread for how this could work.)
If you really want to argue that a global IP authority needs to be established, at least give that authority to the United Nations. They're formed of actual world leaders, not just a bunch of businessmen intent on getting as close as possible to a global monopoly.
While Linux is a very commonly heard term in the/. crowd, it simply isn't a generic term. 'Operating system' is a generic term. 'Linux' is a name of a particular type or "brand" of operating system.
It may not seem to make sense to call Linux a brand name, since it isn't held by a company trying to leverage the name for market share. Despite this, 'Linux' is still a name of a specific product, not a generic type of product. 'Linux' refers specifically to an OS that is based on the kernel created by Linus Torvald, and which is licensed under his control as per our fine open source agreements. It does not refer to any OS of similar nature written by others. For example, if Sun started marketing Solaris as "Sun-brand Linux", I'm pretty sure you'd agree that such a name is trying to mislead the buying public. (Although, it would be quite a compliment I suppose.)
The case to drive it all home - if MS started calling Win95 by the name "Microsoft-brand Linux", wouldn't you be up in arms?;)
This link was given to me by the patent agent who lectured our class on IP rights, it's at the site for the company he works for and has some great summary IP info. It's a Canadian company, but from my understanding nearly all IP rights have been internationally agreed on. Even in cases where individual countries have their own jurisdiction, the rules are still the same. (Minor difference in North American patent rules vs everyone else, but that's all I know of.)
Anyway, the link:
http://www.adeco.com/general_info.htm
Check out either the Trademarks link or the Acrobat file titled 'Intellectual Property Overview'.
I JUST attended a class today where we were taught about trademarks, as well as other IP protection, and now I wish I had known about this beforehand so I could have asked about it.:)
But, what I do know is that trademark registration, while useful, isn't as powerful as you might think. In fact, even if these guys get Linux trademarked in Uruguay, I'd go so far as to say they could still get beaten in court if they tried to block sale/distribution of the Linux OS.
A trademark is protected even if it isn't registered, as long as it has the (tm) symbol on it. Registration simply provides a means by which one can publicly declare their claim over a trademark. This way, if someone else tries to use this trademark and pleads ignorance, you can simply say that they should have looked at the public TM database and are therefore in the wrong.
Now, if LinuxTECH had come up with the name Linux on their own, and registered it for trademark in their country, then they'd probably retain trademark rights to 'Linux' if it went to court. But, in this case I'm sure it would be VERY simple to prove that these guys previously saw the Linux name, marked as a (tm), and willfully chose to duplicate and try to register it. If it can be proved that they saw Linux used as a trademark in their country, and yet willfully used the name in violation of those declared IP rights, then they should be found to have no rights over the Linux TM.
This is all assuming that they even try to claim control over the TM and block the sale/dist of Linux at all - if not, then no one has to really care. But if they do, the only hard part would be proving that they saw 'Linux' used as a trademark in their country by someone else already. And if they were reselling distributions of Linux beforehand, it shouldn't be too hard to prove that they've had at least that much contact with Linux previously.:)
Great, I'll have to give that a try. Not exactly what I described, but still sounds very helpful. The only difference really is that it still just automatically chooses 'yes' or 'no' for you, still feels like less control over the information bouncing around in my PC (and you still might not know which sites tend to have the most offensive ad banners, etc). Once I try it out I'll probably change my mind , I'll have to see how well it catches nasty ad cookies while allowing me to log in and shop at various sites.:)
Sounds like this is probably the best option possible, until a web browser actually offers the features I described built-in. I'll have to actually drop hints to the Mozilla team.;)
The solution that would be perfect for me is simply to have some small 'window' displaying when a cookie is added or updated. A floating window built into the browser, or a seperate program that catches cookie changes could do it. Of course if the cookie file is only updated when something like Netscape closes, an outside app might not be able to tell you what happened until after you close the browser, which wouldn't be as convenient.
But, if this worked, I could allow cookies to be initially accepted, which is far more convenient than clicking on half a dozen yes/no boxes every time I want to log in to a web site. Since I'd be able to see when cookies appear and where they originate from, I could also catch the troublemakers as they appear and just delete them on the spot.
Would it be possible to write a program to do this (Windoze or Linux)? I know that the cookie file, despite the warning that it shouldn't be edited, is a pretty simple text file with one line per cookie, and it's not too hard to sift out some obvious offenders after you're done browsing. I don't suppose it's that easy to modify cookies while you're actually browsing stuff though. Having notice of this info while browsing would be far more convenient though, and would save you the trouble of figuring out where a cookie came from that just has an IP address for its origin. (Not that that's terribly difficult, but its just a bit more of a bother.) If a web browser could be made with this feature built-in, it shouldn't be a problem at all to code and I would be eternally grateful (hint hint Mozilla!).
This one doesn't sound silly, but it's a prime example of what big fatcat corporate name designers will come up with.
I mean, why would someone type in 'Amazon' into their web browser? To search for 'sexy amazon babes', of course.
Amazon.com obviously grew into the commercial giant they are today solely because they engineered their name to grab the most 'net pr0n boys possible without offending the others.;)
I'm sure that sales of the Playstation2 and the G4 will soon topple the NSA's exclusive hold on supercomputers.
Let's face it, facts like that are simply relics of what the intelligence industry used to be founded on. Back in the day, computer manufacturers could only make the top-of-the-line computers for governments and those with similar budgets. Now, the entire computer industry and its advances are being driven by the consumer market. Manufacturers make more profit designing faster consumer-aimed machines that will sell in the millions, rather than designing multimillion dollar machines that sell in the dozens. And new technology breakthroughs from R&D labs are out in the marketplace within a few years, far too quick for groups like the NSA to keep any serious computing advantage for long.
As someone else has already said, intelligence agencies are going to have to get SMARTER, rather than trying to fulfill their wet dream of an Orwellian overseeing of all the world's information.
My thoughts exactly, and the way that this is playing out frightens me. This kind of anti-China rhetoric makes it obvious that these people WANT another enemy to point their missiles at, now that Russia isn't feared by the general populace.
What scares me even more than the media influence, though, is how this all ties in to a barely-mentioned event back when NATO was bombing Yugoslavia. NATO bombers hit the Chinese embassy. Just think about that for a minute. NATO forces, largely made of US bombers, hit what is by law a part of China. Of course, it was quickly brushed over as an accident, or collateral damage in a nearby attack, or a misguided guided missile. But doesn't that just smell like far too frightening of a coincidence? And just for some perspective, imagine the reaction that the US would have if one of it's embassies had been hit by China in some pro-communism military action in a smaller country.
Maybe it was just an accident... or perhaps the US military really does share the sentiments of articles such as this one from the Washington Post. And perhaps they would go so far as to provoke another nuclear power in the world, just to keep their paychecks coming in. I don't know about you, but that scares the hell outta me.
For most users, the speed probably isn't going to matter. But, there are people using PCs for processor-intensive graphical design and rendering, where hitting the 1GHz mark could mean waiting only 1 minute instead of 5 for that 3D scene to finish rendering. Likewise for other highly mathematical applications.
And most importantly, let's not forget the never-ending need to push the limit and show off. Let's face it, isn't it worth overclocking a PC to 1GHz just to get your deeds posted on/.? I think so.
This sounds like a nifty trick, but I'd classify this one in the same category as the Intellimouse wheel - not worth the money.
This new mouse is going to cost at least $100, and for what? The functional equivalent of another button. Whoopie. Just like the mouse-wheel, this is too little for too much. If you're working in an office and you feel like letting your company get ripped off on your behalf, more power to you, but some of us actually pay for our computers.
When I feel like blowing extra cash on my computer's input devices, I'll attach small electrodes so that my computer can respond directly to nerve impulses. (Preferably wireless electrodes.) Now that's worth my time and money.;)
IBM already named one of their earlier chess-playing computers Deep Thought, if I recall correctly. (Tried confirming this on IBM's Deep Blue vs. Kasparov site , but couldn't spot any info on their past competitions.)
Deep Thought also tried to beat the world champ, and failed. Deep Blue was the next-gen chess playing system, and the name is a twist on Deep Thought plus the blue of 'team IBM'.
... I've been unable to connect to their web server twice now. Sheesh, you guys should've known that it'll take more than one new server to hold back the slashdot effect.;)
The palmpilot series has been out for about 4 years now, and not one GB emulator has been released. Unless a new color Palm has sufficient extra processing power, a color GB emu isn't any more likely to happen.
What does the GB have that the Palm doesn't? Simple - a sprite-rendering engine. The Dragonball processor is easily a match for the CPU of a GB, but an emulator on the Palm would also have to emulate the sprite-pushing hardware of the GB. All that extra software work means tough times for a Palm trying to keep Wario's elbow smash going at top speed.
Does anyone know of any attempted GB emulators for the palmpilot? It'd be helpful to know just how close a palmpilot could get to full speed emulation with current hardware. That way, if the processing in the next Palm is 2 or 3 times as fast, we could give it another shot!
Slashdot Mirror
Well, it doesn't equal $20, and I see your point. However, there are a few other things to remember. First, the banner ads don't have to get all the way up to $20, because the cost of duplicating the media (tapes, cds, whatever) is eliminated. Second, free media will likely result in a much larger audience than pay-media would - thus, the reduced price per person is offset partially by a much larger number of people 'paying'.
Despite this, I agree that free-beer'ing all media probably won't work - that's why I gave mp3.com as an example. They combine limited free media with a sales venture in a way which I think both greatly reduces the chances of an artists work being pirated, and yet greatly increases their profits and audience.
The most effective solution to piracy (and coincidentally, the way to beat any competitor in a capitalist market) is to offer better access to the same product. Glancing at advertising is an easier, cheaper payment than paying for a $15-20 VHS tape, or $15 for a cd, or $20 for a hardcover book ...
Just as open-source software is creating a new market model for corporations (RedHat, etc), open-access media has been spawning new marketing models for corporations. So far, however, open-access media ventures are largely based in webpage content rather than extending into traditional media. The established media giants don't grok that freeing their traditional media forms can be beneficial and profitable if done correctly. There are a few companies that are putting this into action - mp3.com comes to mind. However, until the current media giants either wake up to the revolution or get overthrown (by enlightened companies, not by piracy), we will have to continue dealing with a barrage of political noise and interference.
Let's put some support behind this newest baby step - next time you want to watch an action movie, download one legitimately! Piracy only leads to political sympathy for the media giants - the support of legitimate open media will truly revolutionize the industry.
... and how could Bruce Campbell play a character that doesn't hit on every sexy female in sight?
... " - Ash
... let's just stay away from this combo.
Compare :
"Sidekicks don't kiss!" - Tick
"Hail to the King, baby
Otherwise, it would rock of course. But if I saw the Tick hitting on American Maid, something would just be wrong
This is just a creative hobby, not good coding.
Also, I don't think that a perl poem excludes readability as code. Although I don't think the average perl poem is the MOST readable way to do things, if you read it as code rather than as a poem you should be able to get it. Of course, most perl poems toss around extra variables, etc, to add those extra words in, so that would take some figuring out.
Take that 'why?' attitude and apply it to the beliefs of science 'purists' who insist that evolution is the most reasonable belief we can have. Why? In the words of a previous poster, "Because we're here, aren't we?" Yes I'm oversimplifying a LOT, but if you look carefully at arguments on BOTH sides of the issue, you'll see this same idea popping up. Someone who believes in a materialistic universe (deterministic or quantum, whatever) will tend to accept evolution because it's POSSIBLE for it to happen, and they see no more likely option. Those who believe in a spiritual/material world will accept that divine intervention could create the world, because it's POSSIBLE for it to happen, and they see no more likely option!
It seems to me that this whole debate comes down to what you choose to assume about the world - your fundamental beliefs, your FAITH. If you assume that the world is affected only by what we can observe, then the only conclusions you can accept are those that science gives you. If you believe that God can do whatever the heck he wants, then you will conclude otherwise. As for why you choose to believe these things, there are debates going either way but often that's just a lot of talk - the real decision is a matter of what seems 'sensible' to yourself.
Now, the mp3 scene is probably too big for them to even catch up with, and they won't release singles for fear of appearing weak on their anti-piracy stance. It'd be great if an intelligent business approach was taken in this area - let's just hope it's not too late.
Send the word to the privacy paranoid, NYTimes is safe territory now. :)
Could anyone else confirm this? I'd love to get at the NYTimes for 'free', rather than selling them my information. :)
I know Valve made a LOT of enhancements to the engine, but I'd really like to know why they couldn't just apply those same changes to the Linux Q2 engine. I really hate having to switch OS's every time I need a TFC break from coding.
If nothing else, let's at least convince Valve to bring TF2 to Linux once it's released.
They've got over a dozen people working on the project, including both coders and artists. There's definitely room for more help though. (I'm not directly involved in the project, although I will be as soon as I can find more time.)
Click the link in my sig for more info.
So far, this incident is of interest solely because someone might be trying to take advantage of the situation for their own gain. However, I do not see how this situation in any way indicates that the system is not working. LinuxTECH has registered a trademark in their company (or are they still in the process?), but this is in no way the final word on the matter. If LinuxTECH tried to exploit their apparent ownership of the TM, there's nothing stopping Linus (or a group acting on his permitted behalf) from taking LinuxTECH to court to prove he is the rightful owner of the TM in that country. (See my post on the previous thread for how this could work.)
If you really want to argue that a global IP authority needs to be established, at least give that authority to the United Nations. They're formed of actual world leaders, not just a bunch of businessmen intent on getting as close as possible to a global monopoly.
It may not seem to make sense to call Linux a brand name, since it isn't held by a company trying to leverage the name for market share. Despite this, 'Linux' is still a name of a specific product, not a generic type of product. 'Linux' refers specifically to an OS that is based on the kernel created by Linus Torvald, and which is licensed under his control as per our fine open source agreements. It does not refer to any OS of similar nature written by others. For example, if Sun started marketing Solaris as "Sun-brand Linux", I'm pretty sure you'd agree that such a name is trying to mislead the buying public. (Although, it would be quite a compliment I suppose.)
The case to drive it all home - if MS started calling Win95 by the name "Microsoft-brand Linux", wouldn't you be up in arms? ;)
Anyway, the link:
http://www.adeco.com/general_info.htm
Check out either the Trademarks link or the Acrobat file titled 'Intellectual Property Overview'.
But, what I do know is that trademark registration, while useful, isn't as powerful as you might think. In fact, even if these guys get Linux trademarked in Uruguay, I'd go so far as to say they could still get beaten in court if they tried to block sale/distribution of the Linux OS.
A trademark is protected even if it isn't registered, as long as it has the (tm) symbol on it. Registration simply provides a means by which one can publicly declare their claim over a trademark. This way, if someone else tries to use this trademark and pleads ignorance, you can simply say that they should have looked at the public TM database and are therefore in the wrong.
Now, if LinuxTECH had come up with the name Linux on their own, and registered it for trademark in their country, then they'd probably retain trademark rights to 'Linux' if it went to court. But, in this case I'm sure it would be VERY simple to prove that these guys previously saw the Linux name, marked as a (tm), and willfully chose to duplicate and try to register it. If it can be proved that they saw Linux used as a trademark in their country, and yet willfully used the name in violation of those declared IP rights, then they should be found to have no rights over the Linux TM.
This is all assuming that they even try to claim control over the TM and block the sale/dist of Linux at all - if not, then no one has to really care. But if they do, the only hard part would be proving that they saw 'Linux' used as a trademark in their country by someone else already. And if they were reselling distributions of Linux beforehand, it shouldn't be too hard to prove that they've had at least that much contact with Linux previously. :)
Sounds like this is probably the best option possible, until a web browser actually offers the features I described built-in. I'll have to actually drop hints to the Mozilla team. ;)
But, if this worked, I could allow cookies to be initially accepted, which is far more convenient than clicking on half a dozen yes/no boxes every time I want to log in to a web site. Since I'd be able to see when cookies appear and where they originate from, I could also catch the troublemakers as they appear and just delete them on the spot.
Would it be possible to write a program to do this (Windoze or Linux)? I know that the cookie file, despite the warning that it shouldn't be edited, is a pretty simple text file with one line per cookie, and it's not too hard to sift out some obvious offenders after you're done browsing. I don't suppose it's that easy to modify cookies while you're actually browsing stuff though. Having notice of this info while browsing would be far more convenient though, and would save you the trouble of figuring out where a cookie came from that just has an IP address for its origin. (Not that that's terribly difficult, but its just a bit more of a bother.) If a web browser could be made with this feature built-in, it shouldn't be a problem at all to code and I would be eternally grateful (hint hint Mozilla!).
I mean, why would someone type in 'Amazon' into their web browser? To search for 'sexy amazon babes', of course.
Amazon.com obviously grew into the commercial giant they are today solely because they engineered their name to grab the most 'net pr0n boys possible without offending the others. ;)
Let's face it, facts like that are simply relics of what the intelligence industry used to be founded on. Back in the day, computer manufacturers could only make the top-of-the-line computers for governments and those with similar budgets. Now, the entire computer industry and its advances are being driven by the consumer market. Manufacturers make more profit designing faster consumer-aimed machines that will sell in the millions, rather than designing multimillion dollar machines that sell in the dozens. And new technology breakthroughs from R&D labs are out in the marketplace within a few years, far too quick for groups like the NSA to keep any serious computing advantage for long.
As someone else has already said, intelligence agencies are going to have to get SMARTER, rather than trying to fulfill their wet dream of an Orwellian overseeing of all the world's information.
What scares me even more than the media influence, though, is how this all ties in to a barely-mentioned event back when NATO was bombing Yugoslavia. NATO bombers hit the Chinese embassy. Just think about that for a minute. NATO forces, largely made of US bombers, hit what is by law a part of China. Of course, it was quickly brushed over as an accident, or collateral damage in a nearby attack, or a misguided guided missile. But doesn't that just smell like far too frightening of a coincidence? And just for some perspective, imagine the reaction that the US would have if one of it's embassies had been hit by China in some pro-communism military action in a smaller country.
Maybe it was just an accident ... or perhaps the US military really does share the sentiments of articles such as this one from the Washington Post. And perhaps they would go so far as to provoke another nuclear power in the world, just to keep their paychecks coming in. I don't know about you, but that scares the hell outta me.
And most importantly, let's not forget the never-ending need to push the limit and show off. Let's face it, isn't it worth overclocking a PC to 1GHz just to get your deeds posted on /.? I think so.
This new mouse is going to cost at least $100, and for what? The functional equivalent of another button. Whoopie. Just like the mouse-wheel, this is too little for too much. If you're working in an office and you feel like letting your company get ripped off on your behalf, more power to you, but some of us actually pay for our computers.
When I feel like blowing extra cash on my computer's input devices, I'll attach small electrodes so that my computer can respond directly to nerve impulses. (Preferably wireless electrodes.) Now that's worth my time and money. ;)
Deep Thought also tried to beat the world champ, and failed. Deep Blue was the next-gen chess playing system, and the name is a twist on Deep Thought plus the blue of 'team IBM'.
"I've said it before, and I'll say it again - democracy just doesn't work."
-Kent Brockman
... I've been unable to connect to their web server twice now. Sheesh, you guys should've known that it'll take more than one new server to hold back the slashdot effect. ;)
The palmpilot series has been out for about 4 years now, and not one GB emulator has been released. Unless a new color Palm has sufficient extra processing power, a color GB emu isn't any more likely to happen.
What does the GB have that the Palm doesn't? Simple - a sprite-rendering engine. The Dragonball processor is easily a match for the CPU of a GB, but an emulator on the Palm would also have to emulate the sprite-pushing hardware of the GB. All that extra software work means tough times for a Palm trying to keep Wario's elbow smash going at top speed.
Does anyone know of any attempted GB emulators for the palmpilot? It'd be helpful to know just how close a palmpilot could get to full speed emulation with current hardware. That way, if the processing in the next Palm is 2 or 3 times as fast, we could give it another shot!