Pandora in Popular Science magazine
- Thread starter vcoleiro1
- Start date
Link
ithic.com
Is there an EU version anywhere of Popular Science?
skeezix
Internal Development
wwhhhhy does this have a "but is it legal" side bar, and talk about ROMs? I mean, the device is nothign to dow ith that so its poor writing to taint the rest of the article, and as to that question.. emualtion never was and never will be illegal, only piracy is illegal. Frak sakes, the same questin been around 20 years and people still can't get their heads around it :/
jeff
jeff
shinifish
Still Fresh
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2011
- Messages
- 95
Yes when I went to the library that is all they had just a short mention of the ICP. (I am in the US)
gruso
thunderbox
Picked it up today. It's very nicely written, the author is clearly in tune with the spirit of the project (and I dare say would be reading these forums... Hi James, nice job.)
moz
load *,8,1
DavidBowman
Active Member
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2009
- Messages
- 697
I totally agree: that bit about legality is unnecessary. All the same, how very cool that this made such a nice publication.
I hope everyone is well. I see things are still getting better all the time!
MarioPandio
Well-Known Member
Just found the iCP mention in a scan here
https://s3.amazonaws.com/emuparadise/ep_popsci.jpg
I thought yongzh was more a borrower than developer too ?
https://s3.amazonaws.com/emuparadise/ep_popsci.jpg
I thought yongzh was more a borrower than developer too ?
Last edited by a moderator:
slaeshjag
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Prometheus removing scan due to mentioning of places linking to commercial roms in 3.. 2...
Last edited by a moderator:
WizardStan
Mega GP Mania
- Joined
- May 24, 2008
- Messages
- 16,731
I'm actually very surprised they would put it into hard print like that. Even the wording is blatantly suggesting violating copyright.
Of course, the real reason to remove the scan is because that is copyright infringement, not because they printed links to ROM sites
Of course, the real reason to remove the scan is because that is copyright infringement, not because they printed links to ROM sites
Neelix
Insecticidal Maniac
heh, methinks the 'but is it legal' panel would have been more appropriate on that page.
I find the differences between versions interesting... I get the impression that we're getting the better end of the content deal here in Australia... in my copy that article is on page 76 not 64. (and the emulator list panel is in a different position)
Mind you aside from the iCP reference I think the more interesting article is on the previous page, which describes how a guy mounted an OutRun Cabinet to a golf cart chassis, where the only visibility of the road is via two cameras mounted to the top of the Cabinet, with the image appearing on the screen. It brings to mind an old tag line from my BBS days...
- Neelix
... I don't suffer from insanity... I enjoy every minute of it!
I find the differences between versions interesting... I get the impression that we're getting the better end of the content deal here in Australia... in my copy that article is on page 76 not 64. (and the emulator list panel is in a different position)
Mind you aside from the iCP reference I think the more interesting article is on the previous page, which describes how a guy mounted an OutRun Cabinet to a golf cart chassis, where the only visibility of the road is via two cameras mounted to the top of the Cabinet, with the image appearing on the screen. It brings to mind an old tag line from my BBS days...
- Neelix
... I don't suffer from insanity... I enjoy every minute of it!
gruso
thunderbox
Yes. "This thing is terrifying to drive." :lol:
