Slashdot Mirror

Take a look at this:
http://i.imgur.com/ZQeBNGs.png
Direct copy of CoD assets, like it or not.

That doesn't actually prove anything. After all, this is exactly the same as the one found in the game. But the models were redone by hand. You can even prove that by looking at the very basic information in nifskope. The only thing that image actually proves? It looks exactly the same, nothing more.

Until the assets from both games are pulled and compared using 3DS, nifskope, maya and so on, this actually boils down to a whole lot of "he said/they said/etc." Even that thread on PCMR doesn't prove shit except they "look the same" and basing anything off that is fully useless. Since a modeller can make it look the same and have vastly different methods to create the same effect.

"The dev behind Orion has a sordid history and a history of lying"

No, he has a sordid history of parodying EVERYTHING and usually FAILING.

"Take a look at this:
http://i.imgur.com/ZQeBNGs.png
Direct copy of CoD assets, like it or not."

Activision doesn't own the design of that top rail. In fact, it's just a knockoff of the top rail on an AR-15/M-16. The CLOSEST thing you might get is on textures, but even then, some of those are easily shown to be ripped from far earlier games (texture on the barrel shroud in CoD comes out of ROTT, which came out several years earlier.)

Activision doesn't own the design to the bullpup stock, either. The specific design they're pointing out THEY RIPPED FROM RUSSIANS which used it in earlier SV versions of various sniper and infantry rifles (that shitty square back gas block.)

Activision also ripped assets from various other industries thinking we wouldn't notice. Activision's top-rail was already seen in a 2011 porno sci-fi movie called Horizon.

You post anonymously because you don't have the facts and are shilling for Activision when they've got no case. If they had a case, they wouldn't have used the DMCA, they'd have sued instead as prior legal precedent shows.

Not the first time this studio was accused of asset theft.

I know its imgur but it is all I could find in short notice.

https://imgur.com/Nl1m8

You're not hallucinating. The dev paired mismatched weapons on purpose.

http://i.imgur.com/ZQeBNGs.png
http://i.imgur.com/WCL4fCQ.png

The guy copied sections of the model vertex for vertex.

You're not hallucinating. The dev paired mismatched weapons on purpose.

http://i.imgur.com/ZQeBNGs.png
http://i.imgur.com/WCL4fCQ.png

The guy copied sections of the model vertex for vertex.

http://i.imgur.com/PGIuF.png

... the blatant camera/panel overlay above the PIN pad, which is almost certainly where the main logic and storage of the skimmer is.

... I already eat pizzas made by robots.

http://imgur.com/5UUmFOz

Also: "[the robot] works for free..." Oh really? It never needs electricity? Or parts?

2D Second Life clone, with far more extensibility, using the Linux BYOND devtools (with tweak-testing done in Windows.)

I originally planned to have the PS3 act as the server while Windows clients connected through it.

http://imgur.com/2bGopaq

http://imgur.com/XdsOgFB

http://imgur.com/UT28aJu

You can safely ignore the idiot AC who thinks they even know me - they're just mad people who've never gone anywhere in life.

2D Second Life clone, with far more extensibility, using the Linux BYOND devtools (with tweak-testing done in Windows.)

I originally planned to have the PS3 act as the server while Windows clients connected through it.

http://imgur.com/2bGopaq

http://imgur.com/XdsOgFB

http://imgur.com/UT28aJu

You can safely ignore the idiot AC who thinks they even know me - they're just mad people who've never gone anywhere in life.

2D Second Life clone, with far more extensibility, using the Linux BYOND devtools (with tweak-testing done in Windows.)

I originally planned to have the PS3 act as the server while Windows clients connected through it.

http://imgur.com/2bGopaq

http://imgur.com/XdsOgFB

http://imgur.com/UT28aJu

You can safely ignore the idiot AC who thinks they even know me - they're just mad people who've never gone anywhere in life.

The rep said 3 months.
I would give that length of time, then the next call would be from a lawyer.

I would seek $2000 in damages plus legal fees, and $2M in punitive damages to be added to a fund to resolve similar disputes.
The amount this involves is life changing. It could cause someone to lose a home or car.

According to the news, 63% of Americans are only one Oculus Rift away from financial ruin.

Google is very happy to suggest "Hillary indictment" to me, with generally right-wing sites among the top results.

But what if the robots don't want to be subjected to socialism like this?

Well if they are classed as persons then they presumably get to vote as well and can elect right wing robot politicians....and before you say that will never happen we used to have one here in Canada called Stephen Harper.

Background checks are already done. Disallowing people on the FBI no-fly list allows the government to arbitrarily ban people from purchasing guns without due process in court and is massively open to abuse.

And while none of it would have directly outlawed firearms - that's because the democrats know they cannot get away with total and complete bans. Instead they try to chip away, bit by bit, until there are so many regulations and laws that you have to be rich or politically connected to own a firearm; an effective ban on 99% of us plebians.

The ultimate goal isn't making America more safe, either. It's about banning guns entirely. That has always been the end-goal of all the legislation the left continues to try and pass. Gun owners wised up years ago - when they see a liberal saying there needs to be a compromise what they see and hear is a liar who will make absolutely no compromise on his end, while demanding compromise on the other.

And very importantly, the statistical data does not actually back up the leftist viewpoint that firearms cause crime, violent crime, suicide, or homicide. In fact, the only "statistics" they're ever able to drum up are vague claims of "you're more likely to die from a firearm if you own a firearm!" and "more firearms means more firearm deaths!". They even just outright lie about mass shooting statistics.

Even better, the boogeyman of the anti-gun lobby: The deadly "assault weapons", are used in such a vanishingly small number of homicides that more people are murdered each year in the US from blunt weapons or fists.

Conservatives, Libertarians, and anyone else who values the second amendment and the right to self defense are quite frankly sick of the duplicity and hypocrisy surrounding this shit.

It was never about safety; it has always been about control.

Background checks are already done. Disallowing people on the FBI no-fly list allows the government to arbitrarily ban people from purchasing guns without due process in court and is massively open to abuse.

And while none of it would have directly outlawed firearms - that's because the democrats know they cannot get away with total and complete bans. Instead they try to chip away, bit by bit, until there are so many regulations and laws that you have to be rich or politically connected to own a firearm; an effective ban on 99% of us plebians.

The ultimate goal isn't making America more safe, either. It's about banning guns entirely. That has always been the end-goal of all the legislation the left continues to try and pass. Gun owners wised up years ago - when they see a liberal saying there needs to be a compromise what they see and hear is a liar who will make absolutely no compromise on his end, while demanding compromise on the other.

And very importantly, the statistical data does not actually back up the leftist viewpoint that firearms cause crime, violent crime, suicide, or homicide. In fact, the only "statistics" they're ever able to drum up are vague claims of "you're more likely to die from a firearm if you own a firearm!" and "more firearms means more firearm deaths!". They even just outright lie about mass shooting statistics.

Even better, the boogeyman of the anti-gun lobby: The deadly "assault weapons", are used in such a vanishingly small number of homicides that more people are murdered each year in the US from blunt weapons or fists.

Conservatives, Libertarians, and anyone else who values the second amendment and the right to self defense are quite frankly sick of the duplicity and hypocrisy surrounding this shit.

It was never about safety; it has always been about control.

Background checks are already done. Disallowing people on the FBI no-fly list allows the government to arbitrarily ban people from purchasing guns without due process in court and is massively open to abuse.

And while none of it would have directly outlawed firearms - that's because the democrats know they cannot get away with total and complete bans. Instead they try to chip away, bit by bit, until there are so many regulations and laws that you have to be rich or politically connected to own a firearm; an effective ban on 99% of us plebians.

The ultimate goal isn't making America more safe, either. It's about banning guns entirely. That has always been the end-goal of all the legislation the left continues to try and pass. Gun owners wised up years ago - when they see a liberal saying there needs to be a compromise what they see and hear is a liar who will make absolutely no compromise on his end, while demanding compromise on the other.

And very importantly, the statistical data does not actually back up the leftist viewpoint that firearms cause crime, violent crime, suicide, or homicide. In fact, the only "statistics" they're ever able to drum up are vague claims of "you're more likely to die from a firearm if you own a firearm!" and "more firearms means more firearm deaths!". They even just outright lie about mass shooting statistics.

Even better, the boogeyman of the anti-gun lobby: The deadly "assault weapons", are used in such a vanishingly small number of homicides that more people are murdered each year in the US from blunt weapons or fists.

Conservatives, Libertarians, and anyone else who values the second amendment and the right to self defense are quite frankly sick of the duplicity and hypocrisy surrounding this shit.

It was never about safety; it has always been about control.

Here they are hard at work.

The hair in particular makes it look like it's based on Brianna Wu, a game developer with published and we'll received titles and demonstrated technical knowledge. Mattel did good.

Can't say that's a good plan aposematism and all that. FYI Wu hasn't had any acclaim to their titles outside of what they paid reviewers for. Every site that gave big accolades was a tablet pay-as-you-go review site, and demonstrated technical knowledge? Is that before or after they got put in their place by actual developers? Or where they're simply a sack of shit? Or they're considered one of the biggest jokes around.

Sorry, you can try polishing a turd but it's still a piece of shit in the end. And in this case, one that stinks.

The hair in particular makes it look like it's based on Brianna Wu, a game developer with published and we'll received titles and demonstrated technical knowledge. Mattel did good.

Can't say that's a good plan aposematism and all that. FYI Wu hasn't had any acclaim to their titles outside of what they paid reviewers for. Every site that gave big accolades was a tablet pay-as-you-go review site, and demonstrated technical knowledge? Is that before or after they got put in their place by actual developers? Or where they're simply a sack of shit? Or they're considered one of the biggest jokes around.

Sorry, you can try polishing a turd but it's still a piece of shit in the end. And in this case, one that stinks.

The hair in particular makes it look like it's based on Brianna Wu, a game developer with published and we'll received titles and demonstrated technical knowledge. Mattel did good.

Can't say that's a good plan aposematism and all that. FYI Wu hasn't had any acclaim to their titles outside of what they paid reviewers for. Every site that gave big accolades was a tablet pay-as-you-go review site, and demonstrated technical knowledge? Is that before or after they got put in their place by actual developers? Or where they're simply a sack of shit? Or they're considered one of the biggest jokes around.

Sorry, you can try polishing a turd but it's still a piece of shit in the end. And in this case, one that stinks.

The hair in particular makes it look like it's based on Brianna Wu, a game developer with published and we'll received titles and demonstrated technical knowledge. Mattel did good.

Can't say that's a good plan aposematism and all that. FYI Wu hasn't had any acclaim to their titles outside of what they paid reviewers for. Every site that gave big accolades was a tablet pay-as-you-go review site, and demonstrated technical knowledge? Is that before or after they got put in their place by actual developers? Or where they're simply a sack of shit? Or they're considered one of the biggest jokes around.

Sorry, you can try polishing a turd but it's still a piece of shit in the end. And in this case, one that stinks.

Any other user errors I can help you with?

Yeah, is there any way, when I am focused on a location, to see the streetview of that place easily?
For example, in this image, there's a red dot marking a location. I want to see the street view of exactly that location. Is there a way I can do that?

The stats, you are right. Their hypothesis is trivially rejected.

Here are some of the front covers of such movies for those interested.

Compared to the rest of the developed world, gun violence in the USA is still at appalling levels.

Well, here's how it all looks compared to the rest of the world:

http://i.imgur.com/9BwH7Q1.png - Gun ownership vs homicide rate, OECD countries
http://i.imgur.com/ugpsD0N.jpg - Gun ownership vs homicide rate, all countries
http://i.imgur.com/AB399V8.png - Race and Gender of firearm homicides in the US
http://i.imgur.com/uHo4EtB.jpg - Number of murder victims by weapon in the US

Compared to the rest of the developed world, gun violence in the USA is still at appalling levels.

Well, here's how it all looks compared to the rest of the world:

http://i.imgur.com/9BwH7Q1.png - Gun ownership vs homicide rate, OECD countries
http://i.imgur.com/ugpsD0N.jpg - Gun ownership vs homicide rate, all countries
http://i.imgur.com/AB399V8.png - Race and Gender of firearm homicides in the US
http://i.imgur.com/uHo4EtB.jpg - Number of murder victims by weapon in the US

Compared to the rest of the developed world, gun violence in the USA is still at appalling levels.

Well, here's how it all looks compared to the rest of the world:

http://i.imgur.com/9BwH7Q1.png - Gun ownership vs homicide rate, OECD countries
http://i.imgur.com/ugpsD0N.jpg - Gun ownership vs homicide rate, all countries
http://i.imgur.com/AB399V8.png - Race and Gender of firearm homicides in the US
http://i.imgur.com/uHo4EtB.jpg - Number of murder victims by weapon in the US

Compared to the rest of the developed world, gun violence in the USA is still at appalling levels.

Well, here's how it all looks compared to the rest of the world:

http://i.imgur.com/9BwH7Q1.png - Gun ownership vs homicide rate, OECD countries
http://i.imgur.com/ugpsD0N.jpg - Gun ownership vs homicide rate, all countries
http://i.imgur.com/AB399V8.png - Race and Gender of firearm homicides in the US
http://i.imgur.com/uHo4EtB.jpg - Number of murder victims by weapon in the US

No, what matters is that a Silicon Valley 'Libertarian' is using the full power of the State to shut up his critics.

So Gawker didn't flaunt the law and refuse to take down the sex tape when ordered to by the court? Who knew. Gawker also doesn't have double standards on publishing sex tapes or nudes either? Who knew.

You're just so damn upset that someone actually had the money after a decade to actually be able to provide a defense against Gawker acting like pricks, either posting sex tapes, nudes, outting people's sexuality, destroying lives and could actually fight back for a change.

...making a delivery.

Yep, it is usually that easy. I've seen them with the password sharpied on the inside of the box.

Reminds me of some old &TotSE shenanigans:

http://imgur.com/uE67Mhz

We wanted a mindfulness experience that was felt throughout the day in smaller bits.

http://i.imgur.com/44qOoU5.jpg

Come up with an original app that Apple is less likely to steal and claim as its own.

Obligatory.

Windows 10: "We've got you in a hole" http://imgur.com/gallery/WcKh7...

I was on Reddit as this happened. It was a complete clusterfuck on the part of /r/news. One or more mods were deleting anything referencing the story. For those unfamiliar with Reddit, /r/news is a "default sub" - this means new users get automatically subscribed to it. /r/news is effectively the main source of news on Reddit. The censorship meant that the attack simply wasn't on the front page for most of the day, and users were being banned for questioning the censorship.

The mods created a "megathread", where supposedly people could go to discuss the story. They began with a sticky, suggesting people leave the sub if they want to complain about censorship, and proceeded to delete fucking everything in the megathread. See https://r.go1dfish.me/r/news/c...

In that link, the comments in red are those that were deleted. The mods claimed these comments broke the rules, yet a cursory glance shows that this is not the case. Instead they censored because they didn't want another story of Islamic terrorism. It was insane that a Trump sub and /r/AskReddit ended up breaking the news on the front page. For added bonus points, on the mods was busy arguing with people in another sub where the censorship was called out, where this mod was a complete wanker. In one of the posts, their response is to tell someone to "kill yourself". http://i.imgur.com/UFlsuHV.png

A large number of people have joined a new sub: https://www.reddit.com/r/uncen...

It will never be as big as /r/News but it'll hopefully not fall to censorship. The /r/news mods should be fucking ashamed of themselves and they continue to avoid addressing the issues. Because of them, one of the largest terrorist attacks in recent US history went unreported for the best part of a day - all because of political correctness.

OK, so I was joking with my earlier comment about only 10 phones being stolen, but I started thinking about it (having purchased an iPhone 6 Plus for my mom on her birthday) and spec'ed out a new top-of-the-line iPhone 6 Plus at Apple.com.

It would only take 17 of these to break 16K. 16K is not an insignificant amount of money (to me, anyway), but 17 phones isn't really a whole lot of equipment.

I don't believe you

Actually, there are two buttons: there's the one on the left, next to the warning, asking if you want to enable, and there's the "X" on the right, which allows you to dismiss the warning without enabling anything.

No you don't. You just want to scream at your monitor about SSJJJJJWWWWWSSSSS RUINING EVERYTHING GODDAMMIT. Every "controversy" you guys levy at Kotaku proves to be absurdly weak. Your current tactic is calling every article you don't like "clickbait," thereby ruining yet another legitimate term with your lame windmill tilting.

The University of Missouri found out the truth on that one didn't they? That SJW's do ruin everything. Besides, if "incredibly weak" looks like this then it's a very strong argument on itself. $20 says you'd be the first one running around saying that Sony really didn't turn around and threaten to sue Bill Murray. Or there weren't 15+ articles about the new Ghostbusters trailer and how AVGN is really a sexist-misogynist. Nope, not clickbait not at all.

Stop being so damned naive.

Crushing a media organization under the power of one's wallet is NOT standing up for free speech. Even if it's a shitty company that was actually just used as a pawn for other rich people.I'm torn between celebrating this as a great victory and mourning it as a blow to an important pillar of society. Gawker wasn't just shitty for its hypocrisy on a variety of topics but for some seriously evil acts, not the least of which are directly related to the lawsuits at hand. In the end all I can say is I'm glad it's over and the world has a moment's rest before a "crowd funded" Totally-Not-Gawker picks up the pieces and starts spewing vileness again.

Crushing a media organization under the power of one's wallet is NOT standing up for free speech. Even if it's a shitty company that was actually just used as a pawn for other rich people.I'm torn between celebrating this as a great victory and mourning it as a blow to an important pillar of society. Gawker wasn't just shitty for its hypocrisy on a variety of topics but for some seriously evil acts, not the least of which are directly related to the lawsuits at hand. In the end all I can say is I'm glad it's over and the world has a moment's rest before a "crowd funded" Totally-Not-Gawker picks up the pieces and starts spewing vileness again.

Crushing a media organization under the power of one's wallet is NOT standing up for free speech. Even if it's a shitty company that was actually just used as a pawn for other rich people.I'm torn between celebrating this as a great victory and mourning it as a blow to an important pillar of society. Gawker wasn't just shitty for its hypocrisy on a variety of topics but for some seriously evil acts, not the least of which are directly related to the lawsuits at hand. In the end all I can say is I'm glad it's over and the world has a moment's rest before a "crowd funded" Totally-Not-Gawker picks up the pieces and starts spewing vileness again.

what about:
A ship shipping ship shipping shipping ships.

It's Mr. Fusion.

Then again it's really just a Krups Coffee grinder model number 223A, so who cares.

haha, yeah. to be fair it was written in 1986 ... but yeah that scene is beyond ridiculous, even by 80s computer depiction standards.

for those who don't know what we're talking about -- http://i.stack.imgur.com/LgT6s...

Fascinating. If did not call you a clueless idiot before, but I will do so now. The term "one way encryption" is not used for cryto-hashes, and in particular it is not found on the wikipedia-page you link.

I said it was the "first result on Google" because the Wikipedia page calls hashing a one-way function. If you actually googled one-way encryption, you would see such gems as "What is the most secure one-way encryption" and "one-way encryption means hashing".

I also never said crypto hashes were "symmetric". If you were actually able to read, you would have seen that I said that signatures based on hashes are symmetric signatures.

What you actually said was:

And you just demonstrated that you have no clue what you are talking about as you confused symmetric and asymmetric crypto. Here is a hint: Verifying a hash means to verify a shared, known good value, that is known-good by a different mechanism. Verifying a signature means an asymmetric verification, no shared value involved.

Now, how might I confuse symmetric and asymmetric crypto if verifying a signature is asymmetric?

If verifying a signature is asymmetric encryption, and I have confused the two by confusing a hash with a signature, then one must conclude a hash is symmetric encryption; however, a hash is only ever referred to as "one-way encryption", never "symmetric encryption." You made a logical proposition to the contrary.

Further, you proposed that a signature doesn't rely on a shared value. That is patently impossible: some data must be shared to verify that data. In all digital signature algorithms--RSA, DSA, ECC, DH--on all protocols, this is a hash. TLS exchanges keys signed by certificate authorities; modern browsers are rejecting keys signed with old hash algorithms (SHA1) and requiring SHA2, even though the signature still encrypts the has using RSA. Why would it matter, if digital signatures didn't use hashes?

Listen kid, get at least crypto 101 before you try to tussle with somebody on PhD level in the security field. You are so outclassed it is not funny anymore.

Your Ph.D. from 1940 doesn't make you right. Either you weren't paying attention in class or times have changed in the past 80 years. I started studying cryptography in 2003; maybe you should catch up to the modern century.

Guest98123 5 days ago

I saw an instant 30% drop in revenue when switching my site to HTTPS in April. The implementation was done right, A+ rating from ssllabs, Google reindexed my main pages as HTTPS within a matter of hours, search traffic and overall traffic remained unchanged.

I poked around on my AdSense account to see where I was losing the revenue, since AdSense was still displaying the same number of impressions. It turned out I was seeing a 75% drop in CPC impressions, and AdSense was running low paying CPM impressions instead.

http://i.imgur.com/acy2k0u.png

That's a graph of daily CPC impressions on my account. It's obvious when I switched to HTTPS. That was over a month and a half ago. It hasn't bounced back.

I'm faced with a difficult decision now; whether to go back to HTTP and inform the community we're going to a less secure system for increased ad revenues, or I need to accept a 30% drop in my yearly income, and hope the situation improves as more networks switch to HTTPS.

So it seems that, when using HTTPS, different ads are served. But it doesn't explain why if this revenue is so important, the developer hasn't yet taken the time to find a solution or workaround.

I sort people by their tattoos all the time. If you have a cute tramp stamp

Like this here ?

4. Enjoying, or not, marmite. we havent decided ourselves (janice in signals detection says it works on pizza too?)

Sorry Janice works in accounts and she don't give a fuck!