So when Cuphead uses imagery of gambling, heaven and hell for its setting, it employs images and tropes that were established originally to make moral statements about the lazy and savage blacks of Harlem and their sinful âoejungle music.â
the developer has done nothing wrong. They've even gone out of their way releasing major feature updates two years after the game's release
They promised the earth and delivered a small wet island. Spending two years drying it out still doesn't meet the original expectations they themselves set.
This doesn't justify death threats or the personal attacks they've experienced, but don't pretend the developer is pure and innocent.
Sure. America is going to attack their key NATO ally and create an international incident that effectively isolates the US and drastically reduces its national security.
The other websites on the other hand do NOT have the explicit permission of the photographer to display the image on their site in any way.
That's perfectly fine, as they don't display it on their site.
It does not matter that they tell the client browser to get the image from twitter and display it within their own page instead of hosting it themselves
Yes, it does. It means that they do not touch the photograph, do not copy the photograph, do not display the photograph, do not do a fucking thing to the photograph except tell people's browsers where it can be found.
Sue the readers of the site, they're the ones accessing the copyrighted image.
To add insult, they are using the image ( without permission ) to make money on these sites.
I'm a photographer. I will get seriously pissed off at people that copy my images and exploit them commercially.
I wont get pissed off at people that use their web browser to access my photo site. That's not an insult, that's a fucking compliment.
Personally I'm glad to see the big publishers getting the shaft on a copyright violation.
Sadly though this ruling will benefit them more than the general public. Schadenfreude is lovely but the courts tend to support the people with the resources to use them.
It's perfectly reasonable thing for a photographer to want to control the display of a photograph that they took. They are trying to make a living and without that control, it would be next to impossible to make a living as a photographer. That's one reason for a copyright.
Then they shouldn't fucking publish the photograph publicly for free.
I wouldn't call the photographer a cunt, but he is acting like one.
It's a bit strange though. I did 87 in a 70 limit through roadworks in Texas and the policeman that pulled me over told me to sit there for ten minutes, then let me go with 'and behave'.
Then again I did have my passport with me and handed it to him without being asked.
We rehash stuff, we don't explain the utter basics to someone we consider a peer
That's bollocks. If I'm conveying something complex I'll often start at the basics, so that we can build a shared understanding from the bottom up, identify and address and differences in interpretation, and reach a shared conclusion.
I've never had utter basics of my field explained to me, especially by some young'un at a conference
What the fuck does a conference have to do with this conversation?
Anyway, work with me and I'll explain the basics of your job to you, because I will spot you failing miserably to apply them properly. It's what I do. I'm fucking good at it.
I don't give a flying fuck what gender you are either, I'll do it anyway.
And yet every one of my female friends in tech areas and collegues with whom I've had conversations about the topic[*] have mentoned it happens repeatedly.
It happens repeatedly to men too. They just don't scream misogyny.
I'm talking about explaining what a pointer is. To an industry veteran with 10 years experience.
Ten years is fuck all. Shit, most people programming for ten years have probably never even encountered a pointer.
Back when they were common, far too fucking many developers that pretended to be competent fucked up their use anyway.
That kind of level of patronising.
Shrug. You think it's patronising, I think it's clear communication. Only one of us is suffering an ego failure here.
The reason why there was no gender was it was 99% white guys
That'll be why I still meet up regularly with the girl I met online in '92, went to the wedding in Texas of the Chinese girl I met online in '91, had women from Sweden and Norway come and visit me in '96, lived for a while with a girl I met online in '92 and have since met people face to face that I first met online, and that represent a broad mix of races, genders, nationalities and sexual preferences.
As for women, well, the places I hung out weren't exactly friendly to them.
They were nonetheless using the internet, and nobody gave a shit.
this question is pretty easy to answer: it's deflection. If someone says, "Look, this group in particular is being singled out and harassed." and you respond, "Hm, yes harassment is bad. Before we do anything else, let's all say that harassment is bad." then you are deflecting from their complaint by changing the topic
Is it deflection when you erect a straw man to shoot down instead of addressing the point at hand?
The claim is, "This group is getting it worse" and the response is, "No, they are not. Other groups get it worse and it's shit all round"
That isn't deflection, that's refutation.
People are playing the victim card and seeking bigoted resolutions instead of being honest and accepting that they're not a special snowflake and any appropriate action would include people that aren't part of their precious group. Where's the fucking deflection?
Technically (and despite the other posts claiming otherwise) the second nuclear bomb was entirely irrelevant to the war effort. The war was already won by that point, all that was left were the formalities of surrender.
Slashdot Mirror
So when Cuphead uses imagery of gambling, heaven and hell for its setting, it employs images and tropes that were established originally to make moral statements about the lazy and savage blacks of Harlem and their sinful âoejungle music.â
-- https://unwinnable.com/2017/11...
Or maybe it's just a game with an aesthetic people like.
the developer has done nothing wrong. They've even gone out of their way releasing major feature updates two years after the game's release
They promised the earth and delivered a small wet island. Spending two years drying it out still doesn't meet the original expectations they themselves set.
This doesn't justify death threats or the personal attacks they've experienced, but don't pretend the developer is pure and innocent.
Only a malicious fuckwit would draw that interpretation from the quoted sentence.
The rest of us would acknowledge the point that having assault rifles does not make someone an insurgent.
Especially when it's common knowledge that journalists in conflict areas frequently have armed security details to help protect them from insurgents.
Yes, I did just call you a malicious fuckwit.
People lying bleeding and dying in the street, and you think the rules of engagement permit attacking unarmed people that try to save their lives?
There was no military justification for that, no moral justification, no justification what so fucking ever.
Sure. America is going to attack their key NATO ally and create an international incident that effectively isolates the US and drastically reduces its national security.
Even Americans aren't that fucking stupid.
Not really. It's more akin to telling people living by a large stadium to open their windows on Wednesday night to listen to a Muse concert.
The other websites on the other hand do NOT have the explicit permission of the photographer to display the image on their site in any way.
That's perfectly fine, as they don't display it on their site.
It does not matter that they tell the client browser to get the image from twitter and display it within their own page instead of hosting it themselves
Yes, it does. It means that they do not touch the photograph, do not copy the photograph, do not display the photograph, do not do a fucking thing to the photograph except tell people's browsers where it can be found.
Sue the readers of the site, they're the ones accessing the copyrighted image.
To add insult, they are using the image ( without permission ) to make money on these sites.
I'm a photographer. I will get seriously pissed off at people that copy my images and exploit them commercially.
I wont get pissed off at people that use their web browser to access my photo site. That's not an insult, that's a fucking compliment.
Personally I'm glad to see the big publishers getting the shaft on a copyright violation.
Sadly though this ruling will benefit them more than the general public. Schadenfreude is lovely but the courts tend to support the people with the resources to use them.
They fucked up in a stupidly spectacular way
Only by failing miserably to win this court case.
It's perfectly reasonable thing for a photographer to want to control the display of a photograph that they took. They are trying to make a living and without that control, it would be next to impossible to make a living as a photographer. That's one reason for a copyright.
Then they shouldn't fucking publish the photograph publicly for free.
I wouldn't call the photographer a cunt, but he is acting like one.
How the fuck is he going to pay interest on a $100 billion loan without selling some stock?
Unless you intend him to pay interest on the loan using the loan itself?
Nope, I have no idea what you're talking about but you still think expressing your strange views in a public forum is the way to go.
Yeah, that's what I don't get. When you were literally a serf or indentured or just plain in debt to the employer you had limited options.
These days if you don't like your job, quit. If you can't find another one, move. If you think business owners are too rich, start your own.
Stop fucking bitching about pay and do something about it.
Fairly sure the US has capital gains tax, so selling shares you acquired for fuck all will result in a nice chunky tax bill.
I treat them as capable adults. You should try it some time.
None of what you're written negates or contradicts the point made by the person to whom you replied. I'm not sure you understood it.
Call records demonstrate phone use, which in turn demonstrates his ability to access the phone.
That is evidence that he could remember the passcodes at least as recently as the most recent outbound call.
The odds of you being a criminal are well over 1%. To be fair they're closer to 100%
Since you're comfortable with one person going to prison falsely rather than 100 criminals walking free, we'd best imprison you.
No need for a trial, we've already established that you're more likely to be one of the 100 criminals than the innocent man.
Hmm, no.
Data forensics is all about searching a copy of the data, with another tamper-proof copy available so that any claim of tampering can be validated.
Searching on the phone itself opens a vector for malicious or incompetent behaviour that changes the data.
Unlock the phone, copy the data, copy the copy, search that.
It's a bit strange though. I did 87 in a 70 limit through roadworks in Texas and the policeman that pulled me over told me to sit there for ten minutes, then let me go with 'and behave'.
Then again I did have my passport with me and handed it to him without being asked.
Of course he'd want to see it.
We rehash stuff, we don't explain the utter basics to someone we consider a peer
That's bollocks. If I'm conveying something complex I'll often start at the basics, so that we can build a shared understanding from the bottom up, identify and address and differences in interpretation, and reach a shared conclusion.
I've never had utter basics of my field explained to me, especially by some young'un at a conference
What the fuck does a conference have to do with this conversation?
Anyway, work with me and I'll explain the basics of your job to you, because I will spot you failing miserably to apply them properly. It's what I do. I'm fucking good at it.
I don't give a flying fuck what gender you are either, I'll do it anyway.
And yet every one of my female friends in tech areas and collegues with whom I've had conversations about the topic[*] have mentoned it happens repeatedly.
It happens repeatedly to men too. They just don't scream misogyny.
I'm talking about explaining what a pointer is. To an industry veteran with 10 years experience.
Ten years is fuck all. Shit, most people programming for ten years have probably never even encountered a pointer.
Back when they were common, far too fucking many developers that pretended to be competent fucked up their use anyway.
That kind of level of patronising.
Shrug. You think it's patronising, I think it's clear communication. Only one of us is suffering an ego failure here.
The reason why there was no gender was it was 99% white guys
That'll be why I still meet up regularly with the girl I met online in '92, went to the wedding in Texas of the Chinese girl I met online in '91, had women from Sweden and Norway come and visit me in '96, lived for a while with a girl I met online in '92 and have since met people face to face that I first met online, and that represent a broad mix of races, genders, nationalities and sexual preferences.
As for women, well, the places I hung out weren't exactly friendly to them.
They were nonetheless using the internet, and nobody gave a shit.
Oh ffs, could you stfu? You're actually making me start to like you! :(
Given men are more likely to be assaulted than women, your entire point is fucking idiocy.
Anyway, aren't women meant to be strong and empowered? Sorry but if you can't take criticism then you're not very strong.
this question is pretty easy to answer: it's deflection. If someone says, "Look, this group in particular is being singled out and harassed." and you respond, "Hm, yes harassment is bad. Before we do anything else, let's all say that harassment is bad." then you are deflecting from their complaint by changing the topic
Is it deflection when you erect a straw man to shoot down instead of addressing the point at hand?
The claim is, "This group is getting it worse" and the response is, "No, they are not. Other groups get it worse and it's shit all round"
That isn't deflection, that's refutation.
People are playing the victim card and seeking bigoted resolutions instead of being honest and accepting that they're not a special snowflake and any appropriate action would include people that aren't part of their precious group. Where's the fucking deflection?
I neither know nor care. Why the fuck do you give a fuck?
She's made a valuable contribution to the global software industry, to Internet culture and to her employers.
Her gender is entirely fucking irrelevant to that.
are you still in profit territory when you factor in the manpower to cut up the towers into small enough chunks to haul away
What, two men for a couple of days with cutting equipment and three trucks for a day or two?
Sure, the generator will need a larger team and possibly a crane, but we're still well under $200k.
Bomb, shoot and oppress millions of people. Describe them as 'cockroaches' when they don't roll over and die for you.
You must be an American.
Technically (and despite the other posts claiming otherwise) the second nuclear bomb was entirely irrelevant to the war effort. The war was already won by that point, all that was left were the formalities of surrender.
Nagasaki should not have been nuked.