Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Uh... decompiled and deobfuscated? (Score 1) 354

by geminidomino (#47848997) Attached to: DMCA Claim Over GPL Non-Compliance Shuts Off Minecraft Plug-Ins

As one who has scratched out a few purpose-built minecraft mods over the past few years, maybe I can clear it up a bit.

It's a multi-step process. The initial de-compilation step is, indeed, just about as useless as you say: lots of

But there's a project called MCP Toolkit, which basically goes through every new release and reverse-engineers as much of it as they can (usually a pretty good percentage too), mapping the obfuscated classes, variables and methods to names which, while possibly (probably) not the names used internally, are at least meaningful.

Minecraft Forge, the officially unofficial mod API, used to include MCPing the minecraft source as part of setting up its workspace. It was really handy when I was learning, being able to trace things back through the code to figure out how they worked, but had its downside. I'm not sure whether they got tired of people needlessly making coremods (mods that altered the "vanilla" classes, as opposed to interacting through Forge), or they were afraid of drawing an evil eye from Mojang, or what, but they've altered their whole setup starting late in 1.6.4 so they don't even download the vanilla jar anymore.

Comment: Re:One bad apple spoils the barrel (Score 1) 1134

by geminidomino (#47827321) Attached to: Combating Recent, Ugly Incidents of Misogyny In Gamer Culture

Wait, did I just argue one of Anita Sarkeesian's points for her?

No, you argued one of her critics' points against her: a series of poorly-researched and inflammatory rant-videos accomplishes precisely dick other than to serve as a rallying point for similarly-aligned identity politics, who recursively make their own poorly-researched and inflammatory rants, feeding the current paradigm: a loud, incestuous echo-chamber on one side, convinced that their MO of using shame tactics to make other people do things their way, might someday work, if they can just reach that elusive critical mass of obnoxiousness; until then, they'll keep beating on the status quo like wind against a mountain that (rightly) doesn't give a shit.

The whole approach of Anita et al is fundamentally contradictory: you don't demonstrate "equality" or "agency" by demanding that other people do for you, rather than doing yourself.

Comment: Re:Doesn't this pretty much kill 4chan? (Score 2) 134

by rockout (#47824233) Attached to: After Celebrity Photo Leaks, 4chan Introduces DMCA Policy
Whatever passes for censorship in this case is pretty much irrelevant anyway. The pack of photos that started this was almost instantly on piratebay, and after almost four days it's still there with about 27,000 seeders. That won't go away on its own for a while and you don't see piratebay taking it down. The initial leak just happened to be from 4chan; the next such leak could come from almost anywhere.

Comment: Re:If the Grand Ayatollah's against it.... (Score 1) 542

by rockout (#47802133) Attached to: Grand Ayatollah Says High Speed Internet Is "Against Moral Standards"

Your alarmist progression is worthy of a Fox News headline; it's so full of holes and logical fallacies that it's difficult to know where to start, but how about your crazy, uninformed jump from #2 to #3?

There's about 4 million Muslims in Thailand, out of a population of around 70 million. If you're trying to refer to the current insurgency in southern Thailand, the evidence suggest that's more rooted in ethnic (Malay vs. Thai) differences than it is in Islam vs. Buddhism, though of course that plays a part - problem is, that particular conflict has been present for hundreds of years. And before you point your finger and say "Aha! that proves my point, Muslims have always been trying to conquer!" take a look at what "Christian" nations were doing hundreds of years ago and were continuing to do until right after World War II. Some would say we're still trying to do it now, what with invading Iraq and all.

To suggest that this one religion is somehow worse than all the others when it comes to breeding maniacs that want to impose their will on others is ridiculous.

Comment: Re:Her work (Score 1) 1262

Please - stand up behind your accusations and show us all which parts of her videos are self-contradictory

One example: Lara Croft. Originally, she was oversexualized, a sign of an inherently female-hostile game industry. Then, later, when later games toned down her sexuality, that was female-hostile because it apparently meant that the game makers felt that, in order to be taken seriously, a female protagonist has to be more "mannish."

And I really don't understand your complaint about how she spent the kickstarter money. She asked for donations to make a series of videos, alot of people donated with the understanding that she would make the video series, she made the video series. Are you suggesting that she should have taken that money and done something else with it?

She set out from the startup to make videos bitching and moaning and trying to shame others into doing things her way, rather than doing anything herself. Her intentions were ignoble from t=0.

Actually, from what I've read on this thread, no-one has 'trivially proven' this.

Check out Thunderf00t's response video, for starters. There are many others.

Comment: Re:Her work (Score 1) 1262

"Emotionally manipulative liars" is one of those old school stereotypes about women, and so AC here takes that typification, and extrapolates it onto Sarkeesian without any sort of evidence to bear out that she's actually like that

Have you actually managed to sit through any of her inane dribblings that pass as videos? Plenty of evidence there.

Hell, just the fact that she took a 150k kickstarter and used it to make a video series full of self-contradictory bitching and bullshit accusations rather than, say, making a game that she claims everyone wants (and 150k is plenty to make a good indie game these days, don't let the blockbuster budgets fool you).

It's safe to assert that "intending to shame others into doing things your way" falls safely inside the boundaries of "emotionally manipulative."

The "liar" part is trivially proven, but plenty of others have already gone after that, so finding them will be left as an exercise for the reader.

Comment: Re:Her work (Score 1) 1262

How can you tell when you receive a lot of death threats whether any of them are credible?

Having done my stint in various online games, I've probably received more death threats than senators have received blowjobs from congressional pages.

I'm pretty confident in my current system, which is something of an inversion of the USPTO policy: When you add "over the internet" to the description of the threat, its credibility drops 99%.

Most people will listen to your unreasonable demands, if you'll consider their unacceptable offer.