Really, these people seem like a class act.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Akonady

Quoting: KimyrielleAnd yet we're here, obviously considering that fragmented world that is Linux to be better than it's corporate-controlled alternatives.

I like tech in general, but I don't use Linux anymore, don't worry, such a waste of time. It's cool to mess around with commands though.

So you're just here to troll?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

"The Tyrant’s Blessing code base is cross-platform, allowing us to release the game for Windows, Mac and Linux simultaneously on Steam."

Emphasis mine. Now this is what you want to see in a Kickstarter promise; gives you some confidence the Linux release won't be months later or, like certain games recently reported on at GoL, abandoned because they hadn't figured out what they needed to do to make it happen.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: tuubi

Quoting: Arehandoro

Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: ArehandoroWhen it comes to drinking and socializing, chatting hours with friends and family over small drinks and food, I must say we Spaniards do it pretty well. One of the very few things we might actually excel at xD

Come to think of it, I rather like Spanish bars too. My Spanish isn't up to snuff, but you're OK as long as you can point at things and say "tinto de verano" and "jamon". :grin:

Hahaha that's so true! :D

"Una cerveza, por favor" is the only phrase I ever learned in Spanish, and I've been there on holiday twice. :whistle:

Tinto de verano is wine mixed with lemon fanta or sprite, and ice; especially when it's hot, it's way better than it sounds.
My go-to phrase is "Un bocadillo de jamon, por favor" which will get you set up with a sandwich of yummy Spanish ham. In Spain I'm not sure which is the majority religion these days, Catholicism or ham.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: chrCan anyone correct me, but isn't Public Domain incompatible with imposing limitations on distribution?

Quoting: the DevilutionX readme at GithubDevilutionX is released to the Public Domain. The documentation and functionality provided by DevilutionX may only be utilized with assets provided by ownership of Diablo.

The source code in this repository is for non-commerical use only. If you use the source code you may not charge others for access to it or any derivative work thereof.

I would have thought, yeah.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: slaapliedje

Quoting: Purple Library GuyMy wife's opinion is that, while she's actually not a big fan of most of the beers and prefers a Corona, something like the craft beer revolution was needed because the North American bar culture was so putrid. She always found bars really hostile places--you could go there, but the loud music made it impossible to chat with a friend, and all the men would be giving you the once-over in the assumption you were there to be picked up. At the craft beer places, she can go and spend some time, alone or with friends or her daughters or even me, and feel comfortable and hear herself speak. There's an expectation that you're not there primarily to get hammered or be at a meat market and you might want to socialize.

I myself hate traditional North American bars, like traditional British pubs fairly well on average, and like the craft breweries pretty well too. Why the difference? Because both British pubs and craft breweries aren't fucking pits.

I've never been a bar guy. But always fashioned myself as someone who would go to a proper pub, if there were any around. But then I live in Utah, so we're not allowed to actually have fun anyhow. Fun fact: someone opened a club here for Mormons where they served energy drinks instead of alcohol... Because that's healthy...

Ah, yes, Mormons . . . one of the two relatively popular current religions that we actually know was started by a scammer. We may wonder about Christianity or Islam or whatever, but we know for sure about Mormonism and Scientology.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Kristian

Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: Kristian

Quoting: Appelsin

Quoting: Purple Library GuyI'm very pleased with this outcome. As to why we got it, there is a cynical side of me saying "Ah! The Supremes concluded Google's pockets were deeper than Oracle's!"
We're just lucky the bigger plutocratic guns were on our side on this particular occasion.

My exact reaction to this.
What we can all take from this ruling, is that Google wields more influence, and have better lobbyists, than Oracle does.

As with the time that Google (et al.) was "pro" Net Neutrality, we can praise ourselves lucky that their interests happened to align with those of the general public (insofar as the 'general' public cares about Java and Net Neutrality).

Companies ain't our friends, and they don't give two sh1ts about what benefits *us*.

The Supreme Court is not congress. There are no campaigns and no lobbying.

No campaigns, true. No lobbying? You are living in a different age. I have seen several exposes of members of the Supreme Court getting schmoozed and wined and dined and taken to "conferences" in very posh vacation spots and so on and so forth. Most of it isn't even illegal; the US has some odd oversights in terms of how you are and aren't allowed to bribe judges.
And most of them belong or belonged to the Federalist Society, which is fundamentally a right wing lobby group of lawyers and judges. The Supremes, in short, are only partly the ones being lobbied--in part they are lobbyists themselves, from way back. If they were the kind of people who went around trying cases based on the merits of the briefs in front of them, they wouldn't have been appointed to the Supreme Court.

What you are saying is not very specific. But which conferences in which vacation spots determined the outcome of this case? It is a rather extreme position to claim that legal arguments have nothing to do with it. The Federalist Society is much maligned, but more to the point several of the justices in this majority have never been a member of the Federalist Society. (And there certainly plenty of left-wing parallels to the Federalist Society) There are plenty of cases that simplistic theories of the court being "pro-business" or similar cannot explain [External Link]. This case incidentally being one of them.

If legal briefs had no impact on the outcome of cases, the outcome of cases would be vastly different than they are. It is simply far far from the case that those with the most money always win. Supreme Court justices rule against lawyers they worked with in private practice, their own former law clerks, the administrations that appointed them, their side of the political aisle etc etc all the time.

Also it is often the case that the law has a pro-business/big money bias, such that faithfully following the law requires a judge or justice to rule in a pro-business manner. So a pro-business result is NOT in and of itself evidence of bias on part of the judge or justice.

I am not saying that other factors can never have an influence, of course they can and probably do. I am only saying that they are not as all encompassing as you think they are.

You have some points, but first, the idea that there are left wing parallels to the Federalist Society (which, really, there aren't--there are liberal parallels to the Federalist Society) just means not all justices have the same axes to grind, not that any of them are actually neutral. So it doesn't invalidate my point.
To be fair, at the level the Supreme Court is operating, in the end it's not tenable to have a "just the facts of this case and the printed words of the specific law" approach--the Supreme Court justices are making decisions which will shape society. They'd better have some ideas about the consequences to society of their rulings. Their work is inevitably political; they should bring some political understanding to it.
Nonetheless, the US Supreme Court has certainly made plenty of rulings which are both not particularly implied by the texts they're supposedly pulling the rulings from, and very much tending to award privileges to the wealthy and corporations while denying rights to more ordinary people. Citizens United is perhaps the most notorious, but there have been a whole series of rulings in which the very same judges have taken the position that cash is speech and must be protected against all limitations on its use, but that actual speech is not necessarily speech or, even if it is, may not require protection--hence corporations must not be restricted in their ability to buy elections, but protests can be restricted to "free speech zones" and so on and so forth. For at least the last 20 years the Supreme Court has also strongly tended to find that while corporations must be given all the rights of persons, for actual persons there are lots of very important reasons not to give them all the rights of persons, particularly when the police have an interest in circumscribing them. Note that I'm not saying there's no case for circumscribing rights--I'm just saying there's a certain systematic variation to the Supremes' vision of how uncircumscribed rights need to be.
And while lobbying may not always be effective, such that the Supreme Court judges (who, while they may be bribable, are almost impossible to pressure) may just decide to vote based on their real understanding of any given case, lobbying is nonetheless very much present--and I presume they wouldn't bother if it didn't work. So your original claim that "there is no lobbying" is simply false and I'm glad you added some nuance.
Overall, on any given case it is certainly possible the Supremes will decide on the merits in some relatively disinterested fashion. But it is by no means something you can expect, or rely on.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: ArehandoroWhen it comes to drinking and socializing, chatting hours with friends and family over small drinks and food, I must say we Spaniards do it pretty well. One of the very few things we might actually excel at xD

Come to think of it, I rather like Spanish bars too. My Spanish isn't up to snuff, but you're OK as long as you can point at things and say "tinto de verano" and "jamon". :grin:

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Just recently I had a reason to remember that Puffy Amiyumi existed; now I'm seeing this and I'm really getting that vibe off her.

But yeah, I feel about the same as tuubi about this.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

My wife's opinion is that, while she's actually not a big fan of most of the beers and prefers a Corona, something like the craft beer revolution was needed because the North American bar culture was so putrid. She always found bars really hostile places--you could go there, but the loud music made it impossible to chat with a friend, and all the men would be giving you the once-over in the assumption you were there to be picked up. At the craft beer places, she can go and spend some time, alone or with friends or her daughters or even me, and feel comfortable and hear herself speak. There's an expectation that you're not there primarily to get hammered or be at a meat market and you might want to socialize.

I myself hate traditional North American bars, like traditional British pubs fairly well on average, and like the craft breweries pretty well too. Why the difference? Because both British pubs and craft breweries aren't fucking pits.

View this comment - View article - View full comments