Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


This user doesn't have any awards

About wanderingfool2

  • Title

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Well I would say it depends. If Starlink is anything like Tesla, they might be able to fix things in software first (I'm thinking, they might be able to push a firmware update that utilizes less power, so it dissipates the heat it generates before hitting that threshold). They might also determine that it can actually survive without damage up to 60C (not saying it will, but maybe). I am betting there will be a hardware update as well though, but I seriously will not be surprised if there is the software/firmware update that increases the acceptable range from 50 to like 60C.
  2. I don't know about minecraft, but I've come across a few programs that would fail to load if the internet connection started working after the program was launched. You can try a batch file, and putting it in the startup folder (which gets run automatically) e.g. @echo off :CheckInternet REM Calling Ping, where ping waits for 5 seconds REM Ping will set errorlevel 1 if its not connected REM If no internet if found, try finding it again (so it repeats checking about every 30 seconds, until you stop it or it finds a connection) REM if connection is found goto the
  3. So to reduce the runtime, as @badreg said, you can reduce the problem so the comparison loop is done less. @badreg is right. If order isn't important, then it's actually most efficient to start from b and continue upwards adding b to i until you hit a (that way you only process the known values, instead of guessing) To put a real world example a = 10; b=3; Your method i = 10,9 (prints),8,7,6(prints),5,4,3(prints) (7 iterations of i%3 == 0) badreg i = 10,9 (prints) [i-b], 6 (prints), [i-b], 3 (prints) (2 iterations of i%3 == 0, then 2 subtract by b'
  4. THIS this is why I have and others have said you don't know what you are talking about. Capcom modifying the image and using it in their game is still copyright infringement. The shadow parts on texture are the same, the brick layout is the same, the cracks on the brick are the same, the angles are the same...gee I guess Capcom must have just gotten lucky to match such unique pattern on so many images. Like I said, there are 40+ examples of the texture in game (and if you even bothered to read the exhibit or look at the pictures) you would realize they are them.
  5. Look at the exhibits and say that again. No jury in their right mind would say Capcom didn't use her photos as those textures. There are 40+ in game screen shots that correlate to the textures (I stopped counting after 40). It's civil court, you only have to show that Capcom likely did it, you don't need the beyond reasonable doubt. At this point, Capcom would have to prove that they didn't copy the photos (like some documentation that they hired an artist to redraw the images) So yes, it's shown that the textures exist in the game and most likely copied the work; it's all abou
  6. It's not that they recreated the original object using her photos as a reference, it's that they literally used her photos as parts of the textures. Sure, if they saw the ram head statue and changed it to a 3d architecture and skinned the 3d model by themselves it wouldn't be violating copyright...but they didn't. They used her photo as the texture (in some cases with modifications to the image, but used the image nonetheless) You can create bricks yourself, but they didn't and it's quite clear they didn't. If you ask 1000 people to paint realistic bricks, yes they will look
  7. You keep making it as though the argument around procedural generation matters in this case. It doesn't. It doesn't matter if Capcom could have made similar textures, the fact is it's pretty clear they used the cd as the source material. Sure, if it was just one or two images within the game you could argue maybe a coincidence...but when it's 80 images, a decent amount which are unique, and even the brick textures, including their placement, angle, and wear pattern matching up 1 to 1; it becomes more than coincidence. This is a civil matter as well, she only has to prove that her story is m
  8. If you did know so much about copyright, you would know that it doesn't matter if you can achieve similar results from procedural generated items. The fact is, they used her photos as textures within the game. That is clearly copyright infringement if they didn't have a license. Like I've said in my other posts though, the damages could range drastically and will be the most up in the air thing I think about this case (assuming Capcom doesn't have a license)...actually thinking of this...if Capcom doesn't have a license, and depending how she licensed her photos they could be in
  9. Sorry, I don't mean to be critical, but I really don't think you understand how copyright works in a scenario. Aside from statutory damages, she could elect to be going for actual damages. I also wonder if since they wouldn't be able to recall all copies (and likely wouldn't stop selling it), if that would create more for damages. With your argument as well, 10.4 million copies sold; if you assume a $10 profit per game (they likely actually gained more though), that's $104million, which 1% of is roughly 1 million.
  10. Well there was communication at least in terms of a cease and desist, but yea it could very well be the first that Capcom is really learning about the extent of things. This could be a moot case anyways if Capcom reveals a license agreement (it's happened before, I can't cite my source, but I remember watching something similar to this happen before where the case was just tossed once the other party provided the license agreement)
  11. It's in no way confirmed, but there was some speculation that it could have been when the bitcoins were transferred to an exchange (because from there the FBI would have a company to contact and seize the bitcoin from). It doesn't surprise me that it was eventually seized, with such a large amount I would imagine that it would be pretty hard to launder the money. It's used by a decent amount of criminal transactions (mainly through ransomware). The issue is that when you are talking about $250-$10000 per scam, it becomes a lot less likely that the criminal will be c
  12. I haven't really seen too many people with the stance that negotiations failed. But yes this was merely a filing, in it it only mentions her sending a copyright infringement notice. My assumption would be like a classical cease and desist letter. While there might have been a settlement talk before, I would imagine that she might have just jumped straight to a lawsuit and working on a settlement after. At this stage, Capcom might even submit evidence that could have the case thrown out (like a license agreement). Effectively it means there is a judge assigned to the
  13. It's not odd. It's a filing, at which Capcom will respond, and then they might enter into talks regarding settlement. She may also be the type of person who wants to see it through until the end. If Capcom does not have a license, or can't prove the book allowed for a license then yea it's going to be a pretty open and shut case (the damage amount isn't clear cut, and they might be able to argue away some of the images, but the majority are incriminating...and at that stage as well she could use the discovery process to get all the textures they used)
  14. I'm stating that your mythical 10% rule is wrong; copyright is nuanced and doesn't have strict boundaries. (But in this case, baring a license they are very far from any boundary) No, read what I've been saying carefully. I've said Capcom can't use the fair use argument for this case as whole because it clearly isn't fair use. No I'm not. Like I've said, they clearly have in-game footage showing the textures exist. The leaks just help prove it though (and make it easier to find). I'm merely stating this subject should be whether or not Capcom has a license, a
  15. My wording is quite different from yours. You said that using 10% is a limitation; which it isn't. When it comes to limitation, there are many factors that come into play, but the 10% mentality is the exact mentality that I've seen so many people use as justification that something isn't a violation of copyright. If you have a brick texture, with 1000 bricks, and someone copies 1 to 1 a single brick and prints it off and sells it as art that is still a copyright violation. If you take the 1000 bricks, morph the image, recolor it, blend together, to the point that it is no longer bricks but