Bay 12 Games Forum

I think DF would fair better with a "client/server" type of multi-threading.  Where the server spawns processes that control a subset of creatures/water mechanics/etc.

EX: Server needs group of elephants, spawn controller, wait for connection, send local data to client, wait for return information on what the elephants are doing with their turn.  Let server resolve discrepancies [Elephant trampled dwarf, tell dwarf controller one died].  It could become a liability though if the client crashed.  The elephants would have to be passed onto another client or would just vanish.  They've done turn based clients like this for multi-player turn based games (MOO2?, GalCiv...) and adapting it to wait for responses from sub-clients is easy enough.  You can even set timeouts to force split long running clients into more fine grained subsets.  (That group of mobs is taking too long to path?  Split into two processes dividing the creatures up.  [though, it's probably a pathing issue because mob group controllers should have a local cache of paths...])

It would also make it trivial to add player clients where someone can connect to your base and walk around.   (The server would only wait a set time for them so one client doesn't prevent the server from continuing.  Only the "God Client" would be able to pause the simulation.)

Quote from: Andir on December 10, 2011, 07:08:14 am

But it sets a precedent where men can just say, "Screw you woman! The government pays for it."

Yeah that's the point. People who go up to a women wanting to avoid the responsibility of parenthood (through abortion or adoption) and say "you had sex so deal with the consequences" are pretty monstrous. Yet people can go up to a man and say the same thing? Doesn't follow. The aim would be to fix that by giving fathers similar options.

Quote

Some women may even prefer to have the government pay for their child instead of having a husband.

They would have absolutely zero say in whether the father gives up his rights or not.

Quote

It could delegate men to sperm farmers.

What.

It depends if the woman can get a court injunction against the father.  We were just talking about some girl's parents trying to prevent some man from being involved in their daughter's child birthing process, were we not?

If a woman wanted to have a child, she could go coax some guy and claim he raped her to get him out of her life and she has a child that she doesn't have to pay for.  E: Oh, and she ruins his life for the rest of his "sex offender" term.

Just when the father wanted to have no responsibility or rights.

The original problem is men have to deal with "you had sex so suck it up and be a parent" and no avenue to escape that, while women do have an option to avoid the responsibility of parenthood (abortion). The idea is to give men the same option and figure out how to not screw over the woman (at least not more than they are now).

My original proposal would also include deceased/incapacitated parents of either gender, too. Single parenting sucks. (EDIT: The more I think about this line the more it looks to me like I'm trying to smooth things over with a more moderate proposal attached to my radical one. Ignore it; there's already stuff in place to help those people, and though it could be better, that's irrelevant to the points at hand)

But it sets a precedent where men can just say, "Screw you woman! The government pays for it."  Some women may even prefer to have the government pay for their child instead of having a husband.  It could delegate men to sperm farmers.

I hate caps.

... but you used them multiple times... I think you just "hate" having to use proper grammar. /rant

Quote

I assume this is just worded poorly.  The boy has just as much choice as the girl.  They made their choice when they decided to have sex.

I'm sorry, but no. The boy has some choice in the matter, but he does not have nearly as much of a choice. The girl has several distinct points where additional choices can be made and decisions can be altered, with significantly more certain knowledge about results and consequences. To say their choices on this front are equivalent is absurd. If one party has significantly more choices, you can't say the second has just as much choice as the first.

The reason the man doesn't get a say past that initial decision is for practical reasons having to deal with likely consequences of vesting them with such choice, not idealistic ones. I don't see how anyone could try to argue the difference in choice is nonexistent, though.

Maybe I read it wrong, but what I got was: They both made the choice to have sex and accept the possibility of a child.  Then what I read was that scriver says the man loses all choice at that point [ie: he becomes a slave to the will of the girl] (which is false.)  If the child is his, he has legal capability to seek responsibility or moral choice to not.

G-flex is right. When "gay" is used as "bad", what people is actually saying is "bad because it is homosexual". When people call others "retarded", they're saying "you are a/like a mentally handicapped person (and that makes you less worth)". Words like idiot and dumb has very much outlived their historical origins, but it's very well understood in the general culture what's being insinuated with gay and retarded.

"Retarded" has meaningful relevance.  It doesn't require an attachment to the mentally handicapped, but it has been used to describe a mentally handicapped person and turned into a derogatory term.

It can simply mean to slow down or to restrict... extrapolating that out, a slow (or stupid, mentally challenged) person or idea is/can be retarded.  (ie: A retarded engine is not an engine with a mental handicap.  It has restricted input causing it to under-perform compared to another engine that's not retarded.)

Retard -
Delay or hold back in terms of progress, development, or accomplishment; decelerate: lose velocity; move more slowly;

I agree with you both. Telling everyone gay rights are human rights is good. Listening to your own advice is just as good, if not better.

They have rights... they have the right to marry someone from the opposite sex just like the rest of us!  /badperson

Quote

As it is, you don't really need to be liberal or conservative to be part of occupy, but I am not sure if that will stand if a real party is formed.

An Occupy party would, hopefully, avoid weighing in on issues unrelated to those they find important (though individual candidates might), and focus on breaking the power structure, fixing corruption, and financial and systemic reform.

Essentially, what the Tea Party movement was before it was claimed by Conservatives...  There was really one set of goals: lower taxes, justification of spending, and transparency.