DOOM 3DO Source Released On Github

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

DOOM 3DO Source Released On Github

Posted by timothy on Sunday November 30, 2014 @11:57AM from the you-are-doomed dept.

New submitter burgerbecky writes The port that was as hellish as the game world itself, DOOM for the 3DO's source code has been released on github. The original programmer outlined the corners cut and why.

323 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

The fact remains... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-30 12:06 · Score: -1

....who actually cares?
1. Re:The fact remains... by BronsCon · 2014-11-30 12:13 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Someone cared enough to post the source, with a writeup about their experience with it, someone cared enough to submit it, someone cared enough to approve it, at the very least I cared enough to read it and even browse the source a bit. At least one more of the over 7 billion people on the planet will probably care, as well.
  
  --
  APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
2. Re:The fact remains... by ArchieBunker · 2014-11-30 13:00 · Score: 1
  
  Oh yeah the homebrew 3DO community will love this.
  
  --
  Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
3. Re:The fact remains... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-30 13:23 · Score: 1
  
  You care enough to bitch and moan about it.
4. Re:The fact remains... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-30 14:30 · Score: -1, Troll
  
  Someone cared enough to post the source, with a writeup about their experience with it, someone cared enough to submit it, someone cared enough to approve it, at the very least I cared enough to read it and even browse the source a bit. At least one more of the over 7 billion people on the planet will probably care, as well.
  The submitter is the same person who wrote the code. The link is somewhat obfuscated due to the way she's grouped the code, but the code was posted to GitHub by "burgerbecky" and the Slashdot submitted is also "burgerbecky" and the both link to the same "burgerbecky" website.
  So we're down to one person submitted a vanity article to Slashdot and someone at Slashdot was dumb enough to accept it.
5. Re:The fact remains... by BronsCon · 2014-11-30 14:41 · Score: 1
  
  And then there was me, the at least one person who actually read it. And you. You took at least enough interest in it to read enough of it to attempt to debunk my post. Hey, now we're back up to a minimum of four.
  
  --
  APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
6. Re: The fact remains... by jsh1972 · 2014-11-30 15:02 · Score: 1
  
  Five.
7. Re:The fact remains... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-30 15:03 · Score: 0
  
  If you don't care, why did you spend your valuable time to post such an informative post?
8. Re: The fact remains... by BronsCon · 2014-11-30 15:06 · Score: 1
  
  And there's the "at least one more of the over 7 billion people on the planet" I mentioned in my first post. Thank you for chiming in, jsh1972, I believe that's game, set, and match.
  
  --
  APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
9. Re:The fact remains... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-30 15:41 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  All 5 of them?
10. Re: The fact remains... by I'm+New+Around+Here · 2014-11-30 16:12 · Score: 2
  
  I'll toss my hat into the ring on this one. I thought it was very interesting to see what issues they had to work around, and how they did just that.
  
  --
  If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
11. Re:The fact remains... by ArmoredDragon · 2014-11-30 16:52 · Score: -1, Flamebait
  
  I was about to say #gamergate activists would love it too because of it being a female developer, but then I found out that it wasn't technically female.
12. Re:The fact remains... by TheMiddleRoad · 2014-11-30 17:22 · Score: 1
  
  Technically female? I dunno, man. You need to do some research on gender before you go making comments.
13. Re:The fact remains... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-30 17:37 · Score: -1, Troll
  
  There are only 2 "genders": born-with-penis and born-without-penis. All else is psychotic delusion.
14. Re:The fact remains... by gl4ss · 2014-11-30 18:44 · Score: 1
  
  but unlike most other stories today, this was actually interesting. as was the burgerlib linked from that.
  -lassi
  
  --
  world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
15. Re:The fact remains... by ArmoredDragon · 2014-11-30 19:16 · Score: -1, Troll
  
  No, I don't. Let me elaborate a little more about what I'm getting at here: Male neurons are wired dramatically differently than females. Take for example a previous slashdot summary whose TFA indicated that females develop higher literacy skills earlier than males...an obvious sign of anatomic difference as far as the physical brain is concerned. Given that this person was born with a male brain, it doesn't really follow that this would be a credit to female game designers.
  Now as a direct response to what you said:
  
  Technically female? I dunno, man. You need to do some research on gender before you go making comments.
  The word female strictly speaking identifies a biological sex, not a gender. Given my context is strictly about female game designers and not any cultural constructs (vis-a-vis, gender) this wouldn't and shouldn't count towards any credit for that particular sex and role. No surgery that presently exists is able to alter a male enough to make him anatomically female...at best it's just an external change in appearance.)
  Now having said that, you can go on all you'd like about gender being a cultural thing, in which case you can identify this person as a woman if you'd like, but female would not be correct in the biological sense.
  (Which by the way if you want to argue that what gender a person is is simply whatever they choose it to be, then it wouldn't make any sense for an outside observer to not be allowed to have a difference in opinion, because you are now turning that person's gender into an opinion (their opinion) rather than a fact.)
16. Re:The fact remains... by serviscope_minor · 2014-11-30 21:02 · Score: 1
  
  Male neurons are wired dramatically differently than females. Take for example a previous slashdot summary whose TFA indicated that females develop higher literacy skills earlier than males...an obvious sign of anatomic difference as far as the physical brain is concerned.
  First, that's an interesting definition of dramatic there. Secondly, I take it that you're an expert on developmental human biology then so you know this is CERTAINLY an anatomical thing rather than an a developmental thing?
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
17. Re: The fact remains... by serviscope_minor · 2014-11-30 21:05 · Score: 1
  
  Same.
  An article about a tricky source port of a well known game to a tricky console. Perfect article for nerds which is why, after all, I'm here. And I don't really care if the person who submitted it is the person who wrote it. Doesn't make it any less interesting.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
18. Re:The fact remains... by AmiMoJo · 2014-11-30 22:20 · Score: 1
  
  Male neurons are wired dramatically differently than females.
  I think that statement needs qualifying. Some proportion are wired differently, broadly speaking, but you can't draw too many conclusions from that.
  Women appear to have the same capacity for learning and writing software as men do, despite any differences. They may develop at a different rate during childhood, but the claim some people are making that they don't make good programmers or engineers is incorrect.
  
  The word female strictly speaking identifies a biological sex, not a gender.
  In modern English "female" refers to gender. Maybe in biological science it has a more specific meaning, but when most people talk about being "female" they mean gender.
  
  Now having said that, you can go on all you'd like about gender being a cultural thing, in which case you can identify this person as a woman if you'd like, but female would not be correct in the biological sense.
  Biological sex is not binary, so it is difficult to arbitrarily say that an individual is biologically one sex or another. Professional sport bodies have been trying to make a biological determination for decades, and have so far failed to come up with a conclusive definition of sex.
  I appreciate that you just want to be precise, but I'm afraid not everything can fit into nicely defined terms. I see attempts to put things into district categories or come up with precise definitions derail a lot of discussions on Slashdot, particularly on gender issues.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
19. Re:The fact remains... by Elad+Alon · 2014-11-30 22:48 · Score: 2
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I...
  
  --
  News for merdes. Shit that matters.
  Ask me about my sig.
20. Re:The fact remains... by camg188 · 2014-11-30 22:52 · Score: 1
  
  Biological sex is not binary, so it is difficult to arbitrarily say that an individual is biologically one sex or another.
  It's in the chromosomes. It's all about the X's and Y's.
21. Re:The fact remains... by ray-auch · 2014-11-30 23:14 · Score: 2
  
  Biological sex is not binary, so it is difficult to arbitrarily say that an individual is biologically one sex or another.
  It's in the chromosomes. It's all about the X's and Y's.
  Er, yes, for many/most people, but for a significant minority, it is not, which is the point (and actually even if it is all about the chromosomes, you still have the trisomy etc. conditions).
  http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medline...
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I... (see definitions section)
22. Re:The fact remains... by AmiMoJo · 2014-12-01 00:56 · Score: 1
  
  Actually chromosomes were rejected as a way of determining gender decades ago. Some athletes were found to have "male" chromosomes but female genitalia and levels of testosterone.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
23. Re:The fact remains... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-01 01:20 · Score: 0
  
  everytime you post you prove your ignorance
24. Re:The fact remains... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-01 01:25 · Score: 0
  
  not that simple.
  theres teh basic XX and XY.
  theres also XXYY, XXY, and XYY.
  and not to mention that genetic expression can be stimulated or suppressed through hormones, random mutation, or a host of other factors during dvelpoment that cause various itnersex conditions, even in the typical pairs. and thats not even getting into the brain developmental aspect of it.
25. Re:The fact remains... by rujasu · 2014-12-01 02:16 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  "burgerbecky" is Rebecca Heineman, who programmed The Bard's Tale III and Dragon Wars, two of my favorite old computer RPG's. I had no idea she worked on 3DO Doom.
26. Re:The fact remains... by TheMiddleRoad · 2014-12-01 05:14 · Score: 1
  
  So gender is only DNA? How about genitalia? A person with XY expressing male genitalia is the same sex as a person with XY expressing female genitalia? People with other chromosomal combinations? You have your own poorly-thought-through definitions. That's fine. Just don't impose them. You come across as ignorant.
27. Re:The fact remains... by ArmoredDragon · 2014-12-01 10:48 · Score: 1
  
  Secondly, I take it that you're an expert on developmental human biology
  No, and I don't need to be.
  
  then so you know this is CERTAINLY an anatomical thing rather than an a developmental thing?
  http://www.webmd.com/balance/f...
  
  Females and males maintain unique brain characteristics throughout life. Male brains, for instance, are about 10% larger than female brains. But bigger doesn't necessarily mean smarter.
  Disparities in how certain brain substances are distributed may be more revealing. Notably, male brains contain about 6.5 times more gray matter -- sometimes called 'thinking matter" -- than women. Female brains have more than 9.5 times as much white matter, the stuff that connects various parts of the brain, than male brains. That's not all. "The frontal area of the cortex and the temporal area of the cortex are more precisely organized in women, and are bigger in volume," Geary tells WebMD. This difference in form may explain a lasting functional advantage that females seem to have over males: dominant language skills.
  'Nuff said. And yes, I'll keep the word dramatic.
28. Re:The fact remains... by ArmoredDragon · 2014-12-01 11:17 · Score: 1
  
  I think that statement needs qualifying.
  For that I'll refer here:
  http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
  
  In modern English "female" refers to gender.
  That is not correct and I can prove it. I don't know which dictionary you prefer, but in the US, Merriam-Webster pretty much sets the standard for English:
  http://www.merriam-webster.com...
  If you're British, then Oxford sets your standard:
  http://www.oxforddictionaries....
  Both dictionaries seem to agree that female refers to the sex that can bear young or lay eggs. The person wouldn't fully meet that definition (and in fact still carries organs that are part of the male reproductive system, such as the prostate.)
  
  Biological sex is not binary
  The definition for male may not be, but in terms of female, the definition is pretty straightforward: Must be capable of laying eggs or bearing offspring. In most non-mammalian species, there isn't XY chromosome (reptiles, birds, and fish for example have ZW instead) but there's still a common trait for females: capable of bearing offspring or laying eggs.
  Now if you want to look at the extreme and one off examples where a human has XXY (or any other variation) it still boils down to being capable of bearing offspring or laying eggs. If that person can not, or if they can't produce male gametes, then they really aren't either sex.
  As far as the cultural impact of everything I've said above: Culturally a person might identify as man or woman, and whichever they choose is their choice of course, however it isn't possible to change one's sex (or at least, the technology doesn't exist.)
  That also being said, even if the technology comes along that allows females to produce male sperm or males to bear offspring or lay eggs, that doesn't change the anatomy of a person's brain.
29. Re:The fact remains... by BarbaraHudson · 2014-12-01 12:50 · Score: 1
  
  because of it being a female developer, but then I found out that it wasn't technically female.
  Are you proud of yourself, referring to someone as an "it?"
  
  --
  "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
30. Re:The fact remains... by BarbaraHudson · 2014-12-01 13:04 · Score: 1
  
  Given that this person was born with a male brain
  Do you have proof of that?
  
  Take for example a previous slashdot summary whose TFA indicated that females develop higher literacy skills earlier than males.
  Well, there we go - we now have proof that I was born with a female brain.
  
  No surgery that presently exists is able to alter a male enough to make him anatomically female...at best it's just an external change in appearance
  ... and a clitoris that is, in 80% of all cases, capable of multiple orgasms. That's far from an external change in appearance. Fully functional, because sex starts in the brain. Jealous much?
  The feelings of being the other gender come from the brain, not anywhere else. Please consider this: If you were in an accident that amputated your "package", would you not continue to insist that you are still a male, because your brain tells you so? Now let's go a step further - if in the future we can do brain transplants, and you're in a horrible accident, and the only spare corpsicle is female, would putting your brain in a female body suddenly make you feel that you are now a female? Or would you be hoping for a male corpsicle to turn up soon?
  It's not as simple as most people make it. If it were, it would be easier for me to explain and for you to understand.
  
  --
  "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
31. Re:The fact remains... by BarbaraHudson · 2014-12-01 13:13 · Score: 1
  
  So you're going to go by definitions in dictionaries that were written a couple of centuries ago? Our understanding has changed in the last 50 years.
  Chromosomes don't cut it - there are animals that spontaneously change sex - even to the point of bearing offspring, when environmental conditions change - without changing their chromosomes. So your dictionary is wrong.
  And it's the male seahorse who has the babies.
  
  in terms of female, the definition is pretty straightforward: Must be capable of laying eggs or bearing offspring.
  So as far as your definition is concerned, a woman who is infertile is really a man. You should tell your mom that after she finishes menopause - she'll straighten you out :-)
  
  --
  "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
32. Re: The fact remains... by BarbaraHudson · 2014-12-01 13:17 · Score: 1
  
  Ditto. It's not a vanity article if it talks about "News for nerds, stuff that matters."
  Maybe the original griefer is Bennett and he doesn't like competition? After all, he hasn't weighed in yet :-)
  
  --
  "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
33. Re:The fact remains... by ArmoredDragon · 2014-12-01 18:59 · Score: 1
  
  So you're going to go by definitions in dictionaries that were written a couple of centuries ago? Our understanding has changed in the last 50 years.
  That's very much incorrect. Both of these dictionaries are routinely updated. In fact Merriam-Webster has a series of videos they published recently that describe the processes they go through to determine when to add words, when to add new definitions, when to revise definitions, and when to remove (or rather, mark as archaic) old ones. They're actually pretty interesting to watch.
  
  Chromosomes don't cut it - there are animals that spontaneously change sex - even to the point of bearing offspring, when environmental conditions change - without changing their chromosomes. So your dictionary is wrong.
  I didn't make any such claim, so you can put away your straw man. If you want to have a rational debate, then don't try to spin my statements in a direction I never sent them.
  
  So as far as your definition is concerned, a woman who is infertile is really a man. You should tell your mom that after she finishes menopause - she'll straighten you out :-)
  Very very false. Menopause is merely the state of a female having depleted their supply of eggs, however all of the reproductive functions remain intact and they very much CAN bear children. Case in point:
  http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/he...
34. Re:The fact remains... by ArmoredDragon · 2014-12-01 19:06 · Score: 1
  
  And BTW, I'm not trying to be hostile against transgender (I've only ever been hostile towards one who came on to me knowing fully well that I'm straight. It's just an attempt at deception, plain and simple.) They can swing whatever way they want, and so long as it isn't mine, I'm fine with it.
  BUT, I'm also a no BS kinda guy. A spade is a spade.
35. Re:The fact remains... by ArmoredDragon · 2014-12-01 22:24 · Score: 1
  
  "It" in this context is just referring to the this particular case, and not to a person, hence it's gender neutral, as English permits. I don't know whether or not English is your first language, but unlike many languages there's no requirement to specify gender in English, especially in gender neutral objects.
36. Re:The fact remains... by tehcyder · 2014-12-02 00:48 · Score: 1
  
  No, you're wrong. You can use "it" to refer to an object, but not a person. It's just rude.
  The first "it" is different as it was used like "it is raining". The repetition of "it" was clearly deliberate, to enable a dig at a trans-gendered person.
  There's no point trying to weasel out of it, we get that you don't like the idea of trans-gender.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
37. Re:The fact remains... by blackomegax · 2014-12-02 02:37 · Score: 1
  
  A trans woman hitting on you does not in any way violate your...straight pride.
38. Re:The fact remains... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-02 03:41 · Score: 0
  
  P S Y C H O
39. Re:The fact remains... by BarbaraHudson · 2014-12-02 07:09 · Score: 1
  
  You claimed that "in terms of female, the definition is pretty straightforward: Must be capable of laying eggs or bearing offspring."
  So male animals that can change to females and bear offspring depending on the environment are now females according to your definition - even though their chromosomes have not changed.
  And what about women who are infertile? They can't lay eggs or bear offspring. According to your "straightforward definition", they're men.
  
  --
  "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
40. Re:The fact remains... by BarbaraHudson · 2014-12-02 07:11 · Score: 1
  
  The problem is when he hits on a woman, and she says, BTW, I used to be a guy, and he gets all phobic.
  
  --
  "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
41. Re:The fact remains... by tibit · 2014-12-02 08:33 · Score: 1
  
  Menopause is merely the state of a female having depleted their supply of eggs
  /facepalm
  Just stop.
  
  --
  A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
42. Re:The fact remains... by ArmoredDragon · 2014-12-02 08:57 · Score: 1
  
  Do you have proof of that?
  I would think so...he did have kids, after all.
  
  Well, there we go - we now have proof that I was born with a female brain.
  Partially, but not exactly. MRI scans have found that some transgender people can have a single marker (white matter content) more in common with the opposite sex. But other than that, throughout their entire lives their brain is anatomically identifiable with that of their birth gender. In your particular case, that would actually help with that one trait.
  
  The feelings of being the other gender come from the brain, not anywhere else. Please consider this: If you were in an accident that amputated your "package", would you not continue to insist that you are still a male, because your brain tells you so? Now let's go a step further - if in the future we can do brain transplants, and you're in a horrible accident, and the only spare corpsicle is female, would putting your brain in a female body suddenly make you feel that you are now a female? Or would you be hoping for a male corpsicle to turn up soon?
  After all of the medical shit I've been through (presently a candidate for kidney transplant) I've learned it's best not to consider worst case scenarios, otherwise you develop really bad anxiety, which only complicates things further.
  
  It's not as simple as most people make it. If it were, it would be easier for me to explain and for you to understand.
  I understand fully. In your mind you are what you believe you are. "I think therefore I am." But as I mentioned earlier, I'm a hard, cold, no BS, gas-tank-half-empty realist. Perhaps I should use another case so you can better understand my perspective:
  Dennis Avner, who went by the name Stalking Cat, believed that he really was a cat, enough to the point where he surgically altered his body to look even more like one.
  From your perspective, so long as he believed he's a cat, then he was very much a cat, and it's good because it makes him happy and feel good to be secure in that belief.
  From my perspective, he was a man who modified his body to look like a cat, and wanted to believe he was one, and it may have made him happy to believe that. But at the end of the day he was still a man.
43. Re:The fact remains... by ArmoredDragon · 2014-12-02 09:05 · Score: 1
  
  You claimed that "in terms of female, the definition is pretty straightforward: Must be capable of laying eggs or bearing offspring."
  So male animals that can change to females and bear offspring depending on the environment are now females according to your definition - even though their chromosomes have not changed.
  And what about women who are infertile? They can't lay eggs or bear offspring. According to your "straightforward definition", they're men.
  I never said they were men if they couldn't bear offspring. Besides, infertile women usually are just missing one or two elements but can otherwise bear children.
44. Re:The fact remains... by ArmoredDragon · 2014-12-02 09:11 · Score: 1
  
  Context.
  While there are hormonal changes too, those don't necessarily inhibit reproduction, and that change alone doesn't prevent bearing children as women during or post menopause CAN get pregnant.
  GP was referring to being post menopause WITHOUT the ability to bear children, in which case the depletion of eggs is the showstopper, hence my comment.
45. Re:The fact remains... by BarbaraHudson · 2014-12-02 10:35 · Score: 1
  
  The stalking cat story reminds me of all the people who say "What if you believed that one of your legs wasn't really yours? Should it be amputated just because you have this belief?"
  The answer to that is very simple - we don't have a hundreds of thousands of people who believe that one of their legs is alien to their body. We do have hundreds of thousands of transsexuals. Even the APA now admits that being transsexual is not, in itself, a mental disorder, 40 years after giving the same treatment to gays and lesbians.
  There are about 2,500 m2f reassignments per year just on us citiizens. Given that there are just under 4 million births per year in the US, that gives about 2 million boys born per year. So we're already looking at ratios of 1 in 1000 or more who will eventually opt for m2f srs - and some estimates put the number as low as 1:500 due to ever-increasing access and changing levels of acceptance creating a "cascade" effect.
  We're everywhere, so it's not the same as Dennis Avner. It's pretty much sure that if you haven't been living in a cave, you've met some of us and used what we consider as correct pronouns - Miss, Misses, Ms, Madame - without realizing it.
  I'm more than my chromosomes - and so is everyone else. Genes express themselves in different ways and people develop in different ways.
  And good luck with the kidneys. This summer it looked like I might have had to donate one.
  
  --
  "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
46. Re:The fact remains... by BarbaraHudson · 2014-12-02 10:56 · Score: 1
  
  This is exactly what you said: "in terms of female, the definition is pretty straightforward: Must be capable of laying eggs or bearing offspring."
  This would exclude infertile women.
  So now, when you say "infertile women usually are just missing one or two elements but can otherwise bear children.", you know that the same applies to biological males - we're even working on womb transplants, as per one of my submissions that made it to the front page. John Brunner, in "Stand on Zanzibar" figured out that, with appropriate medical care, it would be possible to raise a foetus in a male by letting it embed in the abdominal cavity and attach to the large intestine for the blood supply. Successful abdominal pregnancies have already happened to women, so a womb isn't necessary.
  So all that's really needed is a donor egg and some surgery, and a transsexual woman meets your qualification of "bearing offspring" (since women don't lay eggs). And it's probably going to happen sometime soon, because the demand is there.
  The more we know, the more it challenges our "conventional wisdom."
  
  --
  "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
47. Re:The fact remains... by ArmoredDragon · 2014-12-02 14:15 · Score: 1
  
  This is exactly what you said: "in terms of female, the definition is pretty straightforward: Must be capable of laying eggs or bearing offspring."
  This would exclude infertile women.
  And also at no point did I say that makes them males. Like another poster said, (and I believe you alluded to) it isn't binary.
  
  So all that's really needed is a donor egg and some surgery, and a transsexual woman meets your qualification of "bearing offspring" (since women don't lay eggs).
  As I mentioned earlier, it still wouldn't, at least not in this context anyways. That is, if you're trying to say that this is a credit to female game developers, I'd still respond in the negative.
48. Re:The fact remains... by ArmoredDragon · 2014-12-02 14:32 · Score: 1
  
  The stalking cat story reminds me of all the people who say "What if you believed that one of your legs wasn't really yours? Should it be amputated just because you have this belief?"
  I suppose I'd be one of those that say no, as I actually know of people who have gone through that. A few of them have succeeded in having limbs amputated, and report being mentally healthier after the fact.
  Still though, the status quo in modern medicine says amputation is unethical, and I agree. I think a better solution would be any that retains any existing bodily function. I hold the same view on SRS surgeries, but not anything else (e.g. crossdressing.) But apparently I'm not alone. I remember seeing a documentary about it, and one of the surgeons who performs those surgeries said he'd prefer any solution that avoids surgery.
  
  The answer to that is very simple - we don't have a hundreds of thousands of people who believe that one of their legs is alien to their body. We do have hundreds of thousands of transsexuals. Even the APA now admits that being transsexual is not, in itself, a mental disorder, 40 years after giving the same treatment to gays and lesbians.
  We don't really know that though. There could be a lot more like him but won't go through with it because *most* medical professionals will refuse to do these kinds of things, not only that but few of them will have familial support. Also (and I'm not equating this) there are probably a sizable number of people that are into bestiality as well, but don't say anything about it. If you do a google search for them, you'll find forums and such dedicated to it, but try asking any of them if they're out to anybody or open about it. Probably 99.99% of them will answer in the negative.
  Similar to you however (and again, I need to stress that I'm not equating) they also seem to believe that what they're doing is good, natural, and indeed their "partners" enjoy it too so there's nothing wrong with it. (And I honestly don't know whether or not they enjoy it. If they do, and nobody is getting hurt, then I guess there's nothing wrong with it, and it wouldn't bother me if I knew anybody who did.) Gays and transexuals denounce them however just how they themselves have been denounced in the past.
49. Re:The fact remains... by ArmoredDragon · 2014-12-02 14:33 · Score: 1
  
  Also in addition to what I said, just because there are fewer of them, doesn't make them any less important.
50. Re:The fact remains... by BarbaraHudson · 2014-12-02 15:00 · Score: 1
  
  As I mentioned earlier, it still wouldn't, at least not in this context anyways.
  Why, Your definition was exactly this:
  
  "in terms of female, the definition is pretty straightforward: Must be capable of laying eggs or bearing offspring."
  The reason that chromosomal testing was dropped from the Olympics was a series of embarrassments, including ruling that one woman who later gave birth was a man. More on the history of genetic testing and why it is not authoritative.
  So, given that it is now theoretically possible for a male-to-female transsexual to bear offspring via a transplanted ovum embedded in the abdomen and give birth by c-section, why can't you just admit that your definition is too limited?
  We've known for a long time that sex starts and ends in the brain. Why not admit that gender is the same thing?
  
  --
  "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
51. Re:The fact remains... by BarbaraHudson · 2014-12-02 15:11 · Score: 1
  
  there are probably a sizable number of people that are into bestiality as well, but don't say anything about it. If you do a google search for them, you'll find forums and such dedicated to it, but try asking any of them if they're out to anybody or open about it. Probably 99.99% of them will answer in the negative. ...
  ... Gays and transexuals denounce them however just how they themselves have been denounced in the past.
  It's not just the LGBTt who denounce bestiality. Where's the informed consent of the animal? Your comparison is ludicrous.
  On another note, transsexualism is so main-stream that when I tell someone, it's like "Oh, okay." That includes doctors, nurses, and neighbors. And they all refer to me as female. The few who don't are family (you can pick your friends, but you can't pick your family) and some idiot that tried to get me to stop pointing out the illegality of a development project at a public meeting - and he had to take out paid display ads in the main news sections of the two largest newspapers apologizing.
  
  --
  "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
52. Re:The fact remains... by BarbaraHudson · 2014-12-02 15:15 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, it does make them less important if you're talking about statistical behaviors to define "normal." 1:1000 (or the newer stat of 1:500) is a lot more normal than 1:1,000,000,000.
  Wen getting struck by lightning is not as rare, it's simply not normal.
  
  --
  "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
53. Re:The fact remains... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-02 15:46 · Score: 0
  
  Disparities in how certain brain substances are distributed may be more revealing. Notably, male brains contain about 6.5 times more gray matter -- sometimes called 'thinking matter" -- than women. Female brains have more than 9.5 times as much white matter, the stuff that connects various parts of the brain, than male brains
  WebMD should be ashamed for misrepresenting the research. According to the study, men don't have "6.5 times more gray matter" than women, they have 6.5 times more of their grey matter associated with general intelligence than women. Women have 9.5 times more of their white matter associated with general intelligence than men.
54. Re:The fact remains... by ArmoredDragon · 2014-12-02 22:13 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, it does make them less important if you're talking about statistical behaviors to define "normal." 1:1000 (or the newer stat of 1:500) is a lot more normal than 1:1,000,000,000.
  Wen getting struck by lightning is not as rare, it's simply not normal.
  In that case you'd be even more discriminating than I am. What is normal? I honestly don't have a definition of normal. To me there are definitions that either include you or exclude you. For example if your hair is red then you're a redhead, if not then you're not. However just because you're not a redhead doesn't mean you have brown hair.
55. Re:The fact remains... by ArmoredDragon · 2014-12-02 22:18 · Score: 1
  
  It's not just the LGBTt who denounce bestiality. Where's the informed consent of the animal? Your comparison is ludicrous.
  There was a BBC documentary about it a while back. I believe the consent (to them) came from the animals showing signs of enjoyment that they normally showed during sex with their own species. That and I think if the larger animals didn't want to participate, they certainly have the power to refuse.
56. Re:The fact remains... by ArmoredDragon · 2014-12-02 22:24 · Score: 1
  
  Why, Your definition was exactly this:
  Reread the bottom sentence of that post if you would please.
  
  We've known for a long time that sex starts and ends in the brain. Why not admit that gender is the same thing?
  And we also know that male and female brains are anatomically different. In transexuals, there's only ever been one marker that varies, which is the white matter. However size and overall anatomy remain the same.
57. Re:The fact remains... by BarbaraHudson · 2014-12-03 02:31 · Score: 1
  
  So if a muscular 12-year-old girl is lured into having sex with her teacher (someone in a position of authority, same as a human wrt an animal) and she actually enjoys it (in part because she's thinking that by following her teacher she's doing the right thing) that's okay because she "showed signs of enjoyment"? And that she should have run away instead because "she was certainly capable"?
  These excuses have been used by paedophiles in court. They don't work because there was effectively no consent. That you don't see a problem with this is disturbing.
  
  --
  "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
58. Re:The fact remains... by BarbaraHudson · 2014-12-03 03:01 · Score: 1
  
  What is normal? I honestly don't have a definition of normal.
  Try your 19th-century dictionary, since you won't accept modern sources. Strange how you can't find your dictionary all of a sudden and have to come up with such a lame counterpoint.
  
  --
  "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
59. Re:The fact remains... by DrGamez · 2014-12-03 10:05 · Score: 0
  
  What the fuck is wrong with you?
60. Re:The fact remains... by Zontar+The+Mindless · 2014-12-03 16:30 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not only a native speaker, I'm a writer and editor with about 20 years of experience.
  It's never proper to refer to a human person as "it"... Unless your intent is to dehumanise, of course.
  
  --
  Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
61. Re:The fact remains... by tibit · 2014-12-04 08:12 · Score: 1
  
  > the depletion of eggs is the showstopper
  That line is repeated over and over but it's IMHO very much misleading. There are hundreds of thousands of eggs available at the time the first period rolls over. It's not as if they just disappear at a ratio of roughly a thousand eggs lost per every ovulation. Nothing gets depleted, AFAIK. A woman simply doesn't ovulate as often, and eventually she doesn't ovulate at all. Plenty of eggs are still there, IIRC.
  
  --
  A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
62. Re:The fact remains... by dosius · 2014-12-09 19:17 · Score: 1
  
  How about people with androgen insensitivity? Genetically male (XY) physically female.
  
  --
  What you hear in the ear, preach from the rooftop Matthew 10.27b
Yes another developer lead down the path .... by cold+fjord · 2014-11-30 12:12 · Score: 5, Insightful

FTA:

Firstly, this was the product of ten intense weeks of work due to the fact that I was misled about the state of the port when I was offered the project. I was told that there was a version in existance with new levels, weapons and features and it only needed "polishing" and optimization to hit the market. After numerous requests for this version, I found out that there was no such thing and that Art Data Interactive was under the false impression that all anyone needed to do to port a game from one platform to another was just to compile the code and adding weapons was as simple as dropping in the art.
I'm starting to think that as a developer the automatic assumption should be that you are being hired for a death march unless there is strong evidence to the contrary.

--
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
1. Re:Yes another developer lead down the path .... by Joe_Dragon · 2014-11-30 12:19 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  yet more on why unions as needed
2. Re:Yes another developer lead down the path .... by MasseKid · 2014-11-30 12:57 · Score: 2
  
  What makes you think this is unique to developers?
3. Re:Yes another developer lead down the path .... by cold+fjord · 2014-11-30 12:58 · Score: 2
  
  Didn't say that it was, but you may note the subject of the story.
  
  --
  much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
4. Re:Yes another developer lead down the path .... by ArchieBunker · 2014-11-30 13:01 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Ask all those steel workers how their union is going. Oh wait we don't have any steel workers anymore because they priced themselves out of a job.
  
  --
  Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
5. Re:Yes another developer lead down the path .... by rockout · 2014-11-30 13:48 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Another over-simplified common argument from someone that doesn't know anything about unions, just knows that they don't like them, because, uh... Ayn Rand! or something.
  Steelworker jobs disappeared as a result of automation. One quick example that you can find in 5 seconds of googling:
  
  “When I joined the company, it had 28,000 employees,” said George Ranney, a former executive at Inland Steel, an Indiana mill that was bought out by ArcelorMittal in 1998. “When I left, it had between 5,000 and 6,000. We were making the same amount of steel, 5 million tons a year, with higher quality and lower cost.”
  But keep spreading that myth of "unions=job loss". They're lapping it up in the red states. Amazing how so many middle-class people will vote against their own self-interests.
  
  --
  I've learned that they're worthless, so I don't read AC comments anymore.
6. Re:Yes another developer lead down the path .... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-30 13:55 · Score: 0
  
  Better than being killed on the job.
7. Re:Yes another developer lead down the path .... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-30 15:09 · Score: 0
  
  Here is a pretty clear example of how "unions = job loss"
  Daewoo Motor Is Declared Bankrupt After Unions Reject Restructuring
  http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB973648653391875821
8. Re:Yes another developer lead down the path .... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-30 15:54 · Score: 0
  
  Ask all those steel workers how their union is going. Oh wait we don't have any steel workers anymore because they priced themselves out of a job.
  Or all of the union workers that worked for Hostess. WE DEMAND MORE MONEY!!!! Oh, ok well we can't afford to pay you more, if we have to we will go out of business. WE WANT MORE OR ELSE WE WILL CONTINUE TO STRIKE! OK, out of business it is then... enjoy not having a paycheck AT ALL let alone more money.
9. Re:Yes another developer lead down the path .... by TubeSteak · 2014-11-30 17:38 · Score: 1
  
  Ask all those steel workers how their union is going. Oh wait we don't have any steel workers anymore because they priced themselves out of a job.
  Yea, I bet it had nothing to do with China dumping ore and finished steel products on global markets.
  It's not like the USA and other countries have spent over a decade suing China via the WTO over their steel exports.
  And it probably had nothing to do with the growth of lower fixed-cost just-in-time minimills that took over half the market.
  Or we can go with your union worker theory.
  
  --
  [Fuck Beta]
  o0t!
10. Re:Yes another developer lead down the path .... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-30 18:37 · Score: 0
  
  No. He's right...you're wrong.
11. Re:Yes another developer lead down the path .... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-30 20:17 · Score: 0
  
  . Oh wait we don't have any steel workers anymore because they priced themselves out of slavery.
  FTFY
12. Re:Yes another developer lead down the path .... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-01 02:24 · Score: 0
  
  we already know why corners were cut, because it was a pc game that they were trying to bring to a console. all consoles have utterly shit hardware and only idiots play them, so everything needs to be reduced in quality and dumbed down so the low IQ masses can handle it.
13. Re:Yes another developer lead down the path .... by jasenj1 · 2014-12-01 06:07 · Score: 1
  
  I was told that there was a version in existance with new levels, weapons and features and it only needed "polishing" and optimization to hit the market. After numerous requests for this version, I found out that there was no such thing and that Art Data Interactive was under the false impression that all anyone needed to do to port a game from one platform to another was just to compile the code and adding weapons was as simple as dropping in the art.
  
  I would have quit or renegotiated, not death marched to finish on time. It sounds like the client clearly misrepresented the amount of work to be done - either through ignorance, incompetence, or malice. None of which is my problem as the contracted programmer. Maybe I don't understand how these sorts of gigs work being I'm salaried at a large company. If someone hires me to do X amount of work in Y time for Z money, and it turns out I have to do 2X work because of their misrepresentation of the situation, why would I death march to do that? If I were getting a percentage of revenue and expected a big payout if I made a deadline (in time for Christmas), I probably would. But as a flat-fee gig, no? Perhaps there's a "passion" and "pride" factor involved. Anyone care to enlighten me?
Neat, thanks by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-30 12:17 · Score: 2, Informative

It's interesting just to look at the overall organization of the code, although relatively few will probably invest hours in getting to know it well.
I noticed that the source code is released under the MIT license, but the submitter/coder also points out the DOOM 3DO IP is owned by ZeniMax, who retains exclusive rights. I assume that applies to names, trademarks, and graphics only.
1. Re:Neat, thanks by Luthair · 2014-12-01 03:10 · Score: 1
  
  I question whether the author has any right to release it at all. Sounds like it was done as a work for hire thus she doesn't doesn't own the copyright.
IBM and HP, please release the source! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-30 12:18 · Score: 2, Interesting

While this code is historically important, and its release is excellent news, I would like to see larger companies like IBM and HP release code to old versions of useful or widely used products.
I would love it if HP would release the source code to older versions of HP-UX, Tru64 UNIX, and older Digital software.
I would also love it if IBM would release the source code to older versions of AIX, DB2, Informix, the Lotus products, and so on and so forth.
This source code would be great to have available due to its historical significance, because it was the software powering some of the most critical business systems in the world.
1. Re:IBM and HP, please release the source! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-30 12:20 · Score: -1
  
  Cool story, brah.
2. Re:IBM and HP, please release the source! by _merlin · 2014-11-30 12:50 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  The trouble is there's so much cross-licensing and license pollution involved. No-one would know for sure whether a codebase contains something licensed in a way that prevents them from redistributing it in source code form. Well, IBM might, but I wouldn't expect anyone else to.
3. Re:IBM and HP, please release the source! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-30 13:12 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Chances are there's too much buried and forgotten in any decades-proprietary OS that would make any company nervous about releasing the source code at this late date, and that would apply to Windows, OS/2 and Mac OS 9 as well. Somebody could come out of the woodwork and start filing lawsuits.
  Not to mention the SCO courtroom shenanigans surrounding the murky tale of the opening of the Unix IP in stages over four (!) decades. Nobody wants to risk revisiting that.
4. Re:IBM and HP, please release the source! by ArsonSmith · 2014-11-30 17:01 · Score: 2
  
  I worked at Motorola about 10 years ago on a team that was just there to keep old applications written in the 80s and 90s around so that when non-upgraded customers wanted changes they could pay through the nose for us to dig up their applications and make changes. This was big money for Motorola and I guess the customers thought it was better than going through the upgrades.
  
  --
  Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
5. Re:IBM and HP, please release the source! by TubeSteak · 2014-11-30 17:41 · Score: 1
  
  Copyright (c) 2014 Olde Skuul, id Software and ZeniMax Media
  Does this mean Miss Heineman got id Software and ZeniMax onboard with releasing the source for the 3D0 port?
  
  --
  [Fuck Beta]
  o0t!
6. Re:IBM and HP, please release the source! by jones_supa · 2014-11-30 19:07 · Score: 1
  
  I guess that's how we should interpret it. I don't see her talking about asking for a permission, though.
7. Re:IBM and HP, please release the source! by _merlin · 2014-11-30 19:09 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, she would have needed to obtain redistribution rights for the source code from all copyright holders.
8. Re:IBM and HP, please release the source! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-01 04:35 · Score: 1
  
  I dunno. I worked on a joint project once w/ IBM, and our (my employer's)
  source files kept coming back with our copyrights removed and IBM copyrights
  installed.
  I kept our lawyers informed, but I wouldn't trust IBM any more than joe schmoe.
Can't blame him/her by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-30 12:28 · Score: -1

If I had 10 weeks to port Doom to the 3DO I would have cut my dick off too
1. Re:Can't blame him/her by BarbaraHudson · 2014-11-30 12:47 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  If I had 10 weeks to port Doom to the 3DO I would have cut my dick off too
  Please, don't let that stop you!
  At least this way you won't be as much of a dick :-)
  
  --
  "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
2. Re:Can't blame him/her by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-30 13:29 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  In case people are missing it:
  In the book "Masters of Doom" about the formation and early years of Id Software, there was a character mentioned called Burger Bill, who had a penchant for nibbling on an old cheeseburger he kept in his desk draw.
  I remember reading in the comments on a story here years ago that Burger Bill was now Burger Becky, who it seems is the person who did this port.
3. Re:Can't blame him/her by haruchai · 2014-11-30 14:28 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  You're correct - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...
  S/he was born William Salvador Heineman
  
  --
  Pain is merely failure leaving the body
4. Re:Can't blame him/her by Cito · 2014-11-30 15:47 · Score: 1
  
  3DO programming causes loss of testosterone, any resemblance of manliness and a compulsion to cut your dick off.
  He probably went "nuts" at 3DO, Doom was the final straw
  He'd never realize he dun goofed, consequences will never be same.
5. Re:Can't blame him/her by TheMiddleRoad · 2014-11-30 17:29 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  But he'd still be a complete asshole.
6. Re:Can't blame him/her by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-30 18:29 · Score: 0
  
  In April 2001, she began writing novels based on Sailor Moon, Ranma 1/2, The Terminator, Ace Ventura and Independence Day.[4]
  In November 2003, she was diagnosed with gender identity disorder[5] and began transitioning to a woman.[6]
  I wonder why it took them 2 extra years to diagnose it...
7. Re:Can't blame him/her by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-30 23:32 · Score: 0
  
  this post strongly indicates that Cito is lame, stupid and short-dicked.
8. Re:Can't blame him/her by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-30 23:57 · Score: 0
  
  Lesbians have a sense of humor, dykes do not. Now we know which one you are.
9. Re:Can't blame him/her by AmiMoJo · 2014-12-01 00:34 · Score: -1, Troll
  
  It's pretty insulting to write "s/he", you know? I'll probably get berated for stating this, and I'm not implying malice on your part, but it's one of those things that people have persistently used to undermine trans-gender people.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
10. Re:Can't blame him/her by BarbaraHudson · 2014-12-01 02:39 · Score: 1
  
  Lesbians have a sense of humor, dykes do not. Now we know which one you are.
  The fallacy of the false dichotomy strikes again :-)
  
  --
  "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
11. Re:Can't blame him/her by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-01 03:10 · Score: 1
  
  Not everyone is forced to accept trans-gender people, we live in a free world where everyone can have their own opinions.
  I refer to any transgender woman as a "he", because it is a man with breasts, which still thinks like a man.
  
  For me a guy that tries to becomes a woman is nothing but trying a cop-out, usually nerds or other social failures who had no chance with women, so they decide to become one of them. Then this was masqueraded as a disorder, possibly because enough guys cried about wanting to be a woman.
  
  Show me a example of a man that was sucessful and popular before changing gender into a woman and I'll rethink my stance.
12. Re:Can't blame him/her by Serenissima · 2014-12-01 05:55 · Score: 1
  
  The fallacy of the false dick-otomy strikes again :-)
  Considering how the thread started, I FTFY :)
  
  --
  Give a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day. But light a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
13. Re:Can't blame him/her by BarbaraHudson · 2014-12-01 06:21 · Score: 1
  
  That's pretty funny, especially since it's healthier for an m2f to have a "dick-otomy" than to be stuck with 2 rocks and a hard place :-)
  Try the fish.
  
  --
  "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
14. Re:Can't blame him/her by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-01 09:09 · Score: 0
  
  Aren't you the psycho who cut his nuts + cock off trying to be a woman? You never will be a real woman, lunatic.
15. Re:Can't blame him/her by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-01 15:33 · Score: 0
  
  I'll just leave this here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
16. Re:Can't blame him/her by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-03 19:02 · Score: 0
  
  Sophie Wilson
Unions, a case study. by SuperKendall · 2014-11-30 12:29 · Score: 3, Insightful

Result before unions:
Sometimes programmers hired on death marches, feel free to leave and find better work.
Result after unions:
All programming now inherently a death march because unskilled "coders" most senior members of any team, cannot be fired and also direct architecture.
Leaving a job where the petty minded rulers feel like you slighted them means you will never work as a coder again because other union shops are told not to work with you.

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
1. Re:Unions, a case study. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-30 12:36 · Score: 0
  
  Yea, cause that is totally how unions work.
  Not that I agree that software devs need a union (nor that most professional jobs need unions) but nice anti-workers rhetoric you got going there you shill (or are you just a temporarily embarrassed millionaire?)
2. Re:Unions, a case study. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-30 12:45 · Score: 1
  
  Sometimes reality sucks. I worked some blue-collar jobs over summers during college and that's pretty close.
3. Re:Unions, a case study. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-30 12:51 · Score: 0
  
  I thought he did a good job describing unions positive aspects.
4. Re:Unions, a case study. by Weirsbaski · 2014-11-30 13:13 · Score: 2
  
  Result after unions:
  ...
  ... where the petty minded rulers feel like you slighted them means you will never work as a coder again because other union shops are told not to work with you
  
  What's this have to do with unions? Do non-union industries have some mystical property that makes hiring-managers inherently non-petty?
  
  --
  
  I am not a sig.
5. Re:Unions, a case study. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-30 13:15 · Score: 0
  
  Superkendall's got a partisan axe to grind.
6. Re:Unions, a case study. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-30 13:20 · Score: 0
  
  As do a bunch of the ACs.
7. Re:Unions, a case study. by dreamchaser · 2014-11-30 13:33 · Score: 2
  
  I believe the reference is to union leaders, not managers. In most cases managers are not union members.
8. Re:Unions, a case study. by 0100010001010011 · 2014-11-30 13:43 · Score: 2
  
  All programming now inherently a death march because unskilled "coders" most senior members of any team, cannot be fired and also direct architecture.
  You do realize that you can create your own union however you want. Make it easy to fire bad coders. The problems you listed are pretty specific to the UAW and government job unions. Look at German Unions. Everyone is in a union over there.
  Model the union however you want when you create it.
9. Re:Unions, a case study. by Kleebner · 2014-11-30 14:10 · Score: 1
  
  (or are you just a temporarily embarrassed millionaire?)
  Yeah, that is the answer. Everyone who disagrees with you is just a delusional fool.
10. Re:Unions, a case study. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-30 14:26 · Score: 0
  
  Funny, that's now how it works where I'm employed as a union programmer. Guess you must be in bad place cause there's better out there.
11. Re:Unions, a case study. by gl4ss · 2014-11-30 15:17 · Score: 1
  
  actually that's precisely how unions work in development industries.
  you guys fucking think that there hasn't been instances where unions have been in use in mainly software development companies? take a look at Nokia, it was a BIG company in Finland. so big, that they had an effective union, ended up with long severance pays and so forth. Protection from death marches? maybe for most of the internal engineers who ended up doing nothing while waiting to get laid off while all critical work ended up being done by people from outside.
  btw. the union rules and all that don't do jack all shit to protect against death march coding, unless you say no to silly overtime. only thing I can recommend is to not take a lump sum of pay model if you don't know exactly what the work is going to be - so get on a daily salary and let the company be fucked if the managing for the projects timewise is fucked(but then you might miss on a big pay on a project that ends up being small work. but that never ever happens anyways.).
  
  --
  world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
12. Re:Unions, a case study. by mjwx · 2014-11-30 17:59 · Score: 1
  
  Result before unions:
  
  Sometimes programmers hired on death marches, feel free to leave and starve as every employer was abusing their workers.
  There, fixed that for you.
  
  It's amazing how some people forget how things were before labour unionism was a thing.
  
  Hell, back in the good old days, some companies paid you in company money that could only be spent at a company store with prices that were set by the company (and if you didn't have enough company money which was normal, you could borrow some from the company bank which means you needed to work longer to pay back the company for the company money you owe).
  
  --
  Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
13. Re:Unions, a case study. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-30 23:04 · Score: 0
  
  It will be difficult to unionize professional developers because, in general, they are more educated than the traditional unionized laborer.
14. Re:Unions, a case study. by tehcyder · 2014-12-01 21:51 · Score: 1
  
  Comments like this make me remember why unions were invented in the first place.
  Yes, some awesome precious snowflakes can flit around quite as easily from enormously well paid job to enormously well paid job.
  Meanwhile, the other 99.9% of the workforce get shat on by the owners.
  I'm afraid the unlimited freedom of a few people doesn't matter more to me than the general well being of the vast majority.
  Socialism, I know.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
15. Re:Unions, a case study. by tehcyder · 2014-12-02 00:11 · Score: 1
  
  It will be difficult to unionize professional developers because, in general, they are more educated than the traditional unionized laborer.
  Being highly trained as a code producing money monkey doesn't make you well educated.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
HP-UX by SuperKendall · 2014-11-30 12:35 · Score: 2

I had some opportunity to work with HP-UX (built GnuMake on it for a in-company build/QA system), it was always an interesting and very different beast. Is it still around in any form?

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
1. Re:HP-UX by Guy+Harris · 2014-11-30 12:46 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  I had some opportunity to work with HP-UX (built GnuMake on it for a in-company build/QA system), it was always an interesting and very different beast. Is it still around in any form?
  Yes.
2. Re: HP-UX by Zeromous · 2014-11-30 14:44 · Score: 1
  
  yes I still run hpux.
  
  --
  ---Up Up Down Down Left Right Left Right B A START
IB4 Michael Hardy by Nyder · 2014-11-30 12:37 · Score: 3, Informative

http://youfailit.net/?p=49
My guess is this guy will start selling this game, claiming he programmed it, and a 3DO emulator source he'll also claim as he did.

--
Be seeing you...
1. Re:IB4 Michael Hardy by 0xdeaddead · 2014-11-30 13:16 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  all the domains in that thread are gone. does that guy even exist anymore?
2. Re:IB4 Michael Hardy by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-30 13:40 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Why is this rated Troll?
  It may be unlikely that the individual named in that series of articles will actually rip-off this project, but I found the articles to be "Informative", even if it's "Off-topic".
  Now, slightly-more on-topic (but not really), and in a more positive tone: Ms. Heineman, thank you for releasing this. And thank you as well for Bard's Tale III. I spent many hours watching my father play it during my youth. Many fond memories there... (Except for the memories of trying to figure out that we needed the Rainbow Dragon's blood. :) )
Anti-worker would mean against, not for... by SuperKendall · 2014-11-30 12:54 · Score: 5, Insightful

Yea, cause that is totally how unions work.
Reply modeled after real world examples, including Teachers Unions.
If you don't think any group with power over workers prevents "troublesome" workers from finding work, you are simply naive.
nice anti-workers rhetoric
What could be more pro-worker than protecting workers from predation? Being anti-union is inherantly being for the workers, not the overseers.
I forgot to add the third aspect of "after union" - you make 20% less pay and your union leader lives in a mansion.
are you just a temporarily embarrassed millionaire?
A) Never be ashamed at having a strong opinion.
B) Not even close to a millionaire, temporary or otherwise. I work for a living thank you very much.

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
1. Re:Anti-worker would mean against, not for... by ArmoredDragon · 2014-11-30 13:35 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  IMO the reason unions are anti-worker is because unions work in the best interest of the union management. Take for exapmle the whole mess with Hostess where the union bosses called it a success because the workers stood their ground, even though their members were all jobless after that (but the union bosses still retained their higher paying jobs...)
  Unions are also anti-worker because most of the ones that exist today started via mafia style tactics (threatening workers who didn't join the union and pay dues with violence, in addition to threatening business owners with violence.)
  Yes, pushing for higher wages is part of their motivation, but that's only because the higher your wages, the more dues they collect from you. They don't give a shit if you're a bad employee, just so long as you're a dues paying member.
  Oh and who remembers the Obamacare provision that permitted union management to keep "Cadillac" health insurance plans while nobody else was allowed to?
2. Re:Anti-worker would mean against, not for... by rockout · 2014-11-30 13:42 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Being anti-union is inherantly being for the workers, not the overseers.
  I forgot to add the third aspect of "after union" - you make 20% less pay and your union leader lives in a mansion.
  Both of these assertions are such complete bullshit and make it obvious that your entire knowledge of unions is based on no real-world experience with them.
  Let's start with your "like teachers' unions" analogy. Right there you've equated a union in a public service job (government paycheck) with all unions, which is ridiculous. Yes, it's true that it's tougher to fire a teacher than it is to fire a McDonald's employee. It's also true that you have no clue about how private sector unions are formed, or why they're formed. Their primary purpose is not protectionism, it's to get paid more. You can't just lump all unions into one box and declare they're all evil. Are some corrupt? Yes, of course. Do people like you then erroneously believe they're all corrupt, just because you've got some right-wing dogma implanted in your Archie-Bunker-like skull? Yes, you do.
  When the people with 99% of the money dictate what you should be paid, and their decrees have nothing to do with your fair market value, because they're a near-monopoly that believes in getting workers for the absolute minimum amount possible, the only way to push back is with a union. You can't do it yourself, period. I'm in a union of freelancers (not programming or IT related, but I am a technician) and before the union was formed, the people in charge of setting the rates for freelancers had a "take it or leave it" attitude, even though their profits was very very comfortable - that didn't matter, they wanted more. Well, guess what? Us freelancers wanted more too. We got the union formed, and my day rate went up about 30% almost overnight. And was there less work as a result? Not at all. The execs and shareholders making the money are still making money, they're just making a little bit less profit than they were before. It's not like they were going to say, "Oh we were getting .26 on the dollar before, and now we're only getting .23 on the dollar.... fuck it! let's shut the whole operation down."
  Everyone wants to make more money. Unions are the only way for the workers to push back - if workers don't push back, they'll just make less and less and less over time. Take your anti-union rhetoric and toss it back to Fox News where it belongs. The real world is much more complex than the simple cliches you've trotted out.
  
  --
  I've learned that they're worthless, so I don't read AC comments anymore.
3. Re:Anti-worker would mean against, not for... by DexterIsADog · 2014-11-30 13:47 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  B) Not even close to a millionaire, temporary or otherwise. I work for a living thank you very much.
  Mmm, not to nitpick, but plenty of us who are millionaires also still work for a living. And some of us despair a little as we slide closer to retirement, knowing we will likely have to settle for a lesser lifestyle when we stop working.
4. Re: Anti-worker would mean against, not for... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-30 13:57 · Score: 0
  
  Unions are also anti-worker because most of the ones that exist today started via mafia style tactics (threatening workers who didn't join the union and pay dues with violence, in addition to threatening business owners with violence.)
5. Re:Anti-worker would mean against, not for... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-30 13:59 · Score: 0
  
  You missed the point of the term "temporarily embarrassed millionaire". As in, someone who supports policies that benefit the rich over the common folk, even though he is a common folk, because he has bought into the idea that he should be a millionaire, and could be one, if only he keeps working harder.
6. Re:Anti-worker would mean against, not for... by SuperKendall · 2014-11-30 13:59 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  When the people with 99% of the money dictate
  And you accuse me of dogma... trigger warning people!
  The Hostess example the other guy posted shows clearly enough the same thing applies when unions are in the public sector.
  It's not being inherently anti-union, it's understanding human nature. Unions are simply another kind of company that over time uses workers to maximize union income. Note I did not say union worker income... that may be a side benefit, though usually a short-lived one.
  Everyone wants to make more money. Unions are the only way for the workers to push back
  That is not at all true. You can either ask for a raise, or find somewhere else to work for more money.
  Programmers (and I include myself here) traditionally find it difficult to ask for more money, even though it can be very effective. But they don't find it very difficult at all to look for work, because there is usually a good range of choice as to where a programmer can work. So programmers have not really needed unions because getting more money is easily done, if desired...
  Which brings up another point; programmer pay is high enough usually that a union giving them more pay is seen as kind of pointless, when most feel like they make a good living already. Base pay for programming is high enough that salary is usually a secondary concern to other factors.
  Take your anti-union rhetoric and toss it back to Fox News where it belongs.
  I haven't watched Fox News pretty much ever; take your blindly applied stereotypes and your squawking parroting of talking points and bat them around the little bubble of unreality you live in.
  
  --
  "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
7. Re:Anti-worker would mean against, not for... by dbIII · 2014-11-30 14:26 · Score: 2
  
  Looks like a fun game you are playing, but after seeing dozens of such posts it's boring for the rest of us reading your roleplaying efforts pretending to be an ignorant, two dimensional reactionary that hates everything that happened ever since the British got thrown out.
  Please just be yourself and write what you think instead of pretending to be that far too stupid to breathe character you write as.
8. Re:Anti-worker would mean against, not for... by rogoshen1 · 2014-11-30 14:27 · Score: 1
  
  That mentality just reminds me of "Boxer" from Animal Farm.
9. Re:Anti-worker would mean against, not for... by AuMatar · 2014-11-30 14:41 · Score: 2
  
  Then keep working. That's what retirement is- deciding not to work anymore and live off savings, because you prefer that lifestyle with less work and less money. Since you won't be bringing in a salary anymore, that means a lesser lifestyle money-wise. When that tradeoff is worth it is up to you.
  
  --
  I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
10. Re:Anti-worker would mean against, not for... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-30 15:11 · Score: 0
  
  Please just be yourself and write what you think instead of pretending to be that far too stupid to breathe character you write as.
  Will you be going that route? Please?
11. Re: Anti-worker would mean against, not for... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-30 15:13 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Unions are also anti-worker because most of the ones that exist today started via mafia style tactics (threatening workers who didn't join the union and pay dues with violence, in addition to threatening business owners with violence.)
  You fully realize that at the time, the business owners were using violence themselves? Not to mention ignoring safety, paying in scrip, and all sorts of wonderful conduct that gets handwaved today, though if you have any doubts about the continued practices in this world, I'll sell you a ticket to Bangladesh.
12. Re:Anti-worker would mean against, not for... by rockout · 2014-11-30 15:27 · Score: 2
  
  You're right, I should've stuck with my real-world example of when unions work, and work well - which I notice you conveniently ignored.
  I'm so tired of hearing the same "squawking parroting of talking points" from anti-union types such as yourself that I let me emotions get the better of me, and sank to your level. For that, I apologize, it was the wrong road.
  However, the fact remains that a few bad unions are constantly cited by assholes as being the rule, rather than the exception, and it's just not true. You do most Americans a disservice by attempting to paint all unions with that same brush. My family and I are better off because I'm in a union. If I wasn't, you know who would be better off? Rupert Murdoch, Disney shareholders, Viacom shareholders... the list goes on. I care about their pockets exactly the same amount as they care about mine - zero. The question is, why do YOU do care that they should be making more money than they already are? Why don't I and my fellow union members, in your view, have the right to seek more profit, just like they do?
  
  --
  I've learned that they're worthless, so I don't read AC comments anymore.
13. Re:Anti-worker would mean against, not for... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-30 15:33 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Didn't Apple, Google, etc. just get busted for waging fixing and agreeing not to scalp each other's employees?
  Oh sure, when companies form organizations and agreements, it's just looking out after their own interests. When employees do it...
  And this completely ignores the conditions that makes unions look attractive in the first place, that apparently only have a very limited recourse in the law. Oh sure, you can always quit and find another job, because jobs are always plentiful, and you are like the Lone Ranger, able to wander the world, free of obligation or responsibility.
  You are little better than the people that blame guns as being inherently evil.
14. Re:Anti-worker would mean against, not for... by I'm+New+Around+Here · 2014-11-30 16:15 · Score: 1
  
  >
  are you just a temporarily embarrassed millionaire?
  A) Never be ashamed at having a strong opinion.
  B) Not even close to a millionaire, temporary or otherwise. I work for a living thank you very much.
  I've had that accusation thrown at me recently as well. It must be a new term in the college text books that vilify people who want to work for a living.
  
  --
  If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
15. Re: Anti-worker would mean against, not for... by I'm+New+Around+Here · 2014-11-30 16:18 · Score: 2
  
  Unions are also anti-worker because most of the ones that exist today started via mafia style tactics (threatening workers who didn't join the union and pay dues with violence, in addition to threatening business owners with violence.)
  You fully realize that at the time, the business owners were using violence themselves? Not to mention ignoring safety, paying in scrip, and all sorts of wonderful conduct that gets handwaved today,
  That's justification for union organizers/leaders threatening and physically attacking workers?
  
  --
  If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
16. Re: Anti-worker would mean against, not for... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-30 16:33 · Score: 0
  
  Would you prefer they continue to suffer without offering resistance then? Do you believe they had some readily available option which they refusedf to use? That is a bit hard to say from the perspective of people over a century later.
  You could ask Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, even Moses, their thoughts as well.
  The history of human interaction is not without blood and violence on many sides, for many causes, some right, some wrong. If you want to take the moral position of refusing to do harm at all, good for you. Others will choose differently.
  You can judge and condemn them if you like. But do try to acknowledge the circumstances in a more honest fashion than the grandparent post did.
17. Re: Anti-worker would mean against, not for... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-30 16:44 · Score: 0
  
  That's justification for union organizers/leaders threatening and physically attacking workers?
  That's justification for the company militia to gun down wives and children?
18. Re: Anti-worker would mean against, not for... by CodeReign · 2014-11-30 16:47 · Score: 1
  
  My mom is the head of her local employee union. I assure you the only ones getting paid enough to live in mansions are the lawyers and central committee members.
19. Re:Anti-worker would mean against, not for... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-30 17:23 · Score: 0
  
  I've had that accusation thrown at me recently as well. It must be a new term in the college text books that vilify people who want to work for a living.
  No, it's a rather old segment from a quote from John Steinbeck: "Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires."
  The notion that one wants to work for a living is great. The notion that one will become a millionaire over time from working and be able to cease working is counter to your claim, actually. If we crush the millionaires into the dirt and you'll never become a millionaire from working, then what's the direct harm to you? Right, none. There might be indirect harm, but the notion that one has to protect the poor, defenseless millionaires from the mobs that will rob them of their shirt...
  And of course it's all a strawman anyways to think socialism is at all about crushing millionaires into the dirt. Instead, it's in large part about realizing many economic truths: a millionaire is a relatively rich person by virtue of their relatively buying power to the average worker, that even a high tax rate on them will still leave them significantly more buying power than an average worker, and there's a lot of things that can be provided for by society with that tax revenue that will benefit people much more than that millionaire is ever guaranteed to do good on his/her own.
  As far back as at least Roman times it was recognized that those with money and power were indebted to society to spend their vast fortunes to do necessary social works, and so it was common and expected that what we'd consider today as common governmental functions were carried out by the wealthy and powerful who, more often were also the political leaders as well. So, their actions of philanthropy were a necessity for cities to function because the poor could not, even with all their money combined, begin to do the things the monied could do.
  Well, long ago it was also realized that those with money often eschew duty and spend their money only on their heirs or on no one. That if left to their own devices, they create dynasties that harm the people through complete domination of their lives. That the nobility or the fame of a plaque to commemorate one's effort for public good were often not nearly enough for many with money who begin to see the lack of wealth of others as a sign of their inherently subhuman status.
  To lack money, then, became a sign of vice. To be poor a sign of failing. So it's little wonder people would mentally project themselves as "temporarily embarrassed millionaires" in a country that's founded on "The American Dream".
  Yet just like Rome, whose great fortunes were mostly founded on expansionism and for which the dream may have worked for a time, the long-term state of any Empire or Nation is not built merely on hard work or even luck but most often on Old Money and the establishment of Dynasties that transcend the current government.
  The US has been somewhat sparred this because there has been repeated examples of disruptive new industries forming in the US that originated from people who could become New Money and supplant Old Money's dominance. Certainly the mindset of the possible is part of why this is true. Yet the statistics bare out how rare those sort of radical shifts occur and the scope of their effect on people directly is very small. Indirectly, it means the factory workers in one industry can produce children that will work in factory for a technology that no one even imagined viable at the child's birth--ie, the child still ends up being a factory worker in the same sort of pay job regardless.
  And to me that's the whole point of it. The marginal advantage in innovation in the US and economic activity vs other Western European countries doesn't begi
20. Re:Anti-worker would mean against, not for... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-30 17:31 · Score: 0
  
  Take for exapmle the whole mess with Hostess where the union bosses called it a success because the workers stood their ground, even though their members were all jobless after that (but the union bosses still retained their higher paying jobs...)
  Right... The union leaders made a deal with the Hostess execs and the bakers union voted against it because they thought they could do better, or maybe because what they were offered wasn't good enough regardless of whether they could do better. Either way, Hostess went out of business.
  
  The success part is about agency - the workers were in a position to make a decision regarding how they wished to work and live. Many people outside of unions don't have that opportunity. Regardless of the efficacy of that decision, the fact that they could make it is a worthwhile thing.
21. Re:Anti-worker would mean against, not for... by lgw · 2014-11-30 17:46 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Disney shareholders, Viacom shareholders... the list goes on. I care about their pockets exactly the same amount as they care about mine - zero.
  
  Why do you hate retired people? No, seriously - that's the vast majority of shareholders in the modern world. More than half of Americans own stock, usually as part of some 401k or pension plan (it was up to nearly 2/3s before the 08 collapse). The "owning class" is, well, everyone these days.
  Sure, ownership is unduly concentrated, but time and a broad interest in investing will fix that. All you have to do is buy stock, no 1%er can stop you.
  
  Why don't I and my fellow union members, in your view, have the right to seek more profit, just like they do?
  Hey, go for it, whatever. I can always sell my stock, and work elsewhere. Just don't take over an industry, that's a monopoly practice as bad as any other. I think you'll find most software developers rather enjoy the idea of meritocracy, and aren't particularly eager for a system based solely on seniority, but maybe there some group somewhere who aren't - people who think they're below average are sure to like the concept!
  
  --
  Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
22. Re: Anti-worker would mean against, not for... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-30 18:00 · Score: 0
  
  Those investment portfolios of the stock market which are the common man.s are just a way for the powers that are eating this country to get us to feed their appetites a bit more willingly on our part.
  We might be better off without them, and instead reinventing the whole system of economics.
23. Re:Anti-worker would mean against, not for... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-30 19:22 · Score: 0
  
  Fuck you! :]
24. Re:Anti-worker would mean against, not for... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-30 19:28 · Score: 0
  
  Move to Florida, Stay in my apartment! Treat us to the awesome things around here that I haven't got to experience in the 3 years I've lived here! I've spent all of that time at WORK!!! Kill me! Hire someone to kill me! Please!
25. Re: Anti-worker would mean against, not for... by ArmoredDragon · 2014-11-30 19:41 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Would you prefer they continue to suffer without offering resistance then? Do you believe they had some readily available option which they refusedf to use? That is a bit hard to say from the perspective of people over a century later.
  You could ask Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, even Moses, their thoughts as well.
  Well let's have a look at the times before modern labor unions:
  
  In the eighteenth century something approximating permanent labor organizations or trade unions were beginning to emerge from the industrialization of Great Britain. But in colonial America, as a general rule, the laborer procured the terms desired without having to combine with others. When American workers did take concerted action, it was invariably for a specific grievance and did not result in a permanent organization. The cases where master carpenters set up price scales for their trade are the exception. In certain trades, master workers combined to secure or maintain a monopoly of business operations and to prevent others from entering their trades, but such restraints were rapidly diminishing as the eighteenth century advanced. In the licensed trades, those who acted in concert were generally the employers. They combined with others in the same trade to secure better fees or prices, which were customarily regulated by local authority for the public interest. Today such combinations would be subject to antitrust laws.
  http://www.dol.gov/dol/aboutdo...
  Which by the way, this also explains why trade unions were VERY unpopular during the early years of America. Ben Franklin in particular was outspoken against them.
26. Re:Anti-worker would mean against, not for... by DNS-and-BIND · 2014-11-30 21:39 · Score: 1
  
  Wow, way to totally ignore the fact that, yes, unions are totally corrupt. Way to use the tired, outdated Archie Bunker stereotype, too - you, as an educated person, DO know he was written by a radical leftist who was deliberately trying to make him look bad?
  Deal with union corruption, you'd have a lot more credibility if you admitted your weaknesses. But no, it must not exist because its existence weakens your argument. Take your pro-union rhetoric and toss it back on campus where it belongs. The real world is much more complex than the simple cliches you've trotted out.
  
  --
  Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
27. Re:Anti-worker would mean against, not for... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-30 21:53 · Score: 0
  
  "Sure, ownership is unduly concentrated, but time and a broad interest in investing will fix that. All you have to do is buy stock, no 1%er can stop you."
  Ha ha, I know I'm a stupid AC, but you are a stupid cunt if you believe this.
  So what is it? You're stupid and honestly believe the crap you're writing, or you're pushing a set agenda for some kind of "fun" or gain?
  "time and a broad interest in investing will fix that"
  No it won't. We've already had the time (the stock market is nothing new) and it has resulted in concentration of wealth in a very small share of the population. Interest in investing will never help. Since the bottom 80% of the population only owns 7% of the wealth, even if they all took a "broad interest" and invested everything they had, it would only make a small (7% at the absolute most) change in how things currently are.
  You lgw are a fucking dick.
28. Re:Anti-worker would mean against, not for... by dywolf · 2014-12-01 01:47 · Score: 1
  
  if the union stops working towards worker interests and starts going to management interests, then its time for now management.
  so once again: its important to be involved. go to your union meetings, vote in your union elections.
  otherwise you give up control to those who do participate....very much like our public electoral process.
  you like to bring up the "threat of violence" as some sterotype, but it doesnt apply to the vast majority of unions (and no they didnt start as some mafia outfit). yet you always ignore violence and death used against striking and organizing workers. the Pinkertons were good at it. The Railroad strikes, which lasted months and were expressed as strikes and riots across the entire nation, were finally put down by the Pinkertons, police, and the Army. Many were killed. Thousands of people have died for the right to collectively negotiate, to have an equal voice in the employer/employee relationship.
  in fact, many older cities of the nation have Armories in them. you know what they were for? For putting down these worker strikes and riots and keep the workers in line.
  
  Oh and who remembers the Obamacare provision that permitted union management to keep "Cadillac" health insurance plans while nobody else was allowed to?
  No one remembers it, because it doesnt exist.
  IE, still more misinformation from you.
  you're talking about the "cadillac" tax, the tax on really expensive plans designed to create a market force to provide a strong incentive to lower premiums....
  the cadillac tax doesnt kick in til 2018. for everyone. there is no special union exemption to it.
  and its done to accomodate the need for people, union and nonunion, to renegotiate their benefits.
  you see, and you probably missed this since youre completely ignorant about unions and worker benefits in general, but benefits are negotiated with the company, and then set out in a contract. and for people who have such "cadillac" plans set out in contract, need time to renogiate. that applies to unions, and non union workers.
  
  --
  The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
29. Re: Anti-worker would mean against, not for... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-01 01:55 · Score: 0
  
  You fully realize that at the time, the business owners were using violence themselves? Not to mention ignoring safety, paying in scrip, and all sorts of wonderful conduct that gets handwaved today
  That's justification for white-collar government employee unions?
30. Re: Anti-worker would mean against, not for... by dywolf · 2014-12-01 02:26 · Score: 2
  
  again you display your ignorance.
  the old trade guilds are a very thing different thing from unions (no seriosuly, you should the difference between craft and industrial unionization).
  and ben franklin's opinion is largely irrelevent, as are the opinions of pretty anyone else in pre-industrial pre-corporate america who could nto envision how the life of a typical citizen would change. in their time, a few people would learn an actual trade, and everyone else would farm for their supper; and even many of those who were tradesmans still grew their own food.
  the agrarian/craftsmen oriented America died out in between the things you are referencing. when america industrialized and when corporations and big businesses began taking over a different america emerged. one in which industrial workers were often little more than slave labor. where people would die in factory fires because the doors were locked. one in which workers demanding rights, or better treatment, were fired. and if they organized in an attempt to get equal footing with the company, they were frequently beaten or killed. often by the government, or at least with its tacit approval. so while intimidation, and even violence against scabs did occur, far far more was done as a result of anti-labor retaliation. things like snipers randomly shooting in tent cities of strikers. brutal bands of pinkertons and other "private" agencies (basically company armies). even outright massacres.
  Companies had special armored cars with machine guns on them for dealing with strikers. No, I'm not making that up. That was considered appropriate response. Imagine if Blackwater were used for security inside the United States, and killed american citizens, and got away with it, never getting punished. That was reality back then, and few people were ever prosecuted for it.
  You think the stuff in Ferguson is a big deal, people so disillusioned and unsatisfied and distrustful of their local governemnt and police, that they no longer ascribe any sort of authority to them, allowing a state of semi-lawlessness? Now imagine that the police response was to spray bullets into the crowds. Because that's what often happened to strikers.
  1200 people treated as little more than slaves, killed by camp guards and the National Guard, in 1914. : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...
  Frank Little, organzier, pulled from his bed and lynched: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...
  1897, more coal miners killed, this time killed by the local Sherrif and his deputies, most of them shot in the back: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...
  1927, Colorado state police open fire using machine guns on strikers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...
  1920, in Montana, company gaurds open fire on strikers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...
  
  --
  The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
31. Re:Anti-worker would mean against, not for... by Bigbutt · 2014-12-01 02:49 · Score: 1
  
  if the union stops working towards worker interests and starts going to management interests, then its time for now management.
  so once again: its important to be involved. go to your union meetings, vote in your union elections.
  otherwise you give up control to those who do participate....very much like our public electoral process.
  Sounds like a HOA.
  [John]
  
  --
  Shit better not happen!
32. Re:Anti-worker would mean against, not for... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-01 03:13 · Score: 0
  
  There are many counter examples to this.... Here's one:
  One of my mom's friends is in an electricians union in New Mexico. The way they operate is a queue-like assignment to jobs. The man hasn't had work in over 2.5 years last I heard. Since he's in a union, he can't freelance. He may have been able to fight his way out of the union, but they were really the only employer in his small town. Of course, he has no income and the union still wants its monthly dues.
  Of course, this union is in direct competition to local businesses that do their own contract electrical work. I have an electrician friend that is non-union. He makes more money and is always busy.
  Unions are no panacaea.
33. Re:Anti-worker would mean against, not for... by Yunzil · 2014-12-01 03:43 · Score: 1
  
  Being anti-union is inherantly being for the workers, not the overseers.
  Are you trying for the "Dumbest Slashdot Comment of the Year" award? I commend your effort, but competition is stiff.
34. Re:Anti-worker would mean against, not for... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-01 04:16 · Score: 0
  
  You will never be one of them.
  Sucking their dicks will not earn you a seat at the table.
  You may make more money, but you're under their foot just like everyone else. The only difference is you have no soul left to sell.
  If things ever go south, your neck will be the first on the chopping block. Your're disposable. Don't ever forget that.
35. Re:Anti-worker would mean against, not for... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-01 04:25 · Score: 0
  
  If you stopped working you'd still live a comfortable life off your savings. If I stopped working, after some months I'd have to sleep in the street and beg for food, and be at high risk of dying in the short term. That's why it's not the same thing when a regular worker with no or little capital and then a millionnaire both say they are "working for a living".
36. Re:Anti-worker would mean against, not for... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-01 04:25 · Score: 0
  
  +5 Funny? Insightful would be more appropriate.
  As inflation and interest are pretty much equal, you do need a million by age 65 to retire at 50K/year. The remaining life expectancy for non-smoking, educated 65 yr olds is about 20 years.
  Of course, a lot of that money should be be in proper retirement funds, at least not in cash balance, but it should still be money with your name on it. Don't rely on promises that can be withdrawn.
37. Re: Anti-worker would mean against, not for... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-01 04:45 · Score: 0
  
  That wasn't the subject of the discussion, but if you want that, then the political gamesmanship played by the people in government has been the justification for a lot of actions, including forming representative unions.
38. Re: Anti-worker would mean against, not for... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-01 05:49 · Score: 0
  
  actually your wrong. my dad works in an electrical union and the dues are the same across the board. no matter how much you make. you get paired with what you are(ex: journeyman). which means all journeyman regardless of their salary pay the same union dues.
39. Re: Anti-worker would mean against, not for... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-01 05:49 · Score: 0
  
  You should have a look at the whole chapter on that link, and chapter 2.
  And even Ben Franklin was pointed out how he felt about the dumping of English poor on the colonies.
  You can learn from history, but try a little more discernment to improve your perspective.
40. Re:Anti-worker would mean against, not for... by ganjadude · 2014-12-01 06:07 · Score: 1
  
  You're right, I should've stuck with my real-world example of when unions work, and work well - which I notice you conveniently ignored.
  - so...are you going to provide a good example???
  
  --
  have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
41. Re:Anti-worker would mean against, not for... by Kobun · 2014-12-01 06:10 · Score: 1
  
  In my opinion, it really isn't at all positive or a success. I commented earlier about the vast cultural differences between German (& Danish & Scandinavian) unions and American unions; the Hostess story is a good example. Compare what happened with Hostess to this explanation (that does a much better job than I would do): http://www.remappingdebate.org... Given the political situation in the US, I think that to see the American system shift the US unions need to buy the companies that they staff.
42. Re:Anti-worker would mean against, not for... by lgw · 2014-12-01 07:03 · Score: 1
  
  No it won't. We've already had the time (the stock market is nothing new) and it has resulted in concentration of wealth in a very small share of the population.
  Worked for me. Can work for you. Stop making excuse and invest.
  
  ince the bottom 80% of the population only owns 7% of the wealth, even if they all took a "broad interest" and invested everything they had
  You accumulate wealth by investing, you don't accumulate wealth by magic and then invest it. The reason wealth is so concentrated is the mass investing is new, and it takes decades to grow wealth. More investing, and more understanding of wealth by more people, will certainly fix the concentration issues.
  If this is important to you, first get your own house in order before complaining about others. Discount brokers and the internet has basically leveled the playing field - more than leveled, as the broker-manged-accounts are basically a scam anyhow. It's not rocket science, it just takes patience and the determination to avoid get-rich-quick scams and advisers.
  
  --
  Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
43. Re: Anti-worker would mean against, not for... by ArmoredDragon · 2014-12-01 10:42 · Score: 2
  
  the old trade guilds are a very thing different thing from unions (no seriosuly, you should the difference between craft and industrial unionization).
  They were lamented because they attempted to create a monopoly on labor. They still attempt to do the same thing today (look at the screen actor's guild for example.)
  
  and ben franklin's opinion is largely irrelevent, as are the opinions of pretty anyone else in pre-industrial pre-corporate america who could nto envision how the life of a typical citizen would change. in their time,
  Actually corporations in his time had even more power than they do today. For example, they had the power to jail and even execute people who were in arrears, in addition to being able to raise an army and declare war. The East Indian Trading Company did all of these things in fact.
44. Re:Anti-worker would mean against, not for... by tehcyder · 2014-12-01 21:58 · Score: 1
  
  In my experience it has only ever been business owners and directors who have had the power to get rid of "troublesome" workers, because they can, you know, fire them and stuff.
  In the unlikely event that you find a firm with a closed union shop, don't forget that this can only happen with the agreement of the owners. So you as an individual might think you are more important than (a) the majority of workers and (b) those who actually own and run the company. But you're not.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
45. Re:Anti-worker would mean against, not for... by tehcyder · 2014-12-01 22:02 · Score: 1
  
  Unions are also anti-worker because most of the ones that exist today started via mafia style tactics (threatening workers who didn't join the union and pay dues with violence, in addition to threatening business owners with violence.)
  The whole history of business in the US is based on violence. The unions had to fight fire with fire. It was a bit hard to peacefully protest against gangs of armed strikebreakers.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
46. Re: Anti-worker would mean against, not for... by tehcyder · 2014-12-01 22:10 · Score: 1
  
  Unions are also anti-worker because most of the ones that exist today started via mafia style tactics (threatening workers who didn't join the union and pay dues with violence, in addition to threatening business owners with violence.)
  You fully realize that at the time, the business owners were using violence themselves? Not to mention ignoring safety, paying in scrip, and all sorts of wonderful conduct that gets handwaved today,
  That's justification for union organizers/leaders threatening and physically attacking workers?
  If there's a war going on, you generally have to choose one side or the other. If the unions were having to resist violence with violence, anyone opposing the union was on the bosses' side.
  Oddly enough, at the time unions were being fomed, the bosses didn't have much interest in paying decent wages, lowering hours and having safe working conditions unless they were forced to.
  Sometimes you have to fight for freedom against oppression. I'd have thought people from the US would appreciate this, but I suppose it's not as exciting as dreaming about overthrowing the government with machine guns because they're too "liberal" for your liking.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
47. Re:Anti-worker would mean against, not for... by tehcyder · 2014-12-01 22:38 · Score: 1
  
  So programmers have not really needed unions because getting more money is easily done, if desired...
  Well, lucky you then.
  The vast majority of people are not paid that much, and would be paid even less if there were no controls (by unions, or government) over their being exploited.
  Do you think that all the people cleaning toilets on minimum wage have the same freedoms as you do? Seriously?
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
48. Re:Anti-worker would mean against, not for... by tehcyder · 2014-12-01 22:53 · Score: 1
  
  I can always sell my stock, and work elsewhere
  "..while I drive away in my Ferrari getting a blowjob from my supermodel girlfriend..."
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
49. Re:Anti-worker would mean against, not for... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-01 23:56 · Score: 0
  
  That's a good article, but the point that I was making was that blaming this on union leaders, saying that corrupt union leaders were screwing the workers, is preposterous.
50. Re:Anti-worker would mean against, not for... by DexterIsADog · 2014-12-04 01:49 · Score: 1
  
  Then keep working. That's what retirement is- deciding not to work anymore and live off savings, because you prefer that lifestyle with less work and less money. Since you won't be bringing in a salary anymore, that means a lesser lifestyle money-wise. When that tradeoff is worth it is up to you.
  That's not really true. Many people meet the retirement financial goals so they *don't* have to give up any of the lifestyle they prefer.
  
  I still have a pretty good chance to make it. Some people are not content to settle for less.
51. Re:Anti-worker would mean against, not for... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-04 01:53 · Score: 0
  
  Well, sucks to be you, I guess.
52. Re:Anti-worker would mean against, not for... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-04 09:08 · Score: 0
  
  I could happily live the rest of my life on a fixed income. Just as long as it's fixed really high.
53. Re:Anti-worker would mean against, not for... by rockout · 2014-12-12 00:49 · Score: 1
  
  Your reading comprehension is apparently below the level required for me to have a conversation with you.
  
  --
  I've learned that they're worthless, so I don't read AC comments anymore.
Best music by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-30 12:59 · Score: 0

This port may not be the best, but it certainly had the best soundtrack of any other Doom version. As far as I know, it's the only port that actually remixes the original tunes into awesome redbook audio tracks. It sounds great.
1. Re:Best music by jones_supa · 2014-11-30 19:10 · Score: 2
  
  Here's the soundtrack in YouTube.
Wow great! It's awesome these old ports by 0xdeaddead · 2014-11-30 13:05 · Score: 2

come back out. It's interesting to compare the various ports of doom that have been released over the years.
Thanks for the hard work!
Cars got made by rsilvergun · 2014-11-30 13:07 · Score: 3, Insightful

and continue to get made well in Germany with Union Labor. Also, I'm fed up with the guys putting parts on at the assembly line getting blamed for for shitty American Cars. They just tightened the bolts people. Yes, it's hard, mind numbing work; but at the end of the day it was management going to engineering to say "Make a car _this_ cheap that we can sell for _this_ much that created shitty American Cars. Engineers just do what they're told, and Management wasn't unionized.

--
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
1. Re:Cars got made by Kobun · 2014-11-30 13:42 · Score: 2
  
  To play Devil's Advocate (just a little bit) - there are cultural differences (sometimes huge) between the USA and Germany, and a HUGE cultural difference between their respective labor unions. There may be more to a German car being built well than whether or not a Union was involved.
2. Re:Cars got made by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-30 14:10 · Score: 1
  
  unions have to approve car designs & factory improvements to ensure no union jobs are lost. seriously, this is why the big 3 automakers are so slow to innovate, they have to basically have both toes dangling over the edge of bankruptcy to get the union to start approving changes.
  teachers unions in mexico were actually striking (rioting) because the ability to give/sell their union job was being taken away.
3. Re:Cars got made by dbIII · 2014-11-30 14:34 · Score: 0
  
  True, but the point is the unions get blamed and not management by trust fund baby and their country club cronies.
  It took decades for VW and several Japanese car companies to take a big slice of the US car market yet it still managed to take the management of Ford, GM etc by surprise, that's how clueless they were, and I don't see any sign of improvement.
4. Re:Cars got made by Kobun · 2014-11-30 14:56 · Score: 1
  
  Ford, Chrysler and GM's management obviously thought (and by most indications, still think) that they've got the US Government wrapped around their little finger. Why improve quality or reduce unneeded costs when you don't believe that lack of competitive offerings will ever truly be the end of you? Their testimony in Congress at the time of this article was ... impressive. http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/11/...
5. Re:Cars got made by BarbaraHudson · 2014-11-30 14:57 · Score: 0
  
  GM would have gone bankrupt even if its employees had worked for free. That's bad management.
  
  --
  "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
6. Re:Cars got made by cold+fjord · 2014-11-30 15:36 · Score: 1
  
  Why improve quality or reduce unneeded costs when you don't believe that lack of competitive offerings will ever truly be the end of you
  None of them were guaranteed business. If they weren't competitive with their peer competitors they could lose money and potentially go out of business. It happened to other car makers before. Over the years a number of foreign companies have been significant competitors to the US auto industry.
  
  --
  much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
7. Re:Cars got made by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-30 16:05 · Score: 0
  
  yes, it's management's fault nobody wants to buy overpriced & out-of-date cars.
  what were they supposed to do? give the unions raises until they agree to modernize cars & factories? and then how to compete with imports on price?
  the solution was even recognized by the obama admin, cut wages & force the union to accept modernization.
8. Re:Cars got made by I'm+New+Around+Here · 2014-11-30 16:37 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  and continue to get made well in Germany with Union Labor. Also, I'm fed up with the guys putting parts on at the assembly line getting blamed for for shitty American Cars. They just tightened the bolts people.
  My father worked for GM and was in the UAW. It never stopped him from telling us how bad his coworkers and fellow union members were. Stupid and lazy people are not excluded from union membership.
  One of my teachers in high school also had UAW experience. One story I remember was of the spot welders that were supposed to make a dozen precise welds as the frame moved down the assembly line. Some days the workers just didn't care, and made eight welds that were near where they were supposed to be. Those cars would rattle from the missing and misplaced welds. Also, he mentioned the senior union members who came in late, left for lunch early, and never returned. Or worse, returned from lunch drunker than they were earlier.
  So, for all the good than someone can point out in unions' favor, there are just as many examples of how they eventually fail. As another post points out, it is more the character of the worker than his membership in a union that determines the quality of his work.
  
  --
  If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
9. Re: Cars got made by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-30 17:06 · Score: 0
  
  It is when management can't be bothered to do the things necessary to produce cars better. Not when it gets in the way of their bonuses and options.
  Worse in the financial industry. They gleefully ripped off large swaths of America, or do you think the Robosigners had a union?
10. Re:Cars got made by lgw · 2014-11-30 18:01 · Score: 2
  
  GM was bankrupt because of their union pension plans, full stop. The pension plans cost more than all the active union workers. Blame anyone you want to for that, the future of manufacturing is all robots anyhow.
  
  --
  Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
11. Re: Cars got made by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-30 18:59 · Score: 0
  
  Going from employing some 600,000 people, to around a third of that, well, why wouldn't you expect those pensions to cost more? And with decades to build up obligations certainly increases the number of potentially covered employees by a larger amount. I'm sure it is the same for other large employers with a long history.
  You can spend years questioning whether GM should have handled its investments regarding pension obligations or whether they preferred to eventually set it up to fail, but then you can also ask where the revenue from their sales should have gone. How much went to research? Factory redevelopment? Debt payment? Marketing?
  Good luck getting answers for that.
12. Re:Cars got made by Antony+T+Curtis · 2014-11-30 19:31 · Score: 2
  
  GM was bankrupt because of their union pension plans, full stop. The pension plans cost more than all the active union workers. Blame anyone you want to for that, the future of manufacturing is all robots anyhow.
  Not true. They went bankrupt because they sold crappy cars which cost them a fortune in warranty repairs.
  I purchased a GM car in 2005. By the time we got rid of it in 2009, it had received the following repair warranties:
  2 wheel bearings, 3 steering columns, 2 ECUs, 5 replacement door hinges, 2 brake discs, 2 auto transmissions and 1 door window motor.
  In compensation, we were promised a $400 check but we never did receive it and to be honest, I don't care. We don't have the deathtrap anymore.
  With all the billable hours that the vehicle spent in the shop, the vehicle must have been a big fat loss. Given how busy they were fixing up other vehicles, ours wasn't a unique case. This is what made GM go bankrupt.
  I have never had a vehicle which was so unreliable before or since. As a consequence, I shall never buy another GM vehicle.
  
  --
  No sig. Move along - nothing to see here.
13. Re:Cars got made by Vintermann · 2014-11-30 20:01 · Score: 2
  
  People blamed Japanese cars eclipsing American ones on cultural differences too. But fact it, it was an American business theorists, W. Edwards Deming, who was the father of Japanese car manufacturing's business practices. And if you look at his preaching, you'll see - well, that it is preaching, in a sense. There is a distinct moral tinge to it, directed almost exclusively at leaders.
  Deming was an avid Episcopalian and psalm writer. Turns out is was a light codification of "protestant work ethic" in business language which worked for Japanese car industry, not any innate collectivism.
  And why did he go to Japan? Because no one would listen in the USA. Something something prophet without honor...
  
  --
  xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
14. Re:Cars got made by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-30 20:12 · Score: 0
  
  To play Devil's Advocate (just a little bit)
  This is the Internet. You don't need to play the Devil's Advocate here as nine times out of ten he will come to defend his argument in person.
15. Re:Cars got made by AmiMoJo · 2014-11-30 21:48 · Score: 1
  
  Isn't being drunk at work something you can be fired for, union or otherwise? There clearly has to be a balance, and just because American did it wrong doesn't mean the concept is broken. People are suggesting throwing the whole idea out when it just needs some improvements, but that seems to be the normal polemic nature of American political "debate".
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
16. Re:Cars got made by I'm+New+Around+Here · 2014-12-01 00:04 · Score: 2
  
  Isn't being drunk at work something you can be fired for, union or otherwise?
  
  In a rational world, yes it would be. But here in America, unions make their own rules. Senior union members would have to do much worse than being drunk to get fired. However, new union members would not necessarily have that protection. That would still be at the discretion of the union bosses though, not the employer.
  
  There clearly has to be a balance, and just because American did it wrong doesn't mean the concept is broken.
  That is true, but most of us here on /. are American living in America, so we give our slant to it. Personally, I don't reject the concept of unions, and I know what conditions they were formed to fight against, but their current manifestation in the US is not good. It's party politics, but with people's jobs.
  
  People are suggesting throwing the whole idea out when it just needs some improvements, but that seems to be the normal polemic nature of American political "debate".
  The improvements can't happen, because the unions themselves, along with their political benefactors, insist they are already perfect. The improvements would take power from the union, since it isn't likely that the needed fix is to give the union more power over the workers and employer. And any change that would limit the power of the union is treated as a deathmatch, to be fought with every available resource.
  
  --
  If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
17. Re:Cars got made by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-01 02:24 · Score: 0
  
  Japan also "outsources" everything. Forget assembly lines, they actually ship the parts to individual people, they assemble the sub-assembly and ship them back. I'm not sure if it's as cost effective to that today, but that was what they were still doing less than 20 years ago.
18. Re:Cars got made by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-01 14:17 · Score: 0
  
  You make it like this doesn't also happen in the private sector. We can all go off about our co-workers that are lazy, do shitty work, come in late, but yet don't get fired.
19. Re:Cars got made by tehcyder · 2014-12-02 00:25 · Score: 1
  
  I may be wrong, but I somehow doubt that the unions were running the pension funds and company investments.
  And I'm all in favour of robotic manufacturing, I just expect the benefits to be shared out equally, not focussed into the hands of a few people who can afford to buy robotic factories.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
20. Re:Cars got made by tehcyder · 2014-12-02 00:34 · Score: 1
  
  Stupid and lazy people are not excluded from union membership.
  Nor from becoming CEOs. And despite the truly bizarre anti-reality stories here on slashdot, it's not the unions who run the companies.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
21. Re:Cars got made by tibit · 2014-12-02 08:17 · Score: 1
  
  The bearings, ECUs, door hinges and brake discs can all be done in an under hour each, but I don't know how much a dealership will bill for each of them. Of course the diagnostic time must be accounted for as well. The window door motor can be anywhere between 15 minutes and a couple hours, depending on how much of a clusterfuck is the design (I shudder). Transmissions and steering columns can be quite drawn out. Never mind the price of the parts, of course.
  IOW: OUCH.
  
  --
  A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
22. Re:Cars got made by I'm+New+Around+Here · 2014-12-02 08:43 · Score: 1
  
  First off, unionized pencil makers are "private sector". Unionized package deliverers are "private sector". I am not specifiying private or public sector unions. I am talking about unions in general.
  If you think the opposite of "union" is "private sector", then we can't have a conversation, because you don't know what the terms mean.
  As to non-union employees who do shitty jobs and don't get fired, that is at the discretion of the manager/owner/boss. Other non-union employees generally don't defend lazy or shitty co-workers, because those people make the good employees have to work harder. So the good hard-working employees want to see the lazy shitbags fired.
  In unions, good workers want 'job security', which means they have to defend all the lazy shitty workers, so that if a good worker is facing being fired later, they know the union will defend them as well.
  Some of us would rather not have lazy shitty coworkers, and build our job security by actually doing our jobs, or even starting our own companies.
  But, hey, if you want to defend lazy shitty workers so that they will defend you in turn, more power to you. Have fun doing their work for them for the rest of your working life.
  
  --
  If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
23. Re:Cars got made by lgw · 2014-12-02 10:27 · Score: 1
  
  may be wrong, but I somehow doubt that the unions were running the pension funds and company investments.
  
  Well, they are now. The unsustainable pension obligations were the result of a series of negotiations with the unions - whether the unions fooled the company into this obligation, or the company knew this was unsustainable was anyone's guess, but it simply wasn't possible for the company to stay in business with that burden.
  
  And I'm all in favour of robotic manufacturing, I just expect the benefits to be shared out equally, not focussed into the hands of a few people who can afford to buy robotic factories.
  Ah, so overtly a Communist then. Lucky for you, "robotic factories" and "home 3D printers" will eventually be the same thing. Sill no guarantee you can actually afford one though, any more than you have a guarantee you can afford food or shelter. A man must work for his keep.
  
  --
  Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
...I care by 0xdeaddead · 2014-11-30 13:09 · Score: 1

it's DOOM, why is this a 'bad thing'?
My hat is off to you, sir! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-30 13:19 · Score: 1

I've done a lot of low level stuff, and appreciate how difficult and rewarding it can be.
Takes a lot of heart to do a job that well!
1. Re:My hat is off to you, sir! by binarylarry · 2014-11-30 15:14 · Score: 1
  
  I just want to know why the hell is every function and variable in its own C source file!?!?
  
  --
  Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
2. Re:My hat is off to you, sir! by burgerbecky · 2014-11-30 16:07 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  The ARM linker for the 3DO will link each and every function in the source file if only one function in a file was used. It was common practice in the 80s and 90s to write library code with each function in its own source file to get around the problem of accidental code bloat. Look to the early GNU stdlib implementation and you'll notice they did the same thing. Modern linkers with Link Time Code Generation don't suffer from this issue since they will remove every piece of dead or unused code wherever it is, which is why Burgerlib 5 is in a lot fewer source files than Burgerlib 1, 2 or 3.
3. Re:My hat is off to you, sir! by TheMiddleRoad · 2014-11-30 17:32 · Score: 1
  
  You have forgotten more about software development than most people will ever know.
  And no surprise with all the sexist and nasty transgender comments. Just sadness.
4. Re:My hat is off to you, sir! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-30 21:37 · Score: 1
  
  Sadness indeed considering this is meant to be a geek/nerd site, how little some people forget about being outcasts themselves. Or maybe there are a lot of young posters and nerd is cooler these days, making getting beat up and your hair burnt in science class not the norm for smart kids... sorry just ranting about how much hate there is online these days, just seems to be getting worse and making me feel even more outside of this world.
5. Re:My hat is off to you, sir! by binarylarry · 2014-11-30 22:39 · Score: 1
  
  Interesting, thanks!
  
  --
  Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
6. Re:My hat is off to you, sir! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-30 23:58 · Score: 0
  
  The 3D0 failed (sadly) - was the poor state of the developer tools one possible reason for this - a lack of software being created? Apart from the high cost, of course.
  Sad that the vertical strip rendering was accelerated (it being a fairly cheap operation on the CPU anyway, just an integer scaler), but the floor/ceilings couldn't be.
7. Re:My hat is off to you, sir! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-01 04:15 · Score: 0
  Wow, somebody actually
  
  1. looked at the source code referenced by the article
  2. asked an on-topic question
  3. got an informative answer, from the OP no less
  It's a banner day for Slashdot!
8. Re:My hat is off to you, sir! by tibit · 2014-12-02 08:23 · Score: 1
  
  Shit, I'm still working with a legacy codebase that uses a linker like that. Heck, Zilog is still offering those linkers with their development systems.
  
  --
  A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
Thanks for the link. by SuperKendall · 2014-11-30 13:20 · Score: 1

I should have figured it would be going strong, it was a rough system to get used to but ran very solidly. Glad to see that's not something HP has killed.

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
1. Re:Thanks for the link. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-01 22:15 · Score: 0
  
  unfortunately the downside is it only runs on Itanium systems, which are in their death throes at the moment :(
Always great to see code for console platforms... by jonwil · 2014-11-30 13:27 · Score: 1

Its always great to see code for console and computer platforms which don't otherwise have a lot of code available.
The source code for the Atari Jaguar version of Doom is out there somewhere too.
Personally I want to see more source for games (Doom or otherwise) on platforms like the NES, SNES, N64 and Genesis. Would be very interesting to see the code (assembly I would imagine) for a proper commercial SNES title...
Porting is easy... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-30 13:27 · Score: 0

I like the part about Art Data Interactive thinking one only needed to compile to code again. This describe a lot of Mac users today.
Did he "simply run out of time" by PJ6 · 2014-11-30 13:31 · Score: 0

to use a spell checker, too?

The verticle walls were drawn with strips using the cell engine
Connections by SuperKendall · 2014-11-30 13:31 · Score: 1

What's this have to do with unions? Do non-union industries have some mystical property that makes hiring-managers inherently non-petty?
They are of course just as petty, being the same people that would exist in both systems - but are not nearly as wired into each other as union leadership has traditionally been across companies.

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
It's not going strong. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-30 13:35 · Score: 1

It may still be around, but HP is thoroughly screwing development on new HP-UX releases. One of their editions has been fundamentally broken since March and they haven't fixed it YET. I've been supporting HP-UX installations for 25 years (back to 7.0) and I no longer recommend it's use.
1. Re:It's not going strong. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-30 15:15 · Score: 0
  
  I've been supporting HP-UX installations for 25 years (back to 7.0) and I no longer recommend it's use.
  There's a reason it was called PH-UX.
yes I know it's a SHE by PJ6 · 2014-11-30 13:38 · Score: 2

I reserve the right to use 'he' as a neuter pronoun when code is involved.

...

OK, you got me. I posted before seeing the very bottom of the article, and I'm totally sexist for assuming it was a dude.

Hey at least I read it.
1. Re:yes I know it's a SHE by wuzfuzzy · 2014-11-30 13:56 · Score: 1
  
  She was a he at the time. Rebecca Ann Heineman (born William Salvador Heineman)
2. Re:yes I know it's a SHE by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-30 14:22 · Score: 0
  
  I thought this was Dr. Winnifred Cutler, co-discoverer of human pheromones or whatever, who advertises some love potion snake oil in the back of Popular Science.
3. Re:yes I know it's a SHE by haruchai · 2014-11-30 14:33 · Score: 0
  
  Well, in your defence, "she" wasn't always thus - "her" name until 2003 was Bill (William Salvador) Heineman, something of a legend in the gaming industry, going back to winning the 1st ever national video game contest - Atari's National Space Invaders Championship of November 1980.
  
  --
  Pain is merely failure leaving the body
4. Re:yes I know it's a SHE by BarbaraHudson · 2014-11-30 14:35 · Score: 2
  
  .. and she should be congratulated for having the courage to submit this, knowing that, this being slashdot, some jerks would post totally uncalled for crap like this.
  
  --
  "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
5. Re:yes I know it's a SHE by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-30 15:14 · Score: -1
  
  Yep, sure is courageous to have to deal with a single mean comment, Tom Hudson. Thanks for pointing out Burger Bill^W "Becky"'s courage.
6. Re:yes I know it's a SHE by BarbaraHudson · 2014-11-30 15:29 · Score: 1
  
  Your "logic" is flawed.
  When doing this, there was no way of knowing what the reaction would be.
  
  --
  "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
7. Re:yes I know it's a SHE by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-30 17:12 · Score: 1
  
  There's no need to put quotes around it or use weird things like "s/he"; she's a woman. Just refer to her using plain old feminine pronouns.
8. Re:yes I know it's a SHE by haruchai · 2014-11-30 17:24 · Score: 0
  
  "She" used to be Bill, with facial hair and (presumably) male genitalia. How do you refer to someone who was male, fathered children, but is now female?
  How do their kids introduce them?
  "This is my dad, who's now my mother's wife?" If the couple stay married, does that make the original female of the pair a defacto lesbian?
  
  --
  Pain is merely failure leaving the body
9. Re:yes I know it's a SHE by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-30 17:28 · Score: 0
  
  And you are an idiot.
10. Re:yes I know it's a SHE by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-30 17:47 · Score: 0
  
  Her gender has always been female, and her sex used to be male but is female now. So, I imagine the kids would introduce them as "These are our mothers," and they could get into the particulars if it really mattered.
  But the only thing that really matters is that she wants to be referred to with female pronouns, so what's the harm in just doing so?
11. Re:yes I know it's a SHE by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-30 18:47 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, quotes are required.
  she wasn't always - this person didn't always exist
  "she" wasn't always - this person wasn't always a she
  her name until 2003 was Bill - some lady changed her name. Since Bill is normally a male name, we could assume she was often bullied about it as a kid and finally had enough.
  "her" name until 2003 was Bill - a previously male changed his gender to female. Male, because Bill is normally a male name and a gender change because "her" is quoted. And here I quoted "her" because I'm talking about the physical word and not using the word to refer to someone.
  The quotes are putting emphasis on the term that matters most. The sentences could have been better structured to not require it, but they weren't. I don't think haruchai was trying to insult anyone. People see what they want to see. Why do you think everyone insults people who change genders? Why do I think you've been insulted?
  Personally, I don't care. I don't understand why people stopped accepting/seeing themselves as a masculine female or a feminine male and now legally change their gender. There's nothing wrong with having a personally that doesn't match the stereotype for your sexual organs. Stop confusing everyone else. He/She should match your sex organs not your personality. Call yourself gay or lesbian if you're attracted to the same sex. There's little reason for a gender change to avoid those labels.
12. Re:yes I know it's a SHE by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-30 19:34 · Score: 0
  
  What a load of crap. He was always, is, and will always be male. Born-with-penis is all there is. Somewhere along the way, he developed a psychotic delusion that he was a woman, We all have our crosses to bear. But just because you believe something really a whole lot, it doesn't become so.
13. Re:yes I know it's a SHE by serviscope_minor · 2014-11-30 20:45 · Score: 0
  
  "She" used to be Bill, with facial hair and (presumably) male genitalia. How do you refer to someone who was male, fathered children, but is now female?
  "she".
  I don't see why spawning would have any bearing on things.
  How do their kids introduce them?
  I imagine that varies from family to family.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
14. Re:yes I know it's a SHE by rujasu · 2014-12-01 02:22 · Score: 1
  
  There was more than one mean comment in that thread.
15. Re:yes I know it's a SHE by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-01 04:57 · Score: 0
  
  On the other hand, just because you have no idea what gender dysphoria is doesn't mean it's a "psychotic illusion." People whose genders don't match their sexes realize it basically as early on as you realized that yours do match.
  But you know what, let's pretend it was actually a decision and she decided to be female. Why does it bother you so much that she wants to be recognized as female? What harm does it cause you to do so?
16. Re:yes I know it's a SHE by haruchai · 2014-12-02 00:03 · Score: 1
  
  "I don't see why spawning would have any bearing on things" - REALLY??
  Go introduce your genetically male parent as your mom and see how he & everyone else reacts.
  It should be perfectly acceptable for you or anyone to do that if you've had a close, loving, nurturing relationship with him - regardless of his genitalia.
  If both parents are like that, then, congrats, you have two moms.
  
  --
  Pain is merely failure leaving the body
Didn't realize protecting people was partisan by SuperKendall · 2014-11-30 13:39 · Score: 1

What party is it you belong to that is AGAINST letting people have free will and the ability to work without TWO management chains overseeing what they do?
Sign me up for THAT party - said no-one, ever.

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
1. Re:Didn't realize protecting people was partisan by dywolf · 2014-12-01 02:34 · Score: 1
  
  by your statements it is apparent you have zero actual experience in this area.
  and the people you're protecting, arent the workers.
  
  --
  The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Thanks for posting this by SuperKendall · 2014-11-30 13:49 · Score: 1

Oddly I don't see any posts about the source itself, but I found it pretty interesting to browse through... though I was trying to find the code that triggered state change for the enemies to fight each other when one hit another, I couldn't figure out where exactly that happened...
Very cool also it includes all of the graphics and audio assets.

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
1. Re:Thanks for posting this by jones_supa · 2014-11-30 19:20 · Score: 1
  
  though I was trying to find the code that triggered state change for the enemies to fight each other when one hit another, I couldn't figure out where exactly that happened...
  What do you mean? This is open source, which means that anyone should be able to easily make modifications. ;)
if ohshit by rwven · 2014-11-30 13:59 · Score: 4, Funny

Well, I've been looking for like 5 minutes and already found this gem:
https://github.com/Olde-Skuul/...
1. Re:if ohshit by BarbaraHudson · 2014-11-30 14:21 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Cue all the programming nazis^purists who thing that "you should never use a goto in c".
  The code's very readable - bonus points for style.
  
  --
  "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
2. Re:if ohshit by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-30 15:15 · Score: 0
  
  static volatile Word OhShit; /* Flag for aborting the tool */
3. Re:if ohshit by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-30 15:30 · Score: 0
  
  Purists who have never done console programming :-)
4. Re:if ohshit by phantomfive · 2014-11-30 16:14 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  The code's very readable - bonus points for style.
  Seriously? It has a DO loop inside of a GOTO loop inside of another GOTO loop. Those are the ones I've found so far. Also, it doesn't actually abort when it goes to ABORT.....from there it jumps back to AGAIN. The structure of that code is exactly why GOTOs are considered evil.
  
  And for the record, I don't oppose gotos, but I do oppose them used in ugly code.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
5. Re:if ohshit by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-30 16:57 · Score: 0
  
  I'm guessing that Barbara Hudson is either a poor judge of code or is biased in favor of a fellow M-to-F transgender person.
  Note that this is not XOR.
6. Re:if ohshit by AmiMoJo · 2014-11-30 21:55 · Score: 1
  
  Anyone who has every written a non-trivial state machine will know that goto is both useful and sensible.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
7. Re:if ohshit by BarbaraHudson · 2014-12-01 02:02 · Score: 2
  
  I like the style because it reads like the assembler I used to write. If you read her bio, she spent a LOT of time doing assembler, so any c code is going to have some carry-over. YOU might not like it, but it works, it's easy to understand, and easy to understand beats adding more conditional flags any day.
  
  --
  "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
8. Re:if ohshit by phantomfive · 2014-12-01 04:06 · Score: 1
  
  it's easy to understand
  No it's not, it could easily be structured more understandably.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
9. Re:if ohshit by WarlockD · 2014-12-01 05:10 · Score: 1
  
  It feels like some optimizations are in there because the compiler is trash. If you look at some early MIPS code a lot of gotos are used this way as well.. Not that I know why, just noticed these things.
10. Re:if ohshit by dkf · 2014-12-01 06:37 · Score: 1
  
  No it's not, it could easily be structured more understandably.
  But if that caused a severe performance penalty, that wouldn't be a step forward. The success metric was to get the product shipping fast so that it could be sold over the Christmas period, not to make something that would be wonderfully maintainable for all time.
  
  --
  "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
11. Re:if ohshit by phantomfive · 2014-12-01 06:52 · Score: 1
  
  But if that caused a severe performance penalty
  No.
  
  . The success metric was to get the product shipping fast so that it could be sold over the Christmas period,
  Writing good code will help you get things done faster. If you don't realize that, you've never written good code.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
12. Re:if ohshit by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-01 09:09 · Score: 0
  
  Comments in the code like: /* Am I getting hungry? */ /* Forget it! */
  always annoy me because I think - If you had time to write silly comments that do add nothing to the code, why couldn't you spend a little time making the code more readable?
  Granted, it doesn't matter too much here because I doubt no-one's going to visit the code again.
Unions prime example of concept by SuperKendall · 2014-11-30 14:20 · Score: 0, Flamebait

You missed the point of the term "temporarily embarrassed millionaire". As in, someone who supports policies that benefit the rich over the common folk,
It's true I did not understand what that awkward phrase was trying to say.
However since unions make workers over time poorer, not richer, and exist (again over time) primarily for the benefit of union leadership, they are a prime example of supporting the rich over the common folk.
I see a disturbing trend where every single person who is for unions claims to be for the workers instead of realizing they are in fact diametrically opposed. Very odd.

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
1. Re:Unions prime example of concept by apparently · 2014-11-30 18:17 · Score: 0
  
  "awkward phrase". LOL. It's a fucking Steinbeck quote, dumbass.
2. Re:Unions prime example of concept by dave420 · 2014-11-30 20:04 · Score: 0
  
  Do not confuse the state of US unions with those in other countries. I guess the US unions stared too deeply into the abyss. Not so much in other countries.
3. Re:Unions prime example of concept by dywolf · 2014-12-01 02:46 · Score: 2
  
  However since unions make workers over time poorer, not richer, and exist (again over time) primarily for the benefit of union leadership, they are a prime example of supporting the rich over the common folk.
  Everything you just stated is counterfactual to actual historical fact and actual economic trends and correlations. Higher union membership rates is correlated with higher average wages across the nation, for everyone not just union workers. And union workers in equivelent fields earn an average of 200 more per week, which is 10k a year.
  Higher membership rates also correlates (directly, as in the flip is easily seen when plotted: http://ashcraftandgerel.com/wp... ) with less moeny going to the executives and owners of the companies..which means more is going to the workers. IE, they kept a bigger piece of the pie...that they made.
  Know that chart showing how american worker productivity just keeps climbing higher and higher, while the workers wages have stayed flat for 40 years....but the rich's incomes have climbed (ie, they get all the increased revenues from the higher productivity)...ya, that break point corresponds very closely with the successful re-breaking of the unions in this country around the same time.
  When union membership started falling, wages fell too.
  and a lack and lowering of union protections is also correlated to a rise in improper firings and other abusie practices by companies.
  So you arent protecting workers.
  You're just protecting corporations from those pesky employees that make their companies successful.
  
  --
  The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
4. Re:Unions prime example of concept by stephenmac7 · 2014-12-01 03:17 · Score: 1
  
  Don't assume we all know who this "Steinbeck" person is. I had to Google him... first thing I thought was "Steinway," as in the piano company.
  
  --
  "No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session." -- Judge Gideon J. Tucker
5. Re:Unions prime example of concept by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-01 04:50 · Score: 0
  
  Your lack of knowledge of who Steinbeck is in a thread about Unions pretty much confirms his opinion of you.
  Are you also completely unaware of Sinclair and the Jungle as well?
6. Re:Unions prime example of concept by tehcyder · 2014-12-01 23:34 · Score: 1
  
  Don't assume we all know who this "Steinbeck" person is. I had to Google him... first thing I thought was "Steinway," as in the piano company.
  He did win the Nobel Prize for Literature, so he's hardly an unknown or niche writer.
  As he's a sort of anti-Ayn Rand, I don't suppose he's too popular amongst slashdot readers though.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
7. Re:Unions prime example of concept by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-03 11:02 · Score: 0
  
  > Don't assume we all know who this "Steinbeck" person is. I had to Google him...
  Jeez, I hope you're not an American over the age of 12, else I weep for the state of education in this country.
  "Google: making literacy irrelevant since 1998!"
Hint: Too High Wages are Too High by SuperKendall · 2014-11-30 14:25 · Score: 0, Troll

Steelworker jobs disappeared as a result of automation.
And automation was cost effective because...
I'll bet you really can't figure that out, can you?
No sir, no reason whatsoever that overpaying workers leads to fewer workers over time! Just unpossible!

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
1. Re:Hint: Too High Wages are Too High by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-30 15:15 · Score: 0
  
  No sir, no reason whatsoever that overpaying workers leads to fewer workers over time! Just unpossible!
  You sure, are a moron. Automation plus the relative low cost of energy in oil (something like 10,000 man-hour per barrel) and even paying pennies/hour to workers is often overpaying them.
  No, obviously that can't be entirely it or we'd have replaced all the workers already. Obviously there's plenty of jobs that can't be automated yet or perhaps ever. The people who are left obviously want higher pay because all things being equal there's no reason for them not to demand more per person? Wages aren't set on the cost of the labor but on the price of the final product and the size of the labor pool. If anything, more automatic should spur higher wages for those still with a job.
  The rest? Well, automation is going to wipe out those jobs regardless of how little a wage one asks because automation is literally less than pennies per hour and there's simply no way to compete with that. The only thing asking for lower wages now will do is perhaps delay the point those jobs are replaced with machines. But they do nothing to do with the long-term ramifications of so many jobs being replaced with automation.
  The real truth? It seems obvious that the people left working should be being paid a lot more than they used to ($60-$200/hour jobs). It seems obvious that those people will inherently have much higher tax rates as a consequence (being paid $416,000/year and you'll have a hefty tax bill). And it seems obvious that the rest of humanity will be stuck on a shitty welfare system.
  The only thing left is to consider reforming taxes to be much more progressive so those people making $416,000/year aren't only paying in the ~35% range. But, then, that also involves dealing with the issue that Federal and State taxes end up being a mess where total tax rates vary greatly for no clear reason and without clear goals in mind--most States have so much done for them through Federal funding that taxing their residents again in part misses the point. Of course, State governments will resist this because they're interested in their own control--they fear for their jobs and it has little to do with their residents' interests not being represented, as evidence in gerrymandering at the State level being so horrible. But we're already so far down this road and States clearly are unwilling to subsidize all those people who literally will find no work and constantly beg the Federal government for help.
  To me, the obvious point is that all this automation could produce an age of utopia with a lack of scarcity. And yet greed or dumb fucks like you ruin it and actually blame the people who are closest to working to market correct the imbalance produced by automation. That you are so myopic that you don't begin to see that long-term welfare must be a reality in a world where most people need not work and most work will have regulated wages, enforced in part by unions, to provide the motivation for the few that do work and yet also providing the means to provide that welfare state.
  Oh, but the tyranny of the government! The ruining of our lives! You do not begin to understand how it is the exact bad acts that need combated, not merely the means to do bad acts. For if anything of what you believed were true, you would have long ago rose up against your own nation for their war machines have demonstrated capable of possible world domination only stopped by the other war machines and the general threat of self destruction of their leaders, but that does nothing to stop them from crushing their own citizens. That you are not crushed, literally, to death, shows that at some level they lack the desire. And if you wish that to remain the same, you should direct their actions to do good and now cower in fear until it is too late and they destroy you.
  PS - It's much too late to put the genie back in the bott
2. Re:Hint: Too High Wages are Too High by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-30 15:17 · Score: 1
  
  WTF is wrong with you? I worked for an organization that saved a lot of money automating a large part of its manufacturing process. We bought machines that cost the year salary of a single employee and replaced 10+ employees at each plant. The workers were making minimum wage so what you are suggesting is they should have offered to work for one tenth of minimum wage which is already poverty levels.
  I think they would have automated for more than the cost of workers though just for the benefit of not having to hear about the poor shape of the factory.
3. Re:Hint: Too High Wages are Too High by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-30 16:51 · Score: 0
  
  Fun fact, that is happening across the board, regardless of pay scale.
  McDonalds is attempting to automate their entire back end and us Kiosks for the front in their chains attempting to cut down the labor to hopefully no more than 2 people.
  It could be $1 an hour for your wages, guess what, it will still be automated away as the machine will still do it cheaper than you can live on. The only thing that hasn't been automated away is executive positions which isn't because they can't as many of them would be more easily automated than the lower level jobs, it is because they are the ones making the decision and don't want to cut themselves out of the loop or their paycheck.
4. Re:Hint: Too High Wages are Too High by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-30 18:22 · Score: 1
  
  Exactly, lets bring back slavery! Underpaying workers means more money for more workers. Paying nothing means everyone can work. No more unemployment! That's your argument. Lots of shipping factories are becoming automated. Those places don't have unions. Automation is easier to manage and more consistent than a large group of people.
  WTF people. I'm constantly surprised about how stupid people are here on Slashdot. I though you're supposed to be smarter than the average population. A well managed union will function well while a poorly-managed union will function poorly. You can design your union so that it'll be corrupted almost instantly or you can design it so that it'll almost be almost impossible to corrupt.
  A union doesn't need an independent head being paid a salary. It could be a small group of members voted in by other members. This group discovers something wrong, comes up with a couple plans, and provides them to be voted on by the other members. If funds are needed, that can be voted on as well. Unions don't instantly make it harder to fire people. Unions don't require dues. Those things are all up to how the union was formed and what its members want. Unions could even force the firing of bad employees: That stupid boss' friend has to go or half your workforce won't show up next week. If you end up with a crappy union its because you and the people around you want it that way.
  
  Leaving a job where the petty minded rulers feel like you slighted them means you will never work as a coder again because other union shops are told not to work with you
  That has already happened without the unions. Piss off your boss and the company will wink at any reference calls to let them know not to hire you. It's actually gone further than that. See the anti-poaching lawsuits. All without unions. Why do you mistakenly believe those things only happens with unions or that every union causes those things?
5. Re:Hint: Too High Wages are Too High by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-30 19:12 · Score: 0
  
  So you are saying that when the local Sheetz has a touch screen terminal to replace a minimum wage cashier that the cashier priced herself out of a job and its not just the eventual failure point of capitalism - TECHNOLOGY??
  Think this through.
6. Re:Hint: Too High Wages are Too High by serviscope_minor · 2014-11-30 20:37 · Score: 1, Offtopic
  
  And automation was cost effective because...
  Because humanse are fallible, tired, ineffective meatbags?
  No amount of grinding the poor for an unlivable wage will make humans more effective in machines at doing heavy lifting, super previse grunt work of the sort required ot run a steel mill.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
7. Re:Hint: Too High Wages are Too High by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-30 20:46 · Score: 0
  
  you don't have to pay robots Anything at all? Nor the 6000 people you just put out of work. Mind you they cant buy any one else's product either.
8. Re:Hint: Too High Wages are Too High by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-30 22:26 · Score: 0
  
  Because machines don't require payment at all, and can produce a predictable product 24/7 with modest maintenance?
9. Re:Hint: Too High Wages are Too High by dunkelfalke · 2014-12-01 00:27 · Score: 2
  
  And automation was cost effective because automation is always cost effective. Even in China's sweatshops workers are increasingly replaced by automation as soon as automation for a given task is available. In the long term, only volunteering is cheaper than automation.
  
  --
  "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
10. Re:Hint: Too High Wages are Too High by dywolf · 2014-12-01 02:32 · Score: 1
  
  automation will ALWAYS be more cost effective, no matter how much the workers make.
  its a one time purchase cost with minor upkeep costs and longer "working hours", as opposed to several workers with a wage.
  that doesnt remvoe the need for minimum wages or unions. there are automation plans to replace fast food workers, who already earn the minimum wage, a wage a so low that earning it puts you below the poverty line. do you want to claim they are overpaid too?
  
  --
  The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
11. Re:Hint: Too High Wages are Too High by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-01 04:47 · Score: 0
  
  No it's not. If I were to drive a letter from the west coast to the east and you offered to walk the letter. Your offer is more of a nuisance than anything - even at free it is simply not a viable solution.
Sorry to hear that by SuperKendall · 2014-11-30 14:34 · Score: 0

That's really too bad, I id imagined it would be around for a long time to come... but if they aren't getting new installations because the've messed it up over time it's going to fade even if existing installations linger for some time...

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
To The Flatlander by SuperKendall · 2014-11-30 15:07 · Score: -1, Flamebait

Nice try at ad-hominem, normally though to carry some credibility it comes with at least a half-hearted attempt to address points raised... I note you can't refute a single point made against unions for programmers, therefore why should anyone listen to your rantings? You mention "the British", when we are talking about the situation of real workers and unions in present day...
Unions once had a very good reason to exist, but regulations have far supplanted the need for them. What I am for is systems evolving for efficiency and the bests interests of those who have to live inside said systems; what you are for is ironically apparently for an unchanging world regardless of how facts alter, like a simple monkey you fling poo at any that cross your mind as a transgressor to your rigid opinion.
You speak of dimensionality yet you have none yourself; your argument is as flat as a coke opened years ago and left in the back of the fridge, forgotten and unwanted.

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
1. Re:To The Flatlander by dbIII · 2014-11-30 20:06 · Score: 0
  
  My "argument" is that I think you are not as stupid as you appear and will you please stop playing this silly little game of "let's pretend it's a simply binary situation" and instead discuss issues on an adult level.
2. Re:To The Flatlander by dbIII · 2014-12-01 01:38 · Score: 1
  
  Those damned colonials/workers wanting some sort of say in their own affairs - the cheek of those damned fellows! They should just grovel to their betters like that chap Arnold who saw the light in the end.
  Is that the character you are playing? Looks like it to me.
You are not supposed to put part of the comment on by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-30 15:18 · Score: 0

the subject box.
Re:Always great to see code for console platforms. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-30 15:22 · Score: 0

Why would it be assembly? Granted C is not far above assembly, but there were plenty of language compilers available for the 65x816 on its various platforms.
This is wonderful by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-30 15:47 · Score: 0

This is wonderful. I love it. Thank you so much for posting this. I appreciate it.
Re:Always great to see code for console platforms. by jonwil · 2014-11-30 16:18 · Score: 1

Yes sure the 65816 on the IIGS got things beyond assembly. But the very-resource-constrained (in both RAM and ROM) SNES never got such a thing that I am aware of.
C on the 6502 by tepples · 2014-11-30 16:32 · Score: 1

Assembly language was used because the C compilers for 6502 (Apple II, Commodore 64, Atari 400/800, NES) and 65816 (Apple IIGS, Super NES) weren't very good at optimizing. Sure, Koei most likely wrote sims such as Nobunaga's Ambition in C, as shown by the appearance of printf format strings when you run strings on the ROM. But those are turn-based and don't need to fit an update to the entire game state into 30,000 CPU cycles. And if cc65 is to be believed, optimization of C still isn't so hot. There are things about C that don't fit the 65xx architecture well, such as a tendency toward automatic local variables.
1. Re:C on the 6502 by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-01 09:50 · Score: 0
  
  Oh goodness. ByteWorks and Orca/C to name just two. Orca/C was used by at least three SNES dev teams I know of. There was never just one C compiler for 65x systems, and 65x systems were popular in embedded systems, too, not just as CPUs on desktop computers. (The first Mac Powerbooks used 65C02s for power management, for example.)
2. Re:C on the 6502 by tepples · 2014-12-01 12:49 · Score: 1
  
  Oh goodness. ByteWorks and Orca/C to name just two.
  Byte Works was the company that made ORCA/C.
  
  Orca/C was used by at least three SNES dev teams I know of.
  For one thing, how space- and time-efficient was its compiled output compared to hand-tuned assembly? For another, the 65816 in the Super NES is a bit more amenable to C, with stack-relative addressing modes d,s and (d,s),y and a movable direct page, than the 6502 in the Atari consoles and NES or the 65C02 in the TG16 and Lynx.
Re:Always great to see code for console platforms. by tepples · 2014-11-30 16:34 · Score: 1

A few commercial NES games, such as Super Mario Bros., have been disassembled and commented on RomHacking.net. And of course, homebrew games for NES often come with source code.
Background: Dijkstra's case against goto by tepples · 2014-11-30 16:42 · Score: 3, Informative

And if anybody doesn't understand: The goto statement is considered harmful, except when it's not. When used in situations where structured programming (while and friends) expresses the intent more cleanly, it's harmful. But when used as the backend of a coroutine macro library, it's not. And when used to jump to cleanup code in exceptional conditions, as seen here, it's not.
1. Re:Background: Dijkstra's case against goto by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-01 13:20 · Score: 0
  
  Well, the latter is only true for languages lacking specific mechanisms for exception handling, of course.
What's a 3DO? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-30 17:08 · Score: -1

It's a game console that nobody has ever heard of or cares about:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3DO_Interactive_Multiplayer
Re:You are not supposed to put part of the comment by mark-t · 2014-11-30 17:29 · Score: 1

You can.... but speaking for myself, when I do that, I usually put ellipses on the end of the comment to indicate that the text is continued in the comment beneath, and begin the comment itself with ellipses to specifically indicate that the beginning of the sentence is earlier.
Without ellipses, reading comments that start in the subject field is admittedly confusing, but with them, I don't see any problem.

--
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Can't blame him/her by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-30 20:50 · Score: 0

wow, you were totally right. i read the original posting and the writing was so masculine I could not believe someone named "becky" wrote it. I was also baffled by the Sailor Moon fan-fic -- what self-respecting grown woman would write that? then you explained that becky is actually a man (who may or may not be a eunuch now). thanks for clarifying!!
Girls can code by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-30 22:49 · Score: 0

There are some style issues, but statements like - "I had to rewrite all string.h in assembly in one day" are impressive. I bookmarked it as a living proof that woman can do real hacks (in positive way) and wanted to show it to everybody who claims otherwise.
Then I have read the bio... and now I'm confused.
woot by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-30 23:27 · Score: 0

he's a she!
um... by Charliemopps · 2014-12-01 00:56 · Score: 1

Someone tell me why I care about another Doom port? There's already like 50...
author interview by Bobtree · 2014-12-01 03:04 · Score: 2

Gamasutra did a great interview with Burger a few years ago: http://www.gamasutra.com/view/...
What about... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-01 04:00 · Score: 0

Show me a example of a man that was sucessful and popular before changing gender into a woman and I'll rethink my stance.
Your mom?
More psycho babble, "BarbaraHudson"? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-01 09:05 · Score: 0

"BarbaraHudson" isn't female (let alone a dyke). BarbaraHudson = transsexual and due to that, obviously a mentalcase also. Only a nut would do that to themselves and it's indicative of someone that can't stand themselves as they are too.
Well, Now I Have to Read The Thing... by ewhac · 2014-12-01 10:31 · Score: 1

I worked for NTG/3DO for just under five years, so I know (knew) the machine inside and out. It will be interesting to go through this code and see what kind of tradeoffs were made.
Some comments on the README:

My friends at 3DO were begging for DOOM to be on their platform and with christmas 1995 coming soon (I took this job in August of 1995, with a mid October golden master date), I literally lived in my office, only taking breaks to take a nap and got this port completed.
*snerk* I could have told you at the time that a ten-week dev cycle was crazy talk.

Shortcuts made...
3DO's operating system was designed around running an app and purging, there was numerous bugs caused by memory leaks. So when I wanted to load the Logicware and id software logos on startup, the 3DO leaked the memory so to solve that, I created two apps, one to draw the 3do logo and the other to show the logicware logo. After they executed, they were purged from memory and the main game could run without loss of memory.
An interesting and valid approach (3DO's OS had full memory tracking). I'd be interested to know which of the 3DO libs was leaking memory on you.

The verticle walls were drawn with strips using the cell engine. However, the cell engine can't handle 3D perspective so the floors and ceilings were drawn with software rendering. I simply ran out of time to translate the code to use the cell engine because the implementation I had caused texture tearing.
Were the floor/ceiling textures not power-of-two dimensions on each side? As I recall, you only got texture cracking when the dimensions were not power-of-two.
You could have decomposed the floor/ceiling textures into strips as well, but ultimately the lack of perspective correction meant you were going to have to do some heavy lifting somewhere.

I had to write my own string.h ANSI C library because the one 3DO supplied with their compiler had bugs! string.h??? How can you screw that up!?!?! They did! I spent a day writing all of the functions I needed in ARM 6 assembly.
Ah, yes, the Norcroft compiler (or, as I always called it, Norcruft). It was a piece of shit. It was also the only thing available that would run on the Mac. It was never anything but a C compiler, but kept throwing unblockable warnings about constructs that C++ would have problems with (such as implicit cast from void*). There was no MacOS port of GCC, and there were no usable ARM backends for GCC available at the time, anyway. (Bear in mind, this was before the Web existed in any familiar form, and you had to go trawling through USENET for clues -- not even AltaVista existed yet).

I hope that everyone who looks at this code, learns something from it, and I'd be happy to answer questions about the hell I went through to make this game. I only wished I had more time to actually polish this back in 1995 so instead of being the worst port of DOOM, it would have been the best one.
I'm sure many memories will come flooding back.

--
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
1. Re:Well, Now I Have to Read The Thing... by burgerbecky · 2014-12-01 12:08 · Score: 2
  
  If you're ever in Seattle, we have to head to a coffee shop and cry our eyes out on the crap we had to deal with developing for the 3DO!!!
Why does anyone care about gender for this? by rebelwarlock · 2014-12-01 15:44 · Score: 1

Seriously, it's fucking source code. I don't care if the dev identifies as a man, woman, or plant. That doesn't make it any better or worse.
3DO discontinued prior to C++98 by tepples · 2014-12-01 15:50 · Score: 1

Well, the latter is only true for languages lacking specific mechanisms for exception handling, of course.
What language might that have been? C++ wasn't standardized until 1998, and the 3DO was discontinued in late 1996, having been Osborned by promises of the M2. Besides, the 3DO had about as much RAM as the original PlayStation (2 MB for CPU and 1 MB VRAM); how big is the support library for C++ exceptions?
The final fact is ... by BarbaraHudson · 2014-12-03 02:55 · Score: 1

The final fact is that your 19th-century dictionary definition won't stand up in a 21st-century courtroom.
The laws have changed, and treating a m2f transsexual in their former gender (by using their former name, by referring to them using male pronouns, etc) is illegal.
I don't know where you live, but her continuing to do so once you're aware of the situation is considered both a violation of our civil rights (discrimination based on sex) and criminal harassment.
Telling the court "but they can't give birth so they're not women" won't cut it when the courts consider m2f transsexuals to be female by law. Now if you're ever in the area and want to try it, I'll be happy to make an example out of you, the same as I did to the property developer, because I believe in paying it forward as a thank-you for all the women who made my life possible.
If this sounds a bit militant, well, maybe it's about time that people who don't respect others legal status and civil rights get some push-back and bad publicity. And it's posts like yours that make burgerbecky's act of posting the story here not just interesting because of the "old-skool tech", but also an act of courage knowing that there would be people who refuse to respect both her legal status and her civil rights, and will attack her based on who they think she was, and not who she is or really was.
So welcome to the 21st century. Now, if you don't like the laws, you can lobby to get them changed (good luck with that - even Putin isn't having luck wrt getting rid of the LGBTtQetc), or post a story about how your time machine will let you go back in time to a more intolerant era.
Considering that we have both the law and public opinion on our side, the time machine is probably the only viable solution short of seeing a psychiatrist to ask why you can't adapt to change and also help you to understand that your belief that animals are consenting to bestiality is just wrong on so many levels, as well as being illegal.

Me: It's not just the LGBTt who denounce bestiality. Where's the informed consent of the animal? Your comparison is ludicrous.
You: There was a BBC documentary about it a while back. I believe the consent (to them) came from the animals showing signs of enjoyment that they normally showed during sex with their own species. That and I think if the larger animals didn't want to participate, they certainly have the power to refuse.

--
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
1. Re:The final fact is ... by ArmoredDragon · 2014-12-05 18:53 · Score: 1
  
  I've kinda run out of time to debate on this further, but I just wanted to point out that once upon a time, gays looked down upon transexuals, and transexuals looked down upon transvestites (in fact in many cases they still do) just as you are presently looking down upon others.
2. Re:The final fact is ... by BarbaraHudson · 2014-12-06 04:18 · Score: 1
  
  Well yeah, I look down on people like yourself who think bestiality is okay, especially for the ridiculous reasons you cited.
  
  --
  "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
3. Re:The final fact is ... by ArmoredDragon · 2014-12-06 19:40 · Score: 1
  
  You're going by the legal definition. Legally nobody under 18 can consent either, yet given the chance there are a lot of teachers I would have boned well before that age.
4. Re:The final fact is ... by BarbaraHudson · 2014-12-07 03:48 · Score: 1
  
  Of course I'm going by the legal definition. It's the framework we as a civilization have built, and under which we live. It's the one that has real-life consequences. It evolves as society evolves - transsexuals are now legally defined as being their target gender, not their birth gender, and treating us otherwise has legal consequences. Same with same-sex marriage, which has been legal here for more than a decade.
  It's also the reason why women and children are no longer considered "chattel", women can vote, use contraceptives, and get a divorce or abortion on demand, we've banned slavery, etc.
  The final fact is that, when it comes to what gender I am to be treated as, the law is 100% on my side, and trying to hide behind a dictionary definition of what is a male and what is a female comes off as being more than a bit unreasonable. It's also unrealistic given the hundreds of thousands of us out there.
  
  --
  "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
5. Re:The final fact is ... by ArmoredDragon · 2014-12-07 15:51 · Score: 1
  
  Of course I'm going by the legal definition. It's the framework we as a civilization have built, and under which we live. It's the one that has real-life consequences.
  Under that logic, the persecution of Alan Turing was perfectly justified. And in other words, you also feel that the persecution of Alan Turing was perfectly justified.
6. Re:The final fact is ... by ArmoredDragon · 2014-12-07 15:55 · Score: 1
  
  Also I can't help but observe that in my experience the way you pursue this is more consistent with the way men do than women do, which further reinforces an earlier point I made on various occasions.
7. Re:The final fact is ... by BarbaraHudson · 2014-12-08 03:41 · Score: 1
  
  There's something called "learning from your mistakes." The people of that era probably thought that they were absolutely doing the moral and right thing. However, as we move towards a more secular, less religion-influenced society, we're realizing that morality isn't either defined or confined by the dictates of previous ages. We sit in judgment, but it's a bit hypocritical because we're making mistakes that future generations will judge use on. Case in point - pollution.
  Both the law and civilization are a "work in progress."
  
  --
  "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
8. Re:The final fact is ... by BarbaraHudson · 2014-12-08 03:58 · Score: 1
  
  Also I can't help but observe that in my experience the way you pursue this is more consistent with the way men do than women do, which further reinforces an earlier point I made on various occasions.
  Oh, because I'm using logical arguments instead of getting all peed off? Because I'm engaging in debate rather than taking it personally or getting angry? Because I'd be willing to sit down with you and discuss it over lunch?
  Maybe my programmer background has something to do with it, or maybe you're caught up in some sort of world where women are only allowed to behave in certain ways. I don't know.
  I think your condoning bestiality is outrageous, but that doesn't mean I should react to that by shutting down communications, since this discussion was about MUCH more than that. To me, it's not just logical - it's the right thing to do.
  If you interpret that as being more the way men would handle it compared to women, what can I say? I don't agree, because the range of reactions among both sexes is broad, and there's a lot of overlap, just as there are serious differences. Or as the french say, "Vive la difference!"
  There's also the problem that many transsexuals tend to "overdo it" in their efforts to be accepted as who they are, rather than just being themselves. This shows up in all sorts of behavior, from modes of dress to modeling their reactions on stereotypes. It's one of those "dirty little secrets", but it's an understandable behavior when you've had to deal with what we've had to deal with, and it hopefully resolves itself as the woman becomes more secure. BUT - "it's complicated" is a fact of life for us.
  
  --
  "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
9. Re:The final fact is ... by ArmoredDragon · 2014-12-08 12:53 · Score: 1
  
  None of that, actually. It's mainly your writing style (e.g. shorter rather than longer sentences) in addition to a few of your mannerisms. I don't have a whole lot of time to go into detail.
  At any rate I'm not endorsing bestiality, just that I haven't found a logical reason to condemn it. Otherwise you may as well say that just because I can't prove that Jesus didn't exist means I condone every bad thing Christians have done. Instead Christians don't bother me, and I don't bother them.
10. Re:The final fact is ... by ArmoredDragon · 2014-12-08 12:57 · Score: 1
  
  Both the law and civilization are a "work in progress."
  Progress to what end? Remember that Germany had democracy before Hitler rose to power, and secular societies have turned religious on well more than one occasion.
11. Re:The final fact is ... by BarbaraHudson · 2014-12-08 13:31 · Score: 1
  
  None of that, actually. It's mainly your writing style (e.g. shorter rather than longer sentences) in addition to a few of your mannerisms. I don't have a whole lot of time to go into detail.
  My real writing style is VERY long sentences. However, given the 15-second attention span of the Internet. I adapt.
  When I edit my first drafts, I break up sentences, adjust long phrasing, etc., all to make it more readable for others. It's the opposite of political speech - "why take 10 words to (not) say something when 1,000 will do."
  
  At any rate I'm not endorsing bestiality, just that I haven't found a logical reason to condemn it.
  If we were just "logical beings", there would be no bestiality, since logically it serves no purpose. Then again, ultimately life serves no purpose - it'll all be gone in the big collapse 100 billion years from now or whenever.
  But we're not just "logical beings", and we superimpose our instinctive sense of what's right and wrong on an uncaring universe, because WE care. Given our dominant position vis-a-vis other animals, it's incumbent on us, to the extent it's possible, treat them the same way that we would wish to be treated if someone was in a position of dominance towards us, which is why we have made it illegal for teachers, principals, etc. to have sex with "consenting" minors - the position of authority undermines any concept of free consent. And it's gross as all heck.
  You shouldn't make decisions based on logic alone. Life is much more than that, and sticking solely to logic is very much a lonely place to be in - and unfortunately most men don't get that, because men aren't supposed to be "emotional".
  
  --
  "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
12. Re:The final fact is ... by BarbaraHudson · 2014-12-08 13:35 · Score: 1
  
  Both the law and civilization are a "work in progress."
  Progress to what end? Remember that Germany had democracy before Hitler rose to power, and secular societies have turned religious on well more than one occasion.
  I guess we'll find out, one way or another. As long as another Nehemiah Scudder doesn't pop up.
  
  --
  "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
13. Re:The final fact is ... by ArmoredDragon · 2014-12-08 17:15 · Score: 1
  
  If we were just "logical beings", there would be no bestiality, since logically it serves no purpose.
  There's also no logical purpose for homosexuality and transexuality, in fact presently nobody is able to adequately explain how either exist in light of natural selection. That isn't cause for condemnation though. There is, however, a logical, and indeed evolutionary purpose for pedophilia -- depending on the victim's age.
  Anyways I'm not sure what you're getting at here.
  
  You shouldn't make decisions based on logic alone.
  I do that because I believe it's fair and just.
14. Re:The final fact is ... by BarbaraHudson · 2014-12-09 02:32 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, natural selection DOES explain it. Gays and lesbians that don't reproduce can contribute to the support of their near relatives, as has been going on for generations in some parts of the world. They can also adopt, again contributing to the support of others. And being gay has been found to run in families irrespective of genes - twins, for example, where only one is hetero. So the presence of gays and lesbians in the gene pool reduces the demand on natural resources and provides a fall-back resource for the rest of the clan.
  As for transsexuality, why not do some research on your own, with an open mind? It's a fascinating topic.
  Now, what I was getting at when I said "it serves no purpose", was that there is no biological advantage, and several disadvantages, to bestiality. As one example, some diseases, such as certain types of genital warts, are transmissible between dogs and humans. Try explaining THAT to your MD.
  
  --
  "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Everyone bitches about their coworkers by rsilvergun · 2014-12-03 11:45 · Score: 1

It's just something you do. I'm sure my coworkers complain about how incompetent I am. We magnify other's faults and lessen our own.

I don't recall American Cars rattling or coming apart. I recall the parts wearing out around 100,000 miles and being nearly impossible to fix. The missing welds you're describing would have been noticeable during a test drive. You're teacher's full of it.

--
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/