At 1/25/14 06:17 PM, BoMToons wrote: 1. Books
- The Fountainhead - Ayn Rand
- Atlas Shrugged - Ayn Rand
Okay I have to ask: do you actually enjoy Rand's work or do you own/read these ironically?
HO HO HOPE you become a Newgrounds Supporter this year!
We're working hard to give you the best site possible, but we have bills to pay and community support is vital to keep things going and growing. Thank you for considering!
At 1/25/14 11:42 PM, PrettyMuchBryce wrote: What kind of computer chairs do you guys use ? I need to get a new one. My ikea chair is destroying my spine. :P
I'm using a Chairman chair with large back-rest and large arm-rests that hurt my elbows and hinder my ability to animate and play first person shooters. I cannot take them off because they're connecting the back-rest to the ass-rest. And I need the back-rest because sometimes I lean backwards on it.
Oh, and the back rest is extremely soft and comfortable.
I just wish I was using a simple stool without everything, that would teach me discipline and make me brutal and hairy.
At 1/26/14 02:13 AM, Diki wrote:At 1/25/14 06:17 PM, BoMToons wrote: 1. BooksOkay I have to ask: do you actually enjoy Rand's work or do you own/read these ironically?
- The Fountainhead - Ayn Rand
- Atlas Shrugged - Ayn Rand
I think they're an interesting perspective. I don't agree with everything in her philosophy. Have you read them or just read about them?
At 1/26/14 12:28 PM, BoMToons wrote: I think they're an interesting perspective. I don't agree with everything in her philosophy. Have you read them or just read about them?
Interesting.
I've read a tiny bit of Atlas Shrugged, and know the premise of it, but I have have not read them to any substantial amount, nor will I ever. Rand was a hypocritical scumbag, and her books are poorly written (especially Atlas Shrugged), so I'd consider it a waste of my time to read them. That I don't agree with Objectivism or anything Rand has ever had to say.
This classic joke sums up my feelings toward her and her works:
There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year-old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.
At 1/25/14 11:42 PM, PrettyMuchBryce wrote: What kind of computer chairs do you guys use ? I need to get a new one. My ikea chair is destroying my spine. :P
Rob has a chair that looks like the one below. He says its comfortable but i cant imagine sitting like that for so many hours. I'm a heavy mouse user so i usually get chairs that have adjustable side arms so that i can set my elbow level with the mouse pad.
None
At 1/26/14 05:59 PM, Luis wrote: Rob has a chair that looks like the one below. He says its comfortable but i cant imagine sitting like that for so many hours.
I can't imagine how to even sit on that or stand up from it.
At 1/26/14 05:53 PM, Diki wrote:At 1/26/14 12:28 PM, BoMToons wrote: I think they're an interesting perspective. I don't agree with everything in her philosophy. Have you read them or just read about them?Interesting.
I've read a tiny bit of Atlas Shrugged, and know the premise of it, but I have have not read them to any substantial amount, nor will I ever. Rand was a hypocritical scumbag, and her books are poorly written (especially Atlas Shrugged), so I'd consider it a waste of my time to read them. That I don't agree with Objectivism or anything Rand has ever had to say.
This classic joke sums up my feelings toward her and her works:
There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year-old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.
I have to admit that they are tough reads. I'd have a hard time saying they're classics of literature. But to judge them as "poorly written" and not even read the whole thing smacks of hypocrisy also ;-)
I think Rand's views/philosophy were heavily influenced from having lived under Communism (obviously) and were an unbalanced lashing out on the opposite extreme. That said, sometimes it's a good thing to explore that opposite extreme to balance out some of the socialist extremes that are quite prevalent today.
For example, I like the idea that creativity is one of the basic expressions of being human. And it does bother me to see lots of my friends/family/acquaintances who are content to consume constantly without a second thought about contributing anything to the world around them, that feel entitled to everything without providing anything worthwhile in return.
On the other hand, having been married for over a decade, I know that complete focus on yourself and your needs is a recipe for disaster when living in a world inhabited by other people and trying to be productive in a larger social context.
You really can't see ANYTHING intriguing about some aspects of her philosophies?
At 1/26/14 07:41 PM, BoMToons wrote: But to judge them as "poorly written" and not even read the whole thing smacks of hypocrisy also ;-)
It's certainly disingenuous of me, but I don't see how it makes me a hypocrite. Regardless, Atlas Shrugged has some seventy pages of John Galt speaking. That's bad writing no matter how you slice it. Twain, Hemingway, Poe, Shakespeare, or London never wrote a plethora of pages of nothing but a single character speaking for good reason.
And to make an analogy: I've never finished watching an entire Uwe Boll film, but I can say with confidence that his films are poorly made.
At 1/26/14 07:41 PM, BoMToons wrote: You really can't see ANYTHING intriguing about some aspects of her philosophies?
Didn't say I don't find her ideas intriguing; I don't need to agree with something to find it of interest. Just like I don't agree with people who promote racist or homophobic ideals, but I do find it interesting what social influences caused people to promote said ideals.
Anyway I didn't mean to start an Ayn Rand debate. Was just curious as to why you read/own her books.
How would I go about integrating NAPE physics into a component based system?
Currently I have 4 interdependent interfaces: System (manages managers lol, creates entities), Entity (think of this as an abstract class - literally an abstract class, yes, Java - that is the abstraction to create and allow this flexibility), Component (holds data for a specific manager, all entities are made up of a wide variety of components) and Manager (manages components of each entity, when a component is added to an entity, each manager will receive an event where it can check to see if it can do anything with it).
Here is an example game that works pretty good at the moment:
GameMain:
package {
import com.slugrail.system.Entity;
import com.slugrail.system.System;
import component.Container;
import component.PlayerController;
import component.Position;
import flash.display.Sprite;
import flash.events.Event;
import flash.events.KeyboardEvent;
import flash.geom.Point;
import manager.CameraManager;
import manager.DisplayManager;
import manager.PlayerControllerManager;
import manager.PositionManager;
/**
* ...
* @author
*/
public class GameMain extends Sprite {
private static var _instance:GameMain;
private var system:System;
private var player:Entity;
private var level:Entity;
public function GameMain():void {
_instance = this;
system = new System();
system.put(new PlayerControllerManager());
system.put(new PositionManager());
system.put(new DisplayManager(this));
system.put(new CameraManager());
this.addEventListener(Event.ADDED_TO_STAGE, init);
}
private function init(e:Event = null):void {
removeEventListener(Event.ADDED_TO_STAGE, init);
level = createLevel();
player = createGameEntity();
player.put(new PlayerController(PlayerController.PLAYER_NO + 0));
stage.addEventListener(KeyboardEvent.KEY_DOWN, onKeyUpdate);
stage.addEventListener(KeyboardEvent.KEY_UP, onKeyUpdate);
}
private function onKeyUpdate(e:KeyboardEvent):void {
player.sendMessage({type: e.type == KeyboardEvent.KEY_UP, code: e.keyCode}, PlayerControllerManager.ID);
}
public function createLevel():Entity {
var level:Entity = system.createEntity();
level.put(new Container("Level"));
level.put(new Position(Position.CURRENT_POSITION, new Point()));
return level;
}
public function createGameEntity():Entity {
var entity:Entity = system.createEntity();
entity.put(new Position(Position.CURRENT_POSITION, new Point(stage.stageWidth / 2, 3*stage.stageHeight / 4)));
entity.put(new Container("Graphics"));
return entity;
}
public static function getInstance():GameMain {
return _instance;
}
}
}
PositionManager:
package manager {
import com.slugrail.system.Component;
import com.slugrail.system.Entity;
import com.slugrail.system.TickBasedManager;
import component.PlayerController;
import component.Position;
/**
* ...
* @author
*/
public class PositionManager extends TickBasedManager {
public static const ID:String = "PositionM";
private var positions:Vector.<Position>;
private var deltaTime:Number;
public function PositionManager() {
super(ID);
}
public override function init():void {
positions = new Vector.<Position>();
}
public override function uninit():void {
positions = null;
}
public override function addComponent(component:Component):void {
if (component is Position) {
positions.push(component as Position);
}
}
public override function onTick(deltaTime:Number):void {
this.deltaTime = deltaTime;
var position:Position;
for each (position in positions) {
processPosition(position);
}
}
private function processPosition(position:Position):void {
var controller:PlayerController = position.getHolder().fetch(PlayerController.PLAYER_NO + 0) as PlayerController;
if (controller != null && (controller.keyDown(37) || controller.keyDown(39))) {
position.getVelocity().x += (controller.keyDown(37) ? -1 : 1) * (0.8 * deltaTime);
}
position.getVelocity().x *= 12/13;
position.getPoint().x += position.getVelocity().x * deltaTime;
}
}
}
Position:
package component {
import com.slugrail.system.Component;
import flash.geom.Point;
/**
* ...
* @author
*/
public class Position extends Component {
public static const CURRENT_POSITION:String = "CPosition";
public static const LAST_POSITION:String = "LPosition";
private var initial:Point, point:Point;
private var velocity:Point;
public function Position(name:String, initial:Point) {
this.initial = initial;
super(name);
}
public override function init():void {
point = initial;
velocity = new Point();
}
public override function uninit():void {
point = null;
initial = null;
velocity = null;
}
public function setPoint(point:Point):void {
this.point = point;
}
public function getPoint():Point {
return point;
}
public function getInitial():Point {
return initial;
}
public function getVelocity():Point {
return velocity;
}
}
}
Any feedback would be great since I think I'm going overboard by creating really small components. What would be the best way to integrate NAPE? I can think of a couple of ways but I'd rather be open to better ideas.
At 1/27/14 02:29 AM, slugrail wrote: How would I go about integrating NAPE physics into a component based system?
Make a NAPE component, add it to instances that need it.
Make NAPE manager, make it process instances with NAPE component.
Add NAPE library to the project, refer to it from nowhere else but from the NAPE manager.
For ex. when NAPE manager is added to system, it initializes NAPE. And all NAPE-related stuff is separated from the rest of the game's code.
I think the highest priority is separating code in this case, mentioning things in only one place.
At 1/26/14 07:41 PM, BoMToons wrote: For example, I like the idea that creativity is one of the basic expressions of being human.
Why do we need to be human, in Ayn's opinion?
Complete focus on yourself and your needs is a recipe for disaster when living in a world inhabited by other people and trying to be productive in a larger social context.
But that's the same as being human, too?
So what is the difference? You're being human when you mindfully interact with other people, and you're being human when you produce works. Does it matter in what way to be human?
You really can't see ANYTHING intriguing about some aspects of her philosophies?
You got me intrigued with your two sentences.
At 1/27/14 08:37 AM, kkots wrote:At 1/26/14 07:41 PM, BoMToons wrote: For example, I like the idea that creativity is one of the basic expressions of being human.Why do we need to be human, in Ayn's opinion?
Complete focus on yourself and your needs is a recipe for disaster when living in a world inhabited by other people and trying to be productive in a larger social context.But that's the same as being human, too?
So what is the difference? You're being human when you mindfully interact with other people, and you're being human when you produce works. Does it matter in what way to be human?
You really can't see ANYTHING intriguing about some aspects of her philosophies?You got me intrigued with your two sentences.
I guess it's just her definition of what's "good" and "bad" fundamentally. She says creators are "good" and non-creators (ie: those who contribute nothing worthwhile to the world around them, politicians, etc.) are "bad." But she also says that the best way to be useful is to pursue your own personal desires without consideration for others.
At 1/27/14 10:40 AM, BoMToons wrote: I guess it's just her definition of what's "good" and "bad" fundamentally. She says creators are "good" and non-creators (ie: those who contribute nothing worthwhile to the world around them, politicians, etc.) are "bad." But she also says that the best way to be useful is to pursue your own personal desires without consideration for others.
That can't be all of the philosophy, because simply pursuing desires does not necessarily mean being useful, and there is no definition of what's useful and what's not useful (for the society, as I assume, so this is social philosophy), and politicians are much more useful than, for example, artists, because they control the order around us and laws, without which we can't normally exist, so our well-being depends on politicians (whom we select ourselves, actually).
But I think I shouldn't ask any more questions to you about the book, but rather just read it. This is Flash forum. Would much more interesting to read how your debate with Diki will continue.
At 1/27/14 11:05 AM, kkots wrote:At 1/27/14 10:40 AM, BoMToons wrote: I guess it's just her definition of what's "good" and "bad" fundamentally. She says creators are "good" and non-creators (ie: those who contribute nothing worthwhile to the world around them, politicians, etc.) are "bad." But she also says that the best way to be useful is to pursue your own personal desires without consideration for others.That can't be all of the philosophy, because simply pursuing desires does not necessarily mean being useful, and there is no definition of what's useful and what's not useful (for the society, as I assume, so this is social philosophy), and politicians are much more useful than, for example, artists, because they control the order around us and laws, without which we can't normally exist, so our well-being depends on politicians (whom we select ourselves, actually).
But I think I shouldn't ask any more questions to you about the book, but rather just read it. This is Flash forum. Would much more interesting to read how your debate with Diki will continue.
Yeah, obviously can't represent her whole system of thought in 2 sentences. :-P
I'd suggest doing your own research, read the books, look up "objectivism" etc.
I don't think we're having a debate about anything, just chatting - and the politicians thing was meant to be a joke :-D
At 1/27/14 11:05 AM, kkots:
Would much more interesting to read how your debate with Diki will continue.
Well, like I said before I don't want to debate Ayn Rand or her ideas, nor did I intend to start one. I don't really care much for philosophy, and I really don't like Rand (i.e. her ideas or her as a person). Rand and her books are just generally not held in high regard in acadamia, so I did a double-take when I saw him list them and wondered what his reasons were for owning them.
If you want to learn about Rand and the nonsense she spouted in her books then you can read this essay that goes into great detail regarding her life, and Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead (and why the ideas she promotes with those books are absurd). Hopefully you'll see why I called her a hypocrite and a scumbag, and that I was being very generous with that choice of wording.
Oh hi Regs Lounge. Thought I'd take a break from packing my life into boxes so I can move to London and decided to see what we're all talking abo--- Oh. Oh dear.
My views on Objectivism, like most important things in life, are summed up by the most important media we have.
Webcomics.
- Biography of Ayn Rand as a Webcomic
- Bob the Angry Flower, Atlas Strugged: One Hour Later
And yes, I have read primers and "Introduction To" books on Objectivism. I disagree with it as an ideology, but can understand why it is appealing to some people. I've not read Shrugged. The length of Galt's speech and the laws of physics it breaks are the real reasons that put me off it, rather than the political message behind it.
Real reason Objectivism is Good: Underwater Cities.
...
At 1/27/14 06:20 PM, KaynSlamdyke wrote: Oh hi Regs Lounge. Thought I'd take a break from packing my life into boxes so I can move to London and decided to see what we're all talking abo--- Oh. Oh dear.
It's like MSGHero (I think) said earlier: the discussions in this thread vary wildly. Who wants to just spend all day talking about Flash?
At 1/27/14 06:20 PM, KaynSlamdyke wrote: - Bob the Angry Flower, Atlas Strugged: One Hour Later
I love that comic. It perfectly illustrates the most glaring flaw in her ideas. John Galt's utopia would crumble under its own inept hubris.
At 1/27/14 06:20 PM, KaynSlamdyke wrote: I've not read Shrugged. The length of Galt's speech and the laws of physics it breaks are the real reasons that put me off it
Yeah, Rand viewed modern physics as "corrupted", so as such she didn't trust what the laws of physics state are possible or impossible, or she just downright didn't believe things in science that have been proven, such as the theory of evolution, "just because".
At 1/27/14 07:02 PM, Diki wrote: things in science that have been proven, such as the theory of evolution
I believe that statement is an oxymoron :P
Programming stuffs (tutorials and extras)
PM me (instead of MintPaw) if you're confuzzled.
thank Skaren for the sig :P
At 1/27/14 09:45 PM, egg82 wrote: I believe that statement is an oxymoron :P
A theory in a scientific context does not mean "a guess", or something that is only an idea that remains to be proven. It's the highest possible achievement one can hope to attain in science. In simple terms it means "an explanation for an observation". Evolution is a fact that has been observed, and the theory explains it. It has very much been proven. Richard Lenski's experiment that has been conducted for the past twenty-five years is one example of such proof (not to be confused with a mathematical proof, which is a different term). There is also Diane Dodd's experiment on fruit flies, but the best thing I can find on that is this page.
To make an analogy: I'm sure you would agree that gravity is a proven fact, and it is inarguably a theory.
At 1/27/14 11:32 PM, Diki wrote: To make an analogy: I'm sure you would agree that gravity is a proven fact, and it is inarguably a theory.
It's a theory because one time I flew and science can't prove why. Without me it'd be a law.
sorry I need to inject humor into this page
At 1/27/14 10:40 AM, BoMToons wrote: I guess it's just her definition of what's "good" and "bad" fundamentally. She says creators are "good" and non-creators (ie: those who contribute nothing worthwhile to the world around them, politicians, etc.) are "bad." But she also says that the best way to be useful is to pursue your own personal desires without consideration for others.
At 1/27/14 11:09 AM, BoMToons wrote: I'd suggest doing your own research, read the books, look up "objectivism" etc.
I really don't like the philosophy as a whole, it's too complicated for me to understand fully.
But I really like the idea of dividing all people into those who create something useful and those who simply exists (sacks of meat). I'm going to throw the social aspect out of the window for now, I don't like social stuff.
So the virtue is to create something useful. In order to do that, you have to want to create it yourself. If you force it, it just won't be as good as if you did it on your own free will. This is why Rand decided that being useful happens when a man is egoistic, doing what he wants to. Egoism=virtue then (if you want to do something useful, only).
I also want to add usefulness meter and find a way for one to be as useful as possible while retaining the desire to be useful (for maximum virtue effect).
So there we go, I stole one of Rand's ideas that I found interesting.
The rest is garbage and smells.
At 1/27/14 11:32 PM, Diki wrote: A theory in a scientific context does not mean "a guess", or something that is only an idea that remains to be proven.
As far as I'm aware, that's almost exactly what it means. The reason we put the label "theory" on something (in the scientific world) is because we don't yet have enough substantial evidence to prove it without leaving some holes behind. The theory of evolution covers a lot of ground, and we have yet to prove ALL of it.
Once something is proven with the scientific method (which is sometimes a massive pain in the ass, especially when dealing with things that you can't explain outside of mathematics), it's no longer a theory. It then becomes a law.
To make an analogy: I'm sure you would agree that gravity is a proven fact, and it is inarguably a theory.
I wold disagree. It's the law of gravity, not the theory of gravity :P
It WAS a theory until it was proven; which, admittedly, didn't take very long because well yeah.
(google "scientific theory vs scientific law" if you want more information on that topic. It seems very technical and nitpicky, but since it's adhered to so ridgedly in the world of science it's a good thing to know. It gets much more technical as to defining a theory vs a law, so I generalized and simplified a bit)
Programming stuffs (tutorials and extras)
PM me (instead of MintPaw) if you're confuzzled.
thank Skaren for the sig :P
At 1/28/14 12:39 PM, egg82 wrote: As far as I'm aware, that's almost exactly what it means.
That is a hypothesis, not a theory.
At 1/28/14 12:39 PM, egg82 wrote: The reason we put the label "theory" on something (in the scientific world) is because we don't yet have enough substantial evidence to prove it without leaving some holes behind.
Not at all. We put the label "theory" on it because that's what people decided to call it, and it doesn't mean what you think it does. This is a very common misconception because in colloquial use "theory" is synonymous with "hypothesis". Do not confuse theories with hypotheses in a scientific context.
At 1/28/14 12:39 PM, egg82 wrote: The theory of evolution covers a lot of ground, and we have yet to prove ALL of it.
If that were true then evolution wouldn't be a theory. By virtue of it being a theory these "holes" you're implying exist very much do not exist. Evolution is airtight, there isn't some aspect of it waiting to be proven. I cannot stress that enough.
At 1/28/14 12:39 PM, egg82 wrote: Once something is proven with the scientific method, it's no longer a theory. It then becomes a law.
You seriously could not be more wrong. Theories do not become laws. Theories use laws in their quantifications and explanations. I repeat: theories do not become laws. That doesn't make sense.
At 1/28/14 12:39 PM, egg82 wrote: I wold disagree. It's the law of gravity, not the theory of gravity :P
You are wrong. Gravity is a theory, not a law. The theory of gravity incorporates the laws of physics. One such law is that bodies of mass move toward each other. The theory of gravity quantifies and explains why that happens.
And since we're getting into this it is worth stating that there is no theory called "the theory of gravity", like there is the theory of evolution. The most recent theory to explain gravity is Einstein's theories of general and special relativity.
At 1/28/14 12:39 PM, egg82 wrote: [gravity] WAS a theory until it was proven
No, no, no, no, no. That is not how science works. As I said in my previous post: a theory is the pinnacle of achievement in science. It is the greatest thing any scientist can hope to achieve. Gravity was proven to exist through demonstrable, repeatable, and predictable tests, and the theory quantifies and explains that.
At 1/28/14 12:39 PM, egg82 wrote: (google "scientific theory vs scientific law" if you want more information on that topic.)
You need to follow your own advice. Or just read this, it's only nine paragraphs.
Scientists should really use another word besides theory.
Anyway, new page new topics. Gogo gamedev!
At 1/28/14 01:46 PM, MSGhero wrote: Anyway, new page new topics. Gogo gamedev!
Hahah, did you count out the posts on the previous page to determine a new page was forthcoming? Or did you just pay attention to the total number of replies?
P.S.
Web-dev for life! (not really, it's boring as fuck)
At 1/28/14 01:53 PM, Diki wrote: Hahah, did you count out the posts on the previous page to determine a new page was forthcoming? Or did you just pay attention to the total number of replies?
30 per page. Last page seemed to drag on longer than usual, it was at 26 when I thought a new page would be started.
At 1/28/14 01:53 PM, Diki wrote: Or did you just pay attention to the total number of replies?
Let X be the number of replies displayed in Flash forum near this thread.
Then your post will create a new page if and only if
(X+1)%30==0
You can perform this computation in your head.
To determine how many posts are left (Y) for the next page to be created:
Y=30-(X%30)
P.S.
Web-dev for life! (not really, it's boring as fuck)
I started programming JSFL commands for Flash (they are JavaScript commands that run directly in Flash IDE and allow to automatically execute the same actions a human user can) recently. It's fun, and I got to the point when I learned XMLUI and wrote a dialog prompt asking the user to enter a name and other parameters.
It was fun.
Fun, until I felt that I needed to remember user's input, so that the next time the dialog opens it would show the last input. That was tedious.
Then it got even more tedious when I felt the need to interlock checkboxes. For example, hitting checkbox 2 would automatically check checkbox 1 or maybe outright disable it, and so on. That turned out impossible to do in JSFL XMLUI.
Me disappointed.
At 1/28/14 05:25 PM, kkots wrote: I started programming JSFL commands for Flash
I used to use those (when I was allowed to make flash stuff) quite a lot. Helps streamline those manual tasks which are specific to your process.
So for example we had one for translations; the designer just clicked a text field and clicked "Make multilingual" and it would automatically wrap it in a clip with the right class linkage, create a second frame with an alternate text component (a third party requirement) and some other jazz. Saved us a shit load of time because designers could put stuff in themselves without having to ask a dev to hook it up every time.
At 1/28/14 05:47 PM, Rustygames wrote:At 1/28/14 05:25 PM, kkots wrote: I started programming JSFL commands for FlashSo for example we had one for translations; the designer just clicked a text field and clicked "Make multilingual" and it would automatically wrap it in a clip with the right class linkage, create a second frame with an alternate text component (a third party requirement)
So you were using a server (maybe third party) to translate text at run-time?
And did you create Flash extensions (packs of commands, xml and other files that are redistributable via Extension Manager), or you were just writing .jsfl commands and using and distributing them directly via Command-->Run?
