Refreshed

I just came back from vacation, three weeks in Thailand.

I've been refreshed, revitalized, and re-energized.

So much to do: finish the cyvasse game I've started here, post my journal from my Thailand and Cambodia trip (travelingthebeatenpath.blogspot.com), change my home environment from that of a college student to one where I'm proud to bring people, kickstart my learning and growing at work, get back on my health regimen...

I've been thinking a lot lately about my direction in life. I've been trying to figure out where I want to go in my career - whether I want to pursue a management track, or whether I want to keep pushing at the technical track, or maybe I want to go live in some foreign country, or completely change what I'm doing.

But this interview from The Nerdist with Andy Serkis (http://www.nerdist.com/pepisode/nerdist-podcast-andy-serkis/) talks about two kinds of people: drains and radiators. Isn't that what should be guiding my life? What can I do so that I'm a radiator at work? If I think about life in terms of the energy I output and the things I accomplish, maybe it doesn't matter so much what I'm working on - the enthusiasm will come from being a light.

What do you think?

Le Grande Hexagon

Yesterday I laid out the hexes for the Cyvasse game board. One problem I ignored was that, although my hexes were in the right pattern, I was basically printing a square of them.

There are probably a few ways to deal with this. One would be to define each hexagon to display manually, something like

board = { {x=7, y= 1}, {x=6, y=2}, {x=8, y=2}, ...}

This way seemed tedious. And if I ever need to change the coordinates of each hex, tedious again.

I know the coordinates of each corner of the board, so I thought I might be able to use something simple like checking whether the coordinates of a particular hex are greater than the coordinates of the corners... but it's not so simple.

I can instead check to see which side of a line a point falls on, and determine if any particular point is within my larger hexagon. The solution relies on using the cross product, a mathematical concept I don't understand in the least :)

It looks something like this:

left_of_line = ((point_b.x - point_a.x) * 
                    (point_c.y - point_a.y) -
                    (point_b.y - point_a.y) * 
                    (point_c.x - point_a.x)) >= 0

Wiring all of my edges up, I get something like:

One key point is that the order of these points seem to matter. I'm not sure of the intuition behind this, or what I would do if I had any points with negative coordinates, but point_b always needs to be larger than point_a in order for the sign of the answer to come out right.

(The answer seems to be that you are actually taking the cross product of vectors, so direction does matter. More here.)

I've gone and messed up my color scheme. I think this happened because previously I was incrementing colors each time through a nested loop of 13x13; now I'm only displaying hexes that fall within the coordinates, and so no longer bumping the colors correctly. I should definitely assign each hexagon a color when I initially create it, so that it keeps track of itself.

I'll also take the opportunity to set the window size and caption. This is easy:

  love.graphics.setCaption( "Cyvasse" )
  love.graphics.setMode( 525, 700 )

While I'll probably want to do make the sizes of things dependent on the window size, I'll worry about that later. Here are the results:

I still need to make each hexagon symmetrical from all sides, so that they are not all oblong. I'd love to start to get into the gameplay as well, but before I do that I need to learn how to separate functions into different files, and if possible classes, in Lua.

A Hex on Hexes

First thing's first in my little Cyvasse experiment: make the game board.

Here is my life experience with game programming:

• When I was 10 or so, I learned QuickBasic by making a text based game show. Which door do you want to go through? Sweet, you got mauled by a lion!
• In high school, I again used Basic to animate a 2d stick figure guy running off a cliff and getting eaten by a shark. 
• In college, I worked as part of a group creating a top down shooter in Java. This game was never playable for even a moment. It didn't even compile when we turned it in. I'm not sure how I passed that class.
• 3 years ago, I used Ruby and Gosu to make a 2d arcade style 'shoot the enemy coming from the right side of the screen' game. Not really finished, not published, but sort of playable with 3 levels.

So, when I say "first thing's first", what I mean is "I have no idea what to do first." 

I'm going to start with the game board, which is a hexagon of hexagons, each side being 7 hexagons wide. The colors alternate between white, red, and black, with each player sitting on a corner with a white hex. Each hexagon is oriented such that faces are on the top and bottom, rather than corners. 

Drawing a hex should be easy, right? Go ahead, try it. Here's my attempt, using Google Draw:

My hexes don't line up! Here's the problem: each side must be the same length, and must be parallel to the opposite side. I'm not sure how to solve this using a simple drawing app, so I've decided instead to draw each hex in code, rather than trying to use assets.

Because the hex is 13x13 between faces, I'll use a nested loop, and draw a polygon through calculated points.

If you've been paying attention, you may have noticed a few problems here. First, because my math skills are weak, not all of the faces are the same length - the top is shorter than the diagonal faces. That's fine for now, because they will at least fit together. Second, I've made a square of hexagons, rather than a hex. I'll figure that out later. But most importantly, these hexagons are all sitting on top of each other.

In a hexagonal grid, each hex shares faces diagonally as well as vertically. So I need to offset each hex vertically, depending on which column it is in. If a hex sits on an even column, it should move down a bit.

I've added edges to illustrate things more clearly.

Now I'm going to tackle the colors. Colors alternate vertically between white, black, and red, and no hex shares a face with another hex of the same color. I tried a number of schemes, but in the end I implemented a counter based on the y axis, resetting to either white or black for the top of each column.

Finally, a grid of hexes!

I'll leave it here for now.

Do Something!

Now that I have a shiny new computer, I've decided to try and write a game.

I'll be working on Cyvasse, a fictional game from George R.R. Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire books. It's only loosely defined there, but has some similarities to chess.

Believe it or not, some uber-fans have put together actual rules for the game. There seem to be some variations (http://gameofcyvasse.com/, http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/136975/cyvasse, and more I'm sure), but I'll go with the one that inspired me first: http://www.reddit.com/r/boardgames/comments/19es1l/my_interpretation_of_the_game_of_thrones_cyvasse/

First decision first: which language/framework/engine should I use?

Casting about on the interwebs, there seem to be a few. Gamemaker is recommended, but the Mac version seems out of date. Unity is also big, but it costs money and seems like overkill for a little 2d board game. I'm a Ruby developer, so Gosu would work, but I would like to try a different language.

So I'll start out with Love, an open source Lua framework with what seems like a great community.

Habits Die and You Forget Them

Blog. Say that word out loud. Roll it around with your tongue.

Bbbblllloooogggg.

Mmm, feels weird. 5 years is a long time to go between updates. Time to fire it up again?

Funny how something I did regularly for so long (between this blog and my more personal one over at livejournal) can so easily slip into dormancy. I had forgotten it even existed!

Onward.

Darwin and Marx

Here's something I've never thought about before: Charles Darwin and Karl Marx were contemporaries. Not only were they aware of each other's works, they corresponded.

I'm currently reading Stephen Jay Gould's Ever Since Darwin, where he recounts some of Darwin and Marx's interaction:

The most ardent materialists of the nineteenth century, Marx and Engels, were quick to recognize what Darwin had accomplished and to exploit it's radical content. In 1869, Marx wrote to Engels about Darwin's Origin:

"Although it is developed in the crude English style, this is the book which contains the basis in natural history for our view."

Marx later offered to dedicate volume 2 of Das Kapital to Darwin, but Darwin gently declined, stating that he did not want to imply approval of a work he had not read. (I have seen Darwin's copy of volume 1 in his library at Down House. It is inscribed by Marx who calls himself a "sincere admirer" of Darwin. Its pages are uncut. Darwin was no devotee of the German language.)

Darwin was, indeed, a gentle revolutionary. Not only did he delay his work for so long, but he also assiduously avoided any public statement about the philosophical implications of his theory. In 1880, he wrote to Karl Marx:

"It seems to me (rightly or wrongly) that direct arguments against Christianity and Theism hardly have any effect on the public; and that freedom of thought will best be promoted by that gradual enlightening of human understanding which follows the progress of science. I have therefore always avoided writing about religion and have confined myself to science."

Reading more about Gould (whose contributions to evolutionary theory include punctuated equilibrium), it appears that he had some fondness for Marxism as well. From Stephen Jay Gould, a Man for All Seasons:

He was an ardent opponent of the evils created by capitalism and employed his pen and wit to ridicule social injustice wherever he saw it.

Interesting stuff. This may be worth an afternoon WILFing on Wikipedia.

Cargo Cults

I'm busy reading Richard Dawkins' latest book, The God Delusion. It's interesting, if quite opinionated and arrogant, but there are quite a few things within its pages that I was surprised to learn of.

One example is the existence of Cargo Cults in the Southwest Pacific. From wikipedia:

Cargo cults have been recorded since the 19th century. The cult participants generally do not fully understand the significance of manufacturing or commerce. They have limited purchasing ability. Their understanding of western society, religion, and economics may be rudimentary. These cults are a response to the resulting confusion and insecurity. They rationalize their situation by reference to religious and magical symbols they associate with Christianity and modern western society. Across cultural differences and large geographic areas, there have been instances of the movements independently organizing.

The most famous examples of Cargo Cult behavior have been the airstrips, airports, and radios made out of coconuts and straw. The cult members built them in the belief that the structures would attract transport aircraft full of cargo. Believers stage "drills" and "marches" with twigs for rifles and military-style insignia and "USA" painted on their bodies to make them look like soldiers.

Utterly amazing! The Cargo Cult demonstrates, in a way more real than any other, how an unexplained phenomenon can spark a religion, complete with rituals, a messiah, and miracles. And it can happen independently, again and again. Dawkins talks about one, the cult of John Frum

The cult is still active today. The followers believe that John Frum will come back on a February 15 (the year of his return isn't known), a date which is observed as "John Frum Day" in Vanuatu. The name "John Frum" is possibly derived from World War II GIs introducing themselves to the locals as "John from America".

Humans will believe anything, and rationalize to continue believing it. I can't wait until the aliens come, and we worship them.

Everyone: Cool it!

I read this interesting article the other day: Thatcher economist de-hypes climate debate

"There is no greater threat to the people of this planet than the retreat from reason we see all around us today."

I, personally, want to poke out my eyes when I read this article - but only because the author has a thesaurus stuck up his ass. What in the hell do ambit and adjure mean? But I do think he captures the subject of his article well. Nigel Lawson's article, The Economics and Politics of Climate Change: An Appeal to Reason is slightly longer at 18 pages, but well worth the read.

Several of his points (he makes others - it is well worth the read):

• the science on climate change is not conclusive
• the debate about climate change is being actively stifled
• the assertion that global warming is all bad is unfounded

I've noticed in all of my interactions with people who feel passionately about global warming that the discussion has taken on the same tone as an abortion debate: emotion rules over reason. Articles that talk about some "effect of global warming" only mention one side of the story. For example: Greenland's Ice Cap is Melting at a Frighteningly Fast Rate only briefly mentions that Antartica's ice sheet is thickening, doesn't mention that melting ice is only a secondary cause of rising sea levels, and throws out a scare about the Gulf Stream disappearing -- an idea that is controversial.

What we need is more nuanced information - The Greenland Ice is interesting - which might actually allow us to think about this. Clearly the extremist argument isn't working - not for the leaders of our nation, and not for the people who continue to buy SUVs.

It's time to sit back, think about things rationally, and cool it.

The Singularity Is Near

Could the biotech revolution finally be producing some fruit? This disease kills thousands every year - have we entered bridge two?

Diabetes Breakthrough

Results Only Work Environment

It's time for a revolution.

I've noticed this for some time: I'm expected to show up for work at 9, but often I don't get into the idea of doing work until late morning. Then I break for lunch, and it takes a couple of hours to get back into the flow.

When I've had consulting gigs, I've noticed that it's much easier to work. I sit down only when I'm ready to work, and I get up when I'm tired. Since I'm fully engaged when I'm working, I can get two hours of work done in two hours.

Contrast this with the work I get done in an average 8 hour day. I don't need to get into details, but it's lower than 8 hours of work.

Enter the Results Only Work Environment. Best Buy has recently (within the last two years) been operating (much of that time without the knowledge or permission of its CEO) under a no meetings, no schedules, no mandatory face time principle. As long as employees get their work done, it's policy not to require them to be in the office. Some of the rules are interesting, too:

No.7: Nobody talks about how many hours they work. No.9: It's O.K. to take a nap on a Tuesday afternoon, grocery shop on Wednesday morning, or catch a movie on Thursday afternoon.

Does this work? Productivity has gone up. Best Buy's stock is up over last year's. It will be interesting to see if they can make this model work for non-corporate employees (like retail salespeople).

Given my inherently lazy nature, would I be able to pull off getting all of my work done if I'm getting up at 10 and going to a movie once a week? I think there's only one way to find out.

But, how do I convince my boss?

Government Theft?

Here was are, a day after the election. The Democrats are rejoicing that they have "swept" the elections, and Rumsfeld has resigned. Finally, say Democrats and liberals, our voice will be heard! Our freedoms will not be run over roughshod!

Or will nothing change?

Normally throwawayyourtv.org has a lot of liberal clips on it, ranging from BBC documentaries to Daily Show clips. This one, however, appears to be focused on the government as a whole. It is a bit of a conspiracy theory, but the dots are well connected. The whole thing is about 2 hours long, but he gets to the point in the first few minutes: Freedom to Fascism

Here's an article which sort of sums up the main points of the film (and throws some Populist BS in there too - watch out!) : Outing the Constitutional Criminals

Is the income tax really not based on law? This guy makes the argument that, while it's not contitutionally based, there are plenty of indirect contractual agreements that make this legal. I find it hard to believe, though, that we're paying taxes and there's no hard solid law to base it on. The Tax Freedom Movement - Establishment Controlled?

Of course, if the government and the IRS didn't have anything to fear, why are there such vitriolic reviews of this movie? Who is out there claiming absurdity, instead of scratching their heads and wondering why people are out there protesting and winning court cases? Two Hit Pieces for "America: Freedom to Fascism"

Once again, I can't wait for Google to amassed enough intelligence for it to be "The Great Validator," because I'm not smart enough to figure all of this out.

A Call for Reason

A recent episode of CNN's Broken Government series, Do Nothing Congress, made claims that Tom Delay was instrumental in creating the current political environment, through his escalation, to the expense of all else, of fundraising and re-election. Whoever caused it, it's becoming more and more clear to me that the center is no longer valued. Extremism, on both sides of the political spectrum, rules.

It's obvious in the media as well. O'brian, Hannity, Colmes, Krugman, and on and on, view the world through their one sided filters. They only nominally defend their positions - whatever they don't have a good answer for, they lob some controversy about the opposition into the mix, and deflect.

My personal conversations quickly lose focus. Discussions with friends degenerate when labels start being thrown around -- Communist, terrorist, draft dodger, incompetent, heartless, inhuman. Politicians and scientists alike are accused of being in the pocket of Big Corporations and activists are accused of being alarmists.

Most surprising to me, I've been accused of being both a Republican and a liberal (separately -- I don't think anyone's calling me a liberal Republican). It's surprising to me because I identify with neither.

In a recent conversation, I was told to get off the fence and stop flip-flopping. I suppose my opinions aren't written in stone, true enough, but I think my opinions are reasoned. I'm not arrogant enough pretend to know everything - so I'm willing to think about something again when I learn something new. Not so the case for people who have strong political identifications: Democrats and Republicans Both Adept at Ignoring Facts, Study Finds

"The result is that partisan beliefs are calcified, and the person can learn very little from new data," [study author Drew] Westen said.

Scott Adams had a recent post about what he calls advocates: Stem Cells. I think he's right when he points out it's not worth it to argue with them.

I read an article in the SB Independent, a liberal stronghold (which, curiously, endorsed Schwarzenegger for Governor over Angelides), which I thought would be appropriate to share: Republican Reason

According to last week’s Angry Poodle column, “True-believers, flat-Earthers, and witch burners,” employing the techniques of homophobia and racism, control the Republican Party. Independent Executive Editor Nick Welsh could not be clearer as to what he thinks about the party that a majority of American voters has regularly elected to office. May a Republican respond? It is counterproductive and beneath the stature of a writer such as Nick Welsh to engage in such personal invective, other than perhaps in jest—but I don’t think he was attempting to be funny here. By way of contrast, the better approach is to affirm the goodness of one’s political opponents’ motivations, while also allowing that reasonable individuals can differ in their views.

I believe that most Democrats are well-meaning on social issues and passionate about some issues, such as the environment. My view is also that they are sometimes misinformed on issues that, if they became aware of them, might cause them to reevaluate their opinions. That is the purpose of dialogue and debate: for us to reconsider our views. Voters who disagree with the positions of the Republican Party should vote it out of office. But we are not all stupid and bad (not even most of us). Honest.
 — Lanny Ebenstein

Would that this advice be followed, by both sides.

Actions and Consequences

In the last week, I've watched several video clips from this site: Throw Away Your TV.

Just now, I watched a few recent posts that really scared me - about the direction our country - the one whose leaders we vote for in a few weeks - is taking us.

Fear in Political Ads
This is a continuing and growing theme in the President's arsinal. Apparently, only our current President can stop terrorism - but he hasn't really done that yet.

Bush - I Don't Believe Religious People Kill Innocent People
Here's how he's going to do it - by torturing people. He's not going to talk about what constitutes torture, or whether particular tactics are torture, or have an open debate about this.

Maher Arar Fears the USA
This is the result, when you torture people, when you remove their access to due process: innocent people are hurt. This guy has no recourse - his life has been turned upside down and destroyed by our government, he's been proven innocent, and the US won't even admit it made a mistake.

Isn't this the reason we fought Communism in the last century?

A lot of innocent people have been killed in Iraq.

Mr. Bush, I thought religious people didn't kill innocent people.

Media Context

I can't help but continue to love Scott Adams.

In his latest blog post, Sunday Blogging, he complains that the media fails to give him all the information he needs to make an informed opinion.

For example, Iran has 25,000 Jewish citizens. The media made a big deal – and rightly so – about the president of Iran’s comments about “wiping Israel off the map,” and of his questioning the Holocaust. For context, wouldn’t you like to know how the Jews living in Iran are being treated?

I've never agreed so much. The first time I can remember thinking this was during the media frenzy after 9/11. At the time, I can remember thinking, "Why did Bin Laden attack us?" Yet I can't remember this question ever being answered. Instead, we got simple sound bites like, "The terrorists hate our freedom." I don't for one second believe that. Even Aljazeera fails to elaborate.

President Bush is still misleading you and hiding the real reason from you, which means that the reasons to repeat what happened remain," bin Ladin said.
--Bin Ladin: Reasons to attack remain

So what are the reasons? Wikipedia has some answers:

[t]he ruling to kill the Americans and their allies civilians and military - is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque (in Jerusalem) and the holy mosque (in Makka) from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim. This is in accordance with the words of Almighty Allah, 'and fight the pagans all together as they fight you all together,' and 'fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah'.
--Responsibility for the September 11, 2001 attacks

Reading this, though, it's clear that a lot of people believe Bin Laden did it because he is following his violent Muslim beliefs. But even this isn't the whole story - he wouldn't be on the attack if it weren't for our support of Israel and for our military installations in Saudia Arabia.

Now, that's a reason to leave out context. Bringing Israel into the equation, and the ethics of our worldwide military presence, would bring a standstill to the news. Maybe it would be a good idea for CNN to sit down and present a couple of days worth of programming on Israel - but then, maybe it's just easier to let us continue to think we've been attacked because the enemy is a bunch of crazy religious fanatics.