Advertisement Jump to content
  • Advertisement

mhamlin

Member
  • Content Count

    1207
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

520 Good

About mhamlin

  • Rank
    Contributor

Personal Information

  • Interests
    Programming
  1. It would invoke whatever behavior that Scene::CreateEntity() wants. Perhaps, pass a on_unreferenced( RefCounted* ) function pointer to be called when the entity is unreferenced. Within this function you can enqueue the entity to a deletion queue, or whatever you need to do.
  2. I imagine that Scene::CreateEntity() is the factory interface for instantiating the proper type Entity. Just stuff the reference count within the entity class, and manipulate that count with a pair of Acquire() and Release() methods to avoid binary incompatibility. You can easily cook up a template pointer class to transparently call these methods if you like.
  3. As YogurtEmperor, I suggest using both designs. DO use the factory pattern you described for instantiating new Entities. But, ALSO allow for users to Insert and Remove entities form the scene. You don't need to use a shared_pointer, just use an internally managed reference count scheme. I tend to favor manual reference counting. I find smart pointers can encourage lazy design regarding object ownership. But maybe I'm just crazy. Not a big deal, use smart pointers if you like, just keep the Entity's lifetime model in mind. So, anyway, your object's lifetime could look something like this: Entity* p_entity = Scene::CreateEntity( someTypeID ); // p_entity has a ref count of 1, owned by the caller of this function Scene::InsertEntity( p_entity ); // p_entity now has a ref count of 2. One by the user, one by the scene // Do stuff ... // We're done with this object Scene::RemoveEntity( p_entity ); // The scene has either release its reference or has scheduled the release // The user now releases p_entity->Release();
  4. mhamlin

    Amateur Game Design or Indie Game Design

    Of course, id hasn't really been independent since it was acquired by ZeniMax in 2009.
  5. mhamlin

    Facial Animation

    Game engines will typically use middleware such as FaceFX for quite a large part of their facial animation needs. Basically that middleware generates animations based on a wav and a morpheme table that animators set up (which maps how morphemes affect face bones). During runtime these animations are used to skin the face skeleton. Recent versions of FaceFX support emotion tags, which allow the animators to specify how a line tagged with 'sad' influences the generated animation as opposed to, say, a line tagged as 'happy' (obviously these tags and their mapping are arbitrary). You can also create a library of stock expressive additive animations--such as 'eyebrow raise', 'eye roll', etc. Then you can play and mix these into your face skeletons no matter what animation (if any) are being played on them. Basically the solutions are probably what you expect, just very skillfully and artfully done.
  6. mhamlin

    Unsigned Vs. Signed Generally

    QFT. Use the type suited for the problem at hand, coupled with liberal sanity checks. Aggressive assertions have saved my ass many times.
  7. mhamlin

    Does the U.S. need to create a new constitution?

    Quote:Original post by HostileExpanse Probably because you can stop claiming it as "your [free-and-clear] property" . It's not. Okay. Care to elaborate on this? Quote: If you don't "flee from the robbery," then you KNOWINGLY and WILLINGLY choose to be subject to it. Next time someone is is getting mugged in a dark alley, let's see if they can say, "whoa hey ... how about I just leave and we forget about this thing?" Unless something like THAT works ... taxation will continue to bear precious little resemblence to "robbery." Wow, really you believe that? The fact that a person KNOWINGLY and WILLINGLY chooses to be subject to robbery doesn't legitimize it. Many people KNOWINGLY and WILLINGLY cooperate with muggers for their own safety. Quote: Hobbes proposes an answer. But ... more interstingly, perhaps it would help to find out whether you believe that a society should have any legal code? Hobbes was wrong. I reject the idea of some implicit social contract, such a thing is immoral and frankly doesn't make sense. People are "nasty, brutish, and short," therefore let's give a concentrated group of people (remember, these people are also "nasty, brutish, and short," because that's just human nature) dominion of our lives and property. Of course, that situation is ridiculous. If people are "nasty, brutish, and short" why in the world would they be given power of anyone else? Of course I think a society should have a legal code. If I'm arguing on a platform of property rights I could not believe otherwise. If you care to read some material on this I recommend Roderick Long.
  8. mhamlin

    Does the U.S. need to create a new constitution?

    Quote:Original post by HostileExpanse People choosing to engage in activities when they are fully aware that there will be a price to pay, and that the payment provides benefits to a person ..... doesn't sound anything like being "robbed."Really, doesn't sound like robbery? Let's see, I have never agreed to our government. If I try to refuse the demands of the government, I will be imprisoned or murdered. Sounds like a violent criminal to me. Quote: Don't want to pay income tax? Pitch a tent -- there are plenty of parks to live and catch food in. No, I do want to pay income tax. If I don't, I will be imprisoned or murdered depending on how vehemently I defend my property. Quote: Don't want to be subject to any taxation? The US's borders are wide open -- though (oddly) none of these "taxation is stealing" people seem to be willing/able to get some little tax free island nation established.Okay. I'm arguing against the legitimacy of coercive taxation. The fact that one can possibly flee from robbery does not make it legitimate. By what authority does government lay claim to my property (including my very person) in the first place?
  9. mhamlin

    Does the U.S. need to create a new constitution?

    Quote:Original post by LessBread No, that wouldn't make you an authoritarian. It's pretty obvious, however, that you're really asking about taxes and implying that taxes are theft. If you benefit from government services but refuse to pay taxes, you're stealing from the government and thus from everyone who pays taxes. The government can arrest you for tax evasion without being authoritarian. If that arrest consists of knocking down your door in the middle of the night and hauling you away never to be seen or heard from again, that would be a strong indicator of authoritarian government. We can also take my example to mean that a person insisting that other people cease from engaging in illegitimate activities to not be authoritarian. I disagree with your analysis. Suppose the purpose of the group of thieves I alluded to earlier somehow benefited me. This does not change the fact that they still engage in thievery. I would also say that it is not possible to steal from the state as the state has no legitimate claim to tax and its supposed property in the first place. Quote: ... According to research by Altemeyer, right-wing authoritarians tend to exhibit cognitive errors and symptoms of faulty reasoning. Specifically, they are more likely to make incorrect inferences from evidence and to hold contradictory ideas that result from compartmentalized thinking. They are also more likely to uncritically accept insufficient evidence that supports their beliefs, and they are less likely to acknowledge their own limitations.[2] Nevertheless, there is no connection between authoritarianism and either low or high intelligence. In terms of the five factor model of personality, authoritarians generally score lower on openness to experience and slightly higher on conscientiousness.[11] Altemeyer suggested that authoritarian politicians are more likely to be in the Conservative or Reform party in Canada, or the Republican Party in the United States. They generally have a conservative economic philosophy, are highly nationalistic, oppose abortion, support capital punishment, oppose gun control legislation, and do not value social equality.[2] The RWA scale reliably correlates with political party affiliation, reactions to Watergate, pro-capitalist attitudes, religious orthodoxy, and acceptance of covert governmental activities such as illegal wiretaps.[2] Although authoritarianism is correlated with conservative political ideology, not all authoritarians are conservative, and not all conservatives are authoritarian. It is also worth noting that many authoritarians have no interest in politics. Authoritarians are generally more favorable to punishment and control than personal freedom and diversity. For example, they are more willing to suspend constitutional guarantees of liberty such as the Bill of Rights. They are more likely to advocate strict, punitive sentences for criminals,[12] and they report that they obtain personal satisfaction from punishing such people. They tend to be ethnocentric and prejudiced against racial and ethnic minorities,[13] and homosexuals.[14] ... Okay. Quote: ... Theodore M. Vestal of Oklahoma State University–Stillwater has written that authoritarianism is characterized by: * "Highly concentrated and centralized power structures," in which political power is generated and maintained by a "repressive system that excludes potential challengers" and uses political parties and mass organizations to "mobilize people around the goals of the government";[3] * The following principles: 1) rule of men, not rule of law; 2) rigged elections; 3) all important political decisions made by unelected officials behind closed doors; 4) a bureaucracy operated quite independently of rules, the supervision of elected officials, or concerns of the constituencies they purportedly serve; 5) the informal and unregulated exercise of political power;[3] * Leadership that is "self-appointed and even if elected cannot be displaced by citizens' free choice among competitors" * No guarantee of civil liberties or tolerance for meaningful opposition;[3] * Weakening of civil society: "No freedom to create a broad range of groups, organizations, and political parties to compete for power or question the decisions of rulers," with instead an "attempt to impose controls on virtually all elements of society";[3] and * Political stability maintained by "control over and support of the military to provide security to the system and control of society; 2) a pervasive bureaucracy staffed by the regime; 3) control of internal opposition and dissent; 4) creation of allegiance through various means of socialization." ... Okay, let's assume this definition of "authoritarian." How is the "Tenther", that is, strict, interpretation of the Constitution particularly authoritarian? Quote: Your claim invites ambiguity to the degree that it lumps together all forms of government, thus confusing authority with authoritarian. The claim leaves no room for distinguishing the difference between liberal democracy and police state dictatorship. Injecting an imaginary distinction between "individual freedom" and "state freedom" furthers the ambiguity. My claim does leave room for distinguishing between various forms of government. The fact of the matter is that in both a liberal democracy and a police state the state subordinates personal freedom. However, a police state subordinates a greater degree of freedom that the said democracy. But, both subordinate personal freedom. Quote: Human beings are social creatures. We don't live outside of society. Even the lives of monks and hermits are conditioned by the societies they seek to escape. To borrow from Hobbes, life outside of civilization is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short", conditions not well described by the word freedom. The distinction between "individual freedom" and "state freedom" invites a person to turn a blind eye to the reality that civilization is the foundation of freedom. The claim that all state power is necessarily authoritarian reinforces the confusion of authority with authoritarian. It reduces government by consent to the equivalent of government by force and thus confers the legitimacy of government by consent to government by force. Certainly I would agree that humans are social animals and that society is a necessary thing. However, I would ask that we not conflate the state with society nor should we conflate the state with civilization. Quote: It indicates that he thought the government based on that Constitution could be a valid party to a sales contract with slave owners. In so doing he gives that government his tacit consent. More to the point, "No Treason" expresses Spooner's dissent from the way that slavery was resolved, so his view of how slavery should have been resolved is relevant to the argument. In "No Treason" he argues that those who would not govern by consent should nevertheless have been governed by consent and allowed to secede. This undermines his entire argument. "A man's natural rights are his own, against the whole world; and any infringement of them is equally a crime..." -- Spooner fails to acknowledge that slavery is a crime and slave owners criminals deserving arrest. In spite of that omission he goes on to make pronouncements that undermine his argument: "On the other hand, if he denies that B's or any other particular man's consent is necessary, he thereby necessarily admits that neither his own, nor any other man's is necessary; and that government need to be founded on consent at all." So applied to slavery, if a slave owner denies that the slave's consent is necessary, he necessarily admits that his own consent isn't necessary and that government need not be founded on consent. Spooner unwittingly justifies the actions of the North during the Civil War. No, it is not relevant. We must evaluate the arguments he presents in "No Treason" independently of arguments he makes elsewhere. Certainly you are correct that Spooner exhibited inconsistencies and that is relevant if we are evaluating the Lysander Spooner and his work in general. But we aren't. Suppose I make an argument that A -> B and somewhere else I make an argument that A <-> not B. I think we should evaluate each argument on its own merits and not declare that one argument somehow undermines the other. Obviously at least one argument must be wrong, but they do not otherwise have bearing on each other.
  10. mhamlin

    Does the U.S. need to create a new constitution?

    Quote: Considering your reaction to my comments regarding the Tenthers, it sure seemed like you were defending them. Only an authoritarian political program would call for rolling back popular entitlements, so yes, such an interpretation is authoritarian - even more so when coupled with the pro-death penalty and pro-corporate power sentiments wrapped up with the Tenther movement. How do you define 'authoritarian'? Say a group of people were stealing from me, for whatever purpose. Am I authoritarian if I insist that they cease doing so? Quote:During your trip through the 20th century you seem to have gained such familiarity with doublespeak that you're able to use it yourself! Asserting that the very nature of government is authoritarian blurs the qualitative distinctions between the various forms of the state. That blurring results in a one-sided view of the human condition, a view shut off from the possibility that government action can be put into service in the cause of human emancipation. The claim deliberately invites ambiguity and thus constitutes doublespeak. My claim is not at all ambiguous. My claim of the authoritarian nature of government follows from the fact that government subordinates individual freedom to the "freedom" of the state. One can accept this and still believe that government can do good for people. I fail to see how this "blurs the qualitative distinctions between the various forms of the state." All state power is necessarily authoritarian to some degree. Again, how do you define 'authoritarian'? Quote: What hasn't! Spooner's critique was flawed in it's own time. His claim that the Constitution was an invalid contract because it lacked the consent of those it governed was undermined by his advocacy of compensated emancipation. Such a mechanism rests on the view that slaves were property and that slave owners deserved compensation for the property they would lose with emancipation. He has no consideration for the absence of consent of the enslaved to the contracts that held them in bondage, much less consideration of the compensation they deserved for generations of uncompensated labor. If we are talking about the consistency of Spooner then certainly we can bring up his views of compensated emancipation. Of course, we aren't talking about that. It has no bearing on his argument against the Constitution.
  11. mhamlin

    Does the U.S. need to create a new constitution?

    Quote:Original post by LessBread Why can't you debate without dropping loaded questions about your opponent? That's the third one so far by my count. The fact is that the Tenther's are pushing old arguments and that indicates they are stuck in the past. The fact that the Tenthers are pushing old arguments does not indicate that they are stuck in the past. You'll have to demonstrate that logic for me. Quote: Great, but you didn't point to anything specific, much less demonstrate how it constituted doublespeak. It's as if you're trying out a word that you picked up on your brief trip through the 20th century. The Tenthers don't have any problem with concentrations of power, they have a problem with government that they don't control and thus can't use to enforce their beliefs on others. Look at Rick Perry of Texas. He flirts with secession to gain favor with the Tenthers and they love him back for it in spite of his having taken stimulus money and in spite of his taking steps to cover up the execution of an innocent man. And you think those folks are anti-authoritarian? Not! You misunderstand me if you think that I am trying to defend the Tenthers as a movement or for their consistency [lol]. Allow me to clarify what I meant concerning doublespeak: the citation you posted claims that the Tenther interpretation of the Constitution is authoritarian, specifically that the Tenther interpretation would preclude the Federal government from enacting such programs as Social Security and Medicare. This is not authoritarian. In fact, it is such programs, and, indeed, the very nature of government, itself, that is authoritarian. Quote: Why would you if you're stuck in 1870! [grin] Nice cop out [smile]. But I'm all ears if you want to point out to me what has changed in our state of affairs that is relevant to Spooner's critique.
  12. mhamlin

    Does the U.S. need to create a new constitution?

    Quote:Original post by LessBread Disagreeing with me isn't a psychosis. Trying to roll back the 20th century is. The Tenther's interpretation is discredited and antiquarian. Why can't you present a critique without resorting to claiming that your opponent's position is old or stuck in the past, as if that is somehow a meaningful point? Quote: Yet you seem to have a fondness for the literature of the last century, or at least for using words crafted during it, like doublespeak. There's nothing despicable in that essay, if there was you would have pointed to it. The authoritarian nature of the Tenthers is clear from their call to abolish popular social programs on the basis of the puerile ideology they adhere too. They fetishize a Constitution that never existed to promote their twisted view of how things ought to be. I would like to point out that the doublespeak is what I referred to as despicable. I'll agree with you that many likely fetishize the Constitution (I refer to it as the Cult of the Constitution, or Cult of the Founders). Isn't attempting to minimize government power by definition anti-authoritarian? Quote: Spooner's essay is a product of the times it was written in and should be understood as such. That doesn't necessarily make the ideas in it invalid, but it does make them old and likely no longer applicable. If you read his essay without a clue about the times it was written in, you'll likely come away with a distorted view of it's arguments and perhaps with the mistaken idea that they still hold. I am aware of the time in which it was written. I don't think the state of affairs that Spooner was criticizing have changed in any way that is relevant to his critique.
  13. mhamlin

    Does the U.S. need to create a new constitution?

    Quote: Quote:Original post by mhamlin Quote:Original post by LessBread I'd like to see a few new amendments, for example, an amendment stripping corporations of personage, but a new constitution? No. I'd to see the Constitution enforced, for example, the provision giving the war power to Congress not the President. I'm not a Tenther. For the most part Tenther's are yahoos. So you'd like to see the Constitution enforced, except for those parts you don't care for? Just curious. Curious? I don't think so. I said nothing about enforcing or not enforcing the Tenth Amendment. Instead, I disparaged people who think the Tenth Amendment is some kind of magical elixir that will dissolve those portions of the Federal Government they detest. Here's an account of that psychosis: Rally 'Round the "True Constitution" Why is the 'tenther' interpretation of the Constitution so crazy? I bet we will both agree, though, that many of these newfound "tenthers" are likely reactionaries against the Obama administration. Quote: Quote: ... Tentherism, in a nutshell, proclaims that New Deal-era reformers led an unlawful coup against the "True Constitution," exploiting Depression-born desperation to expand the federal government's powers beyond recognition. Under the tenther constitution, Barack Obama's health-care reform is forbidden, as is Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. The federal minimum wage is a crime against state sovereignty; the federal ban on workplace discrimination and whites-only lunch counters is an unlawful encroachment on local businesses. Tenthers divine all this from the brief language of the 10th Amendment, which provides that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." In layman's terms, this simply means that the Constitution contains an itemized list of federal powers -- such as the power to regulate interstate commerce or establish post offices or make war on foreign nations -- and anything not contained in that list is beyond Congress' authority. The tenther constitution, however, reads each of these powers very narrowly -- too narrowly, it turns out, to permit much of the progress of the last century. As the nation emerges from the worst economic downturn in three generations, the tenthers would strip away the very reforms and economic regulations that beat back the Great Depression, and they would hamstring any attempt to enact new progressive legislation. Such retreat to fringe constitutional theories is one of the right's favorite tactics during times of historic upheaval. The right-wing South justified both secession and the Civil War on the theory that the Constitution is nothing more than a pact between sovereigns that each state is free to leave at will. In the immediate wake of Brown v. Board of Education, 19 senators and 77 representatives endorsed a "Southern Manifesto," proclaiming -- in words echoed by modern-day tenthers -- that Brown "encroach[es] on the rights reserved to the States" because the "Constitution does not mention education." President Franklin Delano Roosevelt spent much of his first term combating a tenther majority on the Supreme Court, which routinely struck down substantial portions of the New Deal. ... Additionally, while the Depression-era justices provided much of the movement's intellectual framework, today's tenthers are extreme even by 1930s standards. The Constitution gives Congress the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States," thus empowering the federal government to levy taxes and leverage these revenues to benefit the American people. Tenthers, however, insist that these words don't actually mean what they say, claiming that spending on things like health care, education, and Social Security is simply not allowed. ... More important, there is something fundamentally authoritarian about the tenther constitution. Social Security, Medicare, and health-care reform are all wildly popular, yet the tenther constitution would shackle our democracy and forbid Congress from enacting the same policies that the American people elected them to advance. After years of raging against mythical judges who "legislate from the bench," tenther conservatives now demand a constitution that will not let anyone legislate at all. These tenther folks seem possessed with the ghost of John C. Calhoun fighting for states rights and nullification. Of course, you will hardly be surprised that I do not view the developments of the last century as "progress." The doublespeak present in that citation is despicable. Apparently constraints the "tenthers" claim should be present on the Federal government are "authoritarian." I wonder how such constraints are authoritarian? Quote: Quote: But anyway, I'll let Lysander Spooner speak for me, from the appendix to his essay, "No Treason": Quote: Inasmuch as the Constitution was never signed, nor agreed to, by anybody, as a contract, and therefore never bound anybody, and is now binding upon nobody; and is, moreover, such an one as no people can ever hereafter be expected to consent to, except as they may be forced to do so at the point of the bayonet, it is perhaps of no importance what its true legal meaning, as a contract, is. Nevertheless, the writer thinks it proper to say that, in his opinion, the Constitution is no such instrument as it has generally been assumed to be; but that by false interpretations, and naked usurpations, the government has been made in practice a very widely, and almost wholly, different thing from what the Constitution itself purports to authorize. He has heretofore written much, and could write much more, to prove that such is the truth. But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain — that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist. So you're trying to say that your mindset is stuck in the 1870's? I am saying that I agree with Spooner's analysis and argument. Why do you bring up that Spooner wrote the essay near 1870? Are ideas and arguments invalid because they are old?
  14. mhamlin

    Does the U.S. need to create a new constitution?

    Quote:Original post by LessBread I'd like to see a few new amendments, for example, an amendment stripping corporations of personage, but a new constitution? No. I'd to see the Constitution enforced, for example, the provision giving the war power to Congress not the President. I'm not a Tenther. For the most part Tenther's are yahoos. So you'd like to see the Constitution enforced, except for those parts you don't care for? Just curious. But anyway, I'll let Lysander Spooner speak for me, from the appendix to his essay, "No Treason": Quote: Inasmuch as the Constitution was never signed, nor agreed to, by anybody, as a contract, and therefore never bound anybody, and is now binding upon nobody; and is, moreover, such an one as no people can ever hereafter be expected to consent to, except as they may be forced to do so at the point of the bayonet, it is perhaps of no importance what its true legal meaning, as a contract, is. Nevertheless, the writer thinks it proper to say that, in his opinion, the Constitution is no such instrument as it has generally been assumed to be; but that by false interpretations, and naked usurpations, the government has been made in practice a very widely, and almost wholly, different thing from what the Constitution itself purports to authorize. He has heretofore written much, and could write much more, to prove that such is the truth. But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain — that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.
  15. Quote:Original post by zedz Coda your issue is this will keep happening to you the rest of your life, until you change your modus operandi. eg little trigger things like A/ Perhaps not talking about how brilliant you are at work B/ telling others methods of improving things, i.e. mr know it all etc even if theyre true, theyre not in the book 'how to win friends and influence ppl' Indeed. Of course, persons aggressing against you is wrong, Coda, but why do you provoke them?
  • Advertisement
×

Important Information

By using GameDev.net, you agree to our community Guidelines, Terms of Use, and Privacy Policy.

GameDev.net is your game development community. Create an account for your GameDev Portfolio and participate in the largest developer community in the games industry.

Sign me up!