So my astoundingly awesome nerd buddy Kyle is doing this fancy Blog Every Day in August thing and tells me I should do the same. I'm 9 days late and horrible at updating my blog, so it seems improbably that I'll be able to keep it up, but I'll take a stab at it anyway. Maybe.
So, where should we start? I rarely talk about my own personal life in this blog, but I feel compelled to talk about my summer job a bit. Ages ago I found a listing on Craigslist looking for people to teach teenagers game design at a summer camp. I followed the link, and next thing you know I've been hired by a pretty fancy company to teach for two weeks (was supposed to be four but one session got cancelled) at Lake Forest College. Two weeks isn't much, but fortunately they had openings at another school and I was able to teach for another four weeks at Northwestern University.
It was an interesting experience. Teaching can be a fair bit stressful but also, at the risk of sounding sappy, fairly rewarding. I also learned that teaching programming presents some unique challenges.
The problem with teaching a programming class, especially one that is only a week long, is that there is no conceivable way to teach the kids everything they'd need to know about the given language. Even in a semester long college course you can only scrape the tip of the iceberg. I saw my job as not to teach them to program, but to teach them how to learn to program. The first couple of days I'd hand them everything as they had no idea what anything meant, but as the end of the class drew nearer I'd become intentionally more vague. Rather than spelling out everything, I'd give them a higher level suggestion and tell them to think about how to implement, or rather than fixing their problems for them, I'd give them some general troubleshooting strategies. If they had a problem, I'd tell them to Google it first.
This wasn't to be lazy on my part, this is just how I program. Nobody has all the answers out of the box. I don't sit down to start on a piece of software and instantly know what to do. I figure out what I want to do, pull out some Google tutorials and start thinking about how I'll make it happen. The problem is that kids aren't used to classes like this. They expect the adults to have all the answers and dispense them freely, so sometimes when I'd tell a student "Why don't you Google it and see what you find?" they'd get frustrated, thinking it mean I didn't know the answer and was just trying to keep them busy.
Sure, a few times I didn't know the answer, but most of the time I was just trying to show them how to figure things out on their own. Some of the kids got this fine, and developed the ability to solve most of their problems on their own, only calling me over to ask for help when they had a huge issue. Others, however, became entirely dependent on me. Sure, I don't mind helping and answering questions, but if you refuse to do anything without my help, what are you going to do when I'm gone, kids? Fortunately, those cases were the minority, and I like to think that most of my kids left prepared to Google and MSDN/Apple Dev Network their way to success. (Or is that just me being naively optimistic?)
Well, that post ended up a lot more substantial than I expected. Now to figure out what to ramble about tomorrow.
tl;dr Going to try (and fail) to post every day in August. Teaching is hard but fun.
Tuesday, August 9, 2011
Thursday, June 23, 2011
Boobs and TV
So last night a friend showed me this: http://captainawkward.com/2011/06/21/question-61-game-of-sensitivity-thrones-and-tits/
The tl;dr is that someone wrote a letter expressing their distaste for the prevalence of boobs in Game of Thrones, and someone wrote an interesting reply about the show (and issues of sex in general).
Now, I mostly agree with pretty much everything the person responding said, but it's been a long time since I wrote anything here and I'm looking for excuses to not do work, so I thought I'd make a little blogrant of my own.
Sex on tv: Who cares? It seems like every few days (probably not actually that often, but it feels that way!) I encounter someone complaining about a sex scene or nudity in a tv show, book, movie whatever and how it "Detracts" from the story or was shown in a demeaning way. Sure, there are some bad sex scenes in media, but that doesn't mean creators need to shy away from showing what is really a perfectly natural part of human life (well, for people who aren't me, at least =p).
That, I think, is the key point I'd like people to walk away with. Sex is fancy and neat and fun (or so I'm told), but contrary to what puritanical folks would have you believe, it's not some horrible dirty thing that should be shied away from. It's just a part of life, and there's no more reason for movie or tv show creators to omit it than to omit people laughing, playing, talking or eating. If it's a part of the story (and in this particular example, I think most or all of the scenes in Game of Thrones were fairly relevant), why not?
I dunno. I could probably ramble more but I'd just be repeating what was said in the original link, except less eloquently, so I'll take a break here.
tl;dr there's nothing wrong with having boobs on tv.
The tl;dr is that someone wrote a letter expressing their distaste for the prevalence of boobs in Game of Thrones, and someone wrote an interesting reply about the show (and issues of sex in general).
Now, I mostly agree with pretty much everything the person responding said, but it's been a long time since I wrote anything here and I'm looking for excuses to not do work, so I thought I'd make a little blogrant of my own.
Sex on tv: Who cares? It seems like every few days (probably not actually that often, but it feels that way!) I encounter someone complaining about a sex scene or nudity in a tv show, book, movie whatever and how it "Detracts" from the story or was shown in a demeaning way. Sure, there are some bad sex scenes in media, but that doesn't mean creators need to shy away from showing what is really a perfectly natural part of human life (well, for people who aren't me, at least =p).
That, I think, is the key point I'd like people to walk away with. Sex is fancy and neat and fun (or so I'm told), but contrary to what puritanical folks would have you believe, it's not some horrible dirty thing that should be shied away from. It's just a part of life, and there's no more reason for movie or tv show creators to omit it than to omit people laughing, playing, talking or eating. If it's a part of the story (and in this particular example, I think most or all of the scenes in Game of Thrones were fairly relevant), why not?
I dunno. I could probably ramble more but I'd just be repeating what was said in the original link, except less eloquently, so I'll take a break here.
tl;dr there's nothing wrong with having boobs on tv.
Thursday, March 17, 2011
Toon Doom Level Design
Since Toon Doom doesn't have its own site or blog yet, I'm putting this here for reference, or something. (Or maybe it's just an excuse to pad my blog post count.)
2 objects are necessary for a Toon Doom level to be "beaten." First, you'll need a TDErazorBase. This is the player's primary objective and functions like a CTF flag base. Second, you'll need the TDFinishLine. The player who returns Erazor to the finish line first will be the winner. The finish line can be found under UTGameObjective, while Erazor Base is with the other flag bases.
While those two objects are all that is required, it would be a dull level indeed that lacked traps, power ups and check points.
Pickups: Toon Doom has two pick up factories: the hoverboard and speed boots. You can find them under UTPickupFactory in the class hierarchy. To use either pick up factory class, just drop them in the level where you want them like a normal Unreal 3 pickup.
Toon Doom pawns do not have the hoverboard enabled by default. If you want to give them a hoverboard, you can use the Hoverboard pickup factory. Note that since they do not have it by default, they will lose it if they die.
Somewhat similar to the normal UT3 jump boots, speed boots will give the player 10 seconds of super speed.
Check points: These handy objects will allow players to pick up from later in the race rather than having to restart from the beginning if they die. When you place a check point, inspect its properties and you'll notice a variable named "Index." The index allows you to give the checkpoints a sequence. If the player hits check point index 10, then hitting checkpoint index 5 will not change the player's respawn point. The index does not need to be unique, so you can have two checkpoints of a particular index if, for example, there are multiple parallel paths. Also, I recommend leaving gaps at first (for example, label your first few checkpoints 10, 20 and 30 rather than 1, 2 and 3) to make things easier on your self if you decide to add more later. Checkpoints can be found under UTGameObjective.
Spike Traps: Toon Doom has two flavors of spike trap: timed and toggleable. The timed version is fairly straightforward. Place it where you want it, then set the uptime and downtime in the properties. Toggleable spike traps can be controlled using the KISMET "Toggle" block. A pulse to the "On" node will raise them, off will lower them and toggle will of course toggle them. Both spike traps are found under TDSpikeTrap, which is a direct child of Actor.
Easels: Toon Doom has 4 different cartoon characters. There is no functional difference between them, but it lets players have some degree of customization. To allow players to switch characters in your level, use the Easel objects. Any player who approaches an easel will be killed and will respawn as the appropriate character. The Easel parent class inherits directly from Actor.
Edit to add new stuff:
Set Countdown KISMET: Found under Actors > Toon Doom, this kismet action sequence allows you to change the countdown timer displayed in the clock at the top left corner. This count down does not actually have an effect on the game itself, but can be used in conjunction with other events to delay the start of the race while later players connect or players select characters. If you don't want any delay, simply set it to 0.
TDHoverVolume: This volume will simply remove the hover board from any player that passes through it.
TDGooVolume: The Goo volume will "goo" a player, slowing them down for a short time. The goo volume is toggleable, and when inactive will simply function like a regular water volume.
TDGooBlob: This object will briefly apply goo to any player that runs through it. Similar to the goo volume, but a blobby mesh rather than a volume. Just drop it in the level and scale it however much you like.
2 objects are necessary for a Toon Doom level to be "beaten." First, you'll need a TDErazorBase. This is the player's primary objective and functions like a CTF flag base. Second, you'll need the TDFinishLine. The player who returns Erazor to the finish line first will be the winner. The finish line can be found under UTGameObjective, while Erazor Base is with the other flag bases.
While those two objects are all that is required, it would be a dull level indeed that lacked traps, power ups and check points.
Pickups: Toon Doom has two pick up factories: the hoverboard and speed boots. You can find them under UTPickupFactory in the class hierarchy. To use either pick up factory class, just drop them in the level where you want them like a normal Unreal 3 pickup.
Toon Doom pawns do not have the hoverboard enabled by default. If you want to give them a hoverboard, you can use the Hoverboard pickup factory. Note that since they do not have it by default, they will lose it if they die.
Somewhat similar to the normal UT3 jump boots, speed boots will give the player 10 seconds of super speed.
Check points: These handy objects will allow players to pick up from later in the race rather than having to restart from the beginning if they die. When you place a check point, inspect its properties and you'll notice a variable named "Index." The index allows you to give the checkpoints a sequence. If the player hits check point index 10, then hitting checkpoint index 5 will not change the player's respawn point. The index does not need to be unique, so you can have two checkpoints of a particular index if, for example, there are multiple parallel paths. Also, I recommend leaving gaps at first (for example, label your first few checkpoints 10, 20 and 30 rather than 1, 2 and 3) to make things easier on your self if you decide to add more later. Checkpoints can be found under UTGameObjective.
Spike Traps: Toon Doom has two flavors of spike trap: timed and toggleable. The timed version is fairly straightforward. Place it where you want it, then set the uptime and downtime in the properties. Toggleable spike traps can be controlled using the KISMET "Toggle" block. A pulse to the "On" node will raise them, off will lower them and toggle will of course toggle them. Both spike traps are found under TDSpikeTrap, which is a direct child of Actor.
Easels: Toon Doom has 4 different cartoon characters. There is no functional difference between them, but it lets players have some degree of customization. To allow players to switch characters in your level, use the Easel objects. Any player who approaches an easel will be killed and will respawn as the appropriate character. The Easel parent class inherits directly from Actor.
Edit to add new stuff:
Set Countdown KISMET: Found under Actors > Toon Doom, this kismet action sequence allows you to change the countdown timer displayed in the clock at the top left corner. This count down does not actually have an effect on the game itself, but can be used in conjunction with other events to delay the start of the race while later players connect or players select characters. If you don't want any delay, simply set it to 0.
TDHoverVolume: This volume will simply remove the hover board from any player that passes through it.
TDGooVolume: The Goo volume will "goo" a player, slowing them down for a short time. The goo volume is toggleable, and when inactive will simply function like a regular water volume.
TDGooBlob: This object will briefly apply goo to any player that runs through it. Similar to the goo volume, but a blobby mesh rather than a volume. Just drop it in the level and scale it however much you like.
Thursday, February 10, 2011
I forgot to add a title but this new title isn't really any better.
In this thread, we attack strawmen. Sort of. This post contains a lot of references to physical attractiveness, so I want to preface it by saying that beauty is subjective, and what one person finds attractive another finds repulsive. So when I say "an attractive person" I really mean "a person whose physical appearance closely matches those qualities I or the viewer in question would find attractive," it's just easier to say it the first way. Nobody is truly ugly, and everyone is beautiful to someone. I was actually going to make a post about that alone, but I couldn't think of anything more to say than what I just did.
Anyway! Moving on:
I've heard a few people say it's "shallow" to consider looks when choosing a romantic partner. I would posit that it's only shallow when looks are the only thing that matters. Nobody would be happy waking up next to someone they thought was hideous. Anyone who says "looks don't matter" is lying or blind. The reason this becomes an issue, I think, is the perception that "cute" people are more likely to be approached (or have their approaches accepted) by members of their gender of preference, which, naturally, is a source of consternation for us non-super hot folks. For the next few paragraphs, I'm going to take a page from last post's book and copy and paste something I wrote on Reddit. (Woo, efficiency.)
I doubt very many people judge based on looks alone, but looks are the fastest and easiest way to determine whether or not you're interested in talking to someone. Let's say you're in a bar and deciding who to talk to: There's an extremely attractive person, a kind of attractive one and an unattractive one. So which one do you approach? Some people seem to have this perception that pretty people are more stuck up and ugly people are more likely to be nice, but I haven't found that to be the case. I know plenty of awesome gorgeous people and obnoxious ugly people. (I don't like saying that because physical beauty is subjective and I don't think anyone is truly "ugly" but for the sake of this post I'm going to run with it since it's easier.)
So, in the above example, it's quite possible the very attractive person is a horrible jerkface and the average one is kinda ok but not that great and the unattractive one is nicest, smartest, funniest person you'll ever meet, but it's equally possible that the inverse is true. You simply cannot know their personalities, so assuming it's equally likely any given one will be an ass or awesome, there's no reason to not approach the one you find most physically attractive first.
So it's not like society thinks ugly people have no worth (well ok some people act like that but they're idiots), just that it's the "pretty" people who always get talked to first.
I'm not sure I had a point there, really. This is just a topic I've been encountering a bit lately, and I needed something to ramble about, so this happened.
tl;dr Beauty is subjective
Anyway! Moving on:
I've heard a few people say it's "shallow" to consider looks when choosing a romantic partner. I would posit that it's only shallow when looks are the only thing that matters. Nobody would be happy waking up next to someone they thought was hideous. Anyone who says "looks don't matter" is lying or blind. The reason this becomes an issue, I think, is the perception that "cute" people are more likely to be approached (or have their approaches accepted) by members of their gender of preference, which, naturally, is a source of consternation for us non-super hot folks. For the next few paragraphs, I'm going to take a page from last post's book and copy and paste something I wrote on Reddit. (Woo, efficiency.)
I doubt very many people judge based on looks alone, but looks are the fastest and easiest way to determine whether or not you're interested in talking to someone. Let's say you're in a bar and deciding who to talk to: There's an extremely attractive person, a kind of attractive one and an unattractive one. So which one do you approach? Some people seem to have this perception that pretty people are more stuck up and ugly people are more likely to be nice, but I haven't found that to be the case. I know plenty of awesome gorgeous people and obnoxious ugly people. (I don't like saying that because physical beauty is subjective and I don't think anyone is truly "ugly" but for the sake of this post I'm going to run with it since it's easier.)
So, in the above example, it's quite possible the very attractive person is a horrible jerkface and the average one is kinda ok but not that great and the unattractive one is nicest, smartest, funniest person you'll ever meet, but it's equally possible that the inverse is true. You simply cannot know their personalities, so assuming it's equally likely any given one will be an ass or awesome, there's no reason to not approach the one you find most physically attractive first.
So it's not like society thinks ugly people have no worth (well ok some people act like that but they're idiots), just that it's the "pretty" people who always get talked to first.
I'm not sure I had a point there, really. This is just a topic I've been encountering a bit lately, and I needed something to ramble about, so this happened.
tl;dr Beauty is subjective
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
Edumaction: Learn me a book
So earlier today on reddit someone started a thread asking "What do you feel is wrong with our schools?" I went on sort of a mini rant and decided to post it here as well.
Schools teach children facts but not how to learn. Look at math class for example. Ask a 1st grader what 5 x 6 is, and they can probably tell you. Ask them why that is and I bet they'll tell you "Because the times tables say so." We have children memorize the things thought to be important, but don't equip them to go out and learn things on their own.
Also, the school system is living in the past. I can't count the number of times I was assigned a research paper in high school (and even in college a few times) and told "You must use 5 sources for this and 4 of them must be non-internet sources." So, we have the most powerful tool for communication and information exchange in the history of our species quite literally at our fingertips, and we are denied its use so we "learn how to research." I can safely say that in my adult life I have never once gone to a library to research. Anything I need to learn I find online. (Also my "non-internet" sources invariably came from an internet database that archives them anyway.)
The justification is always "Well there's so much bad information" on the internet, which is true, but that's the point! Instead of telling kids to steer clear of Wikipedia and go to the library instead, we should be teaching them how to tell legitimate internet resources from some random angry guy's Tripod page.
Also, tests, bleargh. 9 times in 10, tests/exams test nothing except for a student's ability to regurgitate information on demand. Multiple choice tests only tell you how well a student takes multiple choice tests. For example, I'm in software development, and thankfully most of the classes I had in college were more project oriented, so more like an actual development environment, but I still had a few that were the typical "Put your books and notes away and answer these questions." That is nothing like how it is in real life. When I program now I have a stack of reference books on my desk and a dozen reference pages bookmarked or open in tabs, as do all the professional and undergrad developers I know. Cutting students off from books doesn't test anything except their memorization abilities and limits their ability to solve problems in an environment like the one they'll find in the professional world.
Schools teach children facts but not how to learn. Look at math class for example. Ask a 1st grader what 5 x 6 is, and they can probably tell you. Ask them why that is and I bet they'll tell you "Because the times tables say so." We have children memorize the things thought to be important, but don't equip them to go out and learn things on their own.
Also, the school system is living in the past. I can't count the number of times I was assigned a research paper in high school (and even in college a few times) and told "You must use 5 sources for this and 4 of them must be non-internet sources." So, we have the most powerful tool for communication and information exchange in the history of our species quite literally at our fingertips, and we are denied its use so we "learn how to research." I can safely say that in my adult life I have never once gone to a library to research. Anything I need to learn I find online. (Also my "non-internet" sources invariably came from an internet database that archives them anyway.)
The justification is always "Well there's so much bad information" on the internet, which is true, but that's the point! Instead of telling kids to steer clear of Wikipedia and go to the library instead, we should be teaching them how to tell legitimate internet resources from some random angry guy's Tripod page.
Also, tests, bleargh. 9 times in 10, tests/exams test nothing except for a student's ability to regurgitate information on demand. Multiple choice tests only tell you how well a student takes multiple choice tests. For example, I'm in software development, and thankfully most of the classes I had in college were more project oriented, so more like an actual development environment, but I still had a few that were the typical "Put your books and notes away and answer these questions." That is nothing like how it is in real life. When I program now I have a stack of reference books on my desk and a dozen reference pages bookmarked or open in tabs, as do all the professional and undergrad developers I know. Cutting students off from books doesn't test anything except their memorization abilities and limits their ability to solve problems in an environment like the one they'll find in the professional world.
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Pious Pies.
So I found this on reddit. This was, according to the OP, found in a day care center for 2-4 year olds. (Click to see full size picture.)
Here is the original thread for any redditors out there.
So with that out of the way: What the hell? What kind of absurd person thinks this is an acceptable message to give to 2-4 year olds? I mean, honestly? We tell kids "You don't belong to yourself, actually your body and everything about is property of an invisible entity you'll never meet or talk to, but he totally owns you." And then we wonder why they're emotionally screwed up later in life.
So, to borrow once more from Reddit's meme library: It's shit like this, Christianity. When atheists rage against religion, we're not trying to show hate for you, or your beliefs (well at least the reasonable ones, I realize there are some rabid anti-Christian atheists too). What we're raging against is people forcing those beliefs on others who don't share them. What we hate is that giving these ridiculously anachronistic and emotionally detrimental messages written by desert nomads thousands of years ago to our children is not only acceptable, but pious and commendable. Yes, I realize not all Christians are on board this boat. I'm not trying to make any blanket statements or act like everyone who believes in God is responsible for the actions of every other theist. However, that doesn't mean I'm not going to blogrant about crap like this. =(
Here is the original thread for any redditors out there.
So with that out of the way: What the hell? What kind of absurd person thinks this is an acceptable message to give to 2-4 year olds? I mean, honestly? We tell kids "You don't belong to yourself, actually your body and everything about is property of an invisible entity you'll never meet or talk to, but he totally owns you." And then we wonder why they're emotionally screwed up later in life.
So, to borrow once more from Reddit's meme library: It's shit like this, Christianity. When atheists rage against religion, we're not trying to show hate for you, or your beliefs (well at least the reasonable ones, I realize there are some rabid anti-Christian atheists too). What we're raging against is people forcing those beliefs on others who don't share them. What we hate is that giving these ridiculously anachronistic and emotionally detrimental messages written by desert nomads thousands of years ago to our children is not only acceptable, but pious and commendable. Yes, I realize not all Christians are on board this boat. I'm not trying to make any blanket statements or act like everyone who believes in God is responsible for the actions of every other theist. However, that doesn't mean I'm not going to blogrant about crap like this. =(
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Oops
Oh wow. Has it really been 3 weeks since I posted anything here? I'm bad at this game. I've had a few things come close, but I guess nothing has inspired me to a furious blog rant in recent weeks. Maybe I'll actually write something *gasp* positive for once.
In other news, one of my old EQ buddies resubscribed while drunk, and though I was sober at the time, I decided to jump in as well. Somehow, the rest of our old EQ circle decided to join us as well. It's been pretty neat. I haven't regularly played since February I think, and they'd been gone even longer. (Warband grabbed my interest away, then some Oblivion, plenty of Minecraft and I'm ashamed to admit I might have played some WoW in there too.) It took us a moment to remember what abilities we used and what they did, but once we remembered the right tricks we got back into things fairly well, clearing our favorite missions and trolling the trolls in general chat. It's almost like we never left. Well, except that all the people who used to get upgrades from our rot loot are now way better geared than us, but eh, we'll catch up.
tl;dr 2 paragraphs is too long? Stop being a slacker.
In other news, one of my old EQ buddies resubscribed while drunk, and though I was sober at the time, I decided to jump in as well. Somehow, the rest of our old EQ circle decided to join us as well. It's been pretty neat. I haven't regularly played since February I think, and they'd been gone even longer. (Warband grabbed my interest away, then some Oblivion, plenty of Minecraft and I'm ashamed to admit I might have played some WoW in there too.) It took us a moment to remember what abilities we used and what they did, but once we remembered the right tricks we got back into things fairly well, clearing our favorite missions and trolling the trolls in general chat. It's almost like we never left. Well, except that all the people who used to get upgrades from our rot loot are now way better geared than us, but eh, we'll catch up.
tl;dr 2 paragraphs is too long? Stop being a slacker.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
