Mad Space Marbles

I've finished another peer assessment in coursera.com. The physics engine provided by the professors is Box2D (with improvements), the very same physics engine in Angry Birds. The video here is a demonstration of some of my customizations from the original example.

 
Mad Space Marbles from Louie Dy on Vimeo.

Shadow of Fate Update

The new version, v1.3, of Shadow of Fate has been released.

You may click this link:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/50mg18hp9h2c0e8/~SoFv1.3.exe

The earlier blog post can be found here:
http://louiesrandomness.blogspot.com/2014/06/shadow-of-fate.html

You may also visit the following web pages of this game:


RPG Maker .net
http://rpgmaker.net/games/6521/

RPG Maker VX Ace
http://www.rpgmakervxace.net/topic/25270-shadow-of-fate/

Wishing Upon A Star

A light year is the distance light travels in one year (9.46 × 10^15 meters). Some stars are hundreds, thousands, or even million light years away from us. The very starlight you see from your window is actually hundreds, thousands or millions of years old. Therefore, there's no way of knowing whether the star you wished upon is still alive or not. You can say that your dreams are dead just as the stars are dead, but you can also say that when your dreams come true, then the star is still alive. Nevertheless, what matters the most is the faith and hope that always lie within every wish...

(Picture taken from en.wikipedia.org)


(I happened to read something which is why I wrote this.. )

Star Spiral

This is the project video/commentary for the peer assessment I submitted for the Creative Programming (by University of London) course I applied in coursera.com. It's a simple app adapted from SonicPainter. If you want this app, feel free to PM me. (It's available in IOS and Desktop) The programming language used here is Java while the application used is OpenProcessing.


Star Spiral from Louie Dy on Vimeo.

Love Life 101

Heartache 101 ~Sour into Sweet~ :: a game from rpgmaker.net



When I started playing this game, I immediately got addicted to its simple yet deep interactive interface. The board game style itself is addictive. What makes the game even more exciting is the part when I (the main character) run into events, which trigger up a conversation with a girl depending upon the horoscope of the day... Moreover, I also enjoyed raising the stats. Another very enjoyable aspect is that fact that it is possible to make my own custom-made characters aside from the ones given in-game.



The plot was very interesting, especially the clinic scene with Riho... I would've chosen Shihiko if it weren't for her being overpopular and Masayoshi's hitting on her... Anyways, I was given 101 days, according to Miki, to get a girlfriend in the game. I'm not sure what wrong did I do, but I somehow got a sad ending with Miki... I'm still going to try out different endings...



Overall, I truly recommend you to play this game. It teaches you a bit about love life, though not necessarily everything about it.

Viruses - Living Things or Not?

Biologically speaking, even though viruses are not living things (because they lack a cell membrane, because they cannot reproduce themselves), I still believe that viruses are in some way living.

I read a debate online (https://www.debate.org/debates/Viruses-are-non-living/1/) which changed my viewpoint. Allow me to share it here... (quoted some parts from the webpage itself; none of these is mine)
 
TOPIC ON DEBATE: "Viruses are non-living things."
 
Pro:
Viruses are non living creatures because they do not have a cell membrane or any other components of other living cells. They cannot reproduce until they find a host and the host will do it for them. They cannot be killed rather held off or blocked. They also do not respond to stimuli, and they do not metabolize. They only form parasitic relationships with their hosts. Non living traits are shown. Viruses are non living.
 
Anti:
1. DNA

Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is composed of phosphate, sugar, and purine/pyrimidine bases (Guanine, Adenine, Thymine, Cytosine) [2]. On it's own, no one would think of a DNA strand as being "alive". It's little more than a tiny biologically constructed rock. Therefore, we must either contend that rocks are alive (at least in a rudimentary way), or that DNA is not. I will proceed under the assumption that rocks (therefore a lone strand of DNA) are not alive.
Where is life then? The only place left would be the structure surrounding the DNA. Let's now look at cells and virus shells.

2. Virus vs. Cell

A virus is composed of basically 2 things; a protein shell and genetic material [1]. There are many different kinds of virus, all with a unique shape and different amounts of peculiar mechanisms, but they all have this in common. The purpose of this shell it so protect the genetic material and help it get from place to place so it can reproduce, and the mechanisms attached to that shell are a simply machine used to get the DNA into the host cell.
A cell functions in much the same way. The difference is, the cells mechanisms are used to replicate itself internally, without the use of a "host". The only way this can be done is for cells to have porous membrane that allows the necessary building blocks to enter [3]. It should be noted that the cell exerts no effort in keeping itself "alive". Everything that happens to a cell happens merely due to the way atoms interact with one another.

So, what is a cell? It's a biologically constructed machine used to help the DNA it houses reproduce itself. -- But wait, what is a virus? Well, it's a biologically constructed machine used to help the DNA it houses reproduce itself.

3. Bells and Whistles

"OK", one might think, "But what about the membrane? Taking in and utilizing nutrients? Surely these things make cells alive and viruses not!" -- These qualifications are arbitrary and, frankly, cell-centric. Our definition of life needn't be limited by what we are composed of, and there is no objective necessity for these qualities to be included in our definition of life. The only fundamental difference between a cell and a virus is that a virus does its job without all the bells and whistles. That is to say, it sacrifices the ability to take in nutrients and reproduce internally, and in exchange it gains the ability to survive on its own ad infinitum (even in a vacuum for some).
Instead of looking at viruses as non-living things, it is instead more logically consistent to look at viruses as living things that merely forgo all the bells and whistles conventional cells have taken up. There's nothing more that a difference of ideology between viruses and cells. In order to remain logically consistent, we should alter our definition of "alive" to "something designed to reproduce itself".

Note: Before you say that surviving in a vacuum clearly shows that viruses aren't alive as living things couldn't possibly survive in a vacuum, consider that Water Bears have proved themselves in the vacuum of space [4]. Unless one contends that water bears aren't alive, survival in a vacuum cannot be used as the distinguishing factor between living and non-living organisms.

4. Dead Cells

"Well, what about dead cells?," one might ask. "If a living thing is defined as 'something designed to reproduce itself', then we must conclude that newly dead cells are alive, since they retain their structural integrity -- which is a contradiction of terms."

This question really is about what is the difference between life and death -- a topic deserving of its own debate. The short and sweet answer is that this is yet another trade off of cells. In exchange for its ability to reproduce without a "host", it gives up the ability to serve its purpose forever. The reason for this is that machines in use tend to atrophy, and once that atrophy has reached the point where the machine breaks down, it no longer meets the requirement for life. Just as one cannot say that a broken car gets people from place to place, so too can one not say that a broken cell is designed to reproduce itself. It was at one point, but at this point in time its structure no longer meets that requirement and therefore we can say that it has died.
A virus doesn't have these machines. the only machine it has is some sort of sheath and core used to inject the DNA into the cell [2]. Since it only uses this machine once, it doesn't have to worry about atrophy and therefore retains its function much, much longer than cell can. Once again, it trades the perks of life in exchange for longevity.

5. Syllogisms

For the more mathematically minded folks, I will break down the above arguments into a series of syllogisms.

A)
P1- DNA is alive
P2- Viruses contain DNA
C- Viruses are alive

-- Assuming these premises are rejected--

B)
P1- DNA is not alive
P2- Cells contain DNA
P3- Cells are alive
C- Something other than DNA defines life

C)
P1- DNA is not alive
P2- Cells are alive
P3- A cell is made up of only the cell itself and the DNA it houses
C- The "cell" part of a cell defines its "life-ness"

D)
P1- Cells are alive
P2- A cells purpose is to replicate its DNA
C- Life is defined by the pursuit of DNA replication

E)
P1- Viruses have a shell protecting DNA
P2- This shell's purpose is to ensure the replication of said DNA
C- Viruses are alive

The only room for contention about is in syllogism D. One could define life as something containing mitochondria, a porous membrane, cytoplasm etc, but these would just be arbitrary qualifications requiring justification from my opponent. There are many types of cells with radically different compositions. The only thing they all have absolutely in common is their purpose, which is a purpose shared by viruses. Therefore, we must conclude that viruses are alive, even if only in the most rudimentary of ways, if we are to have a logically consistent definition of life.

***more content in the website