I'm just stating that there's no need for such a general application of the term "AI" so as to render it practically useless (dict. "hyper-realised"). It's akin to the term "nano-technology" being used now to refer to anything very small that's somehow industrially useful but not biological, such as buckytubes and other Fullerine structures. A carbon-lattice, curled-up tube -- seen by itself, out of context -- may have come just as easily from natural processes as "technological" (which is how they were discovered in the first place). "AI", now, is being applied to any programming which bears even the most unremarkable and shoddy human resemblance, or is being used to automate previously human-controlled tasks, even without any "learning" involved.
I made a response to a later comment about brute forcing the pseudo-random element, and how if the designers had thought that through and simply included the obvious RNG and seeding subroutine, the script could have jumped that hurdle ahead of time and might already have shown the quantification of risk-taking in luring ghosts and timing pills (though I predict that those behaviours simply won't win out over avoiding risk and racking up points through stamina and perfection). I just don't think "AI" is a term that needs to be applied here (response I am going to make following this one).
Conversely, punishments could be foregone since it's only a game, and the script could be left with the in-game punishment provided, which is failing to make it as far and push the limits of the process, and rewards are already provided in-game in the form of the score. I can see how application of "RL" algorithms to the script itself might reveal some things about the application of scripted behaviour to the learning process, but I personally don't feel that this script constitutes AI (see other responses?)
Understood, and I have no clinical knowledge of AI at all, and can only make general assumptions. However, I see what has been made here for Mc.Pacman (and for other specific environments) more as a combination between strategics and data-mining. The data to be mined in Ms.Pacman would be the predictability of the randomized ghost paths. I haven't looked at the arcade game code, but there is probably some pseudo-RNG involved that is seeded by a timer (if this is correct, in fact the ghosts would behave the same way if you could always start the game at the same exact time). Basically the only thing missing from this "AI" is the pseudo-RNG itself, which the designers could have easily thrown in along with knowledge of whatever the RNG is being seeded with. The outcome, if this is valuable at all, would perhaps be some formula for behaviour that can be reduced and tokenized and perhaps applied to resource-sharing or risk-taking; but this outcome will take considerably longer to arrive at considering that first the "AI" will be sorting through the pseudo-randomness. But I digress -- this "AI" isn't really learning anything, it's just dealing with missing variables. It can't make any cognitive leaps from the human equivalent of "intuition", it can't re-apply what it's learned (though in this specific case that's probably more due to the restraints of the tiny and simplistic environment), and if I read the article correctly (nor did I read the research paper) it doesn't properly make informed decisions, and all of its actions are entirely predetermined, albeit by a pseudorandom element. Considering that innovation is considered either a hallmark of intelligence or its entire purpose, it would seem that by that standard alone the game itself will always be more intelligent than this "AI".
Well, suffice it to say, I am simply not of the "camp" that believes "artificial intelligence" should be applied so cleanly and popularly to something that obviously does not do much "learning" on its own, at all.
I think most press releases re: AI are misleading. I highly doubt there is anything like "AI" behind the program they have that attempts to solve Ms.Pacman. Consider if you wrote an "AI" that started off with what you as a human starts off with: the ability to see the screen and understand what the various graphics depict or mean; how to control the pac character; what the basic goals and obstacles are; and a desire to rack up points. An "Artificial Intelligence" (AI) would be able to start with that much and build its skill level as it plays. Presumably it would quickly build a talent that can beat average humans, then most humans, then eventually all humans since it has faster reflexes and doesn't get tired (or make errors once it's learned). That, I think, would justify a press release "AI learns to play Ms.Pacman". However, scripting something that plays the game as well as you can imagine it should be played doesn't seem to be news any more than "scripters automate online game play". I only note this because the article mentioned "teaching" the "AI"; that's not very scientific, considering you're trying to see something learn, and should be maintaining scientific control over the learning process.
I wish there was more information about all of this. Specifically, I wish the FCC would be able to give us a template for the upcoming changes to all forms of bandwidth and how they are intended to be used in the future.
I remember something a fear years ago about the switch to HDTV somehow opening up a range frequencies on the FM dial, and the FCC talking about maybe loosening restrictions on licensing for broadcast in the FM spectrum. I haven't re-heard any of that since.
I also remember, while I was studying the use of power lines as FM transmitters (apparently the signal is periodically flattened, though, by the transformers), the FCC mentioning something about using the power lines to double as internet. This was just after the DSL market leveled off, I remember. Anyways, there was a lot of talk about how to get that done, and special switches to go around transformers, or something. I haven't re-heard any of that, either.
I never liked DSL, btw. It seemed like the public was being duped into agreeing that they have no business using modems that fast without paying the phone companies for compensation. That's my impression based on the way the phone companies handled 14.4s and 28.8s. With 14.4s they started saying "you need to tell us if you are using your phone line for data communications; there's an extra fee." They tried to justify that by saying the fee paid for keeping the line more free of noise, which simply wasn't true. I remember a number of SysOps actually letting the phone companies know they were running BBSs off their low-calling-plan phone lines: they still had just as many checksum errors as they ever did, usually because they lived in the rural areas. Then when 28.8s came out, the phone companies started it all over again, except this time their gripe was that the higher throughput was a drain on the company's resources and they needed proper compensation, and threatened that if they found anybody was using their phone line for data without telling them, they would automatically flip you into the higher-paying mode. My impression then was that enough businesses and day-traders had told the company they were using their lines for data and ponied up the extra charge, but found that their signal wasn't any less noisy than usual, and got pissed and complained. Anyways, then DSL came out, and it was the same thing all over again, except that this time the phone companies had the jump on the technology and the right to use it on their lines. They were especially tight-fisted with who's allowed to so much as own a DSL modem, or if they couldn't manage to monopolize that market they were working out exchanges that required the company's leased and serialed modems. I have a question about that; when everybody's onto coaxial and the phone lines aren't being used for data any more, what will all of the "extra bandwidth" there be used for? Not voice: too many people are using cellphones for even their most casual home use, it's just more practical. What good will the phone lines be to us once they aren't getting used?
About the TV band again. I started reading up on it and learned that Japan had gone digital TV quite some time ago, but was still using the same airspace; they just managed to use compression to fit around two digital channels into the same bandwidth as one of our analogues. Why didn't America ever go into that same system, given how much Americans love both television and varieties? It seemed obvious to me, some time later, that twice as many channels are twice as hard to corner and monopolise. Some may say that deals couldn't be worked out so that manufacturers believed Americans would go out and buy replacement sets; but I still say any deal with a lucrative outcome eventually gets made by somebody, and it was simply obviously more lucrative to keep things tight-gripped rather than allow the market to be widened. We still have our "Big 3" today even though things have changed oh-so-much; when the hell are those disinfo mouthpieces going to fail and just go away?
I hope astronomy never goes the way of Egyptology and Archaeology in failing to address or acknowledge the existence of any anomaly. Or has it already?
Though you were modded down for flaimbait, probably because you came across as overly aggressive, you hit the nail on the head. The CIA has often made claims that turn out to be false, but at least they just trade in disinformation; the FBI actually harms Americans directly and confrontationally.
Public education is being dismantled for good reason: it's expensive and no longer needed. Factory and other laborious work are going overseas and we're being stuck with the service sector. The public education system was originally the brainchild of industrialists who wanted to ensure the future supply of blue-collar workers. Today's industrialist is more interested in a sweat-collared worker, apparently, and American's don't do too well in that category (working for pennies). So the tool of their workforce is going away, simultaneously with the product of the publically educated upbringing, the Labor Union.
Uh, stopping a legal recount? Setting scan-tron type machines in Democratic districts of Florida to silently accept and ignore mismarked ballots, and setting the ones in Republican districts to reject for resubmission? Having a relative prematurely call the election while voting is still occurring? These are all illegal actions.
Not to mention, having almost all of the judges on the tribunal who voted who's to be our next judge? In the Bushter's pocket.
Look, it's the CIA. The first thing to keep in mind is that public statements, on subjects that gaurantee most Americans will listen and remember, coming from the CIA, are typically tailored by the upper levels so that the public response will be either of two things: (1) predictable, (2) informative.
The predictable response class, however else you may think of it, actually categorizes as "believing the information out of hand".
The other response is watched more closely for various reasons: to see who's missing screws or needs to be portrayed as such; to see who has anti-U.S. agendas or needs to be accused of such; conversely, to see whether any Americans are intelligent enough to "get it" (the intelligence game or information commodities manipulation), or, to see whether they've made any internal errors of estimation or accuracy.
That's just how the statements are analysed. As for motivation, sometimes these statements are provided to sort of "poke" the public and instigate certain beliefs to become more widely held (or more widely dismissed), and sometimes these statements are released as a form of "noise", or what some people mistakenly refer to as "smokescreening". In an actual smokescreen, some information is used to either obliterate the immediate availability of some other information or draw attention away from it. In the use of "noise", some information is important enough to covert yet valuable enough to keep on the information market, so instead of the information being occluded, it's obscured instead by means of flooding the market with information that's similarly themed (or even just similarly spelled).
So if you, say, go on about the public statement as if it's truthful, or possessed of a genuine concern for the American public's mental and emotional well-being, then you are definitely missing half the truth but might be missing all of it (depending on the motivation).
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." --- William J. Casey, Director CIA (Quote from internal staff meeting notes 1981)
yeah, you no longer need privilege to enter the great legal libraries and study for paralegal. i helped a semi-retarded girl get her paralegal license by showing her where on the web to find the research materials she needed. anybody can do paralegal work, i did some in defense of a startup marketing/campaigning business in the areas of zoning and leasing restrictions particular to storefront and signage, and campaign finance reform law. without a license i managed to hold off a rabid township government from several directions of attack and even protect the business from libelous claims. and to think that some people prefer those who are 'licensed' to do this sort of work. the truth of the matter is that the people i was protecting that business against always provided me with all the materials i needed for defense, in their obviously fanciful or malevolent misuse of language, especially when that language was meant to be interpreted in the most common fashion for the common good.
so you have a great point: the sooner we can get rid of the stratification of common sense and the work of legal defense and justice, the sooner the country will regain one of the hallmarks of its original existence. to this day we're down to just one, the freedom of the press, and if anything the mainstream, mass-media press has become an overly coddled monster (though so protected for good reason) that is probably one of the most major threats against the minds and livelihoods of modern americans.
maybe he meant to say 'substantiable', i.e. can be provided as substance or something real. numerically, he has a '1' bit for experience as opposed to a '0'; realistically, not all that 'substantial' but still, nevertheless, 'of substance'. who cares? he's a weasily worm who'll probably become somewhat of a laughingstock to professional lawyers but will be paraded around by mouth-breathing marketers and hoaxers until the day he's forced to sell his trademark to get out of debt.
it's highly probable that "cyberlaw" appeared previously as a word in a science fiction story. if any author suddenly remembers that they were the one who actually coined the term, that might give them some IP rights (but who knows, any more).
That's quite an oversight, "forgetting" to maintain laws of common sense and stopping the negative overflow while in the middle of the thought "how do I keep money counting realistic in my game?" I would prefer to think these "minor oversights" are done on purpose.
According to the National Security Archive, the document says that the Pentagon shouldn't explicitly target Americans with psychological warfare messages, but beyond that, "any leakage of PSYOPS [(psychological operations)] to the American public does not matter."
Robert Reed's "Good Mountain" appears in Gardner Dozois's 24th "Year's Best Science Fiction". It's about life on a planet half-covered with self-destructing trees.
They shouldn't be allowed to call them "nano"-tubes, considering how "nano" in the mainstream is mostly concerned with manufacture. But how else will Fullerine dynamics research receive grant money (note we don't hear anything lately from the once-ubiquitous term "bucky"...)
This can also be expressed in terms of 'tangible' versus 'intangible' goods and services.
Tangible: car; back massage Intangible: entertainment; pleasantry
The (official) search for the proper way to quantise intangibles has been on for almost a decade, but the last time I read anything about it was in the Wall Street Journal about seven years ago.
"At the time the script is submitted, the credited writer(s) of the game must be, or apply to become, a member of the WGA's New Media Caucus."
The writer's guild is a business that supports business, just doing the business of making sure that the guild itself will be supported in the future. From the wga article:
"to encourage storytelling excellence in videogames, to improve the status of writers, and to begin to encourage uniform standards"
This isn't the laws of robotics. No doubt the second "purpose" overrides the other two, and the first one takes a back seat to the third. Notice that creativity wasn't invited, as that would clash directly with uniformity.
"the Writers Guilds intend to raise the profile of these writers so that they can get WGA contracts and benefits for this work."
Which in turn benefits the WGA, in labor politics. And, as well, the WGA no doubt considers this new award category to be fanciful and more or less a bunch of nonsense, which means they probably aren't being very stringent about how obvious their picks are.
"Following his work on the Futurama series, Verrone has written an episode of The Simpsons (Milhouse of Sand and Fog (2005)), developed the Cartoon Network series Class of 3000 (including writing the pilot episode Home (2006)), and worked on the Futurama movies scheduled to be released starting in late 2007."
Patric Verrone is the president of the WGA-west, and obviously also does a lot of work for Matt Groening productions...
"The Simpsons Game, Lead Writer Matt Selman, Written by Tim Long and Matt Warburton, Dialogue by Jeff Poliquin, Electronic Arts."
... so who would think twice about nominating "The Simpsons"? Not like anybody will notice, right? "Futurama" is owned by 20th Century Fox. The corporate page of Sierra Entertainment's website mentions (in the context of their game design arm, Vivendi Games):
"Vivendi Games maintains strategic relationships with industry leading content partners, including Universal Music Group, NBC Universal, Twentieth Century Fox, and Ludlum Entertainment."
There's that Fox, again. Jay Lender, another WGA-west caucus member cited in the relevant article, shares an animation-writing history (Sponge Bob Square Pants). With two prominent members as television animation writers for shows that are enormously popular with children, no doubt there is some kind of stringent standard as to which sort of games could be nominated. For instance, "Bioshock", though some may find it to be the art-deco'd social Darwinist hit of the century, features the player being attacked by drugged-up little children who may or may not be dispatched unpleasantly. That probably didn't make the cut.
"Since leaving Nickelodeon, Jay has written a number of scripts for video games with his writing partner Micah Wright"
The "taking care of your friends" aspect is what I'm trying to focus attention on. Micah Wright's major video-game titles include: "Looney Tunes: Back in Action (2003), Electronic Arts"; and "Shadow Ops: Red Mercury, (2004), Atari." Considering we have two major connections, one through Groening productions and one through the combinatrix of major animated series gone video game by way of Electronic Arts, it's no surprise that the Simpsons game made it up there, whether it totally sucks or not.
"Crash of the Titans, Written by Christopher Mitchell, Sierra Entertainment."
Sierra, again.
Dead Head Fred features the voice of John C. McGinley, who plays "Perry Cox" in NBC's "Scrubs".
"McGinley received critical acclaim for his performance as a serial killer in Dean Koontz's suspense drama, Intensity (1997). It became Fox's highest-rated miniseries. He worked with Koontz and Fox o
Slashdot Mirror
I'm just stating that there's no need for such a general application of the term "AI" so as to render it practically useless (dict. "hyper-realised"). It's akin to the term "nano-technology" being used now to refer to anything very small that's somehow industrially useful but not biological, such as buckytubes and other Fullerine structures. A carbon-lattice, curled-up tube -- seen by itself, out of context -- may have come just as easily from natural processes as "technological" (which is how they were discovered in the first place). "AI", now, is being applied to any programming which bears even the most unremarkable and shoddy human resemblance, or is being used to automate previously human-controlled tasks, even without any "learning" involved.
I made a response to a later comment about brute forcing the pseudo-random element, and how if the designers had thought that through and simply included the obvious RNG and seeding subroutine, the script could have jumped that hurdle ahead of time and might already have shown the quantification of risk-taking in luring ghosts and timing pills (though I predict that those behaviours simply won't win out over avoiding risk and racking up points through stamina and perfection). I just don't think "AI" is a term that needs to be applied here (response I am going to make following this one).
Conversely, punishments could be foregone since it's only a game, and the script could be left with the in-game punishment provided, which is failing to make it as far and push the limits of the process, and rewards are already provided in-game in the form of the score. I can see how application of "RL" algorithms to the script itself might reveal some things about the application of scripted behaviour to the learning process, but I personally don't feel that this script constitutes AI (see other responses?)
Understood, and I have no clinical knowledge of AI at all, and can only make general assumptions. However, I see what has been made here for Mc.Pacman (and for other specific environments) more as a combination between strategics and data-mining. The data to be mined in Ms.Pacman would be the predictability of the randomized ghost paths. I haven't looked at the arcade game code, but there is probably some pseudo-RNG involved that is seeded by a timer (if this is correct, in fact the ghosts would behave the same way if you could always start the game at the same exact time). Basically the only thing missing from this "AI" is the pseudo-RNG itself, which the designers could have easily thrown in along with knowledge of whatever the RNG is being seeded with. The outcome, if this is valuable at all, would perhaps be some formula for behaviour that can be reduced and tokenized and perhaps applied to resource-sharing or risk-taking; but this outcome will take considerably longer to arrive at considering that first the "AI" will be sorting through the pseudo-randomness. But I digress -- this "AI" isn't really learning anything, it's just dealing with missing variables. It can't make any cognitive leaps from the human equivalent of "intuition", it can't re-apply what it's learned (though in this specific case that's probably more due to the restraints of the tiny and simplistic environment), and if I read the article correctly (nor did I read the research paper) it doesn't properly make informed decisions, and all of its actions are entirely predetermined, albeit by a pseudorandom element. Considering that innovation is considered either a hallmark of intelligence or its entire purpose, it would seem that by that standard alone the game itself will always be more intelligent than this "AI".
Well, suffice it to say, I am simply not of the "camp" that believes "artificial intelligence" should be applied so cleanly and popularly to something that obviously does not do much "learning" on its own, at all.
Ah, but the scripts also managed to reach human-level average scores while discovering two things:
1. you don't necessarily gain anything luring ghosts...
2. or necessarily gain anything timing power pill consumption
I think most press releases re: AI are misleading. I highly doubt there is anything like "AI" behind the program they have that attempts to solve Ms.Pacman. Consider if you wrote an "AI" that started off with what you as a human starts off with: the ability to see the screen and understand what the various graphics depict or mean; how to control the pac character; what the basic goals and obstacles are; and a desire to rack up points. An "Artificial Intelligence" (AI) would be able to start with that much and build its skill level as it plays. Presumably it would quickly build a talent that can beat average humans, then most humans, then eventually all humans since it has faster reflexes and doesn't get tired (or make errors once it's learned). That, I think, would justify a press release "AI learns to play Ms.Pacman". However, scripting something that plays the game as well as you can imagine it should be played doesn't seem to be news any more than "scripters automate online game play". I only note this because the article mentioned "teaching" the "AI"; that's not very scientific, considering you're trying to see something learn, and should be maintaining scientific control over the learning process.
I wish there was more information about all of this. Specifically, I wish the FCC would be able to give us a template for the upcoming changes to all forms of bandwidth and how they are intended to be used in the future.
I remember something a fear years ago about the switch to HDTV somehow opening up a range frequencies on the FM dial, and the FCC talking about maybe loosening restrictions on licensing for broadcast in the FM spectrum. I haven't re-heard any of that since.
I also remember, while I was studying the use of power lines as FM transmitters (apparently the signal is periodically flattened, though, by the transformers), the FCC mentioning something about using the power lines to double as internet. This was just after the DSL market leveled off, I remember. Anyways, there was a lot of talk about how to get that done, and special switches to go around transformers, or something. I haven't re-heard any of that, either.
I never liked DSL, btw. It seemed like the public was being duped into agreeing that they have no business using modems that fast without paying the phone companies for compensation. That's my impression based on the way the phone companies handled 14.4s and 28.8s. With 14.4s they started saying "you need to tell us if you are using your phone line for data communications; there's an extra fee." They tried to justify that by saying the fee paid for keeping the line more free of noise, which simply wasn't true. I remember a number of SysOps actually letting the phone companies know they were running BBSs off their low-calling-plan phone lines: they still had just as many checksum errors as they ever did, usually because they lived in the rural areas. Then when 28.8s came out, the phone companies started it all over again, except this time their gripe was that the higher throughput was a drain on the company's resources and they needed proper compensation, and threatened that if they found anybody was using their phone line for data without telling them, they would automatically flip you into the higher-paying mode. My impression then was that enough businesses and day-traders had told the company they were using their lines for data and ponied up the extra charge, but found that their signal wasn't any less noisy than usual, and got pissed and complained. Anyways, then DSL came out, and it was the same thing all over again, except that this time the phone companies had the jump on the technology and the right to use it on their lines. They were especially tight-fisted with who's allowed to so much as own a DSL modem, or if they couldn't manage to monopolize that market they were working out exchanges that required the company's leased and serialed modems. I have a question about that; when everybody's onto coaxial and the phone lines aren't being used for data any more, what will all of the "extra bandwidth" there be used for? Not voice: too many people are using cellphones for even their most casual home use, it's just more practical. What good will the phone lines be to us once they aren't getting used?
About the TV band again. I started reading up on it and learned that Japan had gone digital TV quite some time ago, but was still using the same airspace; they just managed to use compression to fit around two digital channels into the same bandwidth as one of our analogues. Why didn't America ever go into that same system, given how much Americans love both television and varieties? It seemed obvious to me, some time later, that twice as many channels are twice as hard to corner and monopolise. Some may say that deals couldn't be worked out so that manufacturers believed Americans would go out and buy replacement sets; but I still say any deal with a lucrative outcome eventually gets made by somebody, and it was simply obviously more lucrative to keep things tight-gripped rather than allow the market to be widened. We still have our "Big 3" today even though things have changed oh-so-much; when the hell are those disinfo mouthpieces going to fail and just go away?
These scientists are expressing the gene that leads to splitting hairs, and what's astounding, most of them are probably bald!!
I hope astronomy never goes the way of Egyptology and Archaeology in failing to address or acknowledge the existence of any anomaly. Or has it already?
Though you were modded down for flaimbait, probably because you came across as overly aggressive, you hit the nail on the head. The CIA has often made claims that turn out to be false, but at least they just trade in disinformation; the FBI actually harms Americans directly and confrontationally.
Public education is being dismantled for good reason: it's expensive and no longer needed. Factory and other laborious work are going overseas and we're being stuck with the service sector. The public education system was originally the brainchild of industrialists who wanted to ensure the future supply of blue-collar workers. Today's industrialist is more interested in a sweat-collared worker, apparently, and American's don't do too well in that category (working for pennies). So the tool of their workforce is going away, simultaneously with the product of the publically educated upbringing, the Labor Union.
Not to mention, having almost all of the judges on the tribunal who voted who's to be our next judge? In the Bushter's pocket.
You'll probably be modded down for being so angry but this is as good a spot as any to talk about 9-11 related movies:
"loose change"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7E3oIbO0AWE
The predictable response class, however else you may think of it, actually categorizes as "believing the information out of hand".
The other response is watched more closely for various reasons: to see who's missing screws or needs to be portrayed as such; to see who has anti-U.S. agendas or needs to be accused of such; conversely, to see whether any Americans are intelligent enough to "get it" (the intelligence game or information commodities manipulation), or, to see whether they've made any internal errors of estimation or accuracy.
That's just how the statements are analysed. As for motivation, sometimes these statements are provided to sort of "poke" the public and instigate certain beliefs to become more widely held (or more widely dismissed), and sometimes these statements are released as a form of "noise", or what some people mistakenly refer to as "smokescreening". In an actual smokescreen, some information is used to either obliterate the immediate availability of some other information or draw attention away from it. In the use of "noise", some information is important enough to covert yet valuable enough to keep on the information market, so instead of the information being occluded, it's obscured instead by means of flooding the market with information that's similarly themed (or even just similarly spelled).
So if you, say, go on about the public statement as if it's truthful, or possessed of a genuine concern for the American public's mental and emotional well-being, then you are definitely missing half the truth but might be missing all of it (depending on the motivation).
yeah, you no longer need privilege to enter the great legal libraries and study for paralegal. i helped a semi-retarded girl get her paralegal license by showing her where on the web to find the research materials she needed. anybody can do paralegal work, i did some in defense of a startup marketing/campaigning business in the areas of zoning and leasing restrictions particular to storefront and signage, and campaign finance reform law. without a license i managed to hold off a rabid township government from several directions of attack and even protect the business from libelous claims. and to think that some people prefer those who are 'licensed' to do this sort of work. the truth of the matter is that the people i was protecting that business against always provided me with all the materials i needed for defense, in their obviously fanciful or malevolent misuse of language, especially when that language was meant to be interpreted in the most common fashion for the common good.
so you have a great point: the sooner we can get rid of the stratification of common sense and the work of legal defense and justice, the sooner the country will regain one of the hallmarks of its original existence. to this day we're down to just one, the freedom of the press, and if anything the mainstream, mass-media press has become an overly coddled monster (though so protected for good reason) that is probably one of the most major threats against the minds and livelihoods of modern americans.
maybe he meant to say 'substantiable', i.e. can be provided as substance or something real. numerically, he has a '1' bit for experience as opposed to a '0'; realistically, not all that 'substantial' but still, nevertheless, 'of substance'. who cares? he's a weasily worm who'll probably become somewhat of a laughingstock to professional lawyers but will be paraded around by mouth-breathing marketers and hoaxers until the day he's forced to sell his trademark to get out of debt.
it's highly probable that "cyberlaw" appeared previously as a word in a science fiction story. if any author suddenly remembers that they were the one who actually coined the term, that might give them some IP rights (but who knows, any more).
That's quite an oversight, "forgetting" to maintain laws of common sense and stopping the negative overflow while in the middle of the thought "how do I keep money counting realistic in my game?" I would prefer to think these "minor oversights" are done on purpose.
URL:http://citizenship.typepad.com/isebrandcom/2006/01/in_a_shocking_a.html
This web site lists some interesting technology in the same category (whether you believe it exists is up to you):
http://www.bugsweeps.com/info/electronic_harassment.html
Robert Reed's "Good Mountain" appears in Gardner Dozois's 24th "Year's Best Science Fiction". It's about life on a planet half-covered with self-destructing trees.
They shouldn't be allowed to call them "nano"-tubes, considering how "nano" in the mainstream is mostly concerned with manufacture. But how else will Fullerine dynamics research receive grant money (note we don't hear anything lately from the once-ubiquitous term "bucky"...)
GOOOOD! >8{}
This can also be expressed in terms of 'tangible' versus 'intangible' goods and services.
Tangible: car; back massage
Intangible: entertainment; pleasantry
The (official) search for the proper way to quantise intangibles has been on for almost a decade, but the last time I read anything about it was in the Wall Street Journal about seven years ago.
The writer's guild is a business that supports business, just doing the business of making sure that the guild itself will be supported in the future. From the wga article:
This isn't the laws of robotics. No doubt the second "purpose" overrides the other two, and the first one takes a back seat to the third. Notice that creativity wasn't invited, as that would clash directly with uniformity.
Which in turn benefits the WGA, in labor politics. And, as well, the WGA no doubt considers this new award category to be fanciful and more or less a bunch of nonsense, which means they probably aren't being very stringent about how obvious their picks are.
Patric Verrone is the president of the WGA-west, and obviously also does a lot of work for Matt Groening productions...
There's that Fox, again. Jay Lender, another WGA-west caucus member cited in the relevant article, shares an animation-writing history (Sponge Bob Square Pants). With two prominent members as television animation writers for shows that are enormously popular with children, no doubt there is some kind of stringent standard as to which sort of games could be nominated. For instance, "Bioshock", though some may find it to be the art-deco'd social Darwinist hit of the century, features the player being attacked by drugged-up little children who may or may not be dispatched unpleasantly. That probably didn't make the cut.
The "taking care of your friends" aspect is what I'm trying to focus attention on. Micah Wright's major video-game titles include: "Looney Tunes: Back in Action (2003), Electronic Arts"; and "Shadow Ops: Red Mercury, (2004), Atari." Considering we have two major connections, one through Groening productions and one through the combinatrix of major animated series gone video game by way of Electronic Arts, it's no surprise that the Simpsons game made it up there, whether it totally sucks or not.
Sierra, again.
Dead Head Fred features the voice of John C. McGinley, who plays "Perry Cox" in NBC's "Scrubs".