Which means it wouldn't be an issue... Or rather wouldn't be if the schmucks didn't charge us for recieving the damned message.
Mind you, there was talk of making it illegal, since one has no choice in the matter...
Yes, and part of playing an evil character is that you should expect to be regarded as evil and treated as such - surely by that argument, having to run like stink because you've just been reported to the in-game police is part of being an evil-doer?
Unless of course, you were just being a griefer...
Surely a more appropriate solution is to apply 'virtual laws' to the virtual worlds?
It is absurd to suggest that one should be compensated for somebody nicking your Sim's stereo, in the Sims, for example - but not as absurd to suggest that the evil sod sim who nicked your sim's stereo that he bought with his hard earned simolians should get nicked.
In this manner you can maintain the contintuity of the world - it damages the overall world of Everquest, if you can demand trial by jury for player-killing the baker, for example.
I believe Star Wars Galaxies is at some point planning on introducing a legal system - player kill somebody within a town where this is forbidden, and expect a visit from the police force.
The question is whether this is a law, or a gameplay mechanic - most of the questyions of legality are real world issues, sexually harassing another player character should be covered by real-world law, as should hacking into somebody's account and stealing their character - stealing a player's items on the other hand, if dopne by in-game means, should be considered a matter of virtual law, to be dealt with (or not) by the adminstration of that particular world, whether that be a trial by jury, or just putting a bounty on the thief's head.
But then, I'm not a lawyer, I'm a cognitive scientist.
That's only one aspect of cognitive science - and you'll find that a lot of AI people would define themselves as cognitive scientists.
It's a very, very broad field and extends beyond AI - and the modelling aspect you've chosen to focus on is largely about increasing our understanding of the system we're modelling, as opposed to advancing AI.
Cognitive science is making very considerable advances in a lot of areas - natural language processing and computer vision are good examples there.
AI is not the be-all and end-all of cognitive science by any means - although Minksy may be right in that focus has shifted from recreating human intelligence, to other problems - with good reason: we stand a chance of making serious progress and interesting advances in those at this time.
But hey, what do I know? I'm only a cognitive science BSc student.
Questionable - a lot of people would argue that if the machine can present a sufficient appearance of intelligence and the ability to reason, it could be considered such.
Philosophers refer to the phenomona as 'zombies', so if you had a machine that passed Turing's test say (Or Loebner's variant), you would be unable to tell if it was really intelligent, and at that point it might as well be.
But top-down is an unfashionable approach just now;)
Slashdot Mirror
Which means it wouldn't be an issue...
Or rather wouldn't be if the schmucks didn't charge us for recieving the damned message. Mind you, there was talk of making it illegal, since one has no choice in the matter...
Isn't it obvious?
Apple's a more classy, and hence more expensive. You 've seriously never realised that this works both ways?
Something costs more, therefore it is better - this is something conditioned into us from the day we learn to watch tv...
Yes, and part of playing an evil character is that you should expect to be regarded as evil and treated as such - surely by that argument, having to run like stink because you've just been reported to the in-game police is part of being an evil-doer?
Unless of course, you were just being a griefer...
Surely a more appropriate solution is to apply 'virtual laws' to the virtual worlds?
It is absurd to suggest that one should be compensated for somebody nicking your Sim's stereo, in the Sims, for example - but not as absurd to suggest that the evil sod sim who nicked your sim's stereo that he bought with his hard earned simolians should get nicked.
In this manner you can maintain the contintuity of the world - it damages the overall world of Everquest, if you can demand trial by jury for player-killing the baker, for example.
I believe Star Wars Galaxies is at some point planning on introducing a legal system - player kill somebody within a town where this is forbidden, and expect a visit from the police force.
The question is whether this is a law, or a gameplay mechanic - most of the questyions of legality are real world issues, sexually harassing another player character should be covered by real-world law, as should hacking into somebody's account and stealing their character - stealing a player's items on the other hand, if dopne by in-game means, should be considered a matter of virtual law, to be dealt with (or not) by the adminstration of that particular world, whether that be a trial by jury, or just putting a bounty on the thief's head.
But then, I'm not a lawyer, I'm a cognitive scientist.
Columns?
That's only one aspect of cognitive science - and you'll find that a lot of AI people would define themselves as cognitive scientists. It's a very, very broad field and extends beyond AI - and the modelling aspect you've chosen to focus on is largely about increasing our understanding of the system we're modelling, as opposed to advancing AI. Cognitive science is making very considerable advances in a lot of areas - natural language processing and computer vision are good examples there. AI is not the be-all and end-all of cognitive science by any means - although Minksy may be right in that focus has shifted from recreating human intelligence, to other problems - with good reason: we stand a chance of making serious progress and interesting advances in those at this time. But hey, what do I know? I'm only a cognitive science BSc student.
Questionable - a lot of people would argue that if the machine can present a sufficient appearance of intelligence and the ability to reason, it could be considered such.
;)
Philosophers refer to the phenomona as 'zombies', so if you had a machine that passed Turing's test say (Or Loebner's variant), you would be unable to tell if it was really intelligent, and at that point it might as well be.
But top-down is an unfashionable approach just now
Too right, especially since frames are about to be replaced by something else by the standards council (w3.org).