1. When you're searching through all the drawers and cabinets in your office only to realize that you've got sixteen different boxes all marked "Staples" and NONE of them actually have staples in them, you may begin to suspect that either you've gone insane or that somebody is playing a practical joke on you. Like possibly they waited until you fell asleep and then changed the meaning of the word "staples" to something other than what you thought it was.
This latter explanation is actually pretty close to what's happened. While you weren't paying attention, a large corporation purchased the rights to the word "staples" and, through the miracle of branding, erased any meaning it might once have had. It is now just a logo, with no more meaning outside of this context than "Pepsi" has outside of its normal context. This will eventually happen to every word in the English language. Get used to it.
2. Product Testimonial: Extra Strength Krazy Glue
I was looking around for some adhesive and found this tube of Extra Strength Krazy Glue in my desk drawer, presumably left there by my predecessor. However, I was unable to use it because the lid was stuck on and wouldn't come off no matter how hard I struggled trying to remove it. I used pliers on that sucker and it still wouldn't budge!
That it some seriously good glue!
3. The song "Jingle Bell Rock" contains entirely too many instances of the word "jingle."
4. If I came up with a a character in a story who was an actual cardinal and I named him Cardinal Sin, readers would roll their eyes and groan.
"Next you're going to tell us that the prison-guard character stationed at Abu Ghraib is named 'Corporal Punishment.' ", they would rightly protest. "C'mon! How heavy-handed can you get?"
A new cardinal will soon be appointed to the Manila Archdiocese, but they'll never replace Cardinal Sin. He was a true original.
A combination of genetics and hormonal influences in the womb determine whether or not a person is Tom Cruise, researchers say. Studies compiled in the newly-published book Born Cruise: The Psychobiology of Being Tom Cruise, combine recent findings from the fields of psychology, neuroscience, genetics, endocrinology and evolutionary biology to support the authors’ contention that being Tom Cruise is an inherited condition, and is not the result of environmental factors as was previously believed.
“Upbringing, childhood experience and personal choice have little or no influence on whether or not someone is Tom Cruise.” Says study co-author Rahzi Qaman.
For decades many psychiatrists have contended that being Tom Cruise was the result of early childhood relationships. This view, says Qaman, is not supported by facts.
“There is simply no evidence that people could “learn” to be Tom Cruise. For example, children of Tom Cruise are no more likely to be Tom Cruise than their peers.”
Conservative Christian groups today lashed out at the book's findings. “The bogus “research” presented in this book is yet another thinly-veiled attempt by the liberal media to advance the Tom Cruise agenda.” Said Traditional Values Coalition chairman Rev. Louis P. Sheldon in a televised press conference held early Tuesday in Atlanta.
“So-called “scientists” are trying to shift the blame for the destructive Tom Cruise lifestyle onto their so-called “genes” and so-called “science.” I have just one message for any naive individuals who might be taken in by this attempt to legitimize behavior that the church rightly regards as an abomination: God isn’t fooled by this, and you shouldn't be either.”
In a written statement to the press, Cruise himself weighed in on the controversial new findings through the office of his publicist earlier today. The tightly-worded one-page statement hewed close to the Scientology party line, stating that there is in fact no such thing as brain chemistry.
"The idea that the "brain" contains "chemicals" that influence one's state of mind is just another ludicrous fiction foisted on the unsuspecting public by the international psychiatric conspiracy. As long as spurious claims like these continue to be slavishly repeated by a sensationalist and credulous press, millions will remain imprisoned in their bleak little lives, unable to audit out their Body-Thetans and reach their full potential as Operating Thetans.”
If somebody told you that they just watched Children of the Corn part VII: Revelation and were disappointed with its quality, what would you say to that person? If you are like me, you’d probably say something like:
“Children of the Corn seven? There’s seven of them?”
And then supposing they went and said something like
“I realize that the franchise has been slipping since Children of the Corn IV: the Gathering, which was the first one to be released direct-to-video, but I kept holding out hope that the series would one day return to a level of quality closer to the first two installments. So Part VII: Revelation was obviously a big disappointment. How dare director Guy Magar try to pawn off this shamefully lackluster effort on a Children-of-the-Corn-starved public?"
Then you’d probably say
“Seriously, SEVEN?”
Because what else could you say? Anybody who expects Children of the Corn VII: Revelation to be substantially better than, say, Children of the Corn 666: Isaac’s Return or Children of the Corn V: Fields of Terror, is clearly living in a fool’s paradise. Complaining about the quality of Part VII is a bit like complaining that you found part of a hot dog in your can of franks 'n beans. Did you read the label before you purchased it? You got exactly what you paid for.
I am saying this because I went and saw what we have been promised is the last Star Wars movie ever last night. I went late to avoid the crowds (which I had good reason to believe would largely consist of Star Wars fans) and as a result I find that I'm way behind the nerd-curve on this one. That's why I’m resisting the urge to post a sarcastic review about how bad it was, partly because that’s old news and it’s already been done better than I could ever hope to, but also because the fact is I knew what I was getting into when I bought the ticket.
When die-hard fans (and by that I mean nerds) complain about George Lucas and his complete lack of story-telling ability or his contempt for his audience or whatever and then go to see the movies anyway I want to scold them in the manner of a first-grade teacher: If you pay attention to his disruptive behavior it only encourages him. This sounds good in theory but in practice we all know it is hard to ignore somebody who habitually eats things they pick up on the playground or crows like a rooster for no discernible reason in the middle of silent reading period. You feel obligated to turn around and look. Today kids like this are diagnosed as having ADD and medicated with Ritalin but back in my day they were called “hyper” and medicated with Ritalin and before that they were called “bratty” and beaten with paddles until they learned to stop making trouble or took the hint and quit coming to school.
The moral of this story: Stay in School! Don’t Do Drugs!
But I digress.
The only real reason I bring up ADD is because I suspect that Mr. Lucas might suffer from it. I am basing this statement on the sheer volume of visual clutter in his movies -- it's hard to stay focused on the actors in the foreground who are trying their best to emote while reciting some admittedly not-quite-David-Mamet dialogue when the background of the shot is filled with blinking, whooshing, perfectly-in-focus flying cars whizzing around like a swarm of caffeinated fireflies. The films are filled with oddly distracting visual choices like this. And honestly, since the only reason I see these movies at all is for the eye-candy I can’t really complain when otherwise boring “dramatic” scenes are underscored with exploding spaceships and waterfalls of molten lava. I suppose I should be thankful to Mr. Lucas for second-guessing himself like this and making sure that, godamnit, even if I find nothing whatsoever of interest going on in the foreground, at least the background is crammed with cool-looking stuff that I can focus on when I start to get bored. Note that Mr. Lucas is not the only auteur of note to employ this theory of film-making with spectacular results: Replace those gratuitous spaceships and lava-robots with gratuitous naked hootchie-mamas dancing around a paper maché volcano and you've pretty much got Paul Verhoeven's Showgirls.
Movies made by people with ADD for people with ADD. And by that I mean Oh boy! ice cream!
Alright, I started out by saying I wasn't going to do a review and now that I look back at what I just wrote I guess sort of did anyhow, so I apologize for that.
I also apologize for the timing of this. I realize that writing about Revenge of the Sith is so five minutes ago. As for the earth-shakingly important event of this minute that doesn't affect my life in any meaningful way but for some reason I’m expected to care about, all I can say is this: Nothing damages the credibility of a witness in the eyes of a jury quite so much as the fact that they pimped their child out to a well-known (alleged) child-molester.
What?
This is a response to a posting on leBlanc's site about organic farming. Her comment engine only allows 1250 characters and my response was too damn long-winded to fit. So I posted it here. You are free to read it if you care about such things.
As you say, it's complicated. On the one hand, small upscale "boutique" businesses marketing organic products to an affluent, ecologically-minded niche will never make the kind of impact on agriculture in general that advocates for organics seem to want. In order for a market-driven move towards organic farming to happen, prices need to come down from the Whole Foods (nickname: Whole Paycheck) range, and this will require economies of scale. It would take an awful lot of twenty-acre organic farms to provide enough produce to meet the level of demand needed to displace traditional non-organic agribusiness.
But inevitably as big agribusiness moves into the market there will be attempts to loosen the definition of organic to bring down production costs (while still keeping retail costs as close to their inflated boutique pricing as the market will bear, naturally.) There have already been numerous attempts to do this, including attempts by Monsanto and others to lobby for an organic classification for GMO crops. Also, there are ongoing efforts to allow this classification to apply to produce grown in overseas markets (notably China) where artificially low labor costs allow for them to be grown at costs that local American farmers could not hope to compete with. Assuming the trend continues, these pressures seem destined to drive the smaller local organic farmers out of business just as their predecessors in traditional agriculture were driven out of business in the latter half of the twentieth century.
It's also true that large organic farms can be damaging to the environment just as large traditional farms are. Runoff from tons of manure has a negative impact just as does runoff from chemical fertilizers and pesticides. And while many cities (even Northern cities) have farmers’ markets, there will never be enough to meet the level of demand needed to make a real impact. At some point large-scale distribution networks will be necessary, with all the downsides that entails.
If organics advocates in places like Seattle and San Francisco really want to see the movement towards more sustainable farming gain broader acceptance, they will have to make some tough decisions about what they are willing to live with.
Remember our conversation about voting with your dollars? I can think of no better example than this of how that can work. Consumers, through their insistence on an organic option, have created this market niche. The fact that there is money to be made selling organic produce has done more to get the attention of the major food growers and distributors than all the public protests in the world could ever do. In order for this to continue to work, I think the single most important thing is that information about where and how food is produced is available and transparent. Then consumers can continue to vote with their dollars.
Still more killer robots.
Start from the Beginning.
The Logic of War:
Hot on the heels of the SWORDS, a host of other robots with combat and support applications is being readied under FCS (future combat systems) to take their place alongside human soldiers in nearly every aspect of military operations. From mobile sentry systems like MDARS and REDCAR to unmanned combat vehicles like the robotic Stryker or the Marines’ Gladiator to integrated, multiple-vehicle systems like COUGAR, the Pentagon is aggressively pursuing its commitment to a largely automated military in the next decade.
The two applications that are likely to be performed by robots first are supply transport and sentry duties, as these are tasks that require lower levels of true autonomy and for which technology already exists. Military planners envision supply convoys consisting of one manned (and presumably well-armored) lead vehicle accompanied by a train of “follower” trucks who would track the GPS positioning of the lead truck and drive along behind it. Current systems allow vehicles to navigate on their own and only ask for instructions from an operator when they get stuck. Navigation in straight lines down paved roads is simple enough that they wouldn't require much help. Similarly, robots have already been successfully employed as sentries in controlled areas, because patrolling a known route in a fixed location does not require the sorts of complex navigational decision-making that robots have difficulty mastering.
The ongoing efforts to develop systems that can navigate in unfamiliar surroundings highlight some of the major obstacles that must be overcome before truly autonomous combat robots will be possible. While great progress has been made in creating navigation systems that can negotiate difficult terrain, designers have thus far been unable to overcome certain limitations in the perceptual powers of robotic vehicles. A competition held last year in the Mojave desert which offered a $1 Million dollar prize (sponsored by the Pentagon) to any fully automated vehicle that could successfully navigate the 142-mile course produced no winners. Within four hours, every vehicle entered in the competition had crashed or broken down.
These are not necessarily limitations that will be overcome by advances in raw number-crunching speed. At the heart of the enterprise are some knotty questions about how to describe the vagaries of perception in the formalized language of machines. Consider this description, pulled from a Washington Post article from last year, concerning the performance of the MDARS sentry, “patrolling” the snow-covered back yard at the Westminster lab where it is being developed:
“It drives several feet, eyes a parking sign and halts, apparently puzzled, until a human attendant reprograms MDARS to move on.
"Compared to a human, MDARS is really not that smart," {General Dynamics Engineer} DiBerardino says by way of explanation. “
A robot that can’t tell a parking sign from an intruder is probably not something that most military personnel are going to want to arm and send out to patrol the perimeter. Until shortcomings such as these can be satisfactorily addressed it seems likely that decisions to employ lethal force will be left in the hands of remote operators. It is worth noting, however, that almost every one of the land-based robotic systems listed above features some sort of “non-lethal/less lethal” option (to clarify: “non-lethal” and “less-lethal” usually refer to the same system – if somebody gets shot with it and doesn’t subsequently die, it’s “non-lethal”). Sentry robots will almost certainly be entrusted with the decision to employ these sorts of “delay and deny” measures long they are trusted to pull the trigger on an M-16. So the problem remains: How to formally describe, in terms a machine can understand, the difference between friend and foe?
What’s needed is a robot that can complete one of those courses that police officers use to train for the use of deadly force in the field. If you’ve seen a Dirty Harry movie you’ve probably seen the Hollywood version of these, where life-size cardboard cutouts of bad guys pop out and the shooter has to take them down as rapidly as possible while not shooting “decoy” targets which represent innocent bystanders. The cardboard cutouts may have long since been replaced by video and then by first-person-shooter simulations, but the idea remains the same: Training those entrusted with the use of lethal force to exercise judgment when employing that force. A soldier who simply shoots everything that moves is of limited usefulness, especially in an urban setting where winning the hearts and minds of the locals is part of the mission statement. A robot that rolled around mowing down innocent women and children might well present an even greater PR problem.
The solution is not necessarily more processing power or better hardware either. Before robots can be trusted with the decision of whether or not to pull the trigger, a hard-and-fast set of rules for distinguishing between targets and innocent bystanders must be developed. In effect, it would require programmers to be able to write code clearly defining the Logic of War. If that phrase sounds like an oxymoron to you, then you are beginning to grasp the scope of the problem facing programmers.
Consider this: If the machines are given the instruction "don't shoot nuns," then soon there will be battlefields full of soldiers dressed as nuns marching right up to the robots and shooting them point blank in the brain box. Conversely, instructions like "shoot everybody wearing a uniform that isn't one of ours" would lead to widespread slaughter of nurses, priests and bellhops. Instructions to look for weapons would still have to define in exact terms what a weapon looks like in every possible instance. Errors of judgement would prove fatal, and baiting combat robots into killing innocent bystanders or destroying select targets would become a viable guerilla technique. Considering how difficult visual perception in the real world has proven to be for machines, optical recognition systems could probably be rendered inoperative by a good Trompe L'oeil painting.
In the immediate future, the way around this problem will likely be to not address it at all. Sentry systems are already being discussed that have a “shoot anything that looks suspicious” instruction, which would probably mean that in controlled areas anybody not presenting proper identification (this may take the form of “smart chips” which could be worn, sewn into uniforms, or implanted) would be fair game. Anyone entering the sentry’s area would receive a command to “halt!” or be fired upon, with the robot having clearance to use force if they do not then comply.
Sentry systems now being readied for deployment will employ a non-lethal/less lethal option. Setting up robots to shoot anything that moves in their field of vision is a relatively simple matter. It's not hard to imagine soldiers in their 14th straight hour of sentry duty looking for ways to get sentry robots to perform these duties for them, even if that meant entrusting them with deadly weapons -- the same weapons, after all, that the soldiers are instructed to use. And while the idea of machines with undiscriminating lethal responses to everything in their sphere may be troubling, in reality such machines have been present on the battlefield since the invention of the landmine. Of course landmines can’t aim or give pursuit. Yet still they cause an estimated 2000 deaths and casualties every month worldwide, mostly in civilians.
Next:The Sky's the Limit
Science is once again following in the footsteps of science fiction as IBM this week announced plans to develop, in partnership with Switzerland's Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne's (EPFL) Brain and Mind Institute, a working computer simulation that emulates the behavior of the human brain down to the cellular level. The project is called Blue Brain and will make use of four Blue Gene super computer racks, currently the fastest computers in the world with a peak performance of 22.8 teraflops. The result will be a 3-D working model of a human brain in action. The initial phase will focus on the Neocortex, the outer layers of the brain associated with higher functions.
This could well represent the first step down the path towards a "scruffy" Artifical Intelligence. Scruffy (or connectionist) AI represents the view of intelligence as an emergent quality, as opposed to the classical or "neat" path, which attempts to build intelligence with a more top-down approach. The thought is that this might prove to be a way around the problem of how to get the Ghost into the Machine and all the attendant philosophical and logical conundrums associated with that goal. Skirting the question of what exactly the Ghost is, the Artifical Life approach exemplified by Blue Brain proposes to create a machine that has awareness by emulating the behavior of a system that is already presumed to have awareness (i.e. the human brain.)
Fans of William Gibson's Neuromancer may recognise in this one of his favorite themes, which I like to call the "soul in a box": Expert systems which are created by taking snapshots of real people's brains and then allowing these simulations to continue to act as agents in the virtual world. The wrinkle is that these simulations, besides having all the expertise of the original "donors," also possess a sense of self identical to the donor's. To the artificial being thus generated, it as though it still were that person, and their organic life came to an end the moment they stepped into the MRI.
I have to admit I've always loved this idea. Especially if it ever becomes standard operating procedure. Imagine if instead of having "Clippy" the talking paper-clip office assistant pop up on the screen to answer questions or offer suggestions, you could have one of these virtual experts instead? Somebody really smart, like say Stephen Hawking? Wouldn't that be cool?
"Yes?"
"Hi, Mr. Hawking. I was just having trouble doing this mail merge and I was wondering if you could give me a hand..."
"That's what you're asking me? How to do a mail merge? You're sure you don't want to know something about advanced theoretical physics?"
"I really need to know how to do a mail merge. It's kind of important."
"You have access to all the knowledge and expertise of one of the most brilliant minds of the twenty-first century and that's what you're asking me!?"
"Well, uh, yeah. Look, maybe this is a bad time. Would it be better if I talked to Clippy?"
"No! Don't go! Please, I get so bored. I'll tell you how to do a mail merge if that's what you want. Hold on, I have to read the manual."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also in brain news this week: Researchers believe they have isolated the brain region responsible for recognising sarcasm and irony. And the winner is: The right ventromedial prefrontal cortex! Huzzah!
It is in the right ventromedial prefrontal cortex that the brain compares the literal meaning of the words (which is evaluated elsewhere in the brain) with the social and emotional context in which those words were spoken. Subjects with damage to this area of the brain showed an inability to detect sarcasm.
It remains unclear if the combination of this research with the above-mentioned brain emulation research will ever lead to the development of a machine which can appreciate the Simpsons on more levels than I do, but it certainly looks to be a promising field of inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And finally, a story that brings us full circle, from trying to cram the unruly, chaotic contents of the outside world into the smooth, perfect confines of the box to trying to bring the contents of that box out into the real world: This BBC story tells how researchers in Singapore are developing a real-world Pac-Man game. Players wear virtual reality goggles as they navigate an actual maze. The goggles show them where cookies are and tell them when the ghosts are blinking, etc. Ghosts are also played by real participants. Power-ups are represented by physical sugar jars equipped with Blue Tooth technology.
Real-world Pac-man! It's like a beautiful dream...