单选题{{B}}Text 2{{/B}} Good looks, the video-games industry is discovering, will get you only so far. The graphics on a modern game may far outstrip the pixellated blobs of the 1980s, but there is more to a good game than eye candy. Photo-realistic graphics make the lack of authenticity of other aspects of gameplay more apparent. It is not enough for game characters to look better—their behaviour must also be more sophisticated, say researchers working at the interface between gaming and artificial intelligence(AI). Today' s games may look better, but the gameplay is"basically the same" as it was a few years ago, says Michael Mateas, the founder of the Experimental Game Lab at the Georgia Institute of Technology. AI, he suggests, offers an" untapped frontier" of new possibilities. "We are topping out on the graphics, so what' s going to be the next thing that improves gameplay?" asks John Laird, director of the A1 lab at the University of Michigan. Improved Al is a big part of the answer, he says. Those in the industry agree. The high-definition graphics possible on next-generation games consoles, such as Microsoft' s Xbox 360, are raising expectatious across the board, says Neff Young of Electronic Arts, the world' s biggest games publisher. "You have to have high-resolution models, which requires high-resolution animation," he says," so now I expect high-resolution behaviour." Representatives from industry and academia will converge in Marina del Rey, California, later this month for the second annual Artificial Intelligence and Interactive Digital Entertainment(AIIDE ) conference. The aim, says Dr Laird, who will chair the event, is to Increase the traffic of people and ideas between the two spheres. "Games have been very important to AI through the years," he notes. Alan Turing, one of the pioneers of computing in the 1940s, wrote a simple chess-playing program before there were any computers to run it on; he also proposed the Turing test, a question-and-answer game that is a yardstick for machine intelligence. Even so ,AI research and video games existed in separate worlds until recently. The Al techniques used in games were very simplistic from an academic perspective, says Dr. Mateas, while Al researchers were, in turn, clueless about modern games. But, he says, "both sides are learning, and are now much closer." Consider, for example, the software that controls an enemy in a first-person shooter (FPS) —a game in which the player views the world along the barrel of a gun. The behaviour of enemies used to be pre-scripted: wait until the player is nearby, pop up from behind a box, fire weapon, and then roll and hide behind another box, for example. But some games now use far more advanced" planning systems" imported from academia. "Instead of scripts and hand-coded behaviour, the AI monsters in an FPS can reason from first principles," says Dr. Mateas. They can, for example, work out whether the player can see them or not, seek out cover when injured, and so on. "Rather than just moving between predefined spots, the characters in a war game can dynamically shift, depending on what's happening," says Fiona Sperry of Electronic Arts. If the industry is borrowing ideas from academia, the opposite is also true. Commercial games such as "Unreal Tournament", which can be easily modified or scripted, are being adopted as research tools in universities, says Dr. Laird. Such tools provide flexible environments for experiments, and also mean that students end up with transferable skills. But the greatest potential lies in combining research with game development, argues Dr. Mateas. "Only by wrestling with real content are the technical problems revealed, and only by wrestling with technology does it give you insight into what new kinds of content are possible, "he says.

单选题{{B}}Text 3{{/B}} President Bush takes to the bully pulpit to deliver a stern lecture to America's business elite. The Justice Dept. stuns the accounting profession by filing a criminal indictment of Arthur Andersen LLP for destroying documents related to its audits of Enron Corp. On Capitol Hill, some congressional panels push on with biased hearings on Enron's collapse and, now, another busted New Economy star, telecom's Global Crossing. Lawmakers sign on to new bills aimed at tightening oversight of everything from pensions and accounting to executive pay. To any spectators, it would be easy to conclude that the winds of change are sweeping Corporate America, led by George W. Bush, who ran as "a reformer with result." But far from deconstructing the corporate world brick by brick into something cleaner, sparer, and stronger, Bush aides and many legislators are preparing modest legislative and administrative reforms. Instead of an overhaul, Bush's team is counting on its enforcers, Justice and a newly empowered Securities & Exchange Commission, to make examples of the most egregious offenders. The idea is that business will quickly get the message and clean up its own act. Why won't the {{U}}outraged rhetoric{{/U}} result in more changes? For starters, the Bush Administration warns that any rush to legislate corporate behavior could produce a raft of flawed bills that raise costs without halting abuses. Business has striven to drive the point home with an intense lobbying blitz that has convinced many lawmakers that over-regulation could startle the stock market and perhaps endanger the nascent economic recovery. All this sets the stage for Washington to get busy with predictably modest results. A surge of caution is sweeping would-be reformers on the Hill. "They know they don't want to make a big mistake," says Jerry J. Jasinowski, president of the National Association of Manufacturers. That go-slow approach suits the White House. Aides say the President, while personally disgusted by Enron's sellout of its pensioners, is reluctant to embrace new sanctions that frustrate even law-abiding corporations and create a litigation bonanza for trial lawyers. Instead, the White House will push for narrowly targeted action, most of it carried out by the SEC, the Treasury Dept. , and the Labor Dept. The right outcome, Treasury Secretary Paul H. O'Neill said on Mar. 15, "depends on the Congress not legislating things that are over the top." To O'Neill and Bush, that means enforcing current laws before passing too many new ones. Nowhere is that stance clearer than in the Andersen indictment. So the Bush Administration left the decision to Justice Dept. prosecutors rather than White House political operatives or their reformist fellows at the SEC.

单选题For most of the last 50 years, globalization has been a win-win proposition, making America richer while lifting hundreds of millions in the developing world out of poverty and despair. Recently, however, it has begun to operate differently, undermining U.S. welfare while creating imbalances likely to end in a global economic crisis. In this new mode, globalization is tilting the world like a giant sliding board game on which the "flattening" of old barriers is accelerating the transfer of the supply side of the U.S. economy to the rest of the world, especially Asia. Take the semiconductor king, Intel, as an example. When economists and political leaders say American industry should concentrate on producing very-high-technology products where it has a clear comparative advantage, Intel's chips are what they have in mind. Yet company executives recently told a presidential advisory panel that under present circumstances they must consider building more of their new factories abroad. Over the next 10 years, they explained, the cost of running a semiconductor factory in the United States could be $1 billion more than that of running it abroad. That there is something odd here is not yet widely acknowledged. Indeed, most business, academic, media and political leaders continue to insist that globalization is proceeding smoothly, making the world rich, more democratic and more peaceful. Nor is this view entirely unjustified. U.S. GDP and productivity growth are the highest in the developed economies, while inflation, unemployment and interest rates are among the lowest. Nevertheless, a closer look reveals a dark side. The U.S. trade deficit is now more than $800 billion, or 7 percent of GDP, and grows inexorably as Americans continue to consume more than they produce. Economists typically expect the United States to import commodities and cheap manufactured goods while exporting high-tech products, sophisticated services and agricultural goods, for which its land and climate are well suited. In reality, the U.S. high-tech trade surplus of $30 billion in 1998 has collapsed to a deficit of about $40 billion. Agricultural trade is now also in deficit for the first time in memory, and the modest surplus in services is declining as global deployment of the high-speed Internet has made it possible for services to move offshore as easily as manufacturing. Some economists speak bravely of a "soft landing". In this scenario, the United States reduces its budget deficit and excess consumption, while a gradually falling dollar results in rising exports to foreign markets where governments are stimulating consumption. While desirable, this will not occur automatically. Thus, for the sake not only of the United States but of all nations with a stake in globalization, it is imperative that political leaders change its current mode. The game cannot continue with one participant playing consumer while nearly all the others play producer. For the long-term success of all, everyone must agree to play the same globalization game.

单选题"We're using the wrong word," says Sean Drysdale, a desperate doctor from a rural hospital at Hlabisa in northern KwaZulu-Natal. "This isn't an epidemic, it's a disaster. " A recent UNIEF report, which states that almost one-third of Swaziland's 900,000 people are infected with HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, supports this diagnosis. HIV is spreading faster in southern Africa than anywhere else in the world. But is anyone paying attention? Despite the fact that most of the world's 33.5 million HIV/AIDS cases are in sub-Saharan Africa—with an additional 4 million infected each year—the priorities at last week's Organization of African Unity summit were conflict resolution and economies development. Yet the epidemic could have a greater effect on economic development—or, rather, the lack of it—than many politicians suspect. While business leaders are more concerned about the 2K millennium bug than the long-term effect of AIDS, statistics show that the workfare in South Africa, for instance, is likely to be 20% HIV positive by next year. Medical officials and researchers warn that not a single country in the region has a cohesive government strategy to tackle the crisis. The way managers address AIDS in the workplace will determine whether their companies survive the first decade of the 21st century, says Deane Moore, an actuary for South Africa's Metropolitan Life Insurance Company. Moore estimates that in South Africa there will be 580,000 new AIDS cases a year and a life expectancy of just 38 by 2010. "We'll be back to the Middle Ages," says Drysdale, whose hospital is in one of the areas in South Africa with the highest rates of HIV infection. "The graph is heading toward the vertical. And yet people are still not taking it seriously. " Most southern African countries are simply too poor to supply more than basic health services, let alone medicines, to confront the crisis. Patients in some government hospitals in Harare have to supply their own bedding, food, drugs and, in some cases, even their own nurses. Zimbabwe's frail domestic economy depends to a large extent on informal enterprises and small businesses, many of which are going bankrupt as AIDS takes its toll on owners and employees. "The ripple effect is devastating," says Harare AIDS researcher Rene Loewenson. More ominous are the implications for South Africa with a sophisticated industrial infrastructure as well as a widespread informal sector. While the South African government is active in promoting AIDS education, it hasn't the money, manpower or material to cope with the attack of AIDS.

单选题King Richard III was a monster. He poisoned his wife, stole the throne from his two young nephews and ordered them to be smothered in the Tower of London. Richard was a sort of Antichrist the King --"that bottled spider, that poisonous bunchbacked toad. " Anyway, that was Shakespeare's version. Shakespeare did what the playwright does: he turned history into a vivid, articulate, organized dream-repeatable nightly. He put the crouch back onstage, and sold tickets. And who Would say that the real Richard known to family and friends was not identical to Shakespeare's memorably loathsome creation? The actual Richard went dimming into the past and vanished. When all the eye-witnesses are gone, the artist's imagination begins to twist. Variations on the King Richard Effect are at work in Oliver Stone's JFK. Richard III was art, but it was propaganda too. Shakespeare took the details of his plot from Tudor historians who wanted to blacken Richard's name. Several centuries passed before other historians began to write about Richard's virtues and suggest that he may have been a victim of Tudor malice and what is the cleverest conspiracy of all: art. JFK is a long and powerful harangue about the death of the man--Stone keeps calling "the slain young king.' What are the rules of Stone's game? Is Stone functioning as commercial entertainer? Propagandist? Documentary filmmaker? Historian? Journalist? Fantasist? Sensationalist? Crazy conspiracy-monger? Lone hero crusading for the truth against a corrupt Establishment? Answer: some of the above. The first superficial effect of JFK is to raise angry little scruples like welts in the conscience. Wouldn't it be absurd if a generation of younger Americans, with no memory of 1963, were to form their ideas about John Kennedy's assassination from Oliver Stone's report of it? But worse things have happened--including, perhaps, the Warren Commission report? Stone uses a suspect, mixed art form, and JFK raises the familiar ethical and historical problems of docudrama. But so what? Artists have always used public events as raw material, have taken history into their imaginations and transformed it. The fall of Troy vanished into the Iliad. The Battle of Borodino found its most memorable permanence in Tolstoy's imagining of it in War and Peace. Especially in a world of insatiable electronic storytelling, real history procreates, endlessly conjuring new versions of itself. Public life has become a metaphysical breeder of fictions. Watergate became an almost continuous television miniseries--although it is interesting that the movie of Woodward and Bernstein's All The President's Men stayed close to the known facts and, unlike JFK, did not validate dark conjecture.

单选题"There is one and only one social responsibility of business," wrote Milton Friedman, a Nobel prize-winning economist, "That is, to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits." But even if you accept Friedman"s premise and regard corporate social responsibility (CSR) policies as a waste of shareholders" money, things may not be absolutely clear-cut. New research suggests that CSR may create monetary value for companies—at least when they are prosecuted for corruption. The largest firms in America and Britain together spend more than $15 billion a year on CSR, according to an estimate by EPG, a consulting firm. This could add value to their businesses in three ways. First, consumers may take CSR spending as a "signal" that a company"s products are of high quality. Second, customers may be willing to buy a company"s products as an indirect way to donate to the good causes it helps. And third, through a more diffuse "halo effect," whereby its good deeds earn it greater consideration from consumers and others. Previous studies on CSR have had trouble differentiating these effects because consumers can be affected by all three. A recent study attempts to separate them by looking at bribery prosecutions under America"s Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). It argues that since prosecutors do not consume a company"s products as part of their investigations, they could be influenced only by the halo effect. The study found that, among prosecuted firms, those with the most comprehensive CSR programmes tended to get more lenient penalties. Their analysis ruled out the possibility that it was firms" political influence, rather than their CSR stand, that accounted for the leniency: Companies that contributed more to political campaigns did not receive lower fines. In all, the study concludes that whereas prosecutors should only evaluate a case based on its merits, they do seem to be influenced by a company"s record in CSR. "We estimate that either eliminating a substantial labour-rights concern, such as child labour, or increasing corporate giving by about 20% results in fines that generally are 40% lower than the typical punishment for bribing foreign officials," says one researcher. Researchers admit that their study does not answer the question of how much businesses ought to spend on CSR. Nor does it reveal how much companies are banking on the halo effect, rather than the other possible benefits, when they decide their do-gooding policies. But at least they have demonstrated that when companies get into trouble with the law, evidence of good character can win them a less costly punishment.

单选题Cupta has estimated that Indian marriages based on love occur among less than one percent of the population because______

单选题Teachers encourage the students to use dictionaries so that ______.

单选题It is difficult for outsiders to gauge people"s sense of well-being, simply by viewing their lives. And yet despite the difficulty, economists seem increasingly determined to do just that, by trying to wrestle life"s intangibles into measurable data. Forty years after the Gross National Happiness index was invented by the King of Bhutan, happiness is finally gaining attraction as a serious national indicator. Last week, economists at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), which represents 34 major economies, told a packed auditorium in Paris that they hoped their Better Life Index—launched a year ago—would persuade governments to focus as much on factors like environment and community cohesiveness, as on GDP measurements like productivity and income. "The index of material conditions is still extremely important," the OECD"s chief statistician Martine Durand told the audience of about 350 people, including economists and officials from around the world. "But what we are saying is that there is more to life than just money." Now several countries seem to have taken note. The U. S. Department of Health and Human Services is working on a national happiness index for Americans (whose "pursuit of happiness," The Washington Post noted, is fundamental to the country) that the U. S. would then track, much as it does income and working hours. And last year, in the midst of massive spending cuts, Britain"s Office of National Statistics began a Well-Being Index, at a cost of $ 3 million a year, collecting statistics on people"s levels of anxiety and confidence. Surprisingly, the first index showed Brits being generally happy with life, with older people being happiest of all. But no effort seems to match the ambition and scope of the OECD"s Better Life Index. Launched in May last year, it collates statistics in 36 countries (Russia and Brazil signed on this month) on 24 indicators; as of this year, those include gender and inequality. There are factors on the list that seem tricky to quantify, like "work-life balance," and "life satisfaction," as well as the more obvious ones like education, health, and income. Having worked for years to design the index, OECD statisticians then confronted the complexities of measuring factors which were subjective and vague. So they launched an online tool called "Your Better Life Index," allowing people anywhere to rank how important each factor on the list is to them, and then compare how their ideal stacks up against real-life statistics. In effect, the Better Life Index is now whatever each person decides it should be. If education is the most important thing to you, go live in Finland, not Mexico; if work-life balance is most important, Denmark is your place, while the U. S. ranks near bottom.