Have you ever had that creepy feeling when you go to the gym and you catch someone glancing at you in the mirror? Have you ever noticed how professional poker players were sunglasses? Have you ever secretly given a cue to someone with your eyes? What about when people roll their eyes or look away in shame? Our eyes make over about two to four movements a second and over 100,000 movements per day. We rely on our eyes so much but are often unaware of its activity. It is often said that the eyes are the windows to the souls. At the Rochester Institute of Technology (RIT), eye tracking research is providing windows into how people think about tasks and goals.

Two professors at RIT have been conducting research on eye tracking. Dr. Roxanne Canosa is an assistant professor of the RIT Computer Science Department who recently earned her PhD at the Carlson Center for Imaging Science at RIT in September of 2003. She completed her dissertation under the direction of Dr. Jeff Pelz, an associate professor of the College of Imaging Science who received his PhD from the University of Rochester in Brain and Cognitive Sciences. Although both professors have done research in eye tracking, their ultimate goals are very different. Dr. Pelz’s research with eye tracking is to understand how the human brain and its cognitive processes – how we gather visual information and use it to plan and guide our actions. On the contrary, Dr. Canosa’s research involves the same goal but modeling it on an artificial system.

A lot of information is contained in a picture. As the saying goes “a picture is worth a thousand words.” However, not all words are important. For example, go up to some flyer posted somewhere and focus on it. Now try reading another flyer close by without moving your eyes. Your eyes focus on what is right in the center of your vision, but you can barely read what the other flyer says. Your brain interprets the surrounding information as non-essential to your task much like the sensation of your clothes against your skin. It just simply ignores it. Even though this process seems passive, our eyes are very active and tightly tied to the planned behavior and action.

Canosa’s purpose to extend this human process to an artificial brain requires the same strategy. The computer need not digest all the information it is receiving. Creating this artificial brain requires data that heavily relies on how our eyes move and what they see. To emulate the brain and its visual process requires creating a model that can interpret an environment. Some models are able to distinguish colors, brightness, and edges of objects. However, these attempts do not accurately portray how an eye moves and what it sees. Combining that model with eye tracking can provide a more intelligent module that can be applied to a wide variety of fields.

The purpose of Canosa’s experiments is to gain insight to the interaction between vision and action. Rather than conducting research in the confines of a lab, Canosa decided to capture data in natural environments. One main problem was that the giant eye tracker in the lab could not be carried outside (much less worn by the subject) to perform tasks. This led Canosa to build a portable eye tracking system from scratch. The subject carries the equipment in a backpack and dons the headgear to wander around campus and proceed with experiments almost like some blatantly obvious secret agent.

The eye tracking headgear contains a module that tracks the eye. A near-infrared light source is used to illuminate the eye. After it hits the eye, the light is reflected back into a mirror and into a sensor that records where the center of pupil is. There is also a camera on the front of the headgear that records a video of the scene where the subject is. The control unit then takes the information from the sensor and computes a line of gaze. The line of gaze is displayed as a cursor or crosshair as an overlay on the video scene to indicate what the subject is looking at.

Canosa’s subjects proceeded to carry out tasks such as having a conversation with someone, sorting or counting items, and reading posters and forms. The data gathered reveals a general trend for each of the different tasks. Visual activity ranged from low to high depending on the task. Tasks that are very clear, such as reading and counting, require lots of visual attention. Tasks like these cause the mind being “restricted” to that task because the goal is so defined. In contrast, tasks like walking down a hall or having a conversation on the phone do not necessarily require a lot of visual attention. This allows the mind to wander and spend its time looking at other things. Sorting cards or following Lego instructions lies somewhere in between. Both visual engagement and contemplative thought is required at the same time. These tasks require more of a strategy to complete which gives more freedom in the ways to complete them.

What all the results boil down to is how much our eyes fixate on certain objects during certain tasks. Our eyes tend to fixate on objects that are task-relevant for longer times. There are also instances when our eyes tend to fixate on other objects in the environment that are not necessary in attaining the goal. In Canosa’s experiment, subjects’ eyes fixated on the floor while trying to find a restroom even though the floor is not relevant or particularly conspicuous. The fixation on objects depends heavily on the task and how much they stand out in an environment.

Research in eye tracking and movements can lead to developments in all sorts of applications. We can potentially learn how the brain works on a pre-conscious level. We can understand how deaf students divide their attention between the instructor and the interpreter and what impediments they encounter. If we can understand how some people use visual skills, it is possible to teach those skills to others. Using a computer model, applications could include those in the military such as helping soldiers locate objects in the environment. There are even some people who think that eye tracking will be a future user interface for computers, similar to the hand-tracking computer in the movie Minority Report. There are so many things that eye tracking can be used for; it is only limited to whatever the imagination can conceive. ]]> http://mattchan.net/2012/01/eye-see-you/feed/ 0 http://mattchan.net/2012/01/the-evolution-of-nanotechnology/ http://mattchan.net/2012/01/the-evolution-of-nanotechnology/#comments Sun, 15 Jan 2012 05:05:32 +0000 Matt Chan http://mattchan.net/?p=779 This was a paper I wrote for the Science Writing course I took at RIT in Spring 2004 which was taught by Lisa Hermsen. I discussed the differences between the popular perception and actual scientific reality of nanotechnology.

Imagine if we could create robots the size of ants. Imagine if we could create robots so small that we could not see them. Imagine if these tiny robots took over the world. What if they could interface with humans? This seems to be the theme of nanotechnology but only in popular culture. In reality, nanotechnology actually refers to technological developments on a very, very small scale. Nanotechnology is one of the newest and youngest fields compared to other sciences. There is such a gigantic potential for nanotechnology that we have not even touched upon yet. Unfortunately, nanotechnology is very often confused between reality and fantasy. Its use in popular culture is so misused that the difference between fact and fiction is not crystal clear.

Richard Feynman first alluded to nanotechnology at a talk at the California Institute of Technology in 1959. Though he did not use or coin the term at all, he mentions the potential for the technology – creating things on a very small scale ranging from books to electronics. This may very well be the first proposal of nanotechnology. In his talk Feynman says, “In the year 2000, when they look back at this age, they will wonder why it was not until the year 1960 that anybody begin seriously to move in this direction.” Nanotechnology is one of the more relatively new sciences compared to others. Feynman’s ideas and propositions were only the beginning of nanotechnology era.

The biggest exploration in nanotechnology then came in the 1980s. NASA published a report on an investigation in advanced automation for space missions. Chapter 5, “Replicating Systems Concepts: Self-Replicating Lunar Factory and Demonstration,” of this paper details a proposal to develop a self-replicating manufacturing facility. A seed would be used to land on the terrain and would then build itself out of material mined from the terrain. This process is easily comparable to protein synthesis within bacteria. Bacteria can create all the chemicals necessary to live and survive using raw materials. As bacteria create chemicals from the material they live on, the self-replicating system similarly mimics on a larger proportion. On a small scale, both the bacteria and the self-manufacturing system rely on the ideas of molecular manufacturing.

Molecular manufacturing can be traced to one man who started it all. K. Eric Drexler is one of the most important researchers in nanotechnology. Drexler is the one who first coined the term “nanotechnology” to describe Feynman’s original ideas. At the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Drexler received a PhD in molecular nanotechnology, the first degree of its kind. He has, no doubt, made quite an impact on the subject of nanotechnology. One of his books, Nanosystems, delves into the fundamentals of molecular engineering and how to achieve it. The book draws upon all sorts of scientific fields and goes into prospects such as security, impacts on environment, economic implications, and political response. Not only is the science used in popular culture but the impacts as well.

While molecular engineering and self-manufacturing make up the science, it is the impacts and consequences that carry into popular culture. No one really knows what the future holds for nanotechnology because it is so new and unknown. Therefore its future (and ultimately its definition) can be manifested in any way the imagination can conceive. One of the earliest manifestations was in a Star Trek: The Next Generation episode titled “Q Who” which first aired in 1989. This episode was the first to introduce the Borg, a deadly group designed to assimilate entire species by injecting victims with “nanoparticles.” These “nanoparticles” would then convert their victim into an organic robotic being connected to a hive mind. The focus of nanotechnology here is robots oriented on destruction. Star Trek is only one incarnation of nanotechnology. Other popular culture references to nanotechnology tend to follow this trend.

The idea of super tiny robotics also appears in Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. In one episode aliens come to Earth and bring nanobots that build and manipulate materials within mere seconds in order to rule the world. The newer animated version of the Turtles also features an episode (titled “Nano”) featuring robotic particles that break out of a laboratory and wreak havoc all over New York. The tiny robots in Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles are very similar to the Borg – robotic particles seeking to self-replicate and conquer. Even though it may technologically be possible to create such robots some day, neither the alien Borg species nor four walking, talking turtles gives much credibility to the science. However, one example that strays from such fictional extremes is Michael Crichton and his book Prey.

The story in Michael Crichton’s Prey revolves around a man who must find a way to stop an intelligent, reproducing, swarm of nanobots from taking over the world. Crichton has certainly done his research on nanotechnology. He lists many references and publications at the end of the book. Yet one must take that “leap of faith” in order to feel the story is believable and achievable. Prey is more realistic than both the Borg and the Turtles, but all three follow the same guideline: nanotechnology translates to super small robots with a superbly adaptive artificial intelligence whose goal is to ultimately destroy. Not all examples involve destruction; television shows such as Jake 2.0 and Max Steel involve robotic particles fusing with the human body for the good of mankind. Still, all these examples are prime indicators of how the actual science is different than popular culture.

In reality, nanotechnology is nowhere close to making deadly microscopic robots. The representation of nanotechnology has evolved from the scientific manufacturing of really small materials to media depictions of tiny robots taking over the world. Because nanotechnology is so new, therein lies the chance for the meaning to be abused and take a different form. What we can do and what we can possibly do are two distinct areas but have so much overlap. The overlap is what causes the line between reality and fiction is heavily blurred, almost as if it combines the two. Even though nanotechnology may be still in its early stages, the advanced stages in popular culture may not be so farfetched after all. The reality that gave birth to fantasy may someday become reality itself.

These are the words spoken by Peter Parker during the introduction to Spider-Man 2. They capture the nature that is both Peter Parker and Spider-Man. At first glance, Peter does not seem like a superhero at all. He is like the rest of us – a regular citizen trying to live a life of balance. Spider-Man differs in that he swings around the city and saves people. His life is definitively like any other superhero’s life. The problem with these two identities is that neither one lives independently of the other. Peter Parker often finds it difficult to fit Spider-Man into his normal life. Whereas most other superheroes lead separate lives from their alter egos, Peter Parker cannot find a way to balance his two identities. This conflict, however, creates one of the most human individuals in the superhero realm.

Spider-Man may be a superhero, but underneath the mask he is still human. Peter Parker brings a large sense of humanity into Spider-Man giving him more credibility than any other superhero. The X-Men, Green Lantern, Blade, Silver Surfer, Superman, and others – their origins and adventures scream of wild fantasies and playful imagination. Spider-Man is much more grounded to his New York City background. He is the typical college student juggling a life of academia, a steady job, and living on his own in the big city. He has to deal with issues such as homework, illness, rent, taking care of his Aunt May, his love for Mary Jane, and washing his spider suit. When compared to other superheroes, his life does not seem as fantastical. One may make the same case for Batman; however, Batman’s world is a dark one of isolation and solitude. Millionaire Bruce Wayne is not someone most people can sympathize with easily. Spider-Man is the superhero everyone can understand; it is the character under the mask that makes him more human.

What is also cleverly unique about Spider-Man is that he is very young. Unlike most superheroes, Spider-Man’s life begins during the awkward years that everyone remembers – the teenage years. This is especially a big advantage for people to find a hero in Spider-Man than other heroes. Peter Parker is a young adult who is really just discovering what kind of person he will become later in life (both in and out of the suit). It is the teenage years when he learns about the consequences of his actions, when the immortal words of his Uncle Ben resound through his mind, “With great power comes great responsibility.” Peter has suddenly been given a great power at a very young age, and he has the ability to make an impact on society. His power represents what all young people want: a voice and a chance to make a difference.

What also makes Peter Parker an attractive superhero is that he is a science geek. Stereotypically, nerds are not the most social people or the most outgoing. Peter Parker fits this description flawlessly. How unlikely that of all people he would become a superhero. He gains tremendous power yet still remains the humble geek underneath. He is honest, hardworking, and cares enough to make a difference. Though he holds abilities no one else has, he continues to shroud himself in secrecy and only wants acceptance. He wants people to accept who he is when not in the suit but is afraid to show the world what kind of person he is. Spider-Man is still human and just as weak as the rest of us.

Peter’s life is especially vulnerable because his life is so jumbled with being Spider-Man. Unlike other superheroes who do not necessarily need to cover their identities, Peter Parker must hide his. His life would become even more complicated if anyone learned of his true identity. He contends with making excuses for himself and putting others behind his role as Spider-Man. Peter’s life entangles more with Spider-Man when The Green Goblin learns of Spider-Man’s identity and attacks the greatest weakness of all – the heart. Everyone he cares about is suddenly put into danger. Being Spider-Man and not being able to tell anyone is an ongoing struggle for Peter Parker. He must make sacrifices to keep everything in control. Most times he feels helpless and alone but this is the path he has chooses again and again.

Unmasking the hero was a huge theme of the second movie. Director Sam Raimi wanted to get the mask off the hero as much as possible to show the human side of Spider-Man. As Aunt May said in the first movie, “You do too much – college, a job, all this time with me… You’re not Superman, you know.” Peter Parker has to deal with everything that comes with the superhero business and regular life. Being Spider-Man is so overwhelming that he actually quits at one point. Even though quitting allows Peter to focus on a normal life, he still cannot escape his destiny. At the end of the second movie, Mary Jane (after learning his true identity) says to Peter, “I know there’ll be risks but I want to face them with you…Isn’t it about time somebody saved your life?” Being a superhero rests so much on Peter’s shoulders that it makes him feel even more isolated. It just goes to show that everyone needs a hero sometimes, even the greatest ones.

Peter ultimately makes the choice that he must accept Spider-Man as part of who he is. Being Spider-Man is his gift and his curse. With his destiny comes sacrifice. His memorable lines from the movie sum up his life and choice: “No matter what I do, no matter how hard I try, the ones I love will always be the ones who pay.” Peter Parker must struggle with all the positive and negative aspects of being Spider-Man. His character is unique and stands out amongst the most extreme and exaggerated of superheroes. Beneath the mask, he is the young, nervous, unguided youth experiencing life with whom everyone can connect. Peter’s power not only comes from being Spider-Man but from being himself and being human.

Often one of the best ways to educate is to use analogies. This is especially helpful if the subject is very abstract. Using analogies is a good way to bring sophisticated topics into a simplified state. One good example of this is describing multiple dimensions. We can interpret three dimensions pretty easily. Trying to jump into higher order dimensions is much more difficult. Popular Science magazine (March 2004) has an excellent article that attempts to explain multiple dimensions without the messy and mind-boggling math. Here is a sample from the article:

• You live on a brane.
• A brane is like a membrane.
• Imagine the skin that forms on your soup when it gets cold. A brane is like that.
• A brane is some sort of lower-dimensional thing (the 2-D skin) sitting in a higher-dimensional space (your 3-D space).
• Brane theory says our 3-D world is really just a brane.
• Our brane sits in a 4-D space called the bulk.
• Like so much congealed fat, we are prevented from escaping the brane and going into the higher-dimensional soup.
• Only gravity is allowed to do that.

Visualizing the skin on a cold soup is definitely and infinitely easier than imagining what an actual brane looks like. The use of the analogy simplifies the overall topic making it easier to understand.

Simplicity is key to writing good articles. This is heavily dependent on the audience as well. If your audience is the general public, chances are that a large majority is not an expert in a field of science. The public will not understand, much less read, a publication where they would need a dictionary to look up every other word. As Paul Reiser once said in a Mad About You episode, “Do me a favor. Talk to me like I’m four.” While science writing does not have to be geared towards kindergarteners, it would not hurt to make use of simple vocabulary, short sentences, and catering to a standard reading level so everyone can understand. Simplicity in explanation of science makes for good communication to society.

Communication without passion will die in the interest of readers. If science writing is not made exciting, no one will read or care about it. Passion is what drives life. It is what makes people do what they do. To do this in science writing, people must care. Their interest must be stirred somehow. One way to do this is to jump right to the point. If the point is put out there right away, it is likely that the public will read it otherwise interest will be lost quickly. However, starting right away with the heart of the subject comes with a caveat. The article should follow up with exciting, fresh, new information to maintain interest rather than drone on and on.

What makes communication even better and stronger are pictures. They are easy to understand and they go right with the words. Pictures and diagrams help to explain abstractions and provide an easier digestion of the science. Sometimes it is easier to see things rather than read about them. One very recent and ongoing example is research on Mars. Pictures are being taken and sent back to Earth. Almost any recent article on Mars is bound to have pictures. Pictures add dimension to any article. It helps make something abstract more concrete. By including pictures in an article, people can make connections between what they see and read.

One of the best methods of science writing is making a connection to our everyday lives. If there is a relation between science and people’s lives, there is no doubt that they will find interest in the subject matter. In a New York Times article titled “Research Panel Warns Mexico of Threat From Modified Corn”, a concern is raised on how genetically modified American corn will impact Mexican corn crops. Corn is an enormous staple in Mexico and is a part of people’s lives. This is one example of a connection between genetic engineering and people’s lives. This raises questions about the pros and cons of genetic engineering and what effect it will have on our lives. Making connections with people is a sure way to generate people’s interests. Science writing would have no meaning otherwise.

Science affects our lives everyday. If we did not have science writing, our society would be uninformed and ignorant. The decisions we make with regard to certain sciences would not be the same. It is the reason behind all the controversy that we create. It is behind the fear that we believe. It is the technology that we embrace. As stated earlier, the purpose of science writing is to inform people about science. Without science writing, there would be no support for science at all. No support means no scientific contributions. Science writing is a necessary part of our lives. We need science writing because science needs us.

Hitman: Blood Money is the fourth video game in the Hitman series where the player is tasked to carry out assassinations without being caught. The player assumes the identity of Agent 47 (simply referred to 47), a genetically engineered male clone designed to be the perfect soldier. 47 was created in a secret laboratory and possesses the DNA of several dangerous criminals along with an extra 47^th chromosome (as opposed to the normal count of 46 chromosomes that people have). While an extra chromosome usually leads to defects in real life, 47 is granted extra speed, stamina, strength, and intelligence in the game’s fictional world. 47 was trained to be the perfect assassin from an early age, and no other clone or project has come close to the success of that is him. He eventually escaped the facility that he was created in and soon became a hired assassin.

The gameplay of the Hitman series has generally remained the same throughout its entire series. The key focus of the game is stealth. While the emphasis is largely on stealth gameplay, the player can choose to be more open about acts of violence in the game. However, subtle approaches yield better rewards. While guns can be used to assassinate targets, other items can become improvised weapons such as nail guns or meat hooks. Levels also are designed to let the player create “accidents” to kill their targets. Accidents are probably the best method in assassination, and there is usually a way for the player to cause one in each level. Using guns or other methods can affect the player negatively especially if evidence is left lying around. The most recent incarnation of the Hitman series utilizes evidence to calculate a notoriety score for the player. The more explicit a player is, the higher the notoriety, and the greater the chance that in-game characters will recognize 47 (adding more challenge to the game).

The Hitman series also features an alert system. An alert is triggered whenever something suspicious is seen or heard. Dead bodies and gunshots are some examples of alerts. If 47 is seen sneaking around or moving through areas where he is not supposed to be, an alert will be triggered as well. The player can don disguises found in each level of the game to help deter alerts. However, most disguises usually come from people that the player must knock out or kill first. If an unconscious, naked person is discovered, people will become suspicious of the player in the stolen disguise. Obviously, running amok with guns a-blazing will not help in avoiding alerts. The alert system is not a discrete, binary component though of the game. Often times, little things that player does can add up over time depending on the severity of the situation. Sometimes a partial alert may be triggered but can subside after an appropriate amount of time has passed.

The artificial intelligence of Hitman: Blood Money tends to be more passive than active. This is largely because it is dependent on what the player does. It does not make sense for the game to actively seek out the player when the player is on a mission that no one else knows (besides his employer). The AI structure of the game is most likely a rule-based or scripting system. My reasoning for this is because of the number of stimuli and various responses that can occur in the game. The only resource I could find about this game’s AI is an interview with Jonas Lind, an AI programmer for the Hitman games, on HitmanForum.com about the AI in Hitman: Contracts, the predecessor to Hitman: Blood Money. Much of what Lind says about Hitman: Contracts is also applicable to Hitman: Blood Money. Considering the success of the series and the similar nature of each game, it would be safe to guess that Blood Money has some of the same foundation as Contracts.

What Lind says about the characters in Contracts is that each one has base scripts that they follow and special scripts that are specific to the level or situation. The biggest part in getting caught is how alert other characters are around the player. Each character can see or hear events in some range. This range can change depending on environmental conditions. Dark areas or rain might obscure a character’s vision; certain sounds may travel through walls or not depending on the sound. Events like these also tie back into the alert system. The type of character also affects what alert action is decided. Typically, characters fall into either the category of civilian or guard. Civilians will panic, run, or alert nearby authorities.

Guards will become suspicious and start investigating or return to patrol. Anything that 47 does has the potential to set off an alarm – dragging bodies, sneaking, carrying guns, leaving guns behind, manipulating the environment (such as cutting power), assault, lock picking, shooting, switching clothes, being in the wrong place in the wrong disguise, or wearing uncoordinated disguises (like a waiter with a gun as opposed to a police officer with a gun).

Scripting the AI to follow a set of rules gives the game the illusion that characters behave individually (at least from each other). Guards may be patrolling an area, or they may be guarding doors. Civilians may just be wandering around enjoying their time while others may have preset activities (such as chefs, carpenters, or actors). Most of these activities are largely scripted depending on the level so the AI is not completely autonomous and free-form. Characters do not behave too individually though. There is some consistency in how they act to show off some crowd behavior. When guards are confronting 47, they will gang up on him and run back and forth to avoid being hit. Large crowds of civilians will flee if they see or hear 47 shooting a gun.

Hitman: Contracts employed an arbiter which coordinated information sharing among characters. Hitman: Blood Money also uses something similar if not the same. Once a character sees something suspicious, information is shared by word-of-mouth. It is possible for the player to stop this character before the information spreads. If the character does reach another person, that information becomes propagated locally which will then govern other characters in the vicinity. If an event were to occur outside, indoor characters would be unaffected.

Though the AI gives some individuality to characters, it is sometimes not very smart. The behaviors that emerge are remarkably simple and repetitive. Oddly enough, carrying a gun in plain view around citizens is okay whereas guards will immediately retaliate when they see you.

Shooting a gun off in a crowd will cause everyone to scatter. However, once people have moved out of a certain range, then they resume their normal behavior. The Mardi Gras level exemplifies this effect best. What happens is that a large circle of emptiness will form around 47 as in the following picture:

On the other hand, guards will come swarming at 47 shooting at him but always maintaining a distance like in the following situation for example:

No flanking occurs and the AI is simple enough to avoid and regain the upper hand. The adverse effect that also occurs is that guards will pay no heed to civilians in the way. The body count can quickly pile up in a crowd when guards are shooting at 47.

The other problem with the AI is that good guys and bad guys who are both targeting 47 will make no distinction against each other. In the Mardi Gras level, 47 is assigned to assassinate member of a gang (who are wearing chicken suits). 47 can enter the gang’s hideout and provoke the gang to start shooting at him. Soon thereafter, cops will also run through the door and also begin shooting at 47 without acknowledging that other people have guns and are shooting them at 47 too.

One strange phenomenon about this situation is that the player can make 47 wear a chicken suit, enter the boss’s office (the assassination target), and trigger no alarm even when another guard chicken gang member comes chasing 47 into the office. The guard boss enters a cautious, guard mode but does not draw his own gun until provoked by 47.  However, this may be a special exception considering that the boss is one of the targets in the level and has his own set of scripts to follow.

Though Hitman: Blood Money offers four level of difficulty – Rookie, Normal, Expert, and Pro – there almost seems to be no distinction among the AI level. The difficulty levels describe the AI as accommodating, full, increased, and advanced respectively. These descriptions probably refer to the amount of cheating that the AI is allowed to do such as how far the AI can see or hear or how easily it can see through disguises. Despite whatever differences may exist among the difficulty levels, all the characters’ behaviors are the same. Some characters may also fall into the same movements and appear coordinated due to their scripted behavior.

The one detail to note about the AI in this game is that observing it can be limiting. Trying to analyze it in depth in the game will result in the player dying very quickly. Enabling cheats allows for more observation of the AI in the game and also revealed how limited the AI really is. For the purpose of this game, where stealth is favored over action, the AI is suited well enough for it. Enabling cheats can also only be done on the 1.0 or 1.1 versions of the game and is more geared towards debugging than aiding in gameplay. Not all cheats work and may also cause stability issues or crashes. There were several occasions where the game would crash on me. Ultimately, my video card died but I think a combination of factors besides enabling cheats ultimately led to the death of my graphics card.

The stealthy nature of the game is what appeals to me as well as the open-ended nature in which the player is allowed to kill a target. Playing an assassination scenario over and over showed the various disguises one could use to trick others and the multitude of paths to reach a destination or goal. Areas almost always had some environmental factor to them. Lights could be turned off or tossing coins could distract guards. Targets could be killed in a variety of ways including accidents, poison, sniper rifle, or garrote. The notoriety system was also a new feature in Blood Money. Depending on the performance of the player, a dynamic newspaper front page would be generated detailing what the death of the targets and any evidence from the scene. Notoriety can be brought down but at the cost of spending the hard-earned money from completing missions. Overall, the game has a more puzzle-like nature (which is my personal preference of games) and steers away from using a brute force run-and-gun method.

The artificial intelligence in Hitman: Blood Money still needs some work but largely accomplishes the basic stimulus-response nature of people in the game. To improve the AI, it would be better if characters had long-term memory. This is not always apparent, but there are occasions where characters would stop, look at you, resume an activity, stop again, and so on. Combat AI could also be improved as well even though the nature of the game is not focused on it. Above all, the game could probably use more diversity in how characters act. Creating more instances of input (though complexity might skyrocket) can contribute to more behaviors. The result could be a more dynamic “life-like” world instead of instead of the normal, zombie-driven, localized behavior. Any more interactivity with the player is a bonus and could yield some interesting and new challenges for future games.

I was exposed to both English and Chinese ever since I was born. My parents, both Hong Kong emigrants, primarily spoke Chinese for the first few years of my life (and my siblings’ too). Every day our mother would yell the same commands to us such as “brush your teeth,””wash your face,””eat dinner,””go to sleep,”and “wake up.”If we did something bad, my mom would yell at us in both English and Chinese. You could tell that she was really angry when she started using Chinese; her speech and expressions became louder and faster. However, I spoke far more English and almost always used it to communicate with my family. I would usually respond with English to anything that my parents would say in Chinese. I knew what the Chinese meant, but I did not know how to reverse the translation. That is usually the case whenever any Chinese person speaks to me.

A lot of relatives on my father’s side had also immigrated to the United States and settled in the same region. Whenever a first generation relative had a birthday or when a big holiday came around, our families would gather in one house and have giant dinner parties that would ending late into the night. All the immigrants usually spoke Chinese (in loud expressive shouting no less) while the young children spoke English to each other. If there were something one of the adults wanted us to do, they would say it to us in Chinese first and then English if we did not understand. The children would almost always speak English to the adults. As years passed by, I noticed that a lot of the Chinese is dropping among our family and that English is starting to become more dominant.

My cousin once noted that the oldest child in a family always knew the most Chinese while the youngest knew the least Chinese. My assumption is that it is a result from being a minority in a largely English speaking society and the need to adapt. Since no one lived near any Chinese speaking community, English was the only language that anyone else spoke. The oldest child would be exposed first to language outside the home and would bring that language back and spread it in-house. As younger siblings arose, the presence of English takes the effect of a snowball rolling down a hill. I have noticed that there is almost no more Chinese in my house. The only people who speak it are our parents. Our adoption of English has been an adaptation to society’s need for a language spoken by the majority.

Even though English is used between me, my siblings, and my friends, we still resort to Chinese to say some things we cannot in English. If there were some word or concept that my friends could not express in English, they would use Chinese. Offensive phrases or words would also be translated to Chinese rather than being said in English. English was not necessarily a foreign language when we were growing up, but others who did not understand where we were coming from saw our language as foreign. This usually led to taunting and isolation, and Chinese was used as a way to preserve identity among a community that did not understand. This is probably why most communities contain just one large ethnic population.

The community I grew up in is largely Irish. The people there spoke with the r-dropping feature that most Bostonians have. I never picked up the r-dropping feature in my speech. I was taught Standard English since kindergarten and learned how to pronounce words and enunciate. I did not hear the r-dropping for a big part of my life nor did I ever pick it up in my speech. I was not aware of the feature until a teacher in school had pointed it out. After listening more carefully, I began to hear it. One of my childhood friends classified the Boston accent more like an attitude. It is a way to assertively establish and maintain a separate identity (especially against all those tourists and college kids) and to show off how deeply rooted we are in our home city. This is no different than how my family uses Chinese to establish ourselves among those who are different.

The absence of Chinese in our family feels like a loss of identity. The dominance of English in our family grows with each day, even if we sometimes speak it with choppy grammar or with the r-dropping feature. My cousins have tried reintroducing Chinese into their new families. They taught their spouses all about our extensive family, about our customs, and some Chinese phrases to help them understand us. The children have already developed the brain patterns to decipher English, even though Chinese is used here and there to preserve identity and cultural background. My cousin’s daughter once used English to correct her mother for naming something red in Chinese. Even though she completely understands the Chinese word for red, she does not acknowledge that Chinese is part of her identity.

My identity is tied to my origin — Hong Kong. I visited Hong Kong twice, once when I was very young and a second time when I was 15. I spoke English both times I visited, but I definitely spoke more Chinese my first time (due to my early upbringing). I did not speak any Chinese my second time because I did not know how to say the things I needed to say. I felt isolated even though I was walking among my roots. Even though there was a language barrier, the workaround was to use English. I was both surprised and disappointed to discover that everyone knew English. The experience felt cheapening but it sure helped a lot. Most people (even the tourists) could tell that I was a tourist, but they still assumed that I was a native to Hong Kong and that I belonged there with them. English was a way to fit in with others who were different, and Chinese was a way to fit in with those who shared the same background.

Chinese is the language I use to identify myself, and English is the language I use to communicate. English is a tool, a way to find a solution in communication. I do not consider it or the r-dropping to be part of my identity. In the past, I have been accused by one person who said I was not Chinese because I didn’t act like it (nor did I speak it). I guess to him “Chinese” meant acting more like the mix of pop culture on television, reciprocating the Western influence in the Eastern hemisphere, and speaking a slight variant of the African American Vernacular English. To me, being Chinese is about the culture, the customs, and the history. That is what the language represents to me. It feels natural because of the connection I have had since childbirth. It is a portal to the past and everything that is Chinese about me. That is something that English could never do. With English, I can only observe the connections in the present with the people around me.

The reason why I never posted it until now was because I had been trying to post the text of my paper in one post, and I never was satisfied with the formatting. Just after I finished my paper, I also had to plan some moving details so I could start my job. I just never got around to posting my paper since then.

I hope you enjoy it. I truly put a lot of effort into this paper. E-mail me (matt at mattchan.net) if you want to have a deeper discussion. I can also point you to some books or links if you would also like to read more about this topic.

Download the paper: PDF – 47 KB