I've painfully watched through S1, and it got worse with every episode.
Didn't bother to watch S2.
I had the opposite reaction. I watched the first episode just to see how hilariously bad it would be, and was horrified to find that I actually enjoyed it.
Apart from the S1 finale (worst gun battle ever recorded on film) and the S2 episode where Cameron forgets she's a cyborg and has emotions (WTF?!), of course.
You are all aware Terminator is a work of fiction, right?
Of course.
You don't think that speculative fiction (a category in which the first film for sure, and possibly the second, fall) can help us to resolve some of these issues before they crop up?
Anyway, if I wanted to have a serious debate about it, I have much more compelling and realistic reasons not to support the use of autonomous killing machines than some luddite fear that they will inevitably turn on us. While it's a far more fun argument to make, I don't actually believe it. StreetStealth's comment about being willing to cross that line when the machines do better than us just brought that quote to my mind.
Perhaps once the tech has advanced to the point where it can demonstrate not merely parity with but vast superiority to the discernment exhibited by humans, it will be a shift we're ready to make.
"All stealth bombers are upgraded with Cyberdyne computers, becoming fully unmanned. Afterward, they fly with a perfect operational record. The SkyNet funding bill is passed."
There's no way the SAG would let this happen if he didn't get paid just like he was there, because it sets a very very bad precedent, much worse than letting him get paid just as if he were there. Or at least that's my interpretation of their mindset, I could be fuck-all wrong. Who knows? Somebody will probably chime in to regulate me if I'm wrong, which usually gets an answer faster than just asking around here, so I'm not sure what to hope for.
I doubt it's that big of a deal to SAG. Obviously they'll want him to get paid, but there's no reason for them to demand he be paid as if he were physically there.
Here's why:
Big stars will always be paid by legitimate studios for their likeness, if only to clear any potential legal hurdles.
Big stars won't get to be big stars without taking on roles as an unknown actor to build their reputation.
Paying a good special effects house will likely always cost more than paying an unknown actor.
I completely agree. This is completely analogous to Social Security and the Federal Deficit. We should look out only for ourselves. It is totally immoral to care about the interests of our grandchildren after we are gone
Addendum to my previous post:
Your confusing me for an Objectivist got me a little off topic.
What if you believe a better, more immediately productive way to insure the security of future generations is to spend money on new energy technologies, or even Social Security, here on Earth rather on manned space exploration?
We live in a society with enough different and creative ideas and wealth that all of these choices can get a chance to prove themselves.
As I mentioned previously, I support the space program and manned exploration, but so much that I think we should put all of our eggs in one basket or live like paupers in the hope that distant generations can survive on a planet we do not yet know exists.
I completely agree. This is completely analogous to Social Security and the Federal Deficit. We should look out only for ourselves. It is totally immoral to care about the interests of our grandchildren after we are gone
I never suggested that it was immoral for you to care about your grandchildren.
It's immoral for me to force you to care about your grandchildren.
GoLive will probably get the juicy contract for setting up the data networks for any far reaching space exploration.
With their new, proprietary FTL compression algorithms, they have the technology to render HD quality video in the cloud and transmit it to end users in better than real-time.
...you are interested in something other than sports, iPods, and Coach bags.
Personally, I'm a big supporter of the space program, but it's totally unrealistic and, I'd argue, immoral, to ask individuals to disregard their own interests for benefits that almost certainly won't be realized in their lifetimes and may very well never be realized at all.
If your society can't be bothered, you're damned to spend more willingly on the NFL each year than you begrudge the entire space program.
NASA's budget is approximately $18B/year. The NFL's revenue is approximately $6B/year.
Enjoy your cell phone.
Thanks, I do. I consider it to be a technological marvel, and a great example of how dedication to scientific research and technological achievement can better the lives of ordinary people.
It's not a very fun option. And it's just as beneficial to the movie/music companies as piracy is.
It's probably less beneficial to the entertainment industry. Someone who enjoys a pirated movie may very well recommend it to their friends who are willing to pay for it.
Silverlight has a much better programing model the Flash. I have not looked at Flex yet but Flash is nasty.
Sure, the Flash IDE is a toy, the timeline is only useful for simple animation, and Actionscript 1 and 2 are crap, but Flash isn't bad at all if you're working on a pure code-based Actionscript 3 project.
Any time someone has a dissenting opinion against a liberal the liberal only seems capable of defending their argument with insults and threats.
In all fairness, that statement is equally correct when written:
Any time someone has a dissenting opinion against a conservative the conservative only seems capable of defending their argument with insults and threats.
And is more accurate when written as:
Any time someone has a dissenting opinion against an ideologue the ideologue only seems capable of defending their argument with insults and threats.
Few of us have the integrity and intellectual curiously to acknowledge our bias and challenge our own ideas.
What are they going to do to help the world while incapacitated in a hospital for a week before they die with a machine breathing for them?
That sounds like a flowery dressing-up of an utterly selfish motivation to me, but who knows? You and I might well make the same decision. I'd hesitate to render a value judgment on someone in that kind of situation.
Usually the artist retains the copyright on the lyrics, but the actual sound recording belongs to the label.
As others have posted, this is not the case with Metallica, who do own the rights to their work, and most likely license the distribution rights to a label.
So, I quit. I had to realize that humanity was doomed and that I could not change it, so the obvious thing to do was to participate in the process of destroying our planet while having as much fun as one could have by it as not having fun by burining fossil ressources would have only one effect: less fun.
But I never quit shaking my head about people like you are.
Hypocrite.
You just admitted that you're happy to be part of the problem, but you still get to sit up on your high horse and complain about ignorant Americans. It must be nice to have your cake and eat it too.
Except that contrary to popular belief we are not in a legally defined war. We haven't been since the end of WWII For that purpose there has to be a formal declaration from "Congress" to that effect.
"Congress" authorized Bush to use military force against Iraq. I doubt you'll get very far in the legal system suggesting that an "authorization of the use of military force" is not a constitutionally valid declaration of war.
Instead, let's focus on the fact that it was a bad idea sold to us on a lie.
Contrast that to the US... if we were a dictatorship under president Bush, as so many on the left wildly claim, then why is he voluntarily leaving power? A dictator doesn't care about term limits.
Many, many dictators throughout history have stepped away from power. Lucius Cornelius Sulla, for example, had himself declared dictator for life in gross violation of Roman law, only to step down of his own accord a short time later.
Being a dictator simply means that a ruler has no accountability to the citizenry or other branches of government.
Slashdot Mirror
I've painfully watched through S1, and it got worse with every episode.
Didn't bother to watch S2.
I had the opposite reaction. I watched the first episode just to see how hilariously bad it would be, and was horrified to find that I actually enjoyed it.
Apart from the S1 finale (worst gun battle ever recorded on film) and the S2 episode where Cameron forgets she's a cyborg and has emotions (WTF?!), of course.
You are all aware Terminator is a work of fiction, right?
Of course.
You don't think that speculative fiction (a category in which the first film for sure, and possibly the second, fall) can help us to resolve some of these issues before they crop up?
Anyway, if I wanted to have a serious debate about it, I have much more compelling and realistic reasons not to support the use of autonomous killing machines than some luddite fear that they will inevitably turn on us. While it's a far more fun argument to make, I don't actually believe it. StreetStealth's comment about being willing to cross that line when the machines do better than us just brought that quote to my mind.
Perhaps once the tech has advanced to the point where it can demonstrate not merely parity with but vast superiority to the discernment exhibited by humans, it will be a shift we're ready to make.
"All stealth bombers are upgraded with Cyberdyne computers, becoming fully unmanned. Afterward, they fly with a perfect operational record. The SkyNet funding bill is passed."
... hardly consistent with the philosophical underpinnings of the original work. That so few Star Trek fans "get" this is a bit unnerving.
Some of get it perfectly well.
That was my main gripe after seeing the previews, but it still turned out to be a pretty good movie.
There's no way the SAG would let this happen if he didn't get paid just like he was there, because it sets a very very bad precedent, much worse than letting him get paid just as if he were there. Or at least that's my interpretation of their mindset, I could be fuck-all wrong. Who knows? Somebody will probably chime in to regulate me if I'm wrong, which usually gets an answer faster than just asking around here, so I'm not sure what to hope for.
I doubt it's that big of a deal to SAG. Obviously they'll want him to get paid, but there's no reason for them to demand he be paid as if he were physically there.
Here's why:
I completely agree. This is completely analogous to Social Security and the Federal Deficit. We should look out only for ourselves. It is totally immoral to care about the interests of our grandchildren after we are gone
Addendum to my previous post:
Your confusing me for an Objectivist got me a little off topic.
What if you believe a better, more immediately productive way to insure the security of future generations is to spend money on new energy technologies, or even Social Security, here on Earth rather on manned space exploration?
We live in a society with enough different and creative ideas and wealth that all of these choices can get a chance to prove themselves.
As I mentioned previously, I support the space program and manned exploration, but so much that I think we should put all of our eggs in one basket or live like paupers in the hope that distant generations can survive on a planet we do not yet know exists.
Yes, thanks.
I completely agree. This is completely analogous to Social Security and the Federal Deficit. We should look out only for ourselves. It is totally immoral to care about the interests of our grandchildren after we are gone
I never suggested that it was immoral for you to care about your grandchildren.
It's immoral for me to force you to care about your grandchildren.
There's a big difference.
GoLive will probably get the juicy contract for setting up the data networks for any far reaching space exploration.
With their new, proprietary FTL compression algorithms, they have the technology to render HD quality video in the cloud and transmit it to end users in better than real-time.
...you are interested in something other than sports, iPods, and Coach bags.
Personally, I'm a big supporter of the space program, but it's totally unrealistic and, I'd argue, immoral, to ask individuals to disregard their own interests for benefits that almost certainly won't be realized in their lifetimes and may very well never be realized at all.
If your society can't be bothered, you're damned to spend more willingly on the NFL each year than you begrudge the entire space program.
NASA's budget is approximately $18B/year. The NFL's revenue is approximately $6B/year.
Enjoy your cell phone.
Thanks, I do. I consider it to be a technological marvel, and a great example of how dedication to scientific research and technological achievement can better the lives of ordinary people.
It's not a very fun option. And it's just as beneficial to the movie/music companies as piracy is.
It's probably less beneficial to the entertainment industry. Someone who enjoys a pirated movie may very well recommend it to their friends who are willing to pay for it.
I like FlashDevelop, but it's windows only.
Silverlight has a much better programing model the Flash. I have not looked at Flex yet but Flash is nasty.
Sure, the Flash IDE is a toy, the timeline is only useful for simple animation, and Actionscript 1 and 2 are crap, but Flash isn't bad at all if you're working on a pure code-based Actionscript 3 project.
Your ability to blog whatever you want is no good if some stranger keeps breaking into your house and stealing stuff.
Like the Phoenix police dept?
Any time someone has a dissenting opinion against a liberal the liberal only seems capable of defending their argument with insults and threats.
In all fairness, that statement is equally correct when written:
Any time someone has a dissenting opinion against a conservative the conservative only seems capable of defending their argument with insults and threats.
And is more accurate when written as:
Any time someone has a dissenting opinion against an ideologue the ideologue only seems capable of defending their argument with insults and threats.
Few of us have the integrity and intellectual curiously to acknowledge our bias and challenge our own ideas.
Well whether it's bad science or not, it at least encourages humanity to clean up our act.
The truth doesn't matter as long as everyone else lives by your standards?
You should get into politics.
How is that different from any other party full of hotties, other than you're paid to attend?
For some reasons parents don't mind violence,
We are born selfish and violent, lashing out (stomping feet, hitting, biting, scratch, hitting, etc) when we don't get want.
About half of us were also born with schlongs.
What are they going to do to help the world while incapacitated in a hospital for a week before they die with a machine breathing for them?
That sounds like a flowery dressing-up of an utterly selfish motivation to me, but who knows? You and I might well make the same decision. I'd hesitate to render a value judgment on someone in that kind of situation.
Usually the artist retains the copyright on the lyrics, but the actual sound recording belongs to the label.
As others have posted, this is not the case with Metallica, who do own the rights to their work, and most likely license the distribution rights to a label.
So, I quit. I had to realize that humanity was doomed and that I could not change it, so the obvious thing to do was to participate in the process of destroying our planet while having as much fun as one could have by it as not having fun by burining fossil ressources would have only one effect: less fun.
But I never quit shaking my head about people like you are.
Hypocrite.
You just admitted that you're happy to be part of the problem, but you still get to sit up on your high horse and complain about ignorant Americans. It must be nice to have your cake and eat it too.
Except that contrary to popular belief we are not in a legally defined war. We haven't been since the end of WWII For that purpose there has to be a formal declaration from "Congress" to that effect.
"Congress" authorized Bush to use military force against Iraq. I doubt you'll get very far in the legal system suggesting that an "authorization of the use of military force" is not a constitutionally valid declaration of war.
Instead, let's focus on the fact that it was a bad idea sold to us on a lie.
Contrast that to the US... if we were a dictatorship under president Bush, as so many on the left wildly claim, then why is he voluntarily leaving power? A dictator doesn't care about term limits.
Many, many dictators throughout history have stepped away from power. Lucius Cornelius Sulla, for example, had himself declared dictator for life in gross violation of Roman law, only to step down of his own accord a short time later.
Being a dictator simply means that a ruler has no accountability to the citizenry or other branches of government.
Bush easily meets that definition, IMO.
If you work hourly you should be getting at least time and a half for those 3AM calls, so why the complaining?
Coupled with instant upload of phone cam pictures, it was an amazingly realtime view of my personal geographic area.
In the US we have a device we call a "window" that we use for the same purpose.